> Pekka Pihlanto
>
> Outlining Humanistic Accounting:
> The Approach to Science and Assumption about Human Nature
> (Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business
> Administration. Series A-4:1994. Turku, Finland).
>
> (Summary)
> In this paper, humanistic psychology is reviewed in order to derive
> fresh methodological ideas in relation to so-called action-oriented
> (see Lukka et al. 1984) and other subjectivist accounting research.
> This is motivated by the fact that humanistic psychology was born as a
> counter-movement, a "Third Force", vis-�-vis natural science oriented
> beha-viourism and psychoanalysis (Smith 1990). In a very similar
> manner, the action-oriented or subjectivist approach (Burrell & Morgan
> 1979) may be considered an alternative to positivistic mainstream
> accounting research (Hopper & Powell 1985, Otley 1984, Chua 1986 and
> Laughlin & Lowe 1990). The approach outlined in this paper is termed
> Humanistic Accounting.
>
> The term "humanistic psychology" was first adopted in the USA and
> Great Britain during the 1950's. Hu-manistic psychology was an
> outgrowth of the psychology of personality. One of the founders of
> this movement was Abraham H. Maslow, who is well-known in behavioural
> accounting for his model of the hierarchy of needs.
>
> Humanistic psychology is characterised by its efforts to develop a
> body of scientific knowledge about human behaviour that is guided
> primarily by a conception of how a person views himself rather than
> through the study of lower animal forms. In particular, it examines
> how persons in a social context are influenced and guided by the
> personal meanings they attach to their experiences (Hamachek 1982).
>
> The philosophical roots of humanistic psychology are to be found in
> phenomenology and existentialism. The former stresses perceptions,
> personal forms of meaning and subjective experiences, and the latter
> personal choice, freedom, and responsibility. Therefore, humanistic
> psychology focuses on human interests and values, on a person's
> ability to make conscious choices, and on self-perception (Hamachek
> 1982).
>
> These features indicate that humanistic psychology can offer a
> methodological contribution for action-oriented or subjectivist
> accounting research. In this paper, two important aspects of
> humanistic psychology are examined with this idea in mind: the
> approach to science and assumption about human nature.
>
> A conclusion is drawn regarding to the approach to science to the
> effect that both the ontological and epistemological assumptions in
> humanistic psychology are in agreement with those of the
> action-oriented or subjectivist approach. Thus reality is, in its most
> fundamental sense, internal to the individual actor i.e. reality lies
> in the perceptual field or private world of the individual. In other
> words, reality does not exist apart from the actor, and it is not "out
> there" waiting to be discovered. Therefore, reality is basically
> subjective and as such relative. An epistemological assumption is, of
> course, in accord with this: knowledge or truth is not separated from
> the subjective experience of an individual. Ana-logous to reality,
> knowledge of it does not exist "out there" - complete in itself - but
> it rather consists of meanings exis-ting in the active experience of
> the actor (Littleford 1970).
>
> Methods used in humanistic psychology are human-centered, as in the
> action-oriented or subjectivist approach. For instance, participant
> observation, phenomenological approaches, ethnomethodology, human
> action research and other qualitative methods are widely used in
> humanistic psychology.
>
> Since there has been lively discussion concerning methodology and
> philosophy in humanistic psychology for many decades, action-oriented
> accounting scholars could learn a great deal by actively following
> this discussion. In fact, in action-oriented or subjectivist research,
> analysis of the methodological and in particular the philosophical
> bases of the field are neglected to a great extent. Instead, the
> approaches used are usually conside-red to be unproblematic and
> self-evident.
>
> Further, the notion of an actor or assumption about human nature in
> action-oriented accounting research could take on more depth through
> the adoption of ideas from humanistic psychology. According to
> humanistic psycholo-gists, man is essentially diffe-rent from the
> other species, and they further argue that the nature of the human
> being has been critically over-simplified by mainstream psychologists.
> In principle, the same is also true in mainstream accounting research,
> including behavioural studies.
>
> In humanistic psychology, man is not an organism merely seeking
> equilibrium with himself and his environment, but rather a purposeful,
> intentional, aspirational being. One of his basic motives lies in
> actualising and enhancing his capabilities. The nature of man is
> essentially active and spontaneous, not passive and reactive. Man is
> not only conscious, but he is self-conscious, and he always tends
> toward what he has not yet become. As hu-manistic psycholo-gists see
> it, human beings possess an innate determination to be "all that they
> can be" (Saba 1983).
>
> This humanistic view of man is to some degree idealistic, but it
> basically shares common features with the subjectivist assumption of
> human nature presented by Burrell & Morgan (1979), who stressed
> Voluntarism i.e. that man is completely autonomous and free-willed,
> and can choose the actions he takes at the individual level. However,
> both this volunta-ristic notion and that adopted in the
> action-oriented approach are rather superficial. Therefore, they may
> be rendered more pro-found through the aid of humanistic views. Of
> course, in the light of the humanistic notion of human nature,
> Determinism in particular - which is typical of the objectivist
> approach - regards human nature in an overly mechanical way.
>
> In this paper the principles of humanistic psychology as presented by
> Lauri Rauhala (1990), a Finnish phenomenological philosopher and
> psychologist, were also examined from the viewpoint of the
> action-oriented or subjectivist approach. Rauhala concentrates the
> basis of his work on two well-known German philosophers, Edmund
> Husserl and Martin Heidegger.
>
> According to Rauhala, humanistic psychology is characterised by the
> following principles, systematised here into two groups:
>
> Principles concerning the subject of the study i.e. the human being
> 1) A human being is researched as a "holistic" entity i.e. an
> integrated wholeness,
> 2) a human being is understood as a unique and individual object of
> study, not as a general or "average" phenomenon,
> 3) the problem of meaning, i.e. meanings formulated by human beings,
> represents a central focus of research,
> 4) the relationship of a human being with the macrocosm is also
> considered.
>
> Methodological-philosophical features
> 5) The approach to science as adopted from physics is rejected,
> 6) existential phenomenology is incorporated as the main philosophy of
> science,
> 7) "other people" and the "human being himself" are both considered to
> be types of methods (the former refers to ethnomethodology, the latter
> to introspection),
> 8) the researcher shou-ld also regard himself as a subjective,
> experiencing and constantly changing actor similar to the actors under
> study,
> 9) referring to Scheler (1960), the aim of research is characterised
> by the term "Bildungswissenschaft" i.e. educational or "enlightenment"
> science, rather than "Herrschaftswissenschaft" i.e "domination" or
> control science that is typical of mainstream research.
>
> It was concluded that these principles - which might be called the
> cornerstones of Humanistic Accounting - are potentially useful for
> action-oriented or subjectivist accounting scholars; they offer
> researchers the means for more thorough understanding of the
> epistemological, ontological and human nature based assumptions of
> their approach to science. In addition, they also offer the basis for
> a practical guide for researchers conducting field or case studies
> within firms because, put simply, it is human beings with whom we deal
> within these research settings.
>
[Pekka Pihlanto] Below some comments:
> Thank you for the paper and comments!
> Here the first reaction:
>
> I find your notation (below) of the methodology very interesting. I
> was
> going to write about it myself but didn't really know how. I had
> noticed
> the "introspection" but didn't know the term or any of the background.
>
> The term I used in my thoughts and which I actually said aloud last
> night
> to record in with my pocket voice memo - that carries those nightly
> thoughts to daylight - was: "self-referring" [Pekka Pihlanto] I
> think this is a good formulation (or in terms used in the Summary
> above: human being himself as a "method")
>
> For computer scientists that has a special meaning, the principle of
> recursivity, I mean. The idea is that recursive algoritms that can
> complete their tasks by repeatingly referring to themselves are often
> extremely efficient. [Pekka Pihlanto] Recursive is OK with
> algoritms, but in connection with people - ?????
>
> I'm not such an experienced programmer and even less an algorithm
> writer
> but did learn to use simple recursions. I don't think I understand
> them
> too deeply and actually only remember the beauty of the idea only
> because [Pekka Pihlanto] On the basis of your Inet98-paper you are
> more interested in people and behaviour in the Net than technical
> aspects of it, and I think this kind of accentuation is now urgently
> needed (just like Tapscott, in "Growing Up Digital").
> I read recently this interview of the legendary founder of the GNU
> project, Richard Stallman <URL:http://www.gnu.org/people/rms.html>. He
> was
> asked once again where the name from and he explained it marvelously.
> I'm
> afraid that the interview is not on-line but could describe the basic
> idea
> in my own words:
>
> The name GNU comes from the words GNU is Not Unix. As you can see the
> name
> is self explanitory (explains itself) by referring to itself. The
> definition is short but quite exact as GNU is *like* Unix but just not
> *the* Unix (Linux goes in a way into the GNU-category if you want to
> put
> it that way). Many names in the old Unix/Internet world are like that
> -
> the ELM - PINE is my favourite (as I love trees). Elm (haapa tai joku
> muu
> puu?) was an early Electornic Mail program but later Pine (manty)
> replaced
> it in many places. PINE means, of course, Pine Is Not Elm. [Pekka
> Pihlanto] Sounds interesting...
>
> That name game is just funny tricks but .. funny anyway. The real
> recursivity is a bit different thing but both are self referring.
>
> Just like I seem to be? [Pekka Pihlanto] Yes.
>
> In December when I got to know that the ISOC-people were interested in
> this presentation I had really trouble to understand why and how could
> I
> justify it to anyone. First solution I came up with was, once again,
> this
> self-referring. I think the thought was someting like this:
>
> 1. Being invited means that there is something special
> 2. I was invited
> 3. There is someting special in me
> 4. I'm just one (quite normal?) representative of our culture
> 5. There's something special in our culture
> 6. A representative of our culture should be invited
> 7. I can be a representative of our culture
> 8. I can be invited
>
> So, in a way, the fact that I'm invited justifies my being invited.
> Or did i miss someting? I know that the "keh�p��telm�" (vicious
> circle?)
> is one of the classical mistakes in philosophy but can't remember if
> it
> was something like this. I guess not. Fuck logic! anyway :)
[Pekka Pihlanto] Anyway, your list (1-8) is kind of logical. I
guess the point is they needed your personal and subjective experiences
about a life in the Net (a kind of humanistic aim) - and they got what
they wanted.
> On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Pekka Pihlanto wrote:
>
> > As to the methodology or approach you use, it could be called
> > subjectivistic (in contrast to objectivistic, which is used in
> natural
> > sciences, but still also in social sciences) (about objectivism and
> > subjectivism, see Burrell, G. & Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms
> and
> > Organizational Analysis, London: Heineman, 1979). Typical of your
> > approach is also introspection (itsehavainnointi) and the use of
> > yourself as a research instrument (the term "ihminen itse
> > tutkimusmenetelm�n�" used by Lauri Rauhala, a Finnish
> phenomenological
> > and existential psychologist).
>
> That really sounds familiar. Wonder what the books say .. hope the
> method
> is not proven to be totally useless :)
>
> Thank you for comments and the article once again. I'll read it more
> thoughtfully later and perhaps comment then.
>
> + an + ~ Toni ~ : (t
> . !