Reviewed by Gary John Previts Case Western Reserve University
Not since 1950, when Eric Kohler’s A Dictionary for Accountants was first published for the English language, has another volume of comparative writing appeared which has the clear potential to shape the study of this language’s accounting mean-ings and its development of accounting thought. Chambers’ work represents a contribution to academics, practice thinkers and students who undertake to approach our discipline’s literature as one might the history of thoughL of any other field.
In his recent review of Chambers’ Thesaurus in Abacus, Frank Clarke calls this volume a “Treasury of Accounting Thought.” As well, he thoroughly recounts the structure and form of the volume. To restate these items here would seem redundant and therefore 1 refer you to his review for that information.
The display of ideas provided by Chambers is structured in a meaningful manner. The form of the outline and the definition of the code of abbreviations should assist users as demand for and understanding of the utility of this work derives over time.
One does not, in my view, undertake to “read” a Thesaurus, even when doing a review as in this instance. Rather, I explored the volume. Perhaps what begins to explain its value best is to describe it as a necessary aid to an intellectually curious and inquiring mind in our discipline.
Having worked for more than two decades with doctoral students and graduate students in a variety of settings there are times when one wishes one could access a readily structured comparative literature display of the meanings of our terms. This work responds well to that need. Chambers’ characterizes his work as “a view of the past with an eye to the future” [p. xii]. Indeed it’s value to our discipline will be judged on the ability to serve as a useful guide and validating interpretation to the English language literature which has evolved since the appearance of the major professional journals of record such as Accountancy and The Journal of Accountancy about a century ago. This attribute may be most valuable in the next stage of development of global standards for the profession.
Just how does one make use of this volume? Have you an intellectual interest or curiosity about “independence,” or the notion of “substance over form,” or the traditional epistemic duality, “science vs. art” in accounting? You will find these all addressed here. The coverage and explication by means of 10 primary categories, 89 sub-categories and 692 sub-sub-catego-ries (or topics as I might call them) is importantly inclusive of most all major English speaking literature in our profession and discipline. I will comment on exceptions and possible omissions later.
While the title suggests a 500 year span of perspective, it is more extensive than that, citing at times works which date back several centuries before Cotrugli and JPacioli. At times the style of commentary is reminiscent of Peter Hain’s catalogue of pre-modern accounting literature writings in the 1970’s, yet that is only a passing similarity of a form.
But, the more critical mind might question: “Yes, but isn’t Chambers his own favorite source?” or “Why invest in Ray’s mental map of accounting thought and discussion?” To answer equally candidly let me say that Chambers per se is not a major issue here. As one would expect he sprinkles categories or topics with his ideas, but not distressingly so. This is NOT a disguised catechism for CoCoA, or to “see how it teases,” to paraphrase what that community might say! One must recall that Chambers, by the 1970s, was acknowledged to be a leading accounting theorist in our language for our field, and therefore his influence and reputation justify involvement of his views. But further, as one examines the well structured index of “Sources” and “Subjects” it appears that the breadth of each is not merely to develop a compendium of his own favorite topics.
And yet some orthodoxy’s, most notably the recent critical perspective, seems absent. At whatever point in time (1993?) Professor Chambers found it necessary to conclude his work, this may have affected his ability to be “virtual” and complete in his representations. All that said, the most compelling reason for acquiring and beginning to develop an appreciation for the diligence, scope and brilliance of this work is that it is UNIQUE and likely to be without peer for many years to come.
