دیالکتیک آموزش حسابداری: از هویت نقش تا هویت نفس

Within the critical accounting literature interest in accounting education appears to be growing (see, for example, Amernic, 1996; Chua, 1996; Davis & Sherman, (1996); Dillard & Tinker, 1996; Galhofer & Haslam, 1996; Neimark, 1996; Paisey & Paisey, 1996; Reiter, 1996). However, as yet the discussion does not appear to be grounded within the well-established critical education literature. Little critical analysis has been provided of the specific ways in which power may operate through accounting education, or the forms that a more critical education might take; or of the theoretical problematic of the dialectical tension that exists between both possibilities (that is between emancipation and domination). Given the significant and perhaps even primary role that social theorists have ascribed to education in the reproduction of social structures, and the maintenance of forms of subordination, this seems surprising (see, for example, Althusser, 1971). This paper draws on some well-established critical education theory in order firstly to explore the hegemonic operation of power within accounting education and secondly to use these insights as a basis for developing some thoughts on what a more critical accounting education might look like in practice.

Within the critical accounting literature interest in accounting education appears to be growing (see, for example, Dillard, 1991; Lewiset al., 1992; Grayet al ., 1994;Owenet al., 1994; Amernic, 1996; Chua, 1996; Davis & Sherman, 1996; Dillard & Tinker, 1996; Galhofer & Haslam, 1996; Neimark, 1996; Paisey & Paisey, 1996; Reiter, 1996). However, as yet there seems to be little application of the well- established critical education literature to the analysis of the political and powerful nature of accounting education (although see Lehman, 1988 and Power, 1991 as two notable exceptions). Other areas of accounting research, for example, financial accounting, management accounting and origanizational research, appear to be characterized by quite a sophisticated level of theoretical analysis which draws onthe work of Ricource (Llewellyn, 1993); Giddens (MacIntosh & Scapens, 1990), Foucault (Miller & O’Leary, 1987) and Marx (Armstrong, 1985, 1987). However, this level of theorization seems to be missing from accounting education research. Given the significant and perhaps even primary role that social theorists have ascribed to education in the reproduction of social structures, and the maintenance of forms of domination, this seems surprising (see, for example, Althusser, 1971). Althusser (1971) for example claimed that,“schools in advanced capitalist societies have become the dominant institution in the ideological subjugation of the work force”.He says, “one ideological state apparatus certainly has the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to its music; it is so silent! This is the school ” , (Althusser, 1971 in Giroux, 1983, see also, Foucault, 1977). The analysis that has taken place has tended to present accounting education as a source of subjugation and control (see, for example, Lehman, 1988; Zeff, 1989; Gray et al ., 1994; McPhail & Gray, 1996) and/or as having the potential to empower (Dillard, 1991; Gray et al ., 1994) 1 . However, little critical analysis has been provided of the speci fi c ways in which power may operate through accounting education (although see, Chua, 1996), or the forms that a more critical education might take; or of the theoretical problematic of the dialectical tension that exists between both possibilities (that is between emancipation and domination). Without a more detailed understanding of the ways in which power operates through accounting education, how can we begin to develop more critical forms of accounting education? The paper is split into two sections. The fi rst section presents a hegemonic model of the ways in which power may operate through accounting education and the second section draws on this model to present some thoughts on what a critical accounting education might look like in practice.

This paper has drawn on some well-established critical education theory in order fi rstly to explore the hegemonic ways in which power may operate through accounting education and secondly to present some thoughts on what a critical accounting education might look like in practice. Section 1 discussed some of the ways in which power may operate in a hegemonic way through accounting education. It was suggested that the knowledge conveyed to students through didactic forms of lecturing; the material structures and practices of accounting education, linguistic structures and the extent to which this knowledge matches their own habitus, all works together to manage the dialectical tension be- tween capital and labour. However, it was also suggested that accounting education and the associated struggle for the incorporation of meaning takes place within a contested arena, and that this gives accounting education a critical potential. Section 2 drew on Gramsci ’ s interpretation of consciousness in order to develop some thoughts on both the objectives and the practice of critical accounting education. It was suggested that critical accounting education needs to consider the insights from the critical education literature on the knowledge students have492 K. McPhail when they come to accounting education; the knowledge conveyed to students as they study accounting; and fi nally the way knowledge is conveyed to students. It was suggested that accounting education needs to be hermeneutically detatched from the social context within which it takes place with a view to encouraging students to take a more active part in their becoming and that this would involve (de)constructing accounting departments into democratic public spheres (Giroux, 1991). This paper concludes with a call for more critical research into accounting education (both theoretical and empirical) and calls for accounting academics to take up criticism from within and develop pedagogical practices that not only heighten the possibilities for critical consciousness but also for transformative action (Giroux, 1991)