TOWARD A NORMATIVE MODEL OF RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION FOR CRITICAL ACCOUNTING DISCUSSIONS

This article is based on the premise that the primary goal of a critic al discussion in the accounting standard setting due process should be to reach conclusions by means of reasoned arguments. A normative mode l for achieving this goal is applied to some arguments made in recent accounting standard setting debates in the U.S. The model consists of eight maxims for advancing and defending arguments in a critical discu ssion in general and five presuppositions for a critical discussion ab out external financial reporting topics in particular. The normative m odel provides criteria for evaluating the validity of arguments, but i t also is recognized that like all other language games the model does not (and cannot) carry within itself its own legitimation. The articl e concludes by considering how the standard setting debates can yield not only technical accounting outcomes but also changes in the nature of due process itself. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reser ved.