Robert J. Bricker THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

INFLUENCES FROM EARLY ACCOUNTING LITERATURE ON CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH

Abstract: This study explored the citation of pre1960 literature in a body of contemporary accounting research. In a database of nearly 11,000 citations from 428 source articles, 117 pre1960 accounting citations were identified. From the set of 413 nonhistorical articles, forty pre1960 accounting citations were found. This study also examined the breadth of coverage of these citations and their distribution among journals. The results showed that many pre1960 accounting documents traditionally considered important were not cited. This result may be useful to accounting historians by helping them to identify early research traditions that are in danger of being forgotten by nonhistorians.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to identify the classic accounting documents that continue to be used in contemporary accounting research and those which are not. My examination of the citations of a recent body of published accounting research showed that classic literature of any sort was only occasionally referenced. Few classic accounting works were cited, overall, and even fewer (about .4 percent) were cited by nonhistorical articles. Since most of those that were referenced were cited only a single time, relatively broad coverage of pre1960 literature was afforded, given the small number of citations. However, many classic accounting documents and writers were not referenced.

Two journal patterns were noted. Some of the accounting documents that were cited multiple times by nonhistorical accounting articles were dispersed over more than one journal, suggesting general interest. Others were cited by a single journal, suggesting interest limited to a single research area.
I would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of Professors Robert Colson, Larry Parker, Gary Previts, and Paul Salipante, the comments of two anonymous reviewers, and the financial support of the Deloitte, Haskins and Sells foundation in the completion of this research.

The significance of my study, in part, is its identification of the specific works that continue to be explicitly used in contemporary accounting research, and those works that are not and whose knowledge therefore may be forgotten. The loss of knowledge may occur if the scientific model of progressive and evolutionary knowledge accumulation is inappropriate for accounting research. There is sufficient disagreement on this point to assert the importance of preserving and disseminating the knowledge contained in previous generations of accounting literature.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, related literature is reviewed and discussed and research questions are stated. Then, data and methods are discussed, followed by results and concluding remarks.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Citational Methods

Citational methods have been used in a variety of studies of accounting. McRae [1974] examined the exchange of knowledge among journals as proxied by citations. Brown and Gardner [1987, 1985a, 1985b] used citational data to examine the impact of journals on accounting research and assess the contribution of accounting departments. Dyckman and Zeff [1986] studied the publication history of the Journal of Accounting Research using, in part, citation analysis. Gamble et. al. [1987] explored the development of agency literature in accounting with cocitation analysis. Vasarhelyi et. al. [1988] examined trends in the recent evolution of accounting research. Bricker [forthcoming] employed cocitation clustering to infer an intellectual structure for the accounting discipline.
Citations appear to be relatively good indicators of intellectual indebtedness and their validity in a wide range of applications has been established in a number of studies. In the accounting literature, for example, Heck and Huang [1987] found a strong correlation between the perception of the importance of an article and its citation frequency. Nevertheless, even studies showing that citations accurately capture a substantial portion of the content of articles also suggest that citation patterns reflect other influences [MacRoberts and MacRoberts, 1986]. For example, authors tend to cite their own work more frequently than the work of other writers, ceteris paribus.

Citation Classics
Stigler and Freidland [1979], in exploring the pattern of citation practices in economics, found that relatively few historically prominent economists are cited in contemporary research. They noted:

Of the 1824 citations in 194 articles published between 1925 and 1968, Malthus and Petty are cited once, Walras and Ricardo twice, Adam Smith 4 times, and Cournot not at all. … the historic figures of economics would appear not to be personal participants in contemporary research. [p. 10]

Stigler and Freidland argued, however, that such a state does not imply that the authors’ contributions have been lost. Rather, they suggested that this knowledge becomes so intrinsically a part of the knowledge base of the discipline that authorship is forgotten. This phenomenon has been termed “obliteration by incorporation” [Merton, 1968] and is thought to be common among all sciencelike disciplines. Indeed, an identifying feature of science is the progressive and evolutionary manner in which it normally accumulates knowledge. Since the results of all previous research are to be included in the current generation of research, future researchers need, theoretically at least, know only the immediately preceding body of literature.

Citation patterns in published articles lend only incomplete support to this model of knowledge accumulation. Virtually all studies of the citation patterns in the sciences, for example, show that most citations are very recent, and studies in the social sciences show similar citation patterns. However, it has also been found that while most articles are never cited at all and some are cited only a few times, a small number of articles continue to be cited in the literature over many years [Price, 1965]. Some of these works may be thought of as Kuhnian research exemplars, that is, studies around which particular research areas develop. However, there are other reasons for the citation of early literature. Historical studies, for example, may cite early writers as data references, not theory references, and thus do not indicate the use of early knowledge in current theory building.

Because it is not clear that the scientific model of knowledge accumulation may be fully applied in accounting research (or for that matter, in any of the social sciences), it is important to identify those research traditions which lose visibility in contemporary research. It may well be that accounting research does not accumulate knowledge in an evolutionary and progressive manner. Earlier generations of knowledge that are not fully incorporated in contemporary research may be lost to the discipline. This, however, does not eliminate the underlying need for such knowledge. While the importance of the related issues may decline for a time, they may subsequently reappear. If the knowledge pertaining to these issues has not been preserved, then accounting scholars will be required to rediscover it. The probability of such an occurrence is increased in accounting research because its contemporary research models have primarily developed since the 1960s, due in part to changes in the makeup of accounting faculty towards a more researchoriented community.

The focus upon recent studies in contemporary literature is reflected in the age of accounting research citations. Bricker [1988], showed that nearly 83 percent of accounting citations from a set of accounting articles published during the mid1980s consisted of documents published since 1970, while only about 6 percent consisted of documents published before 1960. Bricker concluded that accounting writers cite pre1960 literature only occasionally.
Research Questions

To summarize the discussion above, accounting studies cite a recent body of literature, congruent with the pattern implied by a scientific model of knowledge accumulation. However, accounting research may not be able to accumulate knowledge scientifically, that is, in a fully progressive and evolutionary manner. Consequently, earlier and nolongercited generations of accounting literature, which may have future usefulness, may not be incorporated in contemporary nonhistorical research and may instead be lost. It is therefore important to be able to specifically identify the early accounting documents that continue to be cited in contemporary accounting research for theory purposes and those that are not. The following questions are explored in this study.

Ql: Which early accounting documents and authors

continue to be cited in contemporary accounting research, and which are not? Q2: Which early accounting documents are cited in nonhistorical studies? Q3: What differences do journals show in citing early accounting research in nonhistorical articles?

DATA AND METHODS

This study used citational data gathered from the six mainstream scholarly accounting journals covered by the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). It consisted of 428 main articles and their 10,938 citations. 10,911 of these citations were usable for analysis. The primary publication period of the source articles was January, 1983 through March, 1986. However difficulties with SSCI accession numbers resulted in the inclusion of a small number ( 3 percent of all articles) of 1982 articles. The data set is summarized by journal in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1

Main Article and Citation Distribution, 1983 1986

Journal Main Citations
Articles
Abacus (ABAC) 27 735
Accounting, Organizations and
Society (AOS) 69 2,831
Accounting Review (AR) 127 3,000
Journal of Accounting and
Economics (JAE) 34 679
Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy (JAPP) 50 1,443
Journal of Accounting Research
(JAR) 111 2,250
TOTAL 428 10,938

While this set of journals is asserted to be representative of mainstream accounting research, it omits many potential sources through which readers could be exposed to early accounting literature. While the timeframe used may also be criticized as being relatively brief, it is long enough to allow writers to publish. The use of a longer period was rejected, in part, because it would have given a less current picture of the extent of citation of early accounting literature. It might also be argued that the sample is biased because the journals used are not those which would cite early literature. However, this is in fact a central question of this study, which explores the extent to which nonhistorical studies actually do explicitly build upon early accounting literature.
Early literature was defined in this study as any document

88 The Accounting Historians Journal, Fall, 1988
in the set of citations that was published before 1960. The analysis began by identifying and creating a separate data set comprised of all citations whose publication date preceded 1960. This data set was then sorted on publication identification information, and the frequency of occurrence of individual documents was computed. To determine the pre1960 accounting documents in which there was more than a passing interest, documents cited more than one time in this set were identified.

Next the set of citations was divided into two categories: accounting documents and nonaccounting documents, through an examination of the author, title, and publisher of each document in the data set. This yielded the set of pre1960 accounting citations. Prolific early accounting writers whose works were not cited in this set were noted. Prolific early writers were identified by using the bibliography of Previts and Merino’s A History of Accounting in America [1979]. A list of authors who each had at least three pre1960 publications referenced in Previts and Merino was prepared. This list was then compared with a list of authors included in the current citation data, resulting in the identification of prolific but uncited authors.

Another analysis explored the influence of early accounting literature on nonhistorical articles. Source (citing) articles were first categorized as either historical or nonhistorical from their titles. The pre1960 accounting documents cited by the set of nonhistorical articles and their citation frequencies were then identified. Finally, the distribution of pre1960 nonhistorical accounting citations among citing journals was determined and analyzed.

RESULTS

From the initial data set of 10,911, 652 citations referred to 495 individual documents published before 1960. Four hundred and twentythree of these documents were cited only a single time, and only twentyfive documents were cited more than two times. This shows not only the infrequency with which pre1960 documents were cited, but also indicates that these citations were widely scattered among documents. Even the exceptions were also, generally, infrequently cited. A few documents were cited frequently, but none of these were accounting documents. The most highly cited pre1960 document was Siegel’s 1956 Nonparametric Statistics, cited twentyone times, followed by Argyris’ 1952 The Impact of Budgets on People, cited eleven times (which some may argue is an accounting work), March’s 1958

Organizations, cited nine times, and Berle’s 1938 The Modem Corporation and Private Property, cited seven times. The citation of interdisciplinary literature, however, is not the subject of the present study and is not extensively considered here.

The cited documents were then divided into accounting and nonaccounting categories. Old nonaccounting documents were cited more frequently than old accounting documents. Of the 495 pre1960 cited documents, only eightyfour were accounting documents while the remaining 411 were nonaccounting documents. The eightyfour accounting documents are summarized in Appendix 1 in the SSCI format, which includes the year of publication, name of first author, and summary publication information. The final column shows the citation frequency for each of the documents.

Of the seventytwo pre1960 documents cited more than once, only seventeen were accounting documents. These documents are listed in Exhibit 2. Most of these might be expected to appear; Hatfield, Littleton, Pacioli, Paton, and Sweeney. Burkehead, Butters, Garke, Garner, and Stacey were also cited multiple times. Notably absent from this list were a number of accounting scholars including Canning, Kohler, MacNeal, Montgomery, Scott, Sprague, and Vatter. While Canning, Kohler, MacNeal and Vatter were cited a single time each, there were no citations at all to Montgomery, Scott, or Sprague. Influential and scholarly practitioners such as Dickinson, Greer, and May were also uncited. A list of accounting writers with at least three pre1960 publications referenced in Previts and Merino [1979] that were not included in the present set of citations is given in Exhibit 3. Although the list of the uncited is not comprehensive, it certainly suggests a decided lack of interest on the part of contemporary accounting writers for the writings of many of their early forebears.

Exhibit 2 Pre1960 Accounting Documents Cited Two Or More Times

First
Year Author Abbreviated Title Frequency
1494 Pacioli, F.L. Summa De Arithmetica 4
1728 Bradford, W. Secretary’s Guide 3
1734 Mather, W. Young Man’s Companion 5
1760 Fisher, G. American Instructor 2
1887 Garke, E. Factory Accounts 2
1922 Paton. W.A. Accounting Theory 2
1927 Hatfield, H.R. Accounting Its Principles 2
1933 Littleton, A.C. Accounting Evolution 2
1936 Sweeney, H.W. Stabilized Accounting 3
1937 Edwards, R.S. Various — from the Accountant 12*
1939 Gilman, S. Accounting Concepts of Profit 2
1940 Paton, W.A. Introduction To Corporate Accounting 2
1949 Butters, J.K. Inventory Accounting 2
1954 Stacey, N.H. English Accountancy 2
1954 Garner, S.P. Evolution of Cost Accounting 2
1956 Burkehead, J. Government Budgeting 2
1957 Davidson, S. Research and Publication 2
*Series of six individual articles cited twice each

Exhibit 3 Uncited Classic Accounting Writers
Andrew Barr Warren Nissley
William Cole C. Rufus Rorem
John Cooper D.R. Scott
Charles Couchman Elijah Watt Sells
A.L. Dickinson Charles Ezra Sprague
Paul Esquerre Walter Staub
P. Glover Joseph E. Sterrett
Howard Greer E.L. Suffern
Charles Waldo Haskins Seymour Walton
George O. May William Werntz
Robert Montgomery John R. Wildman
George Wilkinson

While Exhibit 2, above, lists those documents cited two or more times, most of the pre1960 cited accounting documents were cited only a single time. This was particularly noticeable for accounting documents predating 1920. Of this group, only five works were cited more than once. Included in this group, as shown in Appendix 1, were some relatively wellrecognized names such as Mather and Dicksee, and also writers such as Cronhelm, Hutton, and Elbourne. Virtually all of the pre1920 documents were cited by historical articles.

A total of fifteen historical articles then were identified by title and their fortythree pre1960 accounting citations were removed from the data set of pre1960 accounting citations. The remaining forty citations referred to thirtyfour accounting documents. These were all of the pre1960 citations from nonhistorical articles. This is less than onehalf of one percent of the original citation base and represents an upper bound of explicit borrowing for theory purposes from early accounting literature. The full set of pre1960 accounting documents cited by the nonhistorical articles is presented, by citing journal, in Exhibit 4. Five documents were cited two or more times. H.W. Sweeney’s 1936 Stabilized Accounting was cited three times. J. Burkehead’s 1956 Government Budgeting, J.K. Butters’ 1949 Inventory Accounting, W.A. Paton’s 1922 Accounting Theory, and W.A. Patton and A.C. Littleton’s 1940 An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards were each cited twice. The remaining twentynine documents were each cited once. Thus, while the overall citation of classic pre1960 accounting literature is small (and primarily confined to books), and many important documents are missing, the coverage is relatively broad.

Exhibit 4
Chronological Listing by Journal of Pre1960 Accounting Documents Cited in Nonhistorical Articles
Year First Author Summary Publication Information
Abacus:
1922 Paton, W.A. Accounting theory
1943 Alexander, S. Income Measurement
1952 Kaldor, N. Expenditure Taxation
1953 C.A.P. ARB 43 — Restatement and Revision
of ARBs Nos. 142.
1959 Meyers, J.H. The Critical Event and Recognition
of Profit, Accounting Review, October
Accounting, Organizations and Society:
1922 Paton, W.A. Accounting Theory
1936 Sweeney, H.W Stabilized Accounting
1947 Vatter, W.J. The Fund Theory of Accounting
1952 Anthony, R. Management Controls
1952 Staubus, G.J. Payments for the Use of Capital and
the Matching Process, Accounting

Review, January

1953 Frenckner, P.
1954 Husband, G.
1954 Stacey, N.A.
Accounting Review:
1494 Pacioli, F.L.
1927 Hatfield, H.R.
1936 Sweeney, H.W.
1939 Gilman, S.
1940 Paton, W.A.
1948 Murphy, M.E.
1953 1953
Butters, J.K. Hep worth, S
1953 Littleton, A.C. 1955 Davis, H.S. 1957 Davidson, S.
1959 Hoxsey, J.M.

Budgetering Resultat The Entity Concept of Accounting, Accounting Review, October English Accountancy
Summa De Arithmetica
Modern Accounting (first pub. 1909)
Stabilized Accounting
Accounting Concepts of Profit
An Introduction to Corporate
Accounting Standards
Libraries for Students of Accounting,
Accounting Review, October
The Effect of Taxation on Inventories
Smoothing Periodic Income,
Accounting Review, January
The Structure of Accounting Theory
Productivity of Accounting
Research and Publication by the
Accounting Faculty, Accounting
Review, January
Accounting For Investors, Journal
Of Accountancy, October

Journal of Accounting and Economics:
1958 Mautz, R.K. A Critical Look at Generally
Accepted Auditing Standards, Illinois Certified Public Accountant, Autumn

Journal of Accounting and 1929 Canning, J.B. 1936 Sweeney, H.W. 1936 Edwards, R.S.
1938 Lockwood, J.
1939 MacNeal, L.
1940 Paton, W.A.
1955 Smithies, A.
1956(2)Burkehead, J. 1959 Harberger, A.C.

Public Policy: Economics of Accountancy Stabilized Accounting The Nature and Measurement of Income (Series), The Accountant, JulyOct. Early University Education in Accountancy, Accounting Review, June Truth in Accounting An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards The Budgetary Process of the United States Government Government Budgeting Tax Revision Compendium

Journal of Accounting Research 1932 Sweeney, H.W. Stabilized Appreciation, Accounting
Review, June
1949 (2) Butters, J.K. Inventory Accounting
1953 Blough, C. Some of the Dangers Inherent in
Quarterly Financial Statements, Journal of Accountancy, February
Because most of these documents were cited only a single time, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the journal distribution of citations. Exhibit 5 shows the journal distribution of citations to the five documents cited more than once.

Exhibit 5
Distribution Among Citing Journals of Nonhistorical
Pre1960 Accounting Documents Cited More Than Once
Citing Journal:
ABAC AOS AR JAE JAPP JAR TOTAL
Document:
1922Paton 1 1 2
1936Sweeney 1 1 1 3
1940Paton 1 1 2
1949Butters 2 2
1956Burkehead 2 2

The citations of three of the documents were distributed over multiple journals. Butters’ and Burkehead’s documents were cited in single journal. Differences in citation patterns could not be attributed to authorship of citing articles, for none of the documents were cited by two or more articles with the same authors. It might be conjectured that there is general interest in the documents with distributed citations, while the documents with concentrated citations have interest for writers in a specific research area whose scholarly production is published in a single journal. There is, in support of this conjecture, at least an intuitive congruence between the topical interest of the Journal of Accounting and Public Policy and Burkehead’s book Government Budgeting. However, the citation frequencies of the documents in this analysis were really too low to permit any good comparisons and conclusions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study identified pre1960 accounting literature cited in a body of recent, published historical and nonhistorical accounting articles. These early, cited documents represented a wide range of topical areas, and most fully indicated an interest in valuation, income and financial reporting issues. Many of the pre1960 citations were from historical articles. Those from nonhistorical articles were distributed to a relatively large number of accounting documents. However, many accounting documents and authors that are thought of as important in the evolution and development of accounting thought were not cited at all. The low frequency of citation of pre1960 accounting documents in nonhistorical articles made it difficult to draw any conclusions about journal preferences for citing early accounting research.

There is something troubling about many of the authors whose works were uncited. It is clear that their thought has not been completely incorporated in contemporary research. Specific examples can be given to show where their inclusion is, at least, intuitively appealing. In the “positive accounting” literature, for example the concepts of “moral hazard”, “Adverse selection”, “information asymmetry” and “shirking”, among others, suggest a strong interest in what traditionally has been called ethics. In the accounting literature, of course, an important early writer in the area of ethics was DR Scott. Yet Scott was not cited by any of the “positive accounting” articles or the related journal. “positive” research is not alone in this transgression, and is merely used here as an illustration of where early accounting literature may be used to develop models, theories, and interesting new research questions.
The infrequent reliance upon early writers may be due in great part to the age of contemporary accounting research areas. Nearly all of these, in their current form, postdate the middle 1960s. This occurred as accounting academicians moved away from a practice orientation, towards a social science model of research. The pioneering work done during this period and thereafter often provides a year zero for later work, and previous studies are therefore often not considered. However, nonhistorical accounting writers should actively seek to draw from earlier literature. The payback to researchers can be improved models and theories, and more interesting research questions. The payback to the discipline can be improved capabilities to predict and explain accountingrelated phenomena.

The findings of this study also suggest that accounting historians particularly should consider their role in preserving and disseminating the work of uncited classic writers. This has more than antiquarian value. If the scientific model of knowledge accumulation is inappropriate for accounting research, then earlier knowledge needs to be preserved for possible future use. This study identified literature which continues to be cited and that which is not. Accounting historians can provide a valuable service to our discipline by developing papers on those writers and documents that are in danger of being forgotten.
This study also has some important limitations. First, the set of mainstream accounting journals covered by the SSCI and used in this study was small.

Academicians have other journals, books, working papers, and other sources which they read. These may provide their readers with more (or less) exposure to early literature than is suggested in this study. Similarly, the articles of the Accounting Historians Journal provide an avenue for nonhistorians to gain insight into early accounting writers. Second, the wide dispersion and low citation frequency of classic accounting documents also suggests that a different sample of citing articles might yield a different mix of pre1960 literature. Most of the documents were cited only a single time. Third, the analysis focuses on the influence of early accounting literature on contemporary research, and does not extensively explore influential interdisciplinary literature. Fourth, the use of Previts and Merino [1979] as the basis for defining classic accounting writers biases the results towards American writers, since nonAmerican authors are less well represented in their book. Finally, the method used in this study is relatively simple, and it may be possible that more sophisticated methods of citation analysis could yield additional interesting results.

These limitations suggest potential future research opportunities and activities. The discipline may find it useful to promote a broader coverage of accounting journals by the SSCI, or alternately, to develop a more comprehensive citational database upon which related research could be conducted. The generalizability of the findings of this study might be addressed in an analysis dealing with a longer time period and broader set of journals. It might also be interesting to explore early interdisciplinary literature that continues to influence contemporary research. Finally, more sophisticated citational methods, such as cocitation analysis, might be useful in revealing the knowledge accumulation process used in accounting research.

The practice of accounting, from which the academic side of our discipline arises, is in a state of continual change. Research issues rise and fall. It is not clear that, like the sciences, we can accumulate all the knowledge of our prior literature and embody it in contemporary research. To avoid “reinventing the wheel”, it is therefore important to be alert to our own biases and to not forget literature which today may seem dusty and dated, but which tomorrow may address an issue of great concern.

REFERENCES

Bordo, M.D. and Landau, D. “The Pattern of Citations in Economic Theory 194568: An Exploration Towards a Quantitative History of Thought.” History of Political Economy 11:2 (1979): 240253.
Bricker, R.J. “Knowledge Preservation in Accounting: A Citational Study.” Abacus (September 1988).
Bricker, R.J. “An Empirical Investigation of The Structure of Accounting Research.” Journal of Accounting Research, (forthcoming).
Brown, L.D. and Gardner, J.C. “Using Citation Analysis To Assess The Impact Of Journals And Articles On Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR).” Journal Of Accounting Research (Spring 1985, (a)): 84109.
Brown, L.D. and Gardner, J.C. “Applying Citation Analysis to Evaluate the Research Contributions of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs.” Accounting Review (April 1985, (b) ): 262277.
Dyckman, T.R. and Zeff, S.A. “Two Decades of the ‘Journal of Accounting Research’.” Journal Of Accounting Research (Spring 1984): 225297.
Gamble, G.O.; O’Doherty, B.; and Hyman, L. “The Development of Agency Thought: A Citation Analysis of the Literature,” Acounting Historians Journal (Spring 1987): 123144.
Heck, J.L., and Huang, J.C. “Peer Assessment vs. Citation Analysis of Contributions to the Accounting Literature,” Advances in Accounting. vol. 6 (B.N. Schwartz, ed.), JAI Press Inc., Greenwich Conn., 1987.
MacRoberts, M.H. and MacRoberts, B.R. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Study of the Formal Level.” Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): .151172.
Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1968.
Previts, G.J., and Merino, B.D. A History ofAccounting in America. John Wiley & Sons, 1979.
Price, D.J. “Networks Of Scientific Papers.” Science 149 (1965): 510515.
Stigler, G.J., and Freidland, C. “The Pattern of Citation Practices in Economics.” History of Political Economy 11, No. 1 (1979): 120.
Vasarhelyi, M.; Bao, D.H.; and Berk, J. “Trends in the Evolution of Scholarly Accounting Thought: A Quantitative Examination.” The Accounting Historians Journal (Spring 1988): 4564.

Bricker: Influences from Early Accounting Literature
Appendix 1
Pre1960 Accounting Documents Cited in Six Accounting Journals, 19831986

Frequency

1494 Pacioli, F.L. Summa De Arithmetica Ge 4
1586 Peitra, A. Indirizzo Ec Sia Ord 1
1649 Petri, G.D. 11Negoziante 1
1678 Ducange, CD. Glossarium Mediae In 1
1727 Fisher, G. Instructor 1
1728 Bradford, W. Secretarys Guide 3
1734 Hatton, E. Merchants Magazine 1
1734 Mather, W. Young Mans Companion 5
1736 Mair, J. Book Keeping Methodi 1
1750 Dodson, J. Accountant Method Bo 1
1760 Fisher, G. American Instructor 2
1763 Gordon, W. Universal Accountant 1
1773 Mair, J. Book Keeping Moderni 1
1777 Thompson, W. Accomptants Oracle 1
1789 Booth, B. Complete System Bookkeep 1
1796 Mitchell, W. New Complete System 1
1796 Sinclair, J. Statistical Account VI8 1
1797 Lee, C. American Accomptant 1
1797 Nichols, F. Treatise Practical Arith 1
1810 Morrison, J. Complete Treatise Pr 1
1810 Morrison, J. Elements Book Keepin 1
1818 Cronhelm, F.W. Double Entry Single 1
1849 *Monteagle Comm Select Committee Audit 1
1854 Savoie, CA. Hist Patriae Monumen VI 1
1862 Boncompagni, B. Intorno Ad Un Trattato 1
1881 Pixley, F.W. Auditors 1
1887 Garke, E. Factory Accounts 2
1892 Dicksee, L.R. Auditing 1
1901 Hutton, C. Course Bookkeeping 1
1903 Dicksee, L.R. Advanced Accounting 1
1905 Brown, R. Hist Accounting 1
1914 Elbourne, E.T. Factory Adm Accounts 1
1914 Spicer, E.E. Practical Auditing 1
1917 Church, A.H. Manufacturing Costs 1
1921 Hazell, W.H. Costing Manufacturer 1
1922 Paton. W.A. Accounting Theory 2
1923 Botsford, H. Trained Men 0403 P84 1
1926 Kohler, E.L. Accounting Rev Dec P1 1
1927 Hatfield, H.R. Accounting Its Princ 2
1927 Hatfield, H.R. J Accountancy Oct P267 1
1928 Couchman, C.B. J Accountancy Oct P253 1
1929 Canning, J.B. Ec Accountancy Criti 1
1930 Hoxsey, J.M.B. J Accountancy Oct P251 1
1930 Murray, D. Chap His Bookkeeping 1
1932 Sweeney, H.W. Accounting Rev P115 1
1932 Wheldon, H.J. Cost Accounting Cost 1

The Accounting Historians Journal, Fall, 1988

Year Author Abbreviated Title F reque
1933 Littleton, A.C. Accounting Evolution 2
1933 Mason, P. Accounting Rev Sep P209 1
1934 Bentley, H.C. Bibliography Works Acc 1
1934 Starkey, R. J Accountancy Dec P431 1
1935 Morrison, P.L. Accounting Rev Mar P77 1
1936 Sweeney, H.W. Stabilized Accountin 3
1938 Edwards, R.S. Accountant 12*
1938 Lockwood, J. Accounting Rev P131 1
1938 Simons, H.C. Personal Income Taxa 1
1939 Gilman, S. Accounting Concepts 2
1939 MacNeal, K. Truth Accounting 1
1939 Roethlisberget Management Worker Ac 1
1940 Paton, W.A. Intro Corporate Acco 2
1947 Vatter, W.J. Fund Theory Accounti 1
1948 Alexander, S.S. Income Measurement 1
1948 Murphy, M.E. Accounting Rev Oct P420 1
1949 Butters, J.K. Inventory Accounting 2
1952 Anthony, R.N. Management Controls 1
1952 Staubus, G.J. Accouning Rev Jan P104 1
1953 *Comm Acc Proc Arb 43 1
1953 Blough, C. J Accountancy Feb P221 1
1953 Butters, J.K. Effects Taxation Inv 1
1953 Hep worth, S. Accounting Rev Jan P32 1
1953 Littleton, A.C. Structure Accounting 1
1954 Garner, S.P. Evolution Cost Accou 2
1954 Husband, G.R. Accounting Rev Oct P552 1
1954 Myers, J.H. Accounting Rev 1
1954 Stacey,N. English Accountancy 2
1955 Christenson, C. Accounting Rev Oct P666 1
1955 Smithies, A. Budgetary Process US 1
1956 Burkehead, J. Govt Budgeting 2
1956 Destecroix, G. Studies Hist Account P14 1
1956 Pollins, H. Studies History Acc 1
1956 Stone, W. Accounting Rev Oct P625 1
1957 Davidson, S. Accounting Rev Jan P114 2
1957 Pollins, H. Accounting Res 1
1958 Mautz, R.K. Illinois Certifi Aut P12 1
*Series of six articles each cited twice.