The paranoid style in the sociology of financial reporting principles

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to analyse the character and strength of the claims made in an emerging literature offering a sociology of financial reporting principles.

Design/methodology/approach

The analysis evaluates exemplary works in the literature against the characteristics of the paranoid style first identified by Richard Hofstadter: overheated claims of a far-reaching, malign and collusive machinery of influence; a reductive, rationalistic and dualistic reading of events; weak empirics; and weak theorisation.

Findings

A significant stream within the literature is coming to be constructed in the paranoid style. Paranoid stylistics, used as a diagnostic tool, alerts us here to distorted judgement.

Research limitations/implications

Alternative ways of avoiding the dangers of paranoid-style readings are suggested, ranging from resisting the temptations towards such readings to a radical re-working of the epistemics of “socio-accounting”.

Practical implications

The danger of allowing the conclusions advanced in the literature to go unchallenged is that they may influence society’s attitude to accounting, public policy-making and scholars’ willingness to contribute to the crafting of reporting principles and standards.

Originality/value

Although paranoid style analysis has been widely used to examine narratives in other academic fields, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to apply it to scholarly accounting.

Citation

Rutherford, B.A. (2023), "The paranoid style in the sociology of financial reporting principles", Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1798-1826. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2021-1393