Special issue: interdisciplinary historical studies

The renaming of Accounting Business and Financial History to Accounting History Review in 2011 could, at face value, be taken as a narrowing of the journal’s focus toward accounting history. Rather than a restriction in focus, the editor saw it as an opportunity to encourage a connection between accounting history ‘with the intellectual interests of other disciplines and research domains’ (McWatters 2014, 1). It is this process of making connections across disciplines that we have endeavoured to encourage in this special issue. Both students and scholars of business face the task of recording, understanding, and explaining a rapidly changing world. We see the potential to draw upon perspectives and approaches beyond single disciplines to answer many research questions generated by business scholars. As McWatters (2017, 219) notes:

Studies, which ground their analyses in social and economic theories (amongst others), are no longer the exception but rather the rule, especially for those who seek novel ways to examine old and long-standing questions and debates.

The lure and attraction of interdisciplinary approaches are not novel with several interdisciplinary journals in publication for a number of decades. Nevertheless, what it means to be ‘interdisciplinary’ remains elusive and the contribution of interdisciplinary study is both simultaneously lauded and marginalised.

The concept of interdisciplinarity also remains ambiguous. Almost any discussion of the concept or what it means to undertake interdisciplinary research begins with a discussion of the lack of consensus (See Thompson Klein 2017; Lyle 2017; Madsen 2018;). In some ways, interdisciplinarity is seen in terms of what it is not. Epistemologically, disciplines are cast as well-defined areas of study, consisting of a set of accepted, rigorous research methods and central tenets. In contrast, interdisciplinary approaches are those that do not entail a focus within the boundaries of a discipline or mix methods and borrow central tenets from across the siloed branches of disciplinary knowledge. The idea that interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity are mutually created, dualities in which the features of one establish the dimension of the other, is well known (Weingart 2000). However, the creation of disciplines themselves is not the consequence of abstract knowledge, but of social and institutional activity. As Turner argues ‘knowledge is socially distributed, and the distribution of knowledge is socially structured … ’ (Turner 2017, 9). With the growth of specialist academic communities, the foundations for disciplinary communication and production of knowledge were developed. The nineteenth century was characterised by knowledge being parcelled into different discipline areas (Turner 2017). Disciplines remain an important domain for knowledge creation and distribution. Yet they have developed and evolved as a consequence of politics around what is seen to be legitimate for inclusion, what is consequently excluded, and how the boundaries are reinforced and recreated, particularly in universities (Turner 2017) As a consequence, interdisciplinarity captures work undertaken across these boundaries, but it is sometimes viewed with suspicion, as lacking the rigour or exactness associated with disciplinary outputs (Weingart 2000). So, while the categories of ‘discipline’ and ‘interdisciplinarity’ arise as a consequence of the social creation and distribution of knowledge (and the epistemological tenets that result), the absence of institutional support has sometimes seen interdisciplinary research marginalised, or viewed as lacking robustness and rigour.

Notwithstanding the perception of rigour and precision signified by the concept of disciplines, many are far from integrated in the methods and theoretical models used to explain their particular terrain of focus (as shown by Burrell and Morgan (2005) in their discussion of paradigms in organisational studies). What is it about interdisciplinarity that makes it different? As we noted, what it is to be interdisciplinary, or undertake interdisciplinary studies remains ambiguous. At one level, it is characterised by individuals or groups collaborating and communicating across disciplinary boundaries. Epistemologically, this collaboration is couched in terms of integrating either some or all of the tools, techniques, concepts or theories from different disciplines (Madsen 2018). Integration seems to be a fundamental tenet for interdisciplinarity, particularly integration of different disciplinary tools to address a particular phenomenon or problem (Holbrook 2013).

Interdisciplinary studies are praised for bringing new insights and creative solutions to old as well as emerging problems in a holistic fashion rather than in a fragmented and piece meal way. The value of having research conducted across disciplinary boundaries can contribute to the understanding and framing of responses to complex issues such as climate change (see for example Griffiths (2014)). Thus we have something of a paradox whereby interdisciplinary research is viewed as lacking the meticulousness or thoroughness of truly disciplinary-based work but also as novel, innovative, and appropriate for addressing complex problems that span the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

Business schools are sometimes structured to encourage academics from different disciplinary backgrounds to come together to study business and management from different perspectives in order to understand the complex problems confronting business, government, and the community (see for example the University of Sydney School of Business Strategy). However, little attempt is often made to integrate different disciplinary approaches (perhaps due to the theoretical and epistemological differences that may underpin different approaches). Research often remains in silos with business scholars gravitating toward their ‘home’ discipline when framing and, particularly, publishing research projects. Does scope exist for the novel use of theories, methods, and approaches from one discipline in order to explain social phenomena in another? This question perhaps lies at the heart of calls for interdisciplinary approaches from some quarters. Indeed, the founding editors of Accounting, Business and Financial History originally framed the journal as an avenue though which to provide ‘ … the interface between these three disciplines’ (Boyns and Edwards 1990, 1).

In this landscape of interdisciplinary study, history is an important element. The discipline of history itself is an exemplar of the dynamic interplay between and within disciplines. While a longstanding ‘discipline’ in its own right with its own institutional identity and support, history has been subject to internal epistemological debates. It has been divided between specialisations which often reside outside history departments (business history, labour history, feminist history as examples). It can be viewed as an exporter discipline with historians contributing to other disciplinary areas. However, its value outside the ‘silo’ of history is sometimes dismissed on the grounds that is antiquarian, idiographic and lacking theory. Notwithstanding this situation, researchers within the business disciplines themselves have called for greater integration of history, given that historical studies can provide a temporal test or contextual counterpoint to the presentism and universalism of business and management theories (Mills et al. 2016; Patmore 2018, 69–70). Interdisciplinary studies often use history for context (Thompson Klein 2017). The recognition that history is a valuable contextual tool overlooks the debates within history around historiography and the ‘objectivity’ of history, a point noted by Miller, Hopper, and Laughlin (1991) in their discussion of ‘new’ accounting history.

For historical scholars in business schools, historical methods and foci are essential to make sense of contemporary issues. However, beyond highlighting context, can historical methods be combined effectively with frameworks and techniques from other disciplines to provide a more robust understanding of a particular issue or phenomenon? There are two main ways in which interdisciplinary research can be undertaken. The first is involves researchers (either collectively or individually) from a single discipline drawing upon techniques, tools, and theories from a variety of disciplines. Major barriers exist here given that ‘it takes no small investment of energy and humility to learn the ropes, the intricacies and the ground rules of another field’ (McWatters 2017, 220). The second involves teams of researchers drawn together from different home disciplines. Strauss and Whitfield (1997, 22–23) believe that the first type ‘has been more fruitful’ as researchers from different disciplines have different perspectives, methods, journals, and even different disciplinary languages that make it difficult to communicate. For example, psychologists and economists both study labour turnover, using similar data, but rarely cite one another. One of the potential effects of interdisciplinary work is that it can bring into focus questions or issues that are overlooked, or taken for granted, within a discipline. McWatters (2017, 220) also notes that working with researchers from other disciplines can be ‘demanding’ as it is not an ‘elementary exercise’ to move from the ‘relative security’ of your own discipline.

Moving beyond the relatively security of a home discipline, engaging with colleagues who are well versed in frameworks, techniques, and approaches from other disciplinary terrains, we believe, provides a means to interrogate social issues in a potentially more productive way. The integration of historical method with techniques and frameworks within individual business disciplines can provide more than just context, it can deepen understanding. Such is the case with complex phenomena like financialisation. The changing role of finance actors and the spread of financial techniques and logic to both non-financial institutions and households alike can only really be explained by using tools from a number of disciplines. Historical analysis is vital for gaining a sense of how financial actors, tools and techniques have changed over time. Accounting and finance conceptual frameworks are important for understanding the nature and operation of new financial techniques and products, for example, processes of securitisation and how these are used to alter balance sheets for financial institutions. Economics and sociology focus on effects on the ‘real’ economy and non-financial actors such as workers, directors, and households. In this way, a phenomenon such as financialisation that extends across a specific disciplinary boundary lends itself to investigation by interdisciplinary teams and scholars making use of analytical tools from outside their own disciplinary area. A discrete example of this can be seen in Friedrich’s examination of a particular financial tool, off-balance sheet leasing, and how its form and practices were shaped by industry support for scholarly enquiry into this practice that reinforced a particular mode of operation.

As well as broader socio-economic phenomenon, interdisciplinary approaches can assist in understanding particular business forms. An example of where this has occurred is the study of co-operatives. We have seen an upsurge of interest in co-operatives since the Global Financial Crisis. Co-operatives, as a member-owned and controlled business model, raise questions for different disciplines. Are they just a business for business historians to focus on or are they a political and social movement which has promoted the idea of a Co-operative Commonwealth to transform capitalist society (Patmore and Balnave 2018, 2, 12)? There are accounting issues relating to their financial performance and social impact over time such as whether their members’ shares are treated as assets or liabilities and how their ‘community value’ is to be assessed compared to Investor Owned Businesses (Westerdahl 2001; Beaubien 2011).

An example of interdisciplinary co-operative research that involves teams of researchers from different disciplines is the Visual Atlas of Australian Co-operatives Project (VAACP). The project constructs a visual platform that allows the development of co-operatives in Australia to be mapped over time and space for the period from 1829 to the present. It thus enables co-operative researchers and policy makers to see the numbers, types, and locations at any point of time. It provides insights into the factors that assist the formation, demise and revival of Australian co-operatives and can give insights into the life cycle and regional clusters of co-operatives that have persisted. It also explores issues such as demutualisation, mutualisation, amalgamation and average life span of co-operatives. Case studies of both successful and unsuccessful co-operatives supplement the atlas to provide further insights into the history of Australian co-operatives (Patmore, Balnave, and Marjanovic 2019).

The team involved in the VAACP are drawn from information systems and labour/business history. The skills of the two groups complement each other with the historians collecting the data and placing the findings in historical context, and the information systems researchers focusing on the VAACP visualisation. There are differences in academic language and focus – the historians are interested in historical outcomes, while the information system researchers focus on the process underlying the development of the visual platform, but these differences have not been a significant issue, with the researchers gaining insights from each other’s discipline. The researchers already had a track record of successful collaboration in a different project relating the impact of social media on co-operatives, a factor that assisted the research team in gaining significant funding for the VAACP from the Australian Research Council (Balnave et al. 2015). In this special issue, Boell and Hoof provide an example of a multidisciplinary team similar to the VAACP project.

This special issue includes five papers¹ that contribute to the debates concerning the benefits and problems of interdisciplinary research for exploring accounting and business history. Huf opens new interdisciplinary frontiers for accounting, business, organisational and management scholars by exploring the role of statisticians in nineteenth-century Australia, who transformed the collection of data by the state from simple counting to measuring the economy and testing early ideas of political economy. He argues that contemporary scholars would benefit from understanding economic indicators in their historical context and that this approach might make them more reflexive in using official statistics to solve contemporary problems. The economic statistics and indicators periodically published by governments are, of course, used in an extensive array of contexts, including by such academics in framing and interrogating the ‘issues’ that constitute their discipline. They may question the relevance of traditional measurements and data for dramatic periods of change. For scholars, as for governments, how ‘the economy’ is seen informs what problems need solving, and what constraints are faced. Historicising economic indicators in a local context like Australia might equip scholars to be more sensitive to this social construction when drawing on ‘official data’ to frame and analyse ‘contemporary business issues’ such as environmental impacts. It might include asking whether such measurements and data are appropriate in times of change. Underlying the reliance on any data are the fragility of the intellectual and political projects that guided them, as illustrated by experience of early Australian statisticians such as Coghlan and Knibbs. We should be careful to evaluate current economic statistics within detailed analysis of their historical context given that they have been used to construct ideas such as the redistribution of wealth which still has considerable meaning in our current political and economic context.

Friedrich examines the development of off-balance sheet leasing in Germany from 1962 to 1991, which was a financing technique imported from the USA. The leasing field developed and promoted a strand of academic literature that ‘scientifically’ underpinned the off-balance sheet treatment of German lease contracts. This literature in practitioner-oriented accounting and tax journals became a lobbying tool for the leasing sector. It also played an important role in helping the leasing industry fend off the perpetual threat of regulatory constraint in the areas of accounting, civil law, and corporate supervision. The study concludes with a call for comparative research between jurisdictions to test the impact of academic literature on regulatory processes.

Boell and Hoof provide perhaps the most developed integration of techniques, methods, and concepts from different disciplinary areas in their discussion of organisational change in a large university library. They are an example of inter-disciplinary research team involving scholars from different backgrounds with Boell coming from business information systems and Hoof from media studies. Information Infrastructures, a phenomenon studied within the broad area of information systems, is the focus of the research. However, by examining the changes in information infrastructure over time – applying historical technique – through the lens of media theories, they effectively show how this information infrastructure allows for different activities and tasks to be accounted for within the organisation. Once visible, information infrastructures enable elements of organisational operations such as the loan status of a particular book, the identity of the borrower, and the time at which the loan was made to be accounted for within the organisation. It then creates the opportunities to establish greater controls, such as the imposition of fines or restrictions of access to borrowers, which brings into focus questions around the perceived priorities or purpose of the organisation. In response to the explicit or implicit answers to these questions, resourcing decisions as well alterations to organisational structure, reporting and authority decisions were put into effect. Rather than a neutral medium for capturing data, these information infrastructures opened up potential areas of regulation that were previously opaque.

Crawford’s study focuses on the work life of Russell McLay, the Finance Director at the George Patterson advertising agency based in Sydney Australia, to examine the way in which the accounting function affected the activities of the advertising agency. Using historical sources, including oral history, Crawford tracks the increasing prominence of accounting within the firm as reflected through McLay’s career. While perhaps not overtly borrowing concepts from across different disciplines, the research examines the intersection of the creative and the monitoring activities within George Patterson. In an industry where competition revolved around the value of creative work, which is associated with employee autonomy, imagination, and individuality, McLay’s business discipline, which emphasised accountability and efficiency, allowed the Patterson agency to create the conditions for differentiation based on cost as well as content. The growing ascendency of financial discipline in the business had impacts on where the business operated and the allocation of firm resources between functions within the agency.

Mees examines the demise of defined benefit superannuation or pension schemes in the Australian public service. Drawing from a variety of disciplines, including political economy, labour history, business history and accounting history, he explores how concerns about excessive pension liabilities and the introduction of accrual accounting led to the shift towards lump-sum payments rather than a lifetime pension. Government funding for public sector superannuation was dramatically cut with the publication of the first superannuation accounting standard in 1990. While the shift from pensions to lump-sum payments moved the investment risk from employers to employees, Mees argues that with the broadening of superannuation coverage, there was a major improvement in retirement benefits for thousands of public sector workers. Further, he notes that the new environment focused the attention of public service schemes on improving investment performance, which may offset in the long term any financial losses for individuals arising from the loss of lifetime pensions.

Overall this special issue highlights the value of breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos and challenging the presentism of business schools. There is much to be gained from collaboration with colleagues from other disciplines, both within and beyond business schools, despite different academic approaches, concepts, and languages.

Notes

1 In accordance with journal policy, the initial submissions were sent to two anonymous referees. After revisions and editing, the final manuscripts accepted by the guest editors and editor appear in this issue.