On Taxonomy and Accounting Research
Orace Johnson
Overturning the null leads to fame
Where empirical work is the game.'
But classes of such
Won't be worth very much
If taxonomy's viewed with disdain.
R
ECENT contributions to accounting
theory have tended to emphasize
- interdisciplinary contributions—
psychology, sociology, economics, en-
gineering, communications, mathematics,
measurement and decision theory. "The
Anglo-American literature, even account-
ing literature—at least in the sector of
micro-accounting—has been compara-
tively little concerned with the systematic
articulation of classes and groups of ac-
counts."^
If "classification" is a necessary part of
accounting theory,^ then so should be a
general philosophy of "classifying." Other-
wise we could not wittingly apprehend and
criticize contemporary examples of half-
witted pragmatism.*
The first section of this paper is con-
cerned with taxonomy per se. The second
section contains analyses of some recent
instances purporting to classify some as-
pect of accounting. The final section sum-
marizes a tentative dual taxonomy for ac-
counting research.
Any full discussion of a topic in ac-
counting would address itself to at least
six different problems of the subject: sym-
bols, definitions, theories, facts, values
and policies.
This paper is concerned with the sys-
tematic arrangement of concepts, for
which tentative definitions and provisional
64
symbols are needed to communicate. Since
a taxonomy is a system of concepts, it is
not strictly equivalent to a theory, which
is a system of propositions.* But out of a
taxonomy, hypotheses may come for em-
pirical research. In this sense, the target
of this paper is a "theory of theories in ac-
counting research." Just as the periodic
table of chemical elements presupposes the
atomic theory, the systematic classifica-
tion of accounting research may imply a
meta-theory of accounting. " . . . a change
Generous criticism given earlier versions of this paper
in seminars at the Universities of Arkansas, Iowa and
Kansas, as well as The Ohio State University, are grate-
fully acknowledged—particularly the insightful com-
ments of Raymond Dacey of the University o{ Iowa.
' David 0. Green, "ERDIAAC," Journal of Account-
ing Research (Autumn 1970), p. 279. In contrast to
Green's aesthetic judgrnent, mine is that accounting
inputs are sufficiently vile to merit the limerick style.
'Richard Mattessich, Accounting and Analytical
Methods (Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1964), p. 64.
' "The general framework of classification. . . suhsists
in the categories: asset, liahility, residual equity, in-
come, aiid cost." [Raymond J. Chambers, Accounting,
Evaluation, and Economic Behavior (Prentice Hafl,
1966), p. 133.] Such typical treatment of the classifica-
tion problem is philosophically superficial. The ac-
countmg theorist should mquire: "By what taxonomic
principles are these categories established? By what
taxonomic criteria are they defended?"
* "Classification in accounting has strong empirical
overtones and the resulting identities are by no means
'arbitrary definitions.' " [Mattessich, p. 426] Compare
that point of view with the more extreme one:
" . . . classification is arbitrary . . . " [Don W. Vickrey,
"Is Accounting a Measurement Discipline?" THE AC-
COUNTING REVIEW (October 1970) p. 736] I seek to
show in this article that accounting classification need
be neither arbitrary nor empirical, but rather could be
the expression of taxonomic logic.
' Mario Bunge, Scientific Research I (The Search for
System) (Springer-Verlag, 1967), p. 80.
Orace Johnson is Associate Professor of
Accounting ai The Ohio State University.
Johnson: Taxonomy
in the basic objectives [of accounting]
might require a reformulation of the en-
tire theoretical structure."'
TAXONOMIC PRINCIPLES
And whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that was the name thereof.
—Genesis 2:19
Classification is the primary intellectual
activity of man, older even than girl-
watching : Adam named the animals (indi-
viduals and classes) before Eve was made.
Quantification is secondary. Adam left
the counting to Noah, father of the base 2
numeral system. Afterwards, everything
that had not been named and counted was
lost in the fiood—drowned, if the story is
taken literally; forgotten, if the story is
taken symbolically.
"The major task in setting up any kind
of taxonomy is that of selecting appropri-
ate symbols, giving them precise and us-
able definitions, and securing the consen-
sus of the group which is to use them.'"
For several reasons that statement is
not sufficiently precise. While it does men-
tion three important problems (symbols,
definitions, and consensus), they are sepa-
rable and secondary. The major task is a
prior one, namely the conceptual problems
of taxonomy. Making a list of symbols that
people commonly use is easy. But a list is
not necessarily part of a classification
scheme; and a list of classes does not
necessarily imply a taxonomy.
The acknowledged principles of taxon-
omy are few: first, the principal for par-
titioning; second, the relation among
classes; and third, the relation among
taxons.*
A taxonomy by definition rests explicitly
on a clear statement of the principal. Does
the object universe have more than one
conceptual domain, field, dimension or
characteristic? Which is the principal to
be partitioned?
Since classification involves specifying
65
similarities and differences, and since
things differ in respect to that which they
have in common, taxonomic relationships
must refer to some common base of simi-
larity (different as snowflakes: similar as
snow.)
Since all things came from somewhere,
go somewhere, have associations, and have
discernible parts, some general taxonomic
principals might be (respectively) genetic,
teleologic, ecologic, and morphologic. Only
morphology implies classification on the
basis of similarities and differences among
objects themselves considered as entities
in their own right. The other three imply
relationships to things outside the universe
being ordered: origins, consequences, and
functions.*
I use the term "emissive" to mean a
system of categories in which a single
principal is the effective reference for every
class and taxon definition. I use the term
"taxon" to mean a level of generality cre-
ated by hierarchical grouping of classes,
and the term "dass" to mean a horizontal
division of some taxon.'" Table 1 shows the
relation between taxons and classes. Greek
letters designate taxons from alpha, the
more general, to delta the more specific.
Classes are distinguished by a separate set
of names for each taxon: Roman numerals
for alpha taxon; capital letters for beta
taxon; Arabic numerals for gamma taxon;
and small letters for delta taxon.
' Eldon S. Hendriksen, Accounting Theory (Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), p. 3. The same phrase is used in
the revised edition (1970), p. 3.
' Benjamin Bloom (ed.). Taxonomy of Educationd
Objectives: Cognitive Domain (David McKay Co., 1956),
p. 11.
' In one of the better attempts at discussing account-
ing taxonomy, the assertion is made that "Perfect
class assignment should be informative, exhaustive,
consistent, and economical." [Mattessich, p. 44, in
relation to the thirteenth of his eighteen assumptions,
"classification."] But the descriptive adjectives were not
defined.
' George Gaylord Simpson, Principles of Animal
Taxonomy (Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 27.
'" Mattessich (pp. 62-63) makes substantially the
same horizontal/vertical distinction, but he did not
use the term "taxon" in this connection.
66
GENERALIZED TAXONOMIC CATEGORIES
Taxons
a I
/3 A B
T 1 2 3
a b c d e f g h
The generalized taxonomy in Table 1 is
not bounded on the bottom. This is to
indicate that a given scheme should be
open for development of finer distinctions
at a more particular taxon. Expansion of
the conceptual universe would require
more general taxons at the top and more
classes at the right.
Classes may be nominal only, but the
taxons must be ordered,^^ so that an alpha
class includes two or more beta classes. The
usual treatment of "class and subclass"
(genus and species) is not sufficient be-
cause the ordered levels of generality are
essential to a rigorous and complete classi-
fication.
For each taxon, the classes must be
mutually exclusive and collectively ex-
haustive. That is, each taxon must parti-
tion the entire principal with regard to
variations at some level of generality, in
such a way that no conceivable classes
overlap. Each class would include as part
of its definition the specificity or generality
of its taxon.
For example, the taxonomic (or cate-
gorical, as opposed to operational)*^ defi-
nition of class "e" would include the ideas
describing al, fiA and 72 as divisions of
the ordered principal with which e was
similar to c and d; plus the ideas of the 8
taxon differences from c and d. Stated in
another way, the phylogenetic definition
The Accounting Review, January 1972
TABLE 1
Classes
TI
C D h
t 5 i' 7 S 9 10 11 12—
i j k I m n 0 P q r s t u V w X y %—
of apple would include ideas of kingdom
(plant) and family (deciduous) similarity
plus the ideas of difference from other
species (pear, cherry, and the like).
Changing taxons in the middle of a list
is confusing because it introduces disorder
—maybe even more disorder than chang-
ing horses in the middle of a stream.
Lists such as "I, B, 5, g" (perhaps com-
parable to animal, canine, wolf, boxer) and
"/, C,8,t" (comparable to animal, flower,
coniferous, winesap) are technically emis-
sive but faulty because they are not
taxonomically consistent. They are not
effective lists, because the members (as
class names) are not all drawn from the
same taxon. An effective class list is from
one taxon.
Even more confusion is introduced by
changing principals in. the middle of a list.
Given their common definitions, there is
no way that red (a color), sweet (a taste),
Wednesday (a time), aluminum (a ma-
terial), and father (a genealogical relation)
can be emissive, because the specifics refer
to different principals. However, color (a
" Mattessich (p. 63) " I t follows that the 'horizontal
dimension' uses mere nominal scales while the 'vertical
dimension' enforces the use of ordinal scales." (Original
italics.)
>s "We do not yet have a workable theory of opera-
tional defining." [Erwin E. Nemmers and John H.
Myers, Business Research (McGraw-Hill, 1966), p . 98.)
A workable theory of categorical defining can be traced
back at least as far as Aristotle.
Johnson: Taxonomy
sense), taste (a sense), and time (a sense)
could be considered, from a different point
of view, as classes of a single dimension
where the universe being classified is
human sensations.
No general answer is possible to the
questions, "How many classes in each
taxon? How many taxons in each system?"
The answers depend upon both the object
universe and principal characteristic being
partitioned, and further (if the taxonomy
is to be useful) the purpose of the users.
(This whole first section could have been
couched in terms of set theory. But set
theory is identified, perhaps overly so,
with mathematics, which frequently im-
plies concern for quantities and measure-
ment. The magnitude of something is only
one possible dimension. I was concerned
for other kinds of dimensions, other kinds
of classification. Therefore, I chose the
older philosophical concept, "taxon," which
does not necessarily imply numbers even
though numeral systems can be viewed as
taxonomies.)
SOME CASE STUDIES
The categories of classification, the definitions'
and the rules of correspondence should be as free
as possible from vagueness and ambiguity.
—Peter Caws
This section looks analytically at some
recent efforts to classify something. The
first case is one of the worst, from the
standard of taxonomy. The article^^ listed
thirteen approaches to teaching the sub-
ject "business and the environment." The
approaches were named as follows: his-
torical, comparative, critical, analytical-
pragmatical, issues, politico-economic, so-
ciological, ecological, ethical, philosophi-
cal, literary, futuristic, and eclectic.
This list is bad taxonomically because
it is neither emissive, exclusive, nor ex-
haustive. The article specified the universe
to be classified (approaches to teaching
courses in business and its environment).
67
but it failed to specify the taxonomic prin-
cipals from which each class would derive
its definition. No consideration was given
to taxonomic levels of generality.
However, if we assume the common
definitions of the thirteen class names, we
can infer at least three different principals
that could be used jointly for partitioning
the universe: academic genesis, intellectual
style, and temporal focus.
With the genetic principal we could use
six of the thirteen class names: ethical,
ecological, literary, philosophical, politico-
economic, and sociological. These might
be defined emissively and exclusively. But
would they be members of the same taxon?
Are they exhaustive? I suspect other aca-
demic disciplines might be the origin of
curricular content for a course in business
and its environment.
With the morphologic principal we could
use three of the thirteen classes: compara-
tive, critical, and analytical-pragmatical.
Again, these classes may be defined emis-
sively, and exclusively, but they probably
are not of the same taxon, and therefore
not exhaustive.
With the chronologic principal we can
use two more of the thirteen classes: his-
torical and futuristic. Clearly, the present
would be a third temporal class, and would
exhaust the taxon.
The two remaining names in the list are
"issues" and "eclectic." The former prob-
ably overlaps with both the genetic and
morphologic classes, and so is redundant.
The eclectic class is obviously not mu-
tually exclusive with regard to any other
class. But what taxonomic principal would
yield eclectic (i.e., a little of everything) as
one variation? We might imagine many
college catalog courses to be "a lot of
" J . Boddewyn, "Business and the Environment:
Thirteen Approaches in Search of a Teacher," Col-
legiate News and. Views (March 1970), p. 3. Although
this was not an accounting article, the subject seems
relevant for taxonomic analysis.
68
nothing." We might name that class "non-
entity," and designate nonentity and eclec-
tic to be exclusive, but what is the prin-
cipal? What would be the categorically
emissive definition of eclectic?
The specific class names from the start-
ing list, if arranged in correct taxonomic
orders, would yield not 11 but6X3X2 = 36
different classes, each dass being defined
by reference to three principal character-
istics : subject, style, and time. This cross-
classification is taxonomically superior to
the original list because the three-dimen-
sional matrix would have explicitly defined
principals.
Approaches to Accounting Theory
One notable exception to the general
neglect—and the conspicuous absence—of
innovative inquiry by accountants into the
classification problem is the work in ac-
counting theory by Eldon Hendriksen."
His classification of "approaches to ac-
counting theory" is a novel contribution to
our literature.
His textbook in accounting theory—
which is the leading, if not the only, book
of its kind—does not, however, specify the
taxonomic principal (s) for classifying the
object universe. Given the common defi-
nitions of his eleven class names,^^ we can
infer at least two difEerent principals:
genetic and morphologic.
If we reject eclectic—that ubiquitous
confession of taxonomic failure—as an
improper class, the result of a two-dimen-
sional cross-classification would be 4X6
= 24 different approaches to accounting
theory instead of ten. Each dass would be
defined with regard to both academic sub-
ject origin and intellectual style, as shown
in Table 2.
This rearrangement of ten dass names
in two dimensions is not intended as a
defense of this particular dassification
matrix. It simply illustrates a correct per-
ception of the effect of multiple dimen-
The Accounting Review, January 1972
TABM 2
A DUAL TAXONOMY FOR ACCOUNTING THEORIES:
CLASSIFICATION BY GENETIC AND
MORPHOLOGIC PRINCIPALS
(Adapted from Hendriksen)
N. Intellectual
X Style Non-
Induc- Deduc- Prag- theoret-
tive tive matic ical
Academic N,
Origin ^^
Ethical
Communication
Behavioral
Sociological
Macroeconoinic
Theory of
Accounts
sions. Hendriksen may have hinted at this
when he wrote: "These approaches, how-
ever, are not independent of each other.
Generally more than one must be used either
explicitly or implicitly in the development
of accounting principles."^* (Emphasis
added.)
One might speak about artists, pictures,
colors, and forms in a parallel way. These
colors and forms are not independent of
each other. Generally more than one of
each must be used in painting a picture.
But pity the would-be artist (accountant
or theorist) who shys from making distinc-
tions among colors and forms (assets or
approaches to theory) on the grounds that
they are not independent in use. In order
to use each well, their differences and simi-
larities must be respected. Such respect in
" Hendriksen, Chapter 1 of both the 1965 and 1970
editions.
^ The 1965 edition (p. 3) named only seven classes
of research: deductive, inductive, pragmatic or com-
mon law, ethical, communications theory, behavioral,
and sociological. The 1970 edition (p. 3) added macro-
economic, nontheoretical, and a theory of accounts
approach.
" Hendriksen, (1970 edition), p. 3. The comparable
sentence in the earlier edition contains the weaker verb
"is used."
Johnson: Taxonomy
use cannot arise without rigorous, cate-
gorical distinctions.
Budgeting
The following scheme was recently tried
by Yuji Ijiri, J. C. Kinard and F. B.
Putney for classifying articles and books
on budgeting:
"Tjrpe of Organization
Aspects of Budgeting
Areas of Application
Merit Evaluation.""
This indentation should not be inter-
preted as reflecting taxons of the literature
on budgeting in the same way that the
Linnean scheme does for the natural uni-
verse.^^ Rather, these are four different
dimensions, each of which might be a can-
didate for creating a taxonomy. These four
dimensions were used in selecting the litera-
ture for the bibliography on budgeting.
But, "Merit Evaluation, Type of Organi-
zation, and Aspects of Budgeting . . . did
not provide a workable basis for group-
ing."^' That is to say, the universe had at
least three defining characteristics that
were not used as principals in the final
classification scheme.
The bibliography was classified in a
reference matrix of two dimensions, "Areas
of Application" and "Techniques." The
latter characteristic was not used in the
initial determination of the bibliographic
universe. "Techniques" might be a sub-
class of what I have called "morphology"
or "intellectual style." "Areas of Applica-
tion" might be a subclass of "teleology" or
"consequences."
Concerning the reference matrix they
wrote :
. . . a number of cells can be seen to have few, if
any, entries. Given the noted problems in group-
ing the covered literature, perhaps this will be
useful in selecting areas for research.^'
Whether the I-K-P dual taxonomy is
useful for selecting research, or for some
69
other purpose, is an empirical question and
waits to be answered. Other principals and
more than two dimensions might be con-
sidered, and the results compared with
some clearly stated criteria.
Empirical Propositions
Another recent attempt to classify a
different part of the accounting literature
was reported by Thomas H. Williams and
Charles H. Griffin.^* They directed their
"attention to the procedures and proposi-
tions which are currently being subjected
to 'empirical verification.' "^
Relying on some implicit functional (as
opposed to categorical) definitions, they
created five classes of empirical research
projects:
1. Effect of accounting measurements
on users,
2. Relationship between accounting
measurements and selected depen-
dent variables,
3. Behavior patterns of accounting mea-
surements,
4. Effect of users on accounting mea-
surements,
5. Miscellaneous research projects.^
The most that can be claimed taxonomi-
cally for these five classes is that they
may be exclusive. Since no taxonomic
principal was explicitly stated, and since
" Yuji Ijiri, J. C. Kinard, and F. B. Putney, "An
Integrated Evaluation System for Budget Forecasting
and Operating Performance with a Classified Bibliog-
raphy," Journal of Accounting Research (Spring 1968),
pp. 1-28. They gave only the briefest indication that
the logic of taxonomy is a problem in its own right.
1' One version of the Linnean scheme has nine taxons:
empire, kingdom, phyllum, class, order, family, genus,
species, variety. The taxonomic work of Linnaeus
(Carl von Linne') (1707-1778) prepared the way for
subsequent exploration by Charles Darwin (1809-1882).
To imagine that the work of Darwin was purely induc-
tive is to misunderstand the heuristic role of taxonomy.
" Ijiri, Kinard and Putney, p. 12.
»»IUd.
" Thomas H. Williams and Charles H. GriflSn, "On
the Nature of Empirical Verification in Accounting,"
Abacus, (December 1969), pp. 143-78.
^ Williams and Griffin, p. 154.
^ Williams and Griffin, pp. 1S4-SS.
70
the "procedures and propositions" to
which they directed attention specified
only the object universe and not principal
characteristics, no claim can be made that
the classes are emissive or exhaustive.
However, their Appendix gives a suc-
cinct description of 43 articles according
to five aspects: the research purpose, the
basic proposition, the scope and method
of analysis, answers to the basic proposi-
tions, and generalizations. (The authors
credited an original synopsis of empirical
research projects in accounting,^ which
they had subsequently restructured and
updated.) Any of these five descriptive
characteristics could have been further re-
structured taxonomically, with greater
clarity and precision in a final multidimen-
sion grouping.
Sequential Elements
A more sophisticated approach to the
classification of empirical research was
taken by Gerald A. Feltham and Joel S.
Demski."
As a secondary part of their article
they constructed a functional classification
scheme "by considering the somewhat se-
quential elements" of their model of the
"information evaluation process".^^
Their classes of methods to evaluate
information systems were those that:
(1) studied the information system selected by
different evaluators;
(2) studied the relationship between alterna-
tive information systems and signals;
(3) analyzed information signal differences by
means of some surrogate evaluator (such
as predictive accuracy);
(4) analyzed the action differences induced by
information system differences;
(5) observed the differences in events caused
by different actions resulting from informa-
tion differences;
(6) implemented directly a cost-benefit per-
spective.
Feltham and Demski did not attempt
to give an annotated bibliography, but
The Accounting Review, January 1972
rather cited some articles to illustrate some
of the possible classes of research sug-
gested by their model. No explicit com-
ments were made as to the taxonomic
principal, or whether the defined classes
were emissive, exhaustive, or exclusive.
Functional Relations
Another recent functional approach to
classifying accounting research projects
was both more general and more explicit
than the Feltham-Demski model. Whereas
Feltham and Demski were concerned with
decision methods and the use of models in
information evaluation, Johnson''^ was
concerned with taxonomic organization of
potential research relating to accounting.
His pyramid of equations could be viewed
as analogous to the familiar bookkeeping
cyde in an accounting principles course.
It could be called an "information system
cycle," functionally relating major cate-
gories of dependent and independent vari-
ables. But since the article was not de-
voted primarily to classification and gave
neither a bibliography nor illustrations of
class membership, the applicability has
not yet been demonstrated.
Johnson defined seven functional levels
in a hierarchical pyramid of complexity,
as follows: (The numbers in parentheses
refer to the above numbering of the
Feltham-Demski classes of evaluation
methods. While the primary concerns were
different, these two classification schemes
are seen to be conceptually compatible.)
1(1) Information systems are functions of
primitive events and prior utilities;
" Williams and Griffin, p. 178, crediting B. Ann
Smith, "Empirical Verification in Accounting: A
Behavioral Science Perspective," unpublished Master's
professional report (The University of Texas Graduate
School of Business, January 1968), pp. 51-58.
» Gerald A. Feltham and Joel S. Demski, "The Use
of Models in Information Evaluation," THE ACCOUNT-
ING REVIEW (October 1970), pp. 623-40.
» Feltham and Demski, p. 636.
" Orace Johnson, "Toward an Events Theory of
Accounting," THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (October
1970), pp. 641-53.
Johnson: Taxonomy
2(2) Transmitted communication signals are
functions of the information system and
the events to be reported;
3 User perceptions of accounting events are
functions of transmissions and barriers to
perfect perceptions and inferences;
4(3) Forecasts are functions of perceived data
and other nonaccounting variables;
5(4) Action decisions are functions of forecasts
and other nonaccounting variables;
6(5) Subsequent realities are functions of ac-
tion decisions and uncontrollable inter-
ventions;
7(6) Changes in utilities (payofFs) are functions
of action consequences and other variables.
Omission of the third stage in the sequence
from information systems to changes in
utility (payoff) would be detrimental to
the future development of accounting the-
ory. If no research were performed in this
area, which includes such problems as the
(alleged) phenomenon of "information
overload," an evaluation of information
systems could not take into consideration
the potential for and effects of user mis-
perceptions.
DUAL CLASSIFICATION
It is a common trait of intellectual snobbery . . .
to think that scientifically significant problems
must always be associated with differentials and
integrals, probability functions, difference equa-
tions, power series, or other "complicated" rela-
tions, while . . . neither the complexity nor the
importance of a "taxonometric" approach is per-
ceived.
—Richard Mattessicb
The use of a single taxonomic principal
(origin, structure, or function) implies a
judgment that differences in no other char-
acteristic are relevant. Such a judgment
might be hard to defend, particularly
where the universe is as complex as ac-
counting theory research. When more than
one principal is relevant, multidimensional
classifications should be explored, with
careful attention to defining each class
with regard to each principal.
One authority insists that the basis of
" . . . classification should be relationships
71
among the . . . [objects] themselves, con-
sidered as entities in their own right, and
not their relationships to other things
[outside the universe to be ordered] such
as environment [ecologic] or usefulness
[teleologic]."^* This suggests that mor-
phologic and genetic characteristics could
be the basis for a rigorous dual taxonomy
of accounting theory research, as in Table
3.
This dual taxonomy could be applicable
to any topic in accounting. Or, if one were
to contemplate classifying all accounting
research, "topic" could be a third princi-
pal. Whether articles could be identified
as exploring just one topic as approached
from just one discipline with just one style
would depend upon the articles themselves
and the observer's preceptions. Like a
conglomerate firm and Standard Industrial
Classification, research contributions could
be eclectic, even though that term were
excluded from the classification scheme of
product forms and origins.
Ultimately, if there were consensus as
to the "value ordering" of classes along
each dimension, a judgment as to merit of
the kind of project could be part of the
taxonomic classification. For example,
consensus may exist now that the very
worst sort of intellectual, academic activity
would be personal comments on bookkeep-
ing customs (i.e., cells near the lower right
corner of the matrix). Consensus is likely
remote on what is the best kind of research,
though it might tend to be toward the
upper left of the matrix.
The recent work of Williams and Griffin,
Feltham and Demski, and Johnson could
be interpreted as a third dimension (func-
tional) cross-classification at the gamma
taxon of empirical work arising from eco-
nomic and behavioral sciences.
To some readers the scheme of Table 3
may appear arbitrary. Why is mathe-
" Simpson, p. 27.
72 The Accounting Review, January 1972

T.'VBLE 3
A TAXONOMIC M A T W X TOR ACXOUN-TING THEORY RESEARCH

Morphologic Dimension (Structural Style)

a Material Ideal Personal

Empir- Experi- Gene- Synthet- Analyt- Anec- Honor- Pejor-

(3
ical mental alogical ical ical dotal ifU ative

Mensuration

Economics
Genetic Dimension (Disciplinary Origin)

Science

Psychology

Sociology
Engineering
Lingxiistics

Mathematics
Philosophy

Metaphysics
*
Epistemology

Ethics

Law
Custom

Bookkeeping

matics part of philosophy instead of sci- is. Categorical differences, definitional

ence? Why are epistemology and mensura- distinctions, and taxonomic relationships
tion isolated? Why separate metaphysics are indispensable tools for the advance-
and linguistics? The world is a much more ment of accounting theory.
complicated space/time than any multi- How should this article be identified?
dimensional taxonomy can contain. Ulti- Is it primarily synthetical or analytical in
mately everything is related to everything form? Is it primarily epistemological or,
else. However, we can chose to emphasize metaphysical in derivation? My own per-
certain interconnections without claiming sonal identification is indicated by the
that other definitions and relations are asterisk. Some readers might object that
impossible. it is primarily pejorative in form and
For example, in the real world space and others might claim that its genesis was
time are inseparable. Because the act of mathematics. There might be no con-
observing takes place in both dimensions, sensus on the identification of this or any
no spatial knowledge can be attained from other article in terms of Table 3.
outside of time, and no temporal knowl- It is offered as tentative, exploratory,
edge can be attained from outside of space. provisional, hypothetical. In spite of ef-
But without the conceptual distinctions, forts to achieve a glossary that contains
man would now be more confused than he only definitions that are categorically logi-
Johnson: Taxonomy
cal, there may be error. But to say that a
class might have been named differently,
or that names might have been defined
differently, are not relevant criticisms. The
assertion that there are alternatives is not
an evaluation. Table 3 should be judged
first by its internal logic and then by its
practical applicability, when compared to
the logic and application of other schemes.
It may come nowhere near passing the
tests of consistency and utility.
As R. K. Mautz said, "We also need
research into the methods of organizing
and structuring knowledge.'"*' Closer at-
tention to taxonomic rigor is bound to be
valuable.
Remember, accountancy scholars
Intent on researching the dollars.
Before you can count
Any kind of amount:
Taxonomy is first: all else foilers.
A (TENTATIVE) GLOSSARY OF
"TAXONOMIC DEFINITIONS"
MORPHOLOGIC—the Structural property or char-
acteristic as a primary description of the form
of something.
a I Material—pertaining to physical substance;
expressing that which is significant, rich in in-
formation.
/3 A Empirical—material derived from uncon-
trolled field events under partially known con-
ditions specifically selected for the purpose of
improving the prediction of future experience
in the light of past experience.
j3 B Experimental—material relating to a test or
trial under determined conditions by special
observation made to confirm, disprove, or dis-
cover some unknown but hypothesized prin-
ciple or effect; to test, establish, or illustrate
something known.
j3 C Genealogical—material pertaining to an ac-
count of the descent of an individual, family, or
group from older forms; enumeration of ances-
tors in the natural order of succession; in a
larger sense, history of human organizations
and ideas.
a II Ideal—existing as a patterning or archetypal
idea, mental image, conception, or perfect
exemplar.
|3 D Synthetical—an Ideal that pertains to a
combining of parts so as to form a whole; the
73
process of building up a complex from factors,
forces, or ideas; such complex being a judg-
mental choice by the synthesizer instead of
necessarily connoted by the parts.
/8 E Analytical—an ideal that pertains to an ex-
amination of a whole with regard to its dis-
tinguishing elements or constituent parts; or
to an assumption of results and then reasoning
back to the data or previously established prin-
ciples to prove a proposition.
a III Personal—^pertaining to a particular per-
son's character, conduct, motives, private
affairs, or observations.
j3 F Anecdotal—separable incidents or events of
curious interest, told without malice and with-
out regard to deductions from science and
theory, with the intent to amuse or inform.
/3 G Honorific—conferring or imparting honor or
respect; praising words or phrases; a class of
epithets used in respectful address.
/3 H Pejorative—depreciatory, disparaging, invi-
dious, tending to make worse.
GENETIC—the origin or source of anything, as a
description of its beginning or coming-into-be-
ing.
a I Science—a branch of study which is concerned
with specific observation and classification of
facts; a strictly quantitative formulation of
verifiable general laws (chiefly by induction and
hypotheses).
^ A Mensuration—the science that deals with the
act, process, or art of measuring.
/3 B Economics—the science that investigates the
conditions and laws affecting the production,
distribution, and consumption of wealth.
|3 C Psychology—the science that treats the mind
of man or other organisms in any of its aspects;
the phenomena of consciousness and individual
behavior.
j8 D Sociology—the science of the origin and
evolution of society, or of the forms, institu-
tions, and functions of human groups; the
collective behavioral interaction of cultures.
/3 E Engineering—the science by which the prop-
erties of matter and the sources of power are
made useful to man in structures, machines,
and manufactured products.
/3 F Linguistics—the science of human speech or
communication in all its aspects; the origin,
nature, structure and modification of language.
a II Philosophy—a branch of study which investi-
gates the most general aspects of reality; con-
cern with evaluation rather than description;
principles or general conceptions underlying a
" R. K. Mautz, "Accounting as a Social Science,"
THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW, (April 1963), p. 323.
74
given branch of learning; the love of wisdom.
G Mathematics—the philosophy which treats
of the exact relations existing between quan-
tities and operations; and of the method by
which, in accordance with these relations, quan-
tities sought are deducible from others known
or supposed.
H Metaphysics—the philosophy which deals
with being and the fundamental causes and
processes in things.
I Epistemology—the philosophy which deals
with the methods and grounds of knowledge,
especially with reference to its limits and
validity.
The Accounting Review, January 1972
P J Ethics—the philosophy which relates to moral
action, motive, or character; conforming to
professional standards of conduct; relating to
the ideal human character and the ideal ends
of human action.
a III Custom—a form or course of action char-
acteristically repeated under like circumstances;
habitual usage.
fi K Law—the social custom that has by long
continuance acquired a legally binding force.
/3 L Bookkeeping—the custom of making a syste-
matic record of business transactions to show
their relations and the state of the business.