The Business Needs that Drove the Emergence of Double Entry: In Defense of Pacioli, again … It is Time to Remove Those Dark Glasses

Alan Sangster*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Being able to understand how double entry bookkeeping works is a critically important skill for an accountant, but few accounting graduates understand or perform double entry at the level desired. It has always been taught using rules, never by principles. This paper responds to and rejects criticisms published in this journal by Richard Macve. They concern a paper I published in 2018 presenting Luca Pacioli’s approach to teaching double entry using a principles-based approach. My response also uses grounded theory to reject Professor Macve’s theory concerning the development of double entry by generating an opposing new theory to explain what motivated its emergence. Furthermore, it highlights problems in the use of literature in accounting history and uses theories of pedagogy and studies on teaching double entry to reject his insistence that it should be taught using a balance sheet equation approach. Several other comments/suggestions in his wide-ranging article are addressed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-109
Number of pages17
JournalAccounting Historians Journal
Volume49
Issue number1
Early online date17 Dec 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Keywords

  • defined concepts
  • demonstrative logic
  • double entry bookkeeping
  • medieval
  • Pacioli
  • principles
  • rules
  • ‘‘met-befores’’

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Business Needs that Drove the Emergence of Double Entry: In Defense of Pacioli, again … It is Time to Remove Those Dark Glasses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this