Indeed, ‘they do things differently there’

‘Why study the past? Those of us who pursue historical research or teach courses in history will not be lost for a response to this question. It is a question frequently posed to authors who submit manuscripts, re-phrased more pointedly as ‘why is your study of interest?’ At some stage, every researcher must respond with more than ‘because it is’. One might respond with citation counts, downloads and the ‘impact’ metrics that litter the research landscape as indicators of value and interest. On a more basic level, the response to ‘why history’ is dynamic as we confront and navigate the past. In his introduction to The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited, David Leventhal (2015) discusses how the past became foreign, arguing that until recently – in historical terms – historians viewed the past as something ‘as though just then occurring (p. 6)’ ¹ . As Leventhal notes, ‘the past ain’t what it used to be (p.9).’ Indeed, our own discipline and this journal bear witness to this truism. Nonetheless, where dynamism exists, there is also continuity. History may interface with other disciplines, adopt and adapt theories from areas of social science, dabble (or more than dabble) with Cliometrics, but it remains history. We can look to the many hyphenated histories, some of which have come and gone, been transformed or drifted in and out of fashion. Patrick Manning (2003) has expressed thoughtful optimism about history’s continuity amidst on-going debates, change and innovation. ²

In this issue, we have studies which represent the diversity of our scholarship and the space for such diversity within our journal. In their examination of community building amidst the amalgamation of Milan and Corpi Santi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli and Alberto Nobolo demonstrate how accounting change and innovation took place due to external forces but also underscore the role played by internal actors engaged in this institutionalisation process. When discussing this study with the author team, I suggested that they reflect on their conclusion. While I am not a huge proponent of ‘lessons for today’, it was a question that I asked them to contemplate. The final paragraph of their study encapsulates their response. Its emphasis on community building in light of efforts to restrict boundaries and borders is a thoughtful commentary and one which makes their study all the more relevant in current circumstances.

In a very different study, Martin E. Persson and Stephan Fafatas bring renewed and welcome attention to the work of Harold C. Edey, thanks to a chance encounter in the archive, specifically Edey’s one-act play used to explore the issues of profit determination during periods of changing prices. The play is of interest on many levels from its treatment of on-going issues of accounting measurement, its innovative pedagogy, and as a reminder of how accounting theory and ‘big questions’ do matter – elements that appear lost in the current training of accounting (doctoral) students. The study has benefitted from engagement with Edey’s colleagues and former students, enabling the authors to take advantage of their insights and perspectives on both Edey and the development of accounting thought, in particular with respect to the place of the London School of Economics and Political Science in this development in the period following World War II.

Martin Quinn and Desmond Gibney use the case of Bennetts of Ballinacurra, a small Irish malster, to examine the emergence of management and cost accounting and parallel developments within the accounting profession in the early days of the Irish Free State. Their study underscores the need to work with the available evidence, in their case, less than they might have preferred, to present a convincing analysis. While previous literature suggests that management accounting became more common after the First World War, the lack of such at Bennetts is explained chiefly by its institutional context, highly influenced by the involvement of an external accounting firm, links to the much larger Guinness, and by the lack of control over the majority of its input costs.

Massimo Sargiacomo provides us with an extensive longitudinal study of Brioni, the Italian luxury high-fashion house. Sargiacomo responds to a recent call in AHR ³ for studies of accounting and luxury. His work presents in depth key elements in the rich legacy of Brioni, adopting the theoretical framing of historical socio-technical analysis à la Akrich, Callon, and Latour. Sargiacomo concludes that it was not mere genius that led to Brioni’s success but rather its art of compromise and capacity for adaptation in terms of technological innovation and experimentation, along with its introduction of new accounting and management techniques. The study was presented at our initial AHR workshop on accounting and luxury. I encourage readers to spend time with this study but also to re-visit the call for papers and contemplate other possibilities on this theme. Luxury and high fashion may sound like present-day concepts but when we delve into accounting’s past, we quickly see how both have been long-standing elements of the institutional, social, cultural and political context.

This issue includes our tribute to Josephine Maltby. Linda Perriton, Jane Frecknall-Hughes and Janette Rutterford underscore the important place that Josephine played in our academic community. Their individual tributes convey what Josephine brought to so many of us through her scholarship, teaching and convictions. We have lost a good friend, colleague and long-standing member of our Editorial Board. This issue also announces the death of our AHR bibliographer, Malcolm Anderson, known for his dedication to the journal, our ‘Cardiff conference’, and to his students and teaching. ⁴

Given our efforts at AHR to support interdisciplinary scholarship and a growing interest in the journal from those whose disciplinary home resides outside accounting, we are forging stronger links with researchers from sister disciplines and other areas of accounting, especially as ad hoc referees. The latter (for 2017) are acknowledged in this issue, with the caveat that some referees remain anonymous given their involvement with manuscripts currently under review. I am grateful to the positive support of these individuals and for the expertise and guidance which they bring to our editorial process.

This issue includes two calls for papers; one for the upcoming conference in November 2018 to be held at the University of Sydney Business School in collaboration with the Association of Academic Historians in Australian and New Zealand Business Schools (AAHANZBS). This conference includes a separate special issue, ‘Using interdisciplinary approaches to examine the historical context of contemporary business issues’. This collaboration is concrete evidence of our effort to engage with historians beyond our accounting borders. The second call for papers announces our 2019 conference ‘Accounting [in] history’ to be held at Edge Hill University Business School. This event responds to discussions and conversations with many of you to renew the annual gathering of our AHR community. We look forward to your contributions and participation in this collaboration with our Edge Hill colleagues.

I am taking this opportunity to announce changes to the Editorial Board. We bid farewell and extend our thank-you to Joni Young, University of New Mexico and Ciarán Ó hógartaigh, NUI Galway for their support of the journal over the last several years. Martin E. Persson, University of Western Ontario has accepted the position of AHR Bibliographer to continue this key annual feature of the journal. We also welcome to the Editorial Board two new members whose research interests and expertise will be valuable assets to our editorial process: Wai Fong Chua, University of Sydney and Fernanda Sauerbronn, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro also strengthen our global presence. I am most grateful that they have accepted my invitation to join our AHR community.

May this issue provide food for thought in your own encounters with ‘foreign countries’.

Notes

* See the Prologue of L. P. Hartley (1953/1977).

1. If one works in more than one language, this point is subtly obvious given features of the English language and training to ‘write history in the past tense’, compared to the approach in other languages where the present tense dominates.

2. Manning (2003) has examined this topic in Navigating world history: historians create a global past, especially in part two, Revolution in Historical Studies.

3. Accounting History Review (2017).

4. Along with Dick Edwards and Trevor Boyns, founding editors of Accounting, Business and Financial History, with whom Malcolm worked for many years, we are working on a tribute to Malcolm and his contributions to our history community.