Drawing on extensive evidence gathered from all accounting history papers published in major research journals during the 1990s, it is argued that extant patterns of dissemination of accounting history research in international contexts are less than efficient, which in turn results in a glaring neglect of the 'majority' in 'international' journals in the English language. My understanding of the term majority refers to the subjects who conduct research (i.e., men and women affiliated to non-Anglo-Saxon institutions), the research settings (i.e., non-Anglo-Saxon environments), and the observation periods (i.e., those different from 1850-1940). At best, some of historiographies have a superficial visibility in the international arena, whereas most of them are fully neglected. I shall argue that accounting history research would gain in strength if other scholars, settings, and periods of study were added to those regularly reflected in 'international' journals. I contend that such broadening of the discipline represents the most important challenge for accounting historians in the years to come.
展开▼
