The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Critical commentarty: a response to comments made regarding "Changed rules theory and the evolution of accountancy"

Critical commentarty: a response to comments made regarding "Changed rules theory and the evolution of accountancy"
Critical commentarty: a response to comments made regarding "Changed rules theory and the evolution of accountancy"
Birkin et al. (1997) applied new arguments about the evolution of life on this planet to the evolution of accountancy and derived prospects from these new arguments. The arguments were based on discoveries made in the Burgess Shale as reported and explicated by Gould (1991). In particular, the Birkin et al. (1997) paper indicated that the use made of Social Darwinism within accountancy was incorrect according to these new arguments about evolution. The comments made regarding this paper claimed that Social Darwinism and the new arguments about evolution were not incompatible, that several errors of attribution were made and that the Birkin et al. (1997) paper failed to show that Darwin's theory of natural selection was incorrect. This response reveals how those comments were based on a misreading of the Birkin et al. (1997) paper and a misinterpretation of the fossil evidence of the Burgess Shale.
1045-2354
505-511
Birkin, Frank
220efe67-6d17-4c25-b110-dd8392f3ffdb
Edwards, Pam
b7320665-a429-4254-ba16-74a7acc5ccc7
Woodward, David
9d2e5339-0477-488c-aad0-0244e63e4736
Birkin, Frank
220efe67-6d17-4c25-b110-dd8392f3ffdb
Edwards, Pam
b7320665-a429-4254-ba16-74a7acc5ccc7
Woodward, David
9d2e5339-0477-488c-aad0-0244e63e4736

Birkin, Frank, Edwards, Pam and Woodward, David (2000) Critical commentarty: a response to comments made regarding "Changed rules theory and the evolution of accountancy". Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11 (4), 505-511. (doi:10.1006/cpac.1999.0389).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Birkin et al. (1997) applied new arguments about the evolution of life on this planet to the evolution of accountancy and derived prospects from these new arguments. The arguments were based on discoveries made in the Burgess Shale as reported and explicated by Gould (1991). In particular, the Birkin et al. (1997) paper indicated that the use made of Social Darwinism within accountancy was incorrect according to these new arguments about evolution. The comments made regarding this paper claimed that Social Darwinism and the new arguments about evolution were not incompatible, that several errors of attribution were made and that the Birkin et al. (1997) paper failed to show that Darwin's theory of natural selection was incorrect. This response reveals how those comments were based on a misreading of the Birkin et al. (1997) paper and a misinterpretation of the fossil evidence of the Burgess Shale.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 2000

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 35926
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/35926
ISSN: 1045-2354
PURE UUID: 15c9cfe0-a9c2-4bfb-b7f4-58cbba147cbc

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 25 Jul 2006
Last modified: 17 Jul 2017 15:46

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×