Description, objectivity, and a robust pluralism: A reply to Fleischman and Tyson; Point/Counterpoint
If more than welcome in intent, Fleischman and Tyson's article "Archival Researchers: An Endangered Species?"  prompted for me another question, "With friends like this, . . . ?." It is a sad commentary on our field if their contributions are so apt to be "minimalized" that it may "embarras[s]" mainly descriptive accounting historians [Fleischman and Tyson (F&T), 1997, pp. 102, 102 fn.] to be so cited. It is probably not coincidental that other accounting scholars are likely to deem historical study more intellectual the more it is "interpretive" in a mode intellectualist. In any case, as an unembarrassed predominantly descriptive author I challenge the assumptions made that we as a class have "a [less] theoretical bent" than other historians and (by declared relativists) are prone to overstating the "objectiv[ity]" of our work [F&T, 1997, pp. 97, 102 (quoted)]. Follow-up conciliatory remarks [F&T, 1997, pp. 103-105] do not offset a gratuitous depreciation that has more broadly infected express Accounting Historians Journal (AHJ) editorial policy.
Sheldahl, Terry K.
"Description, objectivity, and a robust pluralism: A reply to Fleischman and Tyson; Point/Counterpoint,"
Accounting Historians Journal: Vol. 25
, Article 15.
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aah_journal/vol25/iss2/15