A substantial body of literature is critical of accounting education; in particular, such criticism focuses on the tendency in accounting and business courses to teach from a single theoretical perspective (Chua, 1996 and Collison, 2003; Collison & Frankfurter, 2000; Gray, Bebbington, & McPhail, 1994; Gray, Collison, French, McPhail, & Stevenson, 2001; Humphrey, Lewis, & Owen, 1996; Kelly & Pratt, 1994; Lewis, Humphrey, & Owen, 1992; McPhail, 1999; McPhail & Gray, 1996). Such an approach may be explained by the dominant reliance of accounting theory and practice on an implicit set of values from neo-classical economics (Chua, 1986; Collison & Frankfurter, 2000; Cooper, 1980; Cooper & Sherer, 1984; Gray et al., 1994; Gray, Owen, & Adams, 1996; Kelly & Pratt, 1992; McPhail, 1996, Reiter, 1997 and Tinker, 1980; Tinker, Merino, & Neimark, 1982). Neo-classical economics forms the predominant theoretical underpinning for much of accounting theory and has “probably contributed more than any other [theory] to the practice of accounting” (Tinker, 1980, p. 149).

The fundamental feature of this perspective is the presumption that individuals act in their own (economic) self-interest. It is assumed from such self-interested behaviour that profits are maximised along with economic growth, which in turn should ensure that society’s welfare is optimised (see Gray, Owen et al., 1996, for a succinct critique of this perspective). The influence of this worldview is especially apparent in Anglo-American capitalist economies where private sectional interests are enshrined in legal structures and socio-economic norms (Collison, 2003). Moreover, it is generally assumed that the only participants in the wealth creating process that should have their interests maximised are shareholders (Bakan, 2004; Birkin, Edwards, & Woodward, 2005; Kelly, 2001).

The influence of this theoretical perspective is apparent within accounting education, to the extent that accounting education itself has been viewed as a form of indoctrination (Gray et al., 1994) and as a means of reproducing and sustaining an ideology (Chua, 1986 and Collison, 2003; McPhail & Gray, 1996). The ‘maximisation of wealth’ assumptions are representative of a single paradigm approach, which accounting education (whether intentionally or not) uncritically propagates in giving primacy to the interests of shareholders (Collison, 2003; Collison & Frankfurter, 2000; Ferguson, Collison, Power, & Stevenson, 2005; Gallhoffer & Haslam, 1996; Gray et al., 1994; Puxty, Sikka, & Willmott, 1994). In addition, accounting education emphasises private sector activity in which social issues are treated as peripheral to the “corporate model, with its assumptions of profit seeking organisations and maximisation of shareholders’ wealth” (Lewis et al., 1992, p. 221).

The ethical and moral development of accounting students is brought into question when one considers that the theoretical underpinnings of accounting are restricted to only one “subset” of ethical reasoning: financial utilitarianism1 (Gray et al., 1994; Gray, Owen et al., 1996; McPhail, 1999; McPhail & Gray, 1996). It is this perspective that seems to be emphasised to accounting students very early on in their academic experience and which helps formulate their moral identity (McPhail & Gray, 1996). Therefore, by not encountering any other ethical perspectives, accounting students learn to accept that an action is judged to be desirable if it generates the maximum economic rewards for a designated stakeholder group (i.e. shareholders) (Ferguson et al., 2005 and Gray et al., 1994).

Apart from their attendance at lectures and tutorials, knowledge is most likely to be communicated to students through the recommended textbooks on their degree programmes (see Brown & Guilding, 1993). However, despite the extensive use of the textbook as a pedagogical tool, there are only a relatively small number of studies which give consideration to the content of textbooks or their method of usage in accounting education. This is an important issue in terms of increasing awareness among lecturers that prescribed textbooks may reflect contestable values and have the potential to influence ideas by widening or limiting perspectives. This point is significant when one considers that today’s accounting students are tomorrow’s managers and financial decision-makers (Blundell & Booth, 1988).

2. Accounting, business and management textbooks

Research into the role of the textbook in accounting, business and management is currently limited. Within the accounting literature the majority of such studies tend to focus on the content of management accounting textbooks (for example, Cuganesan, Gibson, & Petty, 1997; Kelly & Pratt, 1994; Kelly & Pratt, 1988; Scapens, Otley, & Lister, 1984). Whilst most of these studies aim, primarily, to assess the relevance of the management accounting techniques depicted in the textbooks, they all identify the prevalence of a neo-classical economic framework informing the examined texts. For example, as Scapens et al. (1984, p. 34) point out, the underlying assumptions of management accounting textbooks are “that the decision maker is either the owner or shares the owner’s goals’ and is a profit maximiser”. Moreover, as Kelly and Pratt (1994) note, this (contestable) worldview is rarely, if ever, explicitly discussed in management accounting textbooks. In other words, the (neo-classical) framework or paradigm that informs these textbooks is taken as given as common sense.

Expanding upon prior investigations into management accounting textbooks, Ferguson et al. (2005) conducted a content analysis of introductory conventional accounting textbooks, including financial accounting, management accounting and financial management texts. Findings from this exploratory study indicated that the interests of shareholders were particularly emphasised within financial accounting and financial management textbooks, while management accounting texts had focused more on the needs of managers (though an ultimate focus on shareholder interest is arguably implicit in this area). In this respect, Ferguson et al. (2005) provided further support to claims made in prior studies that the primary ethical perspective conveyed to accounting students is that of financial utilitarianism (see Gray et al., 1994).

In a more recent study, Ferguson, Collison, Power, and Stevenson (2006) explored the production of introductory financial accounting textbooks. Reporting on interviews with authors and commissioning editors, Ferguson et al. (2006) noted that the majority of authors tended to view their textbook as a reflection of the status quo; in other words, while accounting as a discipline was viewed as inherently ideological, reflecting sectional interests (in particular, the shareholders), the textbooks were seen as a passive reflection of this worldview. Whilst a number of participants in this study opposed the privileging of certain stakeholders in their texts, both authors and publishers noted that there were limitations to introducing wider/alternative perspectives (Ferguson et al., 2006). In particular, given the profit seeking rationale of the textbook publishing industry, publishers were keen to keep costs to a minimum, and only add extra content if it was guaranteed to engender further sales (see also, Thompson, 2005). It was suggested that if one were to include wider societal issues in an introductory financial accounting textbook, it would be necessary to cut some mainstream material. Since the mainstream material is required to meet professional accreditation requirements,2 both publishers and authors suggested that such a textbook would simply not sell; in other words, it would not reflect what is being taught on introductory financial accounting courses (Ferguson et al., 2006).