英语论文网

aluation is in need, hence more regular. Normative accounting research and positive accounting research aim at different levels of accounting research with varied angles, so they are a undividable research unity that multi-relate and complement.
Higher levels of normative accounting research determines its necessarily involves value judgments, while the empirical accounting research was due to focus on accounting objectives at a lower level of research, as relates to the fact that judgments.
Higher levels of normative accounting research determines that it necessarily involves value judgments, while positive accounting research, due to its focus on accounting objectives at a lower level of research refers to fact judgments. What their relationship is? As is demonstrated as follows: natural facts existence → human being’s empirical cognition or judgment → fact judgment → restriction of objective demands and subjective demands → value judgment (positive or negative). Thus, fact judgments and value judgments are interlinked, and therefore normative accounting research cannot rule out fact judgments and neither can empirical accounting research completely abandon value judgments. Besides, in accordance with philosophy, “what it is” (fact judgments) is prier to “what it should be” (value judgments), so positive accounting research is the basics of normative accounting research; however, as “what it is” always has a touch of ambiguity (say, basic accounting hypothesis is originated from subjective accounting circumstance and is thus characterized by subjectivity, namely, “what it is”. While accounting targets represent the objective demands of the accounting information consumers, namely, “what it should be”, but the accounting profession concentrate on both of them without partiality, does it inspire us?), “what it should be” need to be imposed on certain regulations so normative accounting research is likewise indispensable.
Four, the comparison of normative and positive accounting research and the differences of their approaches can mainly get down to two aspects:
Firstly, positive accounting research testifies hypothesis with useful facts as criterion, but, as “useful” has no specific standards, useful to one interest group not necessarily to another one, the testifying criterion of positive accounting research is benefit-oriented and based on the constraint social demands. Normative-positive accounting research takes subjects established social demands as a starting point, which serves not only as the ultimate destination of accounting theories but also as the concrete application of reverse minds into accounting theoretical research. In one word, the testifying criterion of normative-positive accounting research is the unity of mind-simulation test and social practice test in which the former makes use of a large amount of image minds and instinct logical minds to evaporate rational objects abstracted from accounting practices into ideal objects so as to maintain their essential characteristics as well as the logicality of thinking process, while the latter concretizes hypothetic connotations to arm them with metrizability so as to turn theoretical hypothesis into practicable hypothesis.
Secondly, positive accounting research puts undue emphasis on the test of sentimental experience onto hypothesis and overlooks the researchers’ cognitive ability as the subject of accounting theoretical research as wel本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。