Reviewed by Michael J. R. Gaffikin University of Sydney

There is a danger that scholars, attempting to research in an in-tellectual discipline in which they have had no formal training, will encounter problems with which they cannot cope. It is highly likely that many accountants wishing to undertake historical research will find themselves in this sort of situation. There are even examples of so-called historical works by eminent accounting scholars which are purely anecdotal or little more than descriptive chronologies. There is no evidence of the use of the “historical method”; which, of course, implies that there is an “historical method.” Although some may claim that there is, an examination of the work of philoso-phers and historians, (in such journals as History & Theory) will show otherwise.

Lichtman & French (L &. F) provide no answer. Their primary aim is, in their words, to communicate the “intellectual excitement found in the whole historical enterprise” (p.xii). Their book is not a philosophical treatise but a textbook setting out the methods of historical research that have been used by historians with a view to providing guidelines for the would-be historical researcher. There are interesting and useful chapters on the history of historical method, the new history and family and local history. Earlier in the book there is a chapter on historical inference in which some of the basic tools of historical research are defined. The final chapter suggests a method for writing up the research.
Although L & F may have consciously attempted to avoid conten-tious epistemological debate, by accepting certain methods of his-torical explanation, they are subsuming some of the issues which are at the core of the debates on historical method alluded to above.

These involve matters such as causality and covering laws. In fact, in a chapter on historical explanation, (Chapter 3) L & F actually claim these notions—covering laws and causality—are central to historical research. They casually dismiss any criticism of those notions. It can probably be argued that a textbook must take a stand on and be positive in discussing philosophically debatable matters. However, there must be some point at which these philo-sophical questions must be exposed to students relying on the text-book. I feel there is sufficient doubt over these questions to warrant some arguments against them being discussed. For these reasons, I felt dissatisfied with the authors’ treatment of historical explanation (which is the core of historical research).

Causality is dependent on covering laws which are, in turn, dependent on the existence of scientific laws. If causality is indispensable to historical research then history becomes intellectually dependent on those disciplines in which the so-called scientific laws are determined. History becomes an inferior discipline. If there are no scientific laws where does this leave history?

Philosophers of science have recently been demonstrating that there are no immutable scientific laws. Ironically, some of those philosophers—the most well-known of whom include Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend & Laudan—have shown that it is history that is important for developing an understanding of scientific knowledge. This is an inappropriate place to discuss this matter fully. Suffice it to say that there do exist views opposed to the notions of causality and covering laws.

There are other features of this book which are irksome. For example, there are no references given. On page 47, it is claimed that Michael Scriven has maintained the historian’s need of general knowledge. No footnote or bibliographic citation is given. This is also true of the allusions, on pages 59 and 60, to the work of Alan Donogan as well as many others throughout the book.

Another feature which may be suitable for an undergraduate student but which a more sophisticated reader may find somewhat tedious is the extended metaphor of the detective—in particular Sherlock Holmes.

Overall, the enthusiasm for historical research of L & F is very apparent. The book is extremely readable and much of it is interesting and useful to the novices of historical research. So long as it is remembered that it is designed and written as a textbook for students of history, then this book is a useful addition to one’s li-

FOOTNOTE

1These comments are necessarily somewhat superficial. There are several refer-ences that could be given to those wishing to pursue the argument. My own thoughts are contained in the paper I presented at the Third International Congress of Accounting Historians: Methodology for Historical Accounting Research.