Applying McMullin’s Method for the Anatomy of Scientific Controversies in the History of Accounting Thought

This paper introduces a replicable protocol for dissecting scientific controversies in accounting history, adapting McMullin's (1987) "anatomy of scientific controversies" into an explicit sequence of analytic steps. Applying the protocol to the Chambers-Onida debate in the early 1970s shows that what looks like a technical disagreement about measurement bases is sustained by deeper epistemic and philosophical divergences, especially claims about the neutrality of scientific knowledge, the legitimacy of financial statement valuation, and the possibility of a univocal versus plural representation of economic reality. By systematically distinguishing between standard and nonstandard epistemic factors and nonepistemic conditions, the method situates the controversy within the scientific, cultural, and social environment of its time and supports historically congruent interpretive keys, thereby mitigating the risk of presentism. Ultimately, the protocol allows for reconstructing the factors that may lead a given controversy to end in resolution, closure, or abandonment.