This paper examines select normative accounting theories.There are controversies among accounting academics regarding what an accounting theory is.
Watts and Zimmerman (1986: 2) posit that accounting theory seeks to explain and predict
accounting practice.2 Positivists like Watts and Zimmerman (hereinafter W & Z only) cite
economics and natural science disciplines such as physics, chemistry, etc.Hence, even if one wishes to study accounting as a scientific discipline,
there is more than the method advocated by W & Z (1986).3 One major criticism of W & Z's
view of accounting theory is that it unnecessarily narrows the area of accounting research
(Chua 1986; Whittington 1987).Hence the focus
of this paper shall be on these theorists' proposals on accounting recognition and measurement
and the arguments/theoretical structures behind these proposals.Starting with the twentieth century,1
normative accounting theorists had been preoccupied with developing/constructing accounting
principles.This is highly disputed by accounting
academics pursuing other strands of research (Christensen 1983; Chua 1986).in the defense of
their method and call their method 'the scientific method' (W & Z 1986: 2), thus probably
implying that there is only one method in science.The primary concern had been recognition and measurement issues.It also compares the works
reviewed.There is no a unique scientific method.Science knows many methods
(Feyerabend 1993).Science is not a
unified structure.