Speculation, history, speculative history

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.¹

Speculations, conjectures, suppositions, opinions – we encounter them all in history and everyday life. Yet do speculations land us chiefly in the realm of Carr's ‘parlour games’ and ‘might-have-been's’? To what extent does our historical reasoning admit multiple possibilities of what might have occurred at a point in time? When offering explanations and interpretations of events, actions, and processes, we make such claims through the use of selective evidence, choosing to pursue one angle over another, one alternative over other ones that might not fit as harmoniously with what we consider plausible possibilities. Our willingness to accept one explanation over another or our decision to accept several possible explanations at the same time are linked to our ‘ability to accept the rationality of the unobserved’ (Okasha 2000, 693) and emphasise our bounded rationality. From inference to the best explanation may seem like child's play but it also grounds much of what we do as historians (Gelfert 2010; van der Dussen 2016).

The question of the validity or goodness of an explanation relates to broader questions of historical judgement and the philosophy of historiography. The concept of a best explanation can be interpreted usefully in terms of Lipton's concept of loveliness versus likeliness of an explanation (Lipton [1991] 2004; Bird 2010; van der Dussen 2016). When choosing between potential explanations, Lipton outlines two stages. First, we filter out explanations that are less plausible from all others that we have imagined or developed. Next, we examine the remaining potential explanations and rank them according to our evaluation of explanatory goodness.

Lipton explains that explanatory goodness, what he calls ‘loveliness’ must be distinguished from likeliness, … loveliness is a matter of potential understanding – a lovely explanation is one that would give us a high degree of understanding of the relevant phenomena were it to be true. (Bird 2010, 345–346)

However, as Bird (2010, 346) further argues, loveliness or explanatory goodness is not always necessary in that ‘in some cases, inference to the best explanation is inference to the only explanation’.

We should find ourselves on familiar ground as ‘what-if’ analyses are not unknown to accounting historians or to accountants and historians more generally (Richardson 2007).² My accounting and history students are frequently asked to speculate on what might have happened, challenged to use their imagination, to think outside of the box in order to develop plausible explanations of case materials, historical events, accounting developments, and so on. In the first session of each term, we discuss the validity of critical common sense, and the ability to draw abductive inferences by walking the fine line between objectivity and subjectivity. I urge students to study and describe the past events that we encounter in our course topics. However, examination and description are only the starting point; next they must justify their claims or those of other historians. Finally – and this part is what separates the quality of their submitted work – they should offer an interpretation of the past in a significant way. Students often prefer the description and analysis – the seemingly objective side – to the critical-interpretative side that goes hand in hand with historical explanation.

Similarly, in his discussion of the teaching of art history, Bolin notes:

The words ‘imagination’ and ‘speculation’ do not come to mind frequently when considerations are made regarding historical investigation. Yet the writing of history, more often than not, consists of the historian's ability to choreograph a dance of compatibility between the fragments of a known past, and a world constructed through reasoned imagination and grounded speculation of the historian. (2009, 110)

It appears perhaps banal then to underscore that ‘historiographical explanation comes in many forms’ (Macdonald and Macdonald 2011, 140) depending on the context, the cause–effect relations, and the level of generality, all of which require judgement and choice. In this issue, we examine these choices, judgements and specifically, speculations through the lens of double-entry bookkeeping, perspective, and proportionality. Another study on double-entry bookkeeping? To borrow from Ecclesiastes, when it comes to the analysis and examination of double-entry bookkeeping, the comment might reasonably be ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. The phrase neatly summarises my initial reaction. Definitely, I was not convinced that we needed yet another study on a topic that has been examined in depth and exhaustively from many theoretical and philosophical angles. Many of us have been involved directly or tangentially in these debates and discussions including two of the authors in this issue, Rob Bryer and Steven Toms. Thus, it was with no small amount of scepticism that I picked up the original manuscript by Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo to evaluate whether to pursue its review and potential publication in Accounting History Review.

Despite the fact that many rich and recognised studies on double-entry bookkeeping and its place within the emergence and development of capitalism exist, Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo manage to distinguish their research and its approach. They offer a provocative account of what might have been, might have taken place, and so on in terms of ‘Pacioli's double entry’. The authors suggest that the intellectual foundations of double-entry bookkeeping can be traced and linked to the idea of proportion, harmony, and balance in Renaissance Italy. In this vein, they pursue forcefully the linkages to Leonardo da Vinci and Piero della Francesca, emphasising double-entry bookkeeping as part of what the trio describe as an intellectual and social movement of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Their arguments are not without contention and the authors admit that they are highly speculative. Given this admission, could such an account be considered an historical one? Moreover, would such (potentially idle) speculations offer any new and novel avenues for discussion and debate?

As a response to the question more generally, Bolin argues:

When employing their craft, historians and historiographers must guard against the assertion of ungrounded speculation into their historical analyses, yet it is worthwhile to observe that well-supported speculations and imaginations can be useful devices to assist one in initiating intriguing and significant explorations and readings of the past. (2009, 120)

After reflecting on what might be, in Bolin's terms, the ‘grounded speculations’ and ‘inquisitive imaginations’ of the manuscript, I decided to take a chance on its review. First, however, I told the authors of my misgivings about the topic. Second, I sought out two referees, Steven Toms and Rob Bryer, whose knowledge and understanding of double-entry bookkeeping, capitalism, and their intertwining hugely surpassed my own. There would be no question that I had not brought ‘expert opinion’ to bear on the subject matter, or perhaps as some readers of this issue might suggest, that I had definitely hedged my bets. While ‘blind referees’, no one would consider them anything less than global experts on the matter – two colleagues well suited to judge the study's merits and provide well-grounded opinions on the manuscript. Thus, the following paragraphs outline briefly the story of how this issue unfolded.

The original manuscript by Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo was met not with wild enthusiasm by the referees but rather what could be framed as cautious interest. Toms and Bryer both expressed that the manuscript was ‘interesting’, yet were concerned with what they judged to be speculation as opposed to well substantiated evidence. In their view, the study also did not engage adequately with the research into the ‘double-entry bookkeeping question/controversy’.

Despite their misgivings, both referees offered to consider a revised manuscript, although the revisions anticipated were not insignificant. Thus, a revision appeared to be a plausible course of action. After a set of revisions, discussions and much to-and-fro, the decision was made that the study (Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo 2016) would be published. However, the revised manuscript was accepted on the basis of offering the referees the possibility to provide their own commentary and critique. Both chose to do so.

Toms (2016) underscores some assertions in the study that remain questionable, particularly those that tie elements of double-entry bookkeeping to the Global Financial Crisis, valuation issues, and the historical sequence of the events that Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo present as evidence. Toms also raises concerns about the causes and effects that are implied by the authors. Bryer (2016) outlines a number of concerns including the need to follow the study's speculations with a theory or set of hypotheses and deeper empirical research. He underscores what is, in his opinion, the authors’ failure to examine clearly the socialisation of capital hypothesis, double-entry's accountability role in profit sharing and valuation, particularly issues that stem from a proprietary versus entity view of accounting. I am doubtful that the manuscript would have been deemed publishable or published without the inclusion of the two critiques, as I and the referees continue to share a number of the misgivings that we had expressed at the outset of the review process.

With the complementary presentation of the two commentaries, which bring different perspectives to the topic, the trio of papers (along with a short postscript by the authors of the main study) enables readers to make their own judgements of the arguments presented by Dean, Clarke, and Capalbo, along with those of Bryer and Toms. It is our belief that this approach will allow for a richer assessment and evaluation of the various and varied points of view. On a more general level, we trust that bringing all of the elements together will result in more though-provoking reflections on the ‘double-entry question’.

This issue also includes a perceptive review essay by Persson (2016) on the work of Nigel Dodd. It outlines a number of avenues for future research that could take up and build upon the arguments presented by Dodd with respect to the subject of money, in particular Dodd's connection of money and waste. Persson's essay kindly presents the reader with a rich set of references with which to embark on these research possibilities. Finally, this issue acknowledges the broad network of ad hoc referees on whose expertise we rely to maintain the high quality of our referee process.

In closing, I would like to highlight our updated layout and more visually attractive design. As our signature AHR theme, we have adopted a purple palette to align with the journal's hardcover. The Myriad Pro font provides text typography that is accessible and comfortable to read. Our updated style reflects publishing innovations to meet the needs of our global community of scholars. We will continue to match these innovations in publishing quality with our commitment to the publication of research of the highest standard.

Notes

1. The Queen to Alice, Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There (1896), Chap. 5, 69.

2. Readers may wish to review Lee (2006) which adopts a counterfactual research design to examine the institutionalisation of public accountancy in the UK.