| Abstract: | This paper explains the conditional‐normative accounting methodology (CoNAM) and its origin, offering a comparison of the normative, positive, and conditional‐normative approaches. It also discusses the difference between the pragmatic versus a more scientific treatment of CoNAM. However, the main thrust of the paper is directed toward the schism in academic accounting between the positive accounting theory (PAT) and the critical interpretive view (CIV). To better understand CIV, the paper attempts to explain the philosophic roots that reach from Husserl and some Marxist writers to Foucault, Derrida, and Baudrillard. This schism seems to call for a new synthesis that avoids extreme positions but draws upon insights from both camps. In this search, CoNAM might be helpful by exploring means‐end relations and connecting value judgements to accounting theory in a fairly “objective” way. |
