We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
ANA AKIM MUHASEBE ARAŞTIRMASINDA DOGMATİK ÖNYARGILAR VE KARŞI DÜŞÜNCELER.
- Authors
KANDEMİR, Canol
- Abstract
For determining the true meaning, value and importance of a scientific research, it is a prerequisite to assess all scientific researches (including the ones remaining within the domain of social practices like the accounting discipline and other social sciences) through a process which is deemed as scientific in all respects. Scientific and accounting researches which are assessed in terms of both quantitative and qualitative measures are more likely to produce solution proposals guiding, changing, correcting and useful for the researcher, research community, technical practice and society as a whole. Nevertheless, it could be observed in practice that accounting researches have been subjected to indefinite, immeasurable, and subjective assessments to a great extent and such assessments have not been supported by definite and measurable assessments representing the viewpoint of the research community at the same time. More importantly, as these dogmas are assimilated and reproduced by the research community, they have gained more power and influence by becoming a scientific tradition or even a scientific criterion and even dictate the quality, quantity, field, method, type and subject of accounting research. This commentary and think piece essay intends to discover as one of the major reasons of this situation the fact that some of the penetrating and powerful dogmatic biases which have been knowingly or unknowingly internalized by gatekeepers (i.e. editors, referees and/or jurors) and built upon simple conceptual contradictions dominate the whole gatekeeping process. The main conclusion reached by the following essay is that scientific and accounting researches appeared to be assessed according to the scientific criteria such as the clarity, logical reasoning, statistical testing procedures and data resources, but in fact this might not be the case. Behind this appearance or illusion, there remains a hidden agenda propagating functionalism, positivism and neo-classical theory but excommunicating critical and alternative theories and sheltering many dogmatic biases that implicitly or explicitly manage the whole assessment process. Apart from the vital facts that this process gives gatekeepers the power to decide upon what the quality research and even the valid information is, and also critical and alternative researches are escaped from both the society's and academia's attention because they conflict with the dominant or mainstream ideologies (Puxty and Tinker, 1988:243), some formal and informal dogmatic biases may take a de facto precedence over the scientific criteria.
- Subjects
POSITIVISM; POLICE; HEGEMONY; ACCOUNTING; MEASUREMENT
- Publication
Financial Analysis / Mali Cozum Dergisi, 2023, Vol 33, Issue 180, p1815
- ISSN
1303-5444
- Publication type
Article