發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-08 10:18

  本文選題：科學(xué)哲學(xué) + 實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析　； 參考：《東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：目前在會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)中,實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析與規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析的爭(zhēng)議比較嚴(yán)重,雙方之間爭(zhēng)議不斷,在多次會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)以及在著作、期刊、文摘上出現(xiàn)互相摒棄的現(xiàn)象,甚至常常為此發(fā)生爭(zhēng)吵。事實(shí)上,這兩種分析方法都屬于會(huì)計(jì)分析方法論體系。會(huì)計(jì)分析方法論體系是由哲學(xué)的方法、一般會(huì)計(jì)的分析方法和具體會(huì)計(jì)分析方法構(gòu)成的。會(huì)計(jì)分析方法論體系以哲學(xué)方法論為基礎(chǔ),用以宏觀指導(dǎo)會(huì)計(jì)分析。一般會(huì)計(jì)分析方法起著核心作用,指導(dǎo)會(huì)計(jì)分析。具體會(huì)計(jì)分析方法是會(huì)計(jì)分析方法里必不可少的,往往起著橋梁作用,增強(qiáng)了可操作性。實(shí)證分析方法和規(guī)范分析方法是當(dāng)前會(huì)計(jì)理論研究方法體系中既相互對(duì)立、又相互依存的一對(duì)矛盾方法。早期的會(huì)計(jì)理論分析,人們并未將其稱之為規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)理論。在出現(xiàn)了實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)理論后,為了加以區(qū)別,才稱之為規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)理論。隨著實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)理論的出現(xiàn),實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)方法呈現(xiàn)出了前所未有的強(qiáng)勢(shì),成為當(dāng)前西方會(huì)計(jì)理論的主流。在其引進(jìn)中國(guó)后,實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)方法短時(shí)間內(nèi)就已發(fā)展成為會(huì)計(jì)理論研究中的一支重要力量,就如同實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)理論在西方會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)中一樣,大有取代規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)理論的架勢(shì)。 為了解決會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)中實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析之間爭(zhēng)議,消除會(huì)計(jì)理論分析中對(duì)兩者認(rèn)識(shí)的偏差和混亂,只有從科學(xué)哲學(xué)高度,才能得到解決。這是因?yàn)榭茖W(xué)哲學(xué)是對(duì)科學(xué)進(jìn)行反思的一門學(xué)問(wèn)。而會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)作為社會(huì)科學(xué)分支,也是科學(xué)的一個(gè)分支,必然受到科學(xué)哲學(xué)的指導(dǎo)。事實(shí)上,整個(gè)社會(huì)科學(xué)都在用實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析,例如,經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、管理學(xué)、社會(huì)學(xué)等都采用實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析。因而只有從社會(huì)科學(xué)哲學(xué)高度,才能很好地透視出實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析的關(guān)系尤其爭(zhēng)論。由于社會(huì)科學(xué)哲學(xué)從屬于科學(xué)哲學(xué),所以,會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)中實(shí)證分析和規(guī)范分析之間爭(zhēng)議,只有上升到科學(xué)哲學(xué),才能得到解決。 一方面,應(yīng)用科學(xué)哲學(xué)思想,對(duì)實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析和規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了分析,另一方面,通過(guò)對(duì)科學(xué)哲學(xué)發(fā)展史的考察,尤其是對(duì)實(shí)證主義向歷史主義科學(xué)哲學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向的審視,論證了將實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合的必然性,進(jìn)而,集中透視了會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)研究中的實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析的關(guān)系,特別是兩者的爭(zhēng)論,指出將兩者相結(jié)合的必要性、重要性、途徑。 本文由以下五章內(nèi)容組成： 第一章為導(dǎo)論。本部分是對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)界關(guān)于實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析爭(zhēng)議以及會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)界自身解決的困難和科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)其解決的重要意義進(jìn)行闡述。 第二章為科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)哲學(xué)的影響。主要考察了科學(xué)哲學(xué)中實(shí)證主義對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)證哲學(xué)的影響、科學(xué)哲學(xué)中歷史主義對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范哲學(xué)的影響。這為科學(xué)哲學(xué)解決實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析與規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析爭(zhēng)議提供了可靠的事實(shí)依據(jù)。 第三章為實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析與規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析的歷史發(fā)展軌跡及其分歧。實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)理論是實(shí)證分析被引入到會(huì)計(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué),而得到的實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析；規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)理論是規(guī)范分析被引入到會(huì)計(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué),而得到的規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析。實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析派只強(qiáng)調(diào)實(shí)證分析,規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析派只強(qiáng)調(diào)規(guī)范分析,雙方互不理睬,經(jīng)常發(fā)生爭(zhēng)議。 第四章是對(duì)實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)法和規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)法的分析。應(yīng)用科學(xué)哲學(xué)思想,分別指出了實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析和規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)。實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析法密切結(jié)合會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù),有客觀事實(shí)基礎(chǔ),采用精確的和科學(xué)的研究手段,具有非常強(qiáng)的實(shí)踐意義。但是,其必須事前做出假設(shè),其作用范圍有限。規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析法強(qiáng)調(diào)價(jià)值分析,可以在一定程度上規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)操作,但是,其得出的結(jié)果不能做到“價(jià)值中立”,其研究方法是不精確的。 第五章是從科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析和規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析爭(zhēng)議思考后得出的結(jié)論及相關(guān)建議。從科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)的指導(dǎo)思想出發(fā),提出了會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)實(shí)務(wù)界與學(xué)術(shù)界要加強(qiáng)分工協(xié)作及在協(xié)同中進(jìn)步、加大科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)實(shí)證會(huì)計(jì)分析與規(guī)范會(huì)計(jì)分析反思力度等方面的合理化建議。 本文的研究特色有兩點(diǎn)：首先是本文選題較為新意,將科學(xué)哲學(xué)和會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)融合在一起,是一個(gè)跨學(xué)科研究選題。其次是本文對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析的科學(xué)哲學(xué)思考的視角新。本文從科學(xué)哲學(xué)高度,展開(kāi)對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析爭(zhēng)論的探討,得出會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)證分析與規(guī)范分析相結(jié)合的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:At present, in accounting, the disputes between the empirical accounting analysis and the normative accounting analysis are more serious, the disputes between the two sides are constantly being disputed, and the phenomena of abandoning each other in many accounting academic seminars and in the books, periodicals and abstracts are discarded. In fact, these two analytical methods belong to the system of accounting analysis methodology. The system of accounting analysis methodology is composed of philosophy method, general accounting analysis method and specific accounting analysis method. The system of accounting analysis methodology is based on philosophical methodology and is used for macro guidance accounting analysis. The general accounting analysis method plays the core role and directs the accounting analysis. The concrete accounting analysis method is the accounting score. It is essential to analyze the method, which often plays a bridge role and strengthens the maneuverability. The empirical analysis method and the normative analysis method are contradictory and interdependent methods in the current accounting theory research method system. The early analysis of accounting theory has not been referred to as the normative accounting theory. After the theory of accounting, in order to distinguish it, it is called the standard accounting theory. With the emergence of the empirical accounting theory, the empirical accounting method has presented unprecedented strength and became the mainstream of the current western accounting theory. After its introduction of China, the empirical accounting method has developed into a major part of the accounting theory research for a short time. Just like positive accounting theory in western accounting, it is a great substitute for normative accounting theory.
In order to solve the dispute between the empirical analysis and the normative analysis in accounting and eliminate the deviation and confusion in the theoretical analysis of accounting, only from the philosophy of science can we get a solution. This is because the philosophy of science is a study of the reflection of science. Accounting is a branch of Social Science and a branch of science. In fact, the whole social science uses positive analysis and normative analysis, for example, economics, management, sociology and so on. Therefore, only from the height of social science can the relationship between empirical analysis and normative analysis be well discussed. Philosophy of social science belongs to Philosophy of science. Therefore, the controversy between positive analysis and normative analysis in accounting can only be solved by rising to Philosophy of science.
On the one hand, it applies the philosophy of philosophy of science to analyze the merits and demerits of empirical accounting analysis and standard accounting. On the other hand, it demonstrates the inevitability of combining positivist analysis with normative analysis by examining the development history of scientific philosophy, especially the turn of positivism to the historical philosophy of scientific philosophy. The relationship between positive analysis and normative analysis in accounting research, especially the controversy between them, points out the necessity, importance and way of combining the two.
This article is composed of the following five chapters:
The first chapter is an introduction. This part is an exposition of the importance of the accounting circle on the problems of empirical analysis and normative analysis, as well as the difficulties that the accounting community has solved and the importance of philosophy to its solution.
The second chapter is the influence of philosophy of science on accounting philosophy. It mainly investigates the influence of Positivism on Accounting positivism in philosophy of science, and the influence of historicism on accounting standard philosophy in the philosophy of science. This provides a reliable factual basis for the solution of the dispute between the empirical accounting analysis and the normative accounting analysis in the philosophy of science.
The third chapter is the historical development track and the differences of the empirical accounting analysis and the normative accounting analysis. The empirical accounting theory is an empirical analysis which is introduced into the accounting economics, and the empirical accounting analysis is obtained. The normative accounting theory is the normative analysis introduced into the accounting economics and the normative accounting analysis. The empirical accounting analysis is only strong. We should regulate the empirical analysis, standardize accounting analysis schools only emphasize normative analysis, the two sides ignore each other, and often dispute.
The fourth chapter is the analysis of the empirical accounting method and the normative accounting method. Applying the philosophy of science, it points out the advantages and disadvantages of the empirical accounting analysis and the normative accounting analysis. The empirical accounting analysis method combines the accounting practice closely with the accounting practice, has the objective factual basis, and uses the precise and scientific research methods, but it has very strong practical significance. It is necessary to make assumptions in advance, and its scope of action is limited. The normative accounting analysis method emphasizes value analysis, which can standardize accounting practice to a certain extent, but the result can not be "value neutral", and its research method is inaccurate.
The fifth chapter is the conclusion and relevant suggestions from the scientific philosophy of the empirical accounting analysis and the normative accounting analysis. Starting from the guiding ideology of the philosophy of science to accounting, it is proposed that the accounting practice circle and the academic circle should strengthen the division of labor and cooperation and progress in coordination, and add the great science philosophy to the empirical accounting analysis and standardization. The rationalization proposals for the analysis of the strength and other aspects of the analysis are analyzed.
The characteristics of this paper are two points: first, this article is a new topic, combining science philosophy and accounting together, is a cross subject research topic. Secondly, this article is new to the scientific philosophy of accounting empirical analysis and normative analysis. This article from the high degree of science philosophy, to expand the empirical analysis and normative analysis of accounting. The conclusion is that the combination of accounting empirical analysis and normative analysis can be concluded.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F230

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡永翔;趙華;;科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理性的影響[J];中共山西省委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

2 路繼業(yè);杜兩省;;經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中實(shí)證研究、經(jīng)驗(yàn)研究的聯(lián)系與不同——基于科學(xué)哲學(xué)的分析[J];當(dāng)代財(cái)經(jīng);2009年06期

3 倪明軍;王振興;;淺析科學(xué)哲學(xué)理論在行為金融學(xué)中的運(yùn)用[J];科技致富向?qū)?2013年27期

4 史玉民,陶新珍,葉良均;創(chuàng)新文化研究的科學(xué)哲學(xué)定位[J];科技管理研究;2005年10期

5 桂起權(quán);;談?wù)勥壿嬇c科學(xué)哲學(xué)聯(lián)合研究的氛圍——以潘沁《馮·諾伊曼計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)哲學(xué)思想研究》為例[J];賀州學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

6 王書(shū)明,曹志平;尋找范式:科學(xué)哲學(xué)從思潮到學(xué)科[J];大連大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

7 張志林;;哲學(xué)家怎樣看科學(xué)[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2007年02期

8 王慶宇;;“理性經(jīng)濟(jì)人”假設(shè)的科學(xué)哲學(xué)反思[J];北方經(jīng)貿(mào);2007年02期

9 黃光國(guó);;“主/客對(duì)立”與“天人合一”:管理學(xué)研究中的后現(xiàn)代智慧[J];管理學(xué)報(bào);2013年07期

10 朱成全;對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)方法論——證實(shí)法和證偽法爭(zhēng)論的科學(xué)哲學(xué)的思考[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2001年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 彭蜀晉;;科學(xué)哲學(xué)及其對(duì)科學(xué)教育理論研究的價(jià)值[A];第五屆全國(guó)科學(xué)教育專業(yè)與學(xué)科建設(shè)研討會(huì)會(huì)議論文集[C];2009年

2 宋浩;;論民族性與科學(xué)哲學(xué)[A];第二屆中國(guó)科技哲學(xué)及交叉學(xué)科研究生論壇論文集（碩士卷）[C];2008年

3 伍玉林;袁辛奮;;科學(xué)哲學(xué)研究的一個(gè)不容忽視層面——科學(xué)史與科學(xué)哲學(xué)的融合[A];第九次哈爾濱“科技進(jìn)步與當(dāng)代世界發(fā)展”全國(guó)中青年學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2003年

4 朱鳳青;;從科學(xué)哲學(xué)看科學(xué)的文化價(jià)值[A];第九次哈爾濱“科技進(jìn)步與當(dāng)代世界發(fā)展”全國(guó)中青年學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2003年

5 鄭瑋;;“實(shí)踐轉(zhuǎn)向”與科學(xué)哲學(xué)的當(dāng)代重建[A];山西大學(xué)2008年全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)）[C];2008年

6 張學(xué)義;;科學(xué)哲學(xué)史上的反常論[A];第三屆全國(guó)科技哲學(xué)暨交叉學(xué)科研究生論壇文集[C];2010年

7 畢晉鋒;;試述波普的科學(xué)哲學(xué)觀[A];山西大學(xué)2008年全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)）[C];2008年

8 張家誠(chéng);;氣象學(xué)與哲學(xué)的萬(wàn)年情結(jié)[A];推進(jìn)氣象科技創(chuàng)新加快氣象事業(yè)發(fā)展——中國(guó)氣象學(xué)會(huì)2004年年會(huì)論文集（下冊(cè)）[C];2004年

9 丁準(zhǔn)泰;陳小月;陳震;張珂;;哲學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下的科學(xué)理論體系——以地質(zhì)學(xué)的“原地重熔理論”為例[A];山語(yǔ)清音——第二屆地學(xué)文化建設(shè)學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)文集[C];2012年

10 韓芳;史玉民;;世界著名大學(xué)科學(xué)哲學(xué)專業(yè)述評(píng)[A];山西大學(xué)2008年全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)）[C];2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 裘杰;兩種文化語(yǔ)境下的中俄科學(xué)哲學(xué)比較研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 田小飛;自然主義科學(xué)哲學(xué)及其規(guī)范性[D];清華大學(xué);2008年

3 楊建飛;科學(xué)哲學(xué)與西方經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)思想發(fā)展演化的關(guān)系[D];西北大學(xué);2004年

4 何華青;新實(shí)驗(yàn)主義研究[D];清華大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 馬貴玉;當(dāng)代科學(xué)哲學(xué)的人文轉(zhuǎn)向[D];新疆大學(xué);2010年

2 宋浩;民族性與比較科學(xué)哲學(xué)[D];哈爾濱師范大學(xué);2010年

3 向修玉;當(dāng)代西方現(xiàn)象學(xué)—解釋學(xué)科學(xué)哲學(xué)論綱[D];廈門大學(xué);2007年

4 殷維;科學(xué)哲學(xué)自然化探析[D];重慶大學(xué);2010年

5 周伶俐;科學(xué)哲學(xué)“價(jià)值中立”可能嗎？[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

6 王楨;科學(xué)哲學(xué)從邏輯模式向歷史模式的轉(zhuǎn)變[D];中央民族大學(xué);2013年

7 周丹迪;范岱年科學(xué)哲學(xué)思想研究[D];大連理工大學(xué);2014年

8 李垣;科學(xué)哲學(xué)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)方法論影響的實(shí)證研究[D];西北大學(xué);2005年

9 田甜;胡塞爾科學(xué)哲學(xué)思想評(píng)析[D];大連理工大學(xué);2006年

10 玄婷;對(duì)案例分析法的科學(xué)哲學(xué)的反思[D];東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1995459