This paper analyses all articles published in Accounting History using a topic modeling technique. Previous studies focus on the content of accounting history, but not how the field has evolved. The paper complements prior assessments of the research published in Accounting History by providing measures of the relative prevalence of research areas and their evolution over time. The analysis offers insights into accounting history by refining previous categorisations, uncovering overlooked topic areas, and substantiating trends, such as the demise of interest in the technical core of accounting in favour of more variegated and fragmented approaches. The findings are discussed in light of the claimed pluralisation of methodological and theoretical approaches in this field
PurposeThe monetary valuation of cultural heritage of a selection of 16 major public, not-for-profit Australian cultural institutions is examined over a period of almost three decades (1992–2019) to understand how they have responded to the paradoxical tensions of heritage valuation for financial reporting purposes.Design/methodology/approachAccounting for cultural heritage is an intrinsically paradoxical practice; it involves a conflict of two opposite ways of attributing value: the traditional accounting and the heritage professionals (or curatorial) approaches. In analysing the annual reports and other documentary sources through qualitative content analysis, the study explores how different actors responded to the conceptual and technical contradictions posed by the monetary valuation of “heritage assets”, the accounting phraseology of accounting standards.FindingsFour phases emerge from the analysis undertaken of the empirical material, each characterised by a distinctive nature of the paradox, the institutional responses discerned and the outcomes. Although a persisting heterogeneity in the practice of accounting for cultural heritage is evident, responses by cultural institutions are shown to have minimised, so far, the negative impacts of monetary valuation in terms of commercialisation of deaccessioning decisions and distorted accountability.Originality/valueIn applying the theoretical lens of paradox theory in the context of the financial reporting of heritage, as assets, the study enhances an understanding of the challenges and responses by major public cultural institutions in a country that has led this development globally, providing insights to accounting standard setters arising from the accounting practices observed.
The article aims to explore ways of theorizing in accounting history research. The article draws on findings originating from a semi-automated text analysis by means of topic modelling of 1,300 accounting history papers published between 1996 and 2015 across six journals most relevant to the discipline. Findings show the presence of a whole range of ways of theorizing at different levels of abstraction (from narrating to conceptualizing to theorizing settings to grand theorizing). Different ways of theorizing tend to be associated not only with specific research objects but also with specific journal types. Overall, both narrating and grand theorizing are relatively decreasing in favour of mid-range theorizing approaches, which seem to be on the rise.
The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants issued exposure draft ED78 Property Plant and Equipment in April 2021. It proposes valuing ‘heritage items’ for recognition as ‘heritage assets’ in statements of financial position. This proposed requirement for global application casts the spotlight on a highly controversial topic in regulated financial reporting. The monetary valuation of cultural, heritage and scientific collections of public not‐for‐profit museums, art galleries and similar repositories has been subject to considerable discussion and debate for the past three decades. Our purpose is to critically examine this perennial financial reporting controversary, in the context of the three conceptions of accounting: accounting as technical practice, social practice and moral practice as articulated in the definition of accounting proposed by Carnegie et al. (2021a, 2021b) for discussion, debate and potential adoption in the accounting profession, including by accounting standard setters in all sectors. This article is intended to challenge accounting to enhanced self‐awareness in reaching its full potential.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.