The Influence Of Positivism In Accounting

The influence of positivism in accounting

In the course of the history of accounting, aspects that are considered essential in this field have been rethinking; For example, around the accounting theory, debates have been established, both academics and professionals, who work in favor of the modification of obsolete accounting thoughts, as well as, of the grouping of positions that allow the progress of accounting science. Many researchers have directed their efforts to decipher the origin of accounting theory, and have encountered various approaches to carry out accounting processes. Among these approaches is positivism, normativism and other alternative currents.

Until the 1960s, the dominant theoretical and methodological paradigm in accounting research was normative. According to the jurist and philosopher Hans Kelsen, the normative designates “that something should be or happen” (Sanchez, Torres, & Vargas, 2009). From this prayer, it is understood that normativism responds to the deductive method, based on the particular, therefore, if in a generalized situation it results in certain consequences, when applying these same foundations in specific cases, according to this logic, The results should be equal. However, because in all situations using regulatory method, relevant accounting models were not generated, since the 1970s onwards, positivist or empirical research became the predominant paradigm (João, 2017).

Positivism, on the contrary, consists in drawing generalized conclusions from particular situations.

The first to promote this current were the authors Watts and Zimmerman, which referred to positivism as: "An accounting discipline whose central objective is to explain and predict accounting practice, through one of its main instruments: empirical research" (Barbei & Bauchet, 2014). Therefore, this approach bases its predictions on reality, "what is", that is, detailed observations and measurements of the events are made before reaching a conclusion. In addition, it does not accommodate value judgments, so it can be said that it is a rigid and totally neutral approach.

The research that uses positivist theories or perspectives sees the ‘reality’ as a specific structure and the ‘people’ sees them as adopters, respondents and information processors to achieve the efficiency and objectives that the organization has proposed (Morgan & Smircich, 1980). Defenders of the positivist approach mainly seek to discover patterns that make it possible.

Positivism in accounting, is a very useful approach, from the point of view that guarantees the credibility of accounting models based on this, because, not admitting subjectivities, it is limited to detailing facts that are perceptible and to verify them in the environment for Confirm your veracity. The positive approach is considered often as systematic and uncompromising since being based on the scientific method, it has the same rigor of the latter. In fact, many accounting magazines consider that the scientific approach is appropriate for the discovery, explanation and prediction of accounting phenomena. Thus, when using this approach, researchers usually trust a long -range research method, based on statistics and mathematics, in which key categories or variables are used that, later, try to analyze to reach ex post facto interpretations, That is, the researcher raises the validation of the hypotheses when the situation has already happened (Tomkins & Groves, 1983).

Because this perspective focuses on the use of quantitative data to generate their conclusions, researchers who work around accounting theory have reached the consensus that accounting research from the positive point of view, considers accounting control systems, as the budget, as a means to achieve efficient and low -cost operations (Azar, 2015). However, positivist accounting theory receives considerable criticism from the academic and professional community. Positivism is mainly criticized for not providing guidance to accounting professionals, and often does not take into account organizational relationships within the company.

In addition, the rigorous nature of this current has also been the cause of negative comments: academics affirm that the concepts on which accounting is based are socially built. For example, the concepts of ‘assets’, ‘liabilities’ and ‘profits’ are derived from human conventions, which have been discussed and reviewed over time. The existence of implicit conventions to measure these concepts require value judgments and there is no consensus regarding the way in which these notions must be quantified and measured. Measure assets, liabilities and profits, or any other accounting construction, is not exactly the same as measuring phenomena in natural sciences, where there are natural measures (kilometer, minute, liter, etc.) that are intrinsic to the elements of the physical world and that allows the phenomena under study to be measured unequivocally and consensually. In contrast, in accounting the measures are only attempts to numerically represent interpretive concepts (João, 2017). This is why, for many authors, the rigor of the positive accounting approach is counterproductive due to the subjective nature of this.

Another argument that positivism critics have used indicates that under the positivist approach it falls into the mistake of taking concrete accounting principles used in other parts of the world as the basis for theories about the utility and application of accounting in our country, instead to be based on criteria generally accepted. In this way, from the positive point of view, there is an accounting investigation that cares about the exercise of accounting but that makes an important error when taking the practices from other country and leaving aside the needs that Colombia demands. Although in recent years under globalization, different countries have been tried to apply the same accounting models, it is very complicated and that is applied fully in all accounting processes (Londoño, Salazar, & Muñoz, 2013). So, although, they are severe statements, the affirmation of the researcher Valerio Nepomuceno “The attempt to standardize accounting concepts is one of the most stupid and inconsistency actions that can be pretended” (Nepomuceno, 2003) makes sense

However, despite criticism, according to Kristina Rudžionienė, the positive accounting theory is the paradigm that has the greatest validity for accounting research in recent decades, since, the methodology used in this theory is one of the most complete approaches ( Rudžionienė, 2012). According to this author, a particular accounting theory can only provide a partial vision that describes the operation and usefulness of accounting, then, despite the numerous advantages that the positivist movement provides, it is necessary to have different theoretical perspectives that can offer multiple Approaches to the same phenomenon, in this way, a broader vision of accounting processes is guaranteed.

In general, the negative or critical comments that have been made to positivism come from defenders of other accounting approaches, which consider that these describe in a better way the accounting phenomena and also generate efficient models that can be applied in most situations that They are presented in the exercise of accounting. In fact, the confrontation of the various currents, especially, normative and positive, has been giving for many years. However, this rivalry, in my opinion, is illogical since the current conception of accounting has been developing to such an extent that the accounting discipline, due to its interdisciplinary character, makes use of both positions (Sanchez, Torres, & Vargas , 2009). Even j. M. Godfrey et al. (2006) suggest that there should be no such distinction, since the well -formulated and developed theory extends to what should be as what it is.

In this order of ideas, it is essential : For understanding to be a source of lighting rather than a dogma, it must have a dynamic of change. Seen from this perspective, accounting, as a practice, can and in fact must be constantly examined, reexamined, questioned and criticized in the world of knowledge. Instead of being a discipline in its own right, accounting needs to resort to a variety of sources of lighting and understanding. It has been and must remain an interdisciplinary research place. (pp. 1370-1371)

Many authors recognize that there is no generally accepted theory of general accounting, although considerable efforts have been made to formulate it. There is no universal theory to evaluate practical procedures already established, emerging or proposed and to objectively evaluate the past, the present and predict the future results. Therefore, each type of accounting theory is often criticized for questioning its total value.

Now, to the question, is positivism the appropriate approach?, It can be answered that accounting is so immense and covers so many subjects that restricting it to a single approach would be to limit accounting processes. I consider that the various positions that take place when studying accounting theory can and effectively, should live taking into account the nature of accounting, which defines it as a field of study that crosses traditional limits between various disciplines. Within this field, both formal contributions and those that derive from the experience, help the creation of new knowledge that specifically demonstrates the reality that is being analyzed.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to affirm that accounting is not a completely neutral science. Its social and organizational nature leads to the fact that, in an imperative way, the views of the various intermediaries that are involved in the construction of accounting theories are considered imperatively. This is why I consider that, apply only the positivist approach and therefore, the rigorous scientific method is not appropriate in accounting. A field where there are non -suitable elements of formal measurement, such as the environmental effects of compliance with the corporate purpose of companies, which is different from assessing the cost of reforesting a given area (Sanchez, Torres, & Vargas, 2009).

On the other hand, according to what is mentioned during the course of the document, it can be affirmed that the theories that appear in the investigations that revolve around accounting do not have the quality of universal because, as indicated above, each country o Company consists of different objectives and contexts according to the characteristics that are recognized in each place, based on these particularities, the different models are elaborated. Hence, accounting is not the same in places that enjoy different objectives.

In summary, in accounting, the various currents mentioned in this essay fit, since among them they are not exclusive, on the contrary, for each situation that may arise around accounting, the approach that best suits According to the requirements of each case. There are even naturalistic methods derived from the social sciences that specialize in verifying the different theories imposed above, taking into account, not only the quantitative part but also the social and organizational part.

Finally, it is important to clarify that it is very complicated that accounting manages to unequivocally predict the situations that may arise in the future, since the social does not have behavioral molds for all cases. Therefore, approaches that forecast future phenomena cannot be applied in many of the accounting processes that involve value judgments.

References

1. Chance, n. (2015). DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND THEORIES IN ACCOunting Research University ofmalaya.
2. Barbei, a., & Bauchet, A. (2014). Positive accounting theory: a review of its theoretical bases and the contribution to the general accounting theory. Cecin Center for Studies in Intenance Accounting.
3. Godfrey, j., Hodgson, a., Holmes, s., & A., T. (2006). Accounting Theory. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. Hopwood, a. J. (2007). Whither Accounting Research? The Accounting Review, 1365-1374.
5. João, m. (2017). Positivism and “alternative” accounting research. Accounting Magazine & Finanças.
6. Londoño, d., Salazar, a., & Muñoz, D. (2013). Positivism and normativism in accounting: a theoretical convergence. Adversia.
7. Morgan, g., & Smircich, L. (1980). The Case of Qualitative Research. Academy of Management, 491.
8. Nepomuceno, v. (2003). Accounting objectivity and the decrease in the importance of. University of Business and Social Sciences (UCES).
9. Rudžionienė, k. (2012). Positive accounting theory: advantages and disadvantages. Science and Studies of Accounting and Finance: Problems and Perspectives.
10. SANCHEZ, J., Torres, m., & Vargas, N. (2009). Normativism and positivism in accounting: proposal of an agreement to a historical tension. Adversia, 25-32.
11. Tomkins, c., & Groves, R. (1983). The Everyday Accountant and Researching His reality. Accounting Organizations and Society, 361-374.