会计外文文献翻译

会计外文文献翻译原文题目：《评述教育会计专业》作者：迈克尔卡夫金原文出处：School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia 会计教育会计教育。

一般来说，从业者似乎已不愿想改变 - 要离开自己的舒适区 - 慢，并已承认在与伦理，环境恶化，全球化相关的地区更广泛的社会问题所提出的问题，增加业务的复杂性和其他一些因素我写我的一些挫折（卡夫金，1981 年）和左新西兰追求我在澳大利亚的学习和职业生涯。

我后来成为澳大利亚的主要会计机构教育委员会主席。

在这种角色我曾与新西兰身体的教育委员会的领导组织，并得到非常积极的态度，他们与澳大利亚的机构都对促进更“圆”大学会计教育方案（其中大部分出自从业者，学者的鼓励！）。

最近在新西兰旅行，我一直很失望，观察什么似乎是一个这样做的目的完全逆转; 重点放在，由新西兰的专业团体，纯粹的技术能力，他们迫使大学遵守这一点 - 复仇的bean 柜台？什么也令人失望对我来说是由学术带头人的决心明显缺乏，使专业团体的“决定”什么通行证作为会计教育法规，如会计死记硬背。

我观察到有什么事我当作一个高级学者讨好自己的专业机构，而不是促进学科发展，将在二十一世纪更广泛的社会需要的知识要点。

因此，我的评论是针对试图界定什么是专业会计师 - 毫无疑问，很多人可能不同意。

我的目的是展示合作的重要性，而不是怀疑和无知的需要和应具有什么样的会计专业的各个部分努力。

我并不想冒犯各位同事，而是试图提供一个什么样的我的看法是会计面临的问题和强调纪律，前进的方向，通过所有这些谁认为，在解决方案协助资讯科技合作是批判极大的社会问题。

从业人员有一个会计的执业类别广泛的业余爱好，所以任何评论，我所做的非常广泛的推广。

传统上，从业者已被注册会计师，会计师或公共部门私营会计师，但随着业务的日益复杂和商业机构在最近的时代，这些分类的界线变得越来越模糊。

即使是会计师有与大，往往跨国公司，会计师事务所有关人士，并在小企业非常不同的具体利益与每个人 - 财务顾问，财务报表编制，税务顾问或核数师。

然而，有票面21,2 172 学术的角度来看，一般来说，从业者似乎是什么学术可疑。

显然不是所有从业者觉得这种方式，有的已经布满学术界参与。

然而，保守的，传统行医大块认为，学者过于远离现实的残酷与世界经济的从业人员参与其中删除。

因此，他们认为，学者常常不能有助于对会计实务的日常世界。

纵观会计的历史，实际上这些人认为，作为中立者，他们存在的客观反映决策者的经济现实。

但是，如果是这样（和多年文献表明它是），那么很多会计师太久从错误的意识，不知道现实中遭受了他们的工作代表的形状都是有政治，法规和社会以及作为经济力量 - 没有客观的经济现实。

或许有些从业者清楚这一点，但似乎没有受到任何公开承认它。

毫无疑问，大多数从业者都十分需要与许多其他团体知道的，但他们还需要更多地了解如何将这些其他群体形成的会计。

改变了会计一经会计师应对其放在客户的需求。

鉴于这可能是很自然的，往往是反应一直在该学科的完整的成本。

从他们更遥远的角度来看，学者们可能能够更清楚地看到这，但往往被剥夺了在发展会计实务的声音 1 中世纪的欧洲只有三个公认的专业 - 法律，医学和神学 - 虽然陆军和海军人员相信，他们也属于专业。

一个典型的字典定义可能表明，一个行业是一项职业，一组由技术能力或专业知识，自主招聘和纪律，对公众服务[1]的高度承诺索赔特点。

曾有评论者所提供的不同行业的许多特点，也没有列出，以协议，是明确的，但也有许多比德文波特暗示（或国家）更多。

最常用的这些名单中提到六[2]：（1）拥有一种技能的基础理论知识;（2）提供培训及教育;（3）测试能力的成员;（4）组织; （五）遵守的行为准则;（六）利他主义的服务。

有趣的是，在所有这些职业的讨论请注意，公共服务和职业道德的承诺是一个主要特征。

回归到一个职业特征列表，第一个建议，有一个为基础的学科知识的概念基础。

20 世纪的大部分是采取由会计界试图在美国和世界其他地区，到确定其做法的理论基础 - 首先是对会计准则搜索（一般公认会计原则）制定的企图结束一（正式）的概念框架。

有许多这方面值得一提的是在令人不安的方面。

该专业（国际）已明确，无法确定这一概念的基础 - 一个理论或会计理论。

我们没有主要在会计标准的形式对会计理论，而是一个法律上规定的一系列规定（见Gaffikin，2008）。

在澳大利亚，美国和其他许多国家，曾经是自我规管制度的一部分，这些标准现在由外部强加的监管纪律。

我认为，该行业的所有三个武器是为此事负责。

没有智慧的基础上向会计工艺！正如在英美社会最路段，有，在会计，一个知识分子的怀疑。

一般来说，可说是知识分子的人，通常是受过良好教育，激发他们的工作谁的智慧，他们认为是文化的重要性。

具体来说，将与知识分子的传播和进步的知识以及社会价值观念的衔接有关。

因此，似乎可取的会计从事知识分子。

其实，专业团体做需要发展自己的智力资本的谈话。

这已被定义为：知识资本是人力资本的结合 - 大脑，技能，洞察力，以及在一个组织的潜能 - 结构资本样包在客户注册，程序，数据库，品牌资本的东西，IT 系统。

它是能够转化为创造财富资源的知识和无形资产乘以与结构资本（Edvinsson 和马龙，在霍尔曼引述，2005 [3]。

一词智力资本的管理已成为一个时髦的话题和人力资本，（管理）的会计文献。

然而，似乎只不过是在新自由主义主导的经济利益字捕获更多的知识愤世嫉俗。

它既与促进社会利益，也不是重要的文化因素的认识广度的问题。

相反，它指的是试图衡量，用传统的经济措施，精神价值的贡献的材料以及该组织的福祉。

许多会计（如国际会计师联合会）的专业教育机构的言论一直认为我们需要在我们的新成员灌输的批判性思维能力。

然而，经验表明，在何种程度上有严格的界限，就放在这批判性思维是不能容忍的。

批判性思维已经非常模糊定义，它可能意味着完全不同的事很多人 - 它不局限于消极的挑剔。

我认为这是公平地说，批判性思维是在充满挑战的信念，通过建立新的规范，知识将产生鼓舞。

有很多老生常谈的那些被用来描述诸如横向思维这个过程中，创造性地解决问题或外箱等思想不幸的是，会计历史似乎表明，批判性思维是很少的耐受性，一致性和一致性是最重要的 - 指回到我先前的意见，如关于如何分庭或Briloff 领导批评一些已得到治疗。

我们生活在困难的时候，世界正处于危机状态或如果没有的东西非常接近了。

人类的历史已经表明，在这种绝望的时期，是外面有救了我们的思维。

例如，我们摆脱了上世纪30 年代，通过全新的方式，如凯恩斯经济学和罗斯福新政的政策建造的经济衰退。

当时两人都严厉批评了保守的既得利益（经济）利益。

我推断，从这个原因，我们需要新的“思维”，帮助我们解决我们现在面临的问题。

一分钟我并不是说这个责任与会计师单，但如果我们真的那么我们的专业人 2 士有一个非常现实的责任，作出贡献。

这将涉及到这些技能的，我们都应该拥有，也就是说，技术能力或专业知识（按以上职业定义）高级别属性富有想象力的使用。

Commentary Education for an accounting profession Michael Gaffikin School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia accounting education.Generally, practitioners seem to have been loath to want to change –to move from their comfort zones –and have been slow to recognise the problems raised by broader social concerns in areas associated with ethics, environmental degradation, globalisation, increasing business complexity and some other factors. Interestingly, as Devonport has pointed out, the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA) has been mildly criticised by international peerbodies for not including more elements of ethics and communication skills in their education programs. Of course, like most people, practitioner accountants do not really appreciate criticism and, again, this is understandable if the criticism is purely negative. However, in the past, they have often aggressively marginalised critics who have had the betterment of the profession as a primary concern. These include scholars such as Ray Chambers in Australia or, more particularly, Abe Briloff in the USA, a practitioner, who examined the financial statements of public companies and severely criticised firms that he believed had engaged in abusive accounting practices. This, in the USA, resulted in not only more rigorous accounting standards but also led the chief financial correspondent of The New York Times, in a speech to the American Accounting Association in 2006, to suggestthat had there been more Abe Briloffs there would have been fewer corporate accounting meltdowns (Granoff and Zeff, 2008). The academics In academe there is also a vast range of accounting interests, so comments are again generalisations. In the past academics acted largely as teachers. However, in more recent times academic accountants in many countries do not have to only teach, they are required by their institutions to be involved in research. Actually, the prospect ofengaging in research has been a reason why many people –but certainly not all –have taken on an academic career. However, accounting has increasingly had to conform to overall university policies and practices and in Western universities since the second half of the 20th century these have had a strong bias towards the sciences. Starting in the early 1970s there was a shift in the interest of accounting researchers away from whatwere traditionally perceived as the problems of accounting and accountants. The research focus was narrowed to only those aspects that could be observed in financial securities markets. As it grew, the focus was narrowed even further and the concerns researchers addressed were methodological rather than substantive issues. Trivial problems were being addressed by increasingly sophisticated mathematical and statistical analytical techniques in the researchers‘ misguided belief that they were engaging in truly scientific research. In the 3 misapprehension of what this entails, research models and methods of economics and finance were being applied in accounting. As Granoff and Zeff (2008) have observed, ―interesting and researchable questions in accounting are essentially being ignored‖. This is somewhat ironic in that while government policies in many countries (certainly in Australia) towardsresearch have been directed to encouraging and funding specific industry relevant research (itself a bit short sighted) much accounting research has been a little too esoteric and removed from the problems of the industry to be so regarded. Consequently, it is little wonder that the practitioner community became increasingly disenchanted with academe and while this was mainly evident in the United States, this research approach spread to other parts of the world, including Europe and Australasia. Initially supported by some large business interests, this new research movement was promoted and driven by ideologues of large, well endowed conservative US business schools with the lesser schools following like well trained sheep. This ―hierarchy‖ was reinforced by the capture of academic accounting journal editorial policies –the gatekeepers to accounting knowledge. An unfortunate legacy of this was that newaccounting academics in these leading US schools, although well versed in neo-classical economic theories and sophisticated mathematical analytical techniques, could not teach much accounting beyond introductory courses! Fortunately, there has also been a growing disenchantment with this approach in many accounting schools with the result that there has been an increase in interest in addressing issues in which accounting was seen to be intricately involved or where it was felt it should be involved. There is at last evidence –the GFC –that the market cannot solve all economic let alone other societal problems the ideologues claimed. There has been a growing awareness of the importance of accounting in an increasingly wide sphere of human activities –recognition of alternative approaches to accounting, which acknowledge more than simply the purely technical economic considerations. That is,recognising the social and human aspects of accounting practice. Unfortunately, although these accounting academics are concerned with the practical realities of the ―everyday accountant‖, the non-academic arms of the discipline have often viewed this work as being equally removed from everyday practice – but this is changing! The professional bodies Intuitively it would seem that a professional body should exist to serve the interests of its members and this is probably what accounting professional bodies would claim is PAR 21,2 174 their paramount concern. In fact, they have generally done this well. Where there is a single accounting body – for example, in countries such as New Zealand and Thailand – it has been easier to observe how they operate. In Australia, the two (traditional) main accounting bodies have worked hard to protect the interests of their membersthrough the setting up of research bodies designed to determine standards of best practice with which their members could not only comply, but with which they were seen to be complying. Until recently the bodies have sought to undertake their 4 responsibilities through a regime of self-regulation and compliance with relevant laws. However, in Australia the State has taken over this responsibility. The previous right of the professional bodies for self-regulation has been removed. There are many reasons for this but they probably include the inability of the professional bodies to present a unified front and the pressure from and the lobbying power of many non-accounting business interests. The determination of the interests of any group is a process of interpretation subject to the many political forces and interests that any institution faces. In Australia, despiteattempts to rationally combine the two main professional bodies, the interests of a minority prevailed and such moves failed. A consequence has been rather than working to promote the discipline as a profession and support its members, the bodies have been driven to compete with each other, wasting energy and resources. In areas where the two bodies once cooperated there is now suspicion and disunity. This has been disappointing and it is frustrating to note that the profession cannot always present a singe front on many issues of public policy concern. In Australia, there are other, less obvious, consequences of the competition between the various professional bodies, some of which have affected education and membership. Size seems to matter - witness the actions of some professional bodies in the UK which have set out on a campaign of global professional colonisation that matches the political colonisation of ahundred years earlier. Rather than remaining committed to the domestic interests of their members, these bodies have embarked on large scale international expansion. All the Australian bodies are constantly seeking to increase membership. Perhaps I am too cynical but it certainly seems that a policy of growth (of membership) subsumes other matters leaving one to ponder how current members‘ interests are being served by the expansion of the organisation. Logically, the result would seem to be either a zero-sum game or a dilution of current members‘ benefits. However, more disturbing are the possible implications of changing membership entry standards of this push for larger membership. One of the professional accounting bodies, in its bid to gain new members, has argued that the once fiercely fought for accounting degree entry standard is no longer relevant as the substantive elements of an accountingeducation can be taught in a short post graduate conversion course. If this is possible it then raises questions about the worth of an academic discipline of accounting which is, to me at least, do accountants really want to be a profession or just a trade? What is a profession? Dr Simon Longstaff, Director of the St James Ethics Centre in Sydney, has said that, ―professions do not have a right to exist. They are not the product of a law of nature. . . Rather, the professions are a social artefact‖(Longstaff, 1995). Education for an accounting profession 175 In medieval Europe there were only three recognised professions –law, medicine and divinity – although officers of the army and navy believed they too belonged to 5 professions. A typical dictionary definition is likely to suggest that a profession is an occupational group characterised by claims to a high level oftechnical competence or expertise, autonomy in recruitment and discipline and a commitment to public service[1]. There have been many lists of characteristics of a profession provided by different commentators and there is no agreement as to which are the definitive ones, but there are many more than what Devonport implies (or states). Six of the most commonly mentioned in these lists[2] are: (1) possession of a skill based on theoretical knowledge; (2) provision of training and an education; (3) testing of competence of members; (4) organisation; (5) adherence to a code of conduct; and (6) altruistic service. It is interesting to note in all these discussions of professions that a commitment to public service and ethics is a dominant characteristic. In Thailand a Committee on Professional Ethics has a significant position in the organisation of the Thai Federation of Accounting Professions (FAP).Recently, amongst those interested in defining and working with professions in other parts of the world, the discussion has moved away from defining a profession to an interest in the power that professions have in societies. That is, the power of professionals to delimit and control their work. Traditionally, professionals have exercised a high degree of self-regulation free from external control. It has been argued that: . . . professions are exclusive occupational groups which exercise jurisdiction over particular areas of work. This jurisdiction is held to rest on the control of a more-or-less abstract, esoteric and intellectual body of knowledge (Abbott in Kuper and Kuper, 2003, p. 677). To some, the status of a profession is more a reflection of self-interest rather than public service. That is, maintaining control over entry in order to command high material rewards. But, Samuels arguesthat ―th e destructive consequences of untrammelled economic exploitation are held at bay by professionalism.... where service rather than profit becomes the professional label‖ (Samuels, quoted by Longstaff, 1995, p. 3); is he right? In Australia, ethics are at present the responsibility of an Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board Limited (APESB), and it is interesting to note that the first statement in its first section of its Code of Conduct states that: A distinguishing mark of the accountancy profession is its acceptance of the responsibility to act in the public interest. What is the public interest? Thus, societies tolerate such occupational grouping under the title of professions in the belief that the interests of the community will be promoted; in fact privileges are accorded professionals in return for social benefits. There is a social contract entered PAR 21,2 176 into of the sort first conceived by the17th century English philosopher Thomas 6 Hobbes (see Russell, 1961, p. 535) and revived in the twentieth century in the work of the American philosopher John Rawls (1971). However, there are many problems in defining the public interest and all attempts will involve political considerations. Hobbes and his followers argued for strong governments capable of enforcing the social contract. However, today, we are not endeared to absolutist governments of the sort advocated by Hobbes or any other. In attempting to define the public interest, policy makers will have to balance community and individual interests.。