Contemporary Accounting Theory: Kuhn, Chambers, and Revolutions

This report delves into Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions and its relevance to the field of accounting. It begins by reviewing Kuhn's concept of paradigms and how scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts, focusing on the structure of scientific revolutions. The report then examines the contributions of Professor Ray J. Chambers, an Australian academic, who introduced revolutionary concepts to overcome the limitations of traditional accounting practices. Specifically, the report explores Chambers' work within the eras of normative and positive accounting, analyzing his innovative ideas and their impact on financial reporting. Finally, the report critically assesses how Chambers' ideas have been received and critiqued, both during his contemporary period and in the context of accounting reforms in the twenty-first century. The report highlights the ongoing debates and evolution of accounting theory in response to changing financial realities.

Running head: KUHN’S CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING THEORY
Kuhn’s Contemporary Accounting Theory
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:
Course ID:

1
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Executive summary
The aim of the report is to make a evaluation of the Kuhn’s theory of paradigm as an
intellectual framework which makes research conceivable. It is contended that the period
could globally be unstated as a disciplinary medium in a sociological outline while the
beginning mostly signifies to the actual puzzle clarifications that could be unspoken as
instances of good science. It is experiential that the process of paradigm alteration for Kuhn
leads to a scientific revolution. Lastly Kuhn’s disagreement on incommensurability of
contrasting paradigm and the aberrant of impartiality are also conferred in this report.

2
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Discussion..................................................................................................................................4
Gap in literature..........................................................................................................................5
Conclusion................................................................................................................................11
Reference..................................................................................................................................12

3
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Introduction
Thomas Kuhn’s the structure of scientific revolution is a landmark in the history and
philosophy of science possibly the most significant work in the last third of the century, and
effortlessly among the most valuable research of the 20th century. From 1966 to 1983 it was
the most cited book in the arts of humankinds citation index and a present assessment
inductee that on usual has been cited more than once per day from the date of its initial
publication. Structure also ruins matchless between works in the history and philosophy of
science for achievement of a figure spectators and some of its significant opinions have had
an unchanging broader consequence. As such the guardian currently listed it as the 21st most
significant factual books of all time. Perhaps the extreme enduring and far accomplishment
impression is that of paradigm shifts which, as McCrum notes, has displayed so popularity
that bit recognized the concluding compliment no less than four new Yorker spoofing.
The famous researcher Thomas Kuhn in his book the structure of scientific revolution
pronounces the catalyst that sources a figure of information to convert paradigms, what
occurred through the procedure of alteration and the influence on exercise as the variations
occur. The research of Kuhn however emphases on the paradigms and uprising in the
background of the hard sciences, though, the procedure that he pronounces delivers a in depth
information about the variations in the social science as well. The most important variance
between the Kuhn’s scientific revolution and the alteration in the values of accounting is that
the substance of change in the hard science (like astronomy, physics, dynamics and optics)
are the physical law of nature, while the catalyst of alteration in the social sciences are the
social environments within the area of their function.

4
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Discussion
Undertake a review of literature to discuss what Kuhn’s explained about the paradigm
and structure of scientific revolutions.
The structure of scientific revolution Kuhn’s misconception of normal science
Over the last 50 years subsequently the printing of the construction of scientific
upheavals several of the Thomas Kuhn’s instigation of usual science undergo the
consequence discerning around how science advanced. Investigation in a field is regularly
predictable to be preoccupied by a chief paradigm. The paradigm is theoretical for the
direction of the problems that are communicated through instructions and the response that
are created. Science is regularly associated to a process of problem solving. Though, we deal
with that Kuhn highly overvalued the role of the paradigm in study and meaningfully
underrated the hypothetical expansions that take place in usual science. In our views, his
place seemed functional only since he changed the connotation of paradigm from the creation
to the whole congregation of views and accomplishes in a area. He also overstated expert’s
potential to a paradigm and the degree to which they are intolerant in the direction of
authentication. Kuhn’s misconception stalk in part, from psychological misassumptions about
the balanced and inducement of scientists. We achieve by expressing that the modest amount
stipulate that maximum important findings are made through usual science and that the
revolution measured by Kuhn are not leading to the development of science (Sanbonmatsu &
Sanbonmatsu 2017).
Implication of paradigm shift in nursing
By searching responses to ontological and epistemological queries, nursing scholars
discovered the basis of nursing and uttered the connotation of nursing science from numerous
philosophical viewpoints. This continuing search for progression and expansion of nursing

5
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
bring into line with the idea of usual discipline by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s science effect
nursing knowledge subsequent in the growth of nursing metaparadigm and paradigms.
Notwithstanding the effect, Kuhn’s science significance of nursing science established a little
scrutinization. This article grants a perilous examination of Kuhn’s science and its effect on
and significance for nursing discipline and proposes insinuation for nursing knowledge
expansion (Younas & Parsons 2019).
Historical development and paradigm shift in public health nutrition science, guidance
and policy actions.
Public health nutrition pursues to protect and sanction the nutrition related health and
relief of people. Public health nutrition science of vigorous and has altered over time, serving
to inform our thought of the changing nature, option, and response to public health nutrition
malfunctions. The scientific substance has well-versed nutrition direction and strategy. By
means of a account combination technique and absorbed by Kuhn’s theory on the association
of a scientific uprisings, this paper appraisals the historical growths of the public health
nutrition pointing to comprehend the appearance of main scientific paradigms, paradigm
vicissitudes and sign well-versed way and policy (Ridgway, et al 2019).
Gap in literature
The structure of scientific revolution Kuhn’s misconception of normal science
The article only expresses about the delusion of usual science but the theory of Kuhn
covers more topics than the misapprehension of usual science Kuhn concept provides more
particulars about the radical variations that changed in the scientific theories over the period.
Implication of paradigm shift in nursing

6
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
This article speaks a little about the effect of Kuhn theory on nursing only but the
Kuhn theory also covers many other concepts like accountancy, management and so on.
Historical development and paradigm shift in public health nutrition science, guidance
and policy actions
This web article considers only about the paradigm shift in public health and nutrition
science but Kuhn covers the entire field of science so there is a little information in the article
about the theory of Kuhn.
The measure to faithful characterize economic constituent will necessitate consultants
to depend more on specialized decision. Thus, instead of concentrating on the application of
rule, experts will want to comprehend the economic ingredient of the experience so that the
phenomenon is authentically represented on the financial statement (Orman 2016).
Alteration of the working world
The final characteristic that results from a revolutionary shift to a new paradigm is
that the working world of practitioner is altered. All the changes described in this paper will
have an active influence on the accounting profession. In the past because of the historical
cost measurement attribute, accountants might have been appropriately called the
allocators.in todays environment they might better be known as estimators (Blum et al 2016).
Chambers’ revolutionary contributions in accounting in the eras of normative and
positive accounting.
In the pre 1956 period of the twentieth century, academic accounting was mostly
communicative of the practice of accounting. this fundamentally descriptive method was
undisturbed to question its own procedure for rigour and consistency. This issue is referred to
by chamber’s who regretted the lack of thoughtful, methodical intellectual fundamental

7
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
accounting theory as the enunciation of the practice. If it is virtuously practical in design,
then no obvious law can strengthen it. Practice does, however, assume inherent hypothesizes.
simply only some indefensibly unclear hypothesize, such as the disagreement from
traditionalism could be inaugurated as a hypothetical promise (Schmelzer 2015). This is
nearly implicit pragmatism. It could be expressed in the following points:
 Current practices have endured and changed over a long period of time.
 Permanency necessitates the expediency and achievement of the enduring technology.
 The permanency principles get more assessment in the accounting practices.
 The sole reasonable area of theoretical question in accounting is to explain current
practices.
This general method is overdetermined in several fonts. It is not clear that durability
includes the optimality of current practice. It is not transparent how a politely historical
technique to theory could discourse developing glitches in a energetic environment. Myriad
sources, may explain current accounting, thus it cannot be known whether its realism and
achievement are the products of capture, or approximately other issue confusing its impartial
supremacy. From this it is obligatory to abandon the misunderstanding of the point. However,
as well-known before it was, this method that succeeded in the first half of the twentieth
century (Khorasani & Almasifard 2017).
There are explanations to incredulity the brilliance of this early method to accounting
question. It is only imaginable to anxiously accomplish the theoretical basis to such a
technique. More than this it is not lively that the imaginary hypothetical base, the argument
from liberalism, is chiefly comprehensible as a comparative to accounting theory (Hassan &
Mingers 2018).
The upsurge of the normative theories

8
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
During the period of customary inductive imperial accounting theory, and following
to it, academic accounting revolved to emphasis on the normative accounting theory from
around the mid 1950’s. Almost from 1956 to 1970 normative accounting theorists come to
the front, trying to advance a common theory of accounting. The method functioned in a
commonly logical mode and hesitated among the true income method and the user needs
method. Among academics contributing to the logical/ normative approach to accounting
theory was framed by chambers. His proposed accounting system arranged investor needs
which he supposed would be best met by continuously contemporary accounting theory. As a
standard example of the inner consistency gaining from such a theory and the imaginable
limits of it, the conversation goes to reflect chambers theory (Sunder 2015).
Positive accounting
The concept that chamber contribute for the positive accounting theory was by the
innovation of the unceasingly modern accounting. The main matter that stimulates
unceasingly for modern accounting, was that stockholders need to recognize the exit value of
the company at any point. Fundamentally the view was chamber’s fondness for evidence on
firm elasticity comparative to a lively business environment. Where the current conversation
varies in the referent base to commentary as a subject knotted to investor attention in the firm
as an energetic component of its environment. Important to this location is that stakeholders
exactly exchange the flexibility of cash for the anticipation to larger returns specific to the
going concern supposition of explicit firms (Zalaghi & Khazaei 2016).
Approach to theory development
A significant features of chambers work is his liberty from connotation with the pre
existing conservative accounting schools of thought. Chamber is not dedicated to any solitary
technique or research community for emerging and endorsing his ideas. His method is based
on his investigation of the history and philosophy of science and his examination of

9
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
connected or more advanced fields. When the effort of chamber is inspected, his main
influences are unusually consistent. This constancy is difficult to find in other scholars whose
writing has been created over a period of time. Thus, when a innovative matter is brought up
in a concurrent paper, one discovers the fundamental ideas consistent with the disagreement
obtainable in previous decades (Park 2018).
Appreciate how Chambers has been accepted or criticised in his contemporary period
and in the era of reforms in accounting (financial reporting) in the twenty-first century.
The uninterruptedly contemporary method of chamber has been extremely
disapproved. The main aim to discard chambers perception of CoCoA is that the philosophy
purposes at the accounting valuation constancy and standardisation but it disastrous to do
that. Chamber claim that the assorted representative measurement (net present value, value in
use, realizable value and replacement cost, or historical cost) are relieved by an extraordinary
method (Oldroyd Tyson & Fleischman 2015).
The second aim of the disparagement is that the financial reports are always, and
unavoidably flawed representations of a company’s procedure. They cannot be
comprehensive imageries. It is the role of a normative accounting theory to flinch constraint
to nourish the maximum possible correctness of these precises.
Criticism of the CoCoA
Critics mainly criticise the fact that CoCoA is inconsistent by allowing for different valuation
measures, which does not go in line with the going concern assumptions and does not give
value to the problem of limited availability of the market prices and deny the other side of the
balance sheet.

10
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
The critics held the fact that the accounting system proposed by chambers is based on
the liquidation value orientation and for that reason the value of the firm gets undervalued as
an entity whose sum value is greater than its parts. Chambers on the other hand give the
argued that the going concern assumptions is widely misunderstood. Despite of the original
assumptions intentions that firms have during the time of acquiring the assets changes in the
technological and economic environments would definitely affect the decisions regarding
keeping the assets or to dispose it off. There is no acceptable justification regarding the
assumption that when an asset is purchased, it must be kept for its entire life. the changes in
assets occurred as the business plan changes from time to time in response to the shift of the
environment (Weatherall & Gilbert 2015).
According to chambers a going concern assumption is based on the firm’s ability to
adapt to new environments and to sustain in a dynamic future. This concept implies that the
firm will not stop its operation immediately, but it should transform its operation. Its future is
not necessarily go in line with property or the useful life of the assets but with their
usefulness to contemporary market requirements.in addition to that chamber also pointed out
that there is a difference between market selling prices under pressure by creditors for
example in case of winding up and market prices under normal day to day business condition.
CoCoA does not assume that liquidation values are identical to current market prices. Market
prices can be and usually are, found from several sources through the regular sequence of
action. The notion of COCOA necessitates timely apprise of the assets worth by referring
recently attained market evidence and the present values of such assets (Sammut, et al 2016).
While chamber give more importance to the left side of the balance sheet some critics
argued that he did not emphasised the right side of the balance sheet and this raise the
question of inconsistency in the assumptions of chamber’s theory. Chambers treatment of
liabilities overlook the basic assumptions of the CoCoA. Assets and liabilities should be

11
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
stated at the monetary value but chambers do not give emphasise on this assumption and give
all the importance to the CoCoA assumptions which is not right as per the argument of the
critics. As the assets are not stated at the monetary value it reduces the value of the firm and
that effects the valuation of the concern. The firm does not have to revaluate the liquid assets
that is in hand nor does it need to revaluate the loan it has borrowed from the bank. The
theory states that liabilities always have explicit contractual monetary values, the explanation
of their treatment did not exhaust as much effort as the treatment of the non monetary assets
required (Carstensen & Matthijs 2018).
From the analysis of the chambers work it can be said that chamber use two major
theories. In the first he used observations as a way to discover anomalies in accounting
theories and practices and the other one is the introduction of the CoCoA approach to solve
such anomalies of the accounting theories. The major fault in the theory of chamber is that he
gives more emphasis on history to explain and legitimacy of the CoCoA and does not give
importance to the practical implementation of the concept.
Conclusion
In conclusion it can be stated that the application of the Kuhn theory enables us to
gain knowledge about the changes in the accounting policies in the modern era. The
paradigm of changes has been explained in the theory of Kuhn from which it is possible to
get an idea about the fact that accounting principles will follow a sequence of recognizable
steps. In addition to this chamber’s positive and negative approach to the accounting policies
has shown the methods that ensure more accountability in the preparation of the financial
statements.

12
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Reference
Blum, A. S., Gavroglu, K., Joas, C., & Renn, J. (2016). Shifting paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn
and the history of science. Edition Open Access.
Carstensen, M. B., & Matthijs, M. (2018). Of paradigms and power: British economic policy
making since Thatcher. Governance, 31(3), 431-447.
Håkanson, L., & Kappen, P. (2017). The ‘casino model’of internationalization: An alternative
Uppsala paradigm. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1103-1113.
Hassan, N., & Mingers, J. (2018). Reinterpreting the Kuhnian paradigm in information
systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 568-599.
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2015). Kuhn’s Development before and after Structure. In Kuhn’s
Structure of Scientific Revolutions-50 Years On (pp. 185-195). Springer, Cham.
Khorasani, S. T., & Almasifard, M. (2017). Evolution of management theory within 20
century: A systemic overview of paradigm shifts in management. International
Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3), 134-137.
Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2017). A theoretical framework of external
accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and
theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2), 433-469.
Oldroyd, D., Tyson, T. N., & Fleischman, R. K. (2015). American ideology, socialism and
financial accounting theory: A counter view. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27,
209-218.

13
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Orman, T. F. (2016). Paradigm” as a Central Concept in Thomas Kuhn’s
Thought. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(10), 47-52.
Orman, T. F. (2016). Paradigm” as a Central Concept in Thomas Kuhn’s
Thought. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(10), 47-52.
Park, S. (2018). Can Kuhn’s Taxonomic Incommensurability Be an Image of Science?.
Ridgway, E., Baker, P., Woods, J., & Lawrence, M. (2019). Historical developments and
paradigm shifts in Public Health Nutrition Science, guidance and policy actions: a
narrative review. Nutrients, 11(3), 531.
Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., & Valsiner, J. (2015). Social representations: a
revolutionary paradigm?.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Sanbonmatsu, K. K. (2017). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
Kuhn’s misconceptions of (normal) science. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical
Psychology, 37(3), 133.
Schmelzer, M. (2015). The growth paradigm: History, hegemony, and the contested making
of economic growthmanship. Ecological Economics, 118, 262-271.
Sunder, S. (2015). Risk in accounting. Abacus, 51(4), 536-548.
Weatherall, J. O., & Gilbert, M. (2015). Collective Belief, Kuhn, and the String Theory
Community.
Younas, A., & Parsons, K. (2019). Implications for Paradigm Shift in Nursing: A Critical
Analysis of Thomas Kuhn's Revolutionary Science and Its Relevance to
Nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 42(3), 243-254.

14
Kuhn’s contemporary accounting theory
Zalaghi, H., & Khazaei, M. (2016). The role of deductive and inductive reasoning in
accounting research and standard setting. Asian Journal of Finance &
Accounting, 8(1), 23-37.