英语论文网

art of scientific discovery and hence is purposefully excluded. The Kantian/Fichtean alternatives, on the other hand, are located at the “low” end of both the theory and methodology continuums but again with a “low” change emphasis. Again this is not surprising given an appreciation of Fichtean thought which emphasizes the subjective nature of interpretation which, at the far extreme, denies the very existence of a material world distinct from the observer. Because of this highly subjectivist emphasis the possibility for critique of alternative interpretations and thus the demand for change is naturally blunted. The Kantian/Hegelian alternatives, on the other hand, are sandwiched between these two extremes and have varying “high” to “medium” levels of prior theorization in their nature and “low” to “medium” theory-led methodological underpinning. With regard to the change emphasis it is interesting to note that the complete range of “high”, “medium” and “low” are in operation for the three alternatives. Traditional Marxism has a “high” change emphasis being highly critical of the status quo. German critical theory has a more moderate, “medium”, attitude to change whereas French critical theory has a “low” critical emphasis of the status quo. The latter may seem surprising, in some ways, due to the Hegelian influence in this school of thought. However, the Nietzschean roots have a tendency to shift the change emphasis into the “low” end of the continuum. While there is clearly a level of critique in this school of thought with its underlying emphasis that each historical period is no better, only different, from any previous era the urgency for change is removed through this underlying belief. Put simply what is the point in changing the status quo when, using Foucauldian logic and language, all that is happening is that one “disciplinary power” network is being exchanged for another? It is this underlying philosophy which makes this school of thought inevitably “low” in its emphasis for change in the status quo. These three clusters, therefore, demonstrate an increasing diversity of perspective. The Comtean alternatives are tightly clustered together in the topcell of Figure 2 with a common “low” emphasis on change. The Kantian/ Fichteans straddle three cells of Figure 2 but all have a common “low” emphasis on change. The Kantian/Hegelians also straddle three cells in Figure 2 but have distinct differences in their respective attitudes to change with the full range in operation among the three approaches. An argument for “middle-range” thinking Before proceeding it is important to stress that the following is an example of a possible design of an argument in support of a particular position on the choice dimensions depicted in Figure 1 and on the actual schools of thought highlighted in Figure 2. It is offered as a “for instance”, albeit one which the author finds convincing. While inevitably it is offered to the reader in the hope that it has persuasive power this is not its major purpose. Like all arguments it is contestable as to its logic and susceptibility to rival arguments. This is entirely accepted and acceptable. The primary purpose of the following is, however, not to convince but to use this process to remind all would-be accounting researchers that they too need to argue the merits of their chosen perspective, to defend their position and be equally prepared to be contradicted. The location of the schools of thought in Figur