A commentary on Professor Chambers' 1999 paper the poverty of accounting discourse

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Prefatory Note: I've rewritten this Commentary many times, gone off in a variety of very different directions, been (gently?) chided by a research colleague (whose views I respect) for an earlier draft…and now I'm wondering why this all has been so…difficult. When I first received the invitation to prepare a Commentary on Professor Chambers' ‘Poverty’ article, it seemed likely to be a rather straightforward and enjoyable task; however (taking a cue from ‘Poverty’, p. 241): ‘But things are seldom what they seem.’ Perhaps Enron-the-social has confused things for me? Perhaps I have an admiration/skepticism duality of view regarding Professor Chambers, and the resulting dissonance is…disruptive? Perhaps it now seems a bit unseemly to me to write a Commentary when the author of ‘Poverty’ is deceased and has no opportunity for writing a Rejoinder (but, then, this would preclude Chambers' voice from being accessible to a wider audience)? But, even more chilling, perhaps I'm becoming unsure—in this era of: (a) what Armstrong (2001) calls ‘competitive higher education’; and (b) the banality of much accounting research (Neu, 2001)—of the possibility of unfettered dialogue on the things that matter in accounting and business education.

2. Gaffikin (2000), for example, while proffering praise for Chambers' aspirations for intellectual rigour in accounting, rejects Chamber's ‘[belief] in the supremacy of logic and rationality’ (p. 295) and ‘the possibility of an objectivist knowledge’ (p. 295) which relies upon ‘a free market ideology as well as notions of market rationality.’ (p. 292). Russell Craig (in private correspondence), who was kind enough to read an earlier version of this Commentary, wrote that ‘Those who cavil over the polemics of ‘Poverty’ miss the point. The ‘Poverty’ article has to be put into the context of Ray's work and life. It was his swansong article. He was bitter and felt defeated. It is a deliberate stir, a rant, if you like…but one intended to get accounting educators to put their minds into gear…and do something about what Ray saw as a critical problem. In this context, I think it is a bit “precious” attacking Ray for his “method”…What matters is not writing articles that are safe in method (and which no-one reads)…but in getting people to think about fundamental issues.’

3. The space limits of a Commentary restrict an analysis of the accounting educational value of Chambers' ‘Poverty…’, so the following is merely illustrative.

4. For example, under the heading ‘Wealth, Income and All That’, Chambers uses phrases such as ‘These are all commonsense notions’ (when referring to ‘wealth as dated general purchasing power’ and other concepts) and ‘the well and systematically developed ideas of economics’. Such use of words subtly ‘instruct the reader…to see things in a way determined by the writer’ (Hyland, 2002, p. 215).

5. Prefatory Note—Epilogue: These words of Chambers perhaps speak to the nub of what made this Commentary so difficult for me…in spite of my trepidation about Chambers-as-theorist, Chambers-as-professor was (and is) right!