4. Choice of Theory
There is an important difference between PAT and Kuhn’s (1996) account of science. W & Z’s (1990: 140) position that a theory is abandoned when an alternative theory with greater explanatory power emerges indicates that the competition between rival theories can be decided rationally. The theory with greater explanatory power is selected. This indicates that PAT researchers consider knowledge cumulative in nature. Popper (1970: 56-57) subscribes to this idea. He believes that a critical comparison between competing frameworks is always possible. On the other hand, Kuhn (1996: 103) suggests that rival paradigms are incommensurable. Thus the debate over rival paradigms cannot be settled by logic or experiments alone (Kuhn, 1996: 148-150). Persuasion is used to convert the supporters of the old paradigm to the new one (Kuhn, 1996: 154). One of the most important features of Kuhn’s account of science is that science is not cumulative in nature. This contrasts with PAT researchers’ position.
The problem with the above position of PAT on theory choice is that no theory with greater explanatory power probably emerges all on a sudden. The explanatory power that PAT now has is the result of four decades’ research efforts. Thus, if the relative explanatory power of competing theories is to be made the arbiter in theory choice, that has to be applied not at the initial stages but at some later stages. So, three relevant methodological questions are: (a) how to decide rationally whether to give chance to a new theory or allow it to die away in its infancy? (b) at what stage of theory development is the relative explanatory power criterion to be applied? and (c) how to choose between two theories when the new theory explains some aspects of the old theory and some new phenomena not explained by the old one? 本文来自辣^文~论-文.网原文请找腾讯324,9114
These theories have been used to explain social and environmental disclosures by an entity (Deegan, 2007: 275- 304). The political cost hypothesis can also be used to explain social and environmental disclosures. For example, using the agency theory framework, Ness and Mirza (1991) found a positive association between environmental disclosures in annual reports of large UK companies and the oil industry. Thus, the legitimacy theory and the stakeholder theory may be considered competing theories of PAT. However, no theory explains fully the phenomena explained by the other theory. Furthermore, as Deegan (2007) note, the theories in question are based on different assumptions. Thus, the relative explanatory power cannot be used to choose from among these theories at this stage.
5. Conclusions
This paper examines the development of PAT and compares it with three standard accounts of science: Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos. This paper shows that PAT’s methodological position fits none of these accounts fully. Rather it contains elements of all the three.
The analysis in this paper reveals that the development of PAT over the last decades may be characterized as what Kuhn (1996) calls ‘normal science’. While PAT researchers have remained committed to the basic framework for investigating accounting choices (i.e., management incentives explain accounting choices), they have been constructively critical of colleagues’ works.
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 下一页
实证会计理论和科学英文文献和翻译 第5页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
