ACCOUNTING AND THE PROBLEMATIQUE OF IMPERIALISM: ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the alternative frameworks adopted in empirical research in accounting in developed and colonised developing countries, and suggests that a more appropriate methodological framework is necessary to explain the emergence and subsequent development of the accounting profession in the colonised developing countries. In this regard, the paper rejects the claim that the expansion of the Western-based accountancy bodies into colonised developing countries is inevitable. Rather it posits the view that the influences of the U.K.-based Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants (ACCA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) and the dominance of Western accounting practices in the colonised developing world are intertwined with the local historical, global and cultural circumstances. Therefore, the problematique of imperialism is critical and significant for understanding the context in which the accounting profession has developed in former colonised countries. Bearing this in mind, the paper argues, then, that in order to adequately and validly investigates accounting issues in any former colonised developing nation; one has to adopt the frameworks of cultural imperialism and globalisation to fully contextualise the nature of accounting in colonised developing countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".