Positive Accounting Theory and Science

• Autor: Kabir, Humayun
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2010
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: PUCP-Institucional
• Lenguaje: inglés
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.14657/194783
• Enlace del recurso: https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/194783
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Methodological Controversies; Philosophy of Science; Positive Accounting Theory; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.02.04

This paper examines the development of positive accounting theory (PAT) and compares it with three standard accounts of science: Popper (1959), Kuhn (1996), and Lakatos (1970). PAT has been one of the most influential accounting research programs during the last four decades. One important reason which Watts & Zimmerman (1986) have used to popularize and legitimize their approach is that their view of accounting theory is the same as that used in science. Thus, it is important to examine how far accounting has been successful in imitating natural science and how the development of PAT compares with the three standard accounts of science. This paper shows that accounting could not emulate the success of natural science. Further, the methodological positions of PAT conform to none of the standard accounts of science. Rather, PAT contains elements of all three. Finally, this paper identifies some methodological gaps in PAT.