ABSTRACT
The failure of the neoclassical economic research community to engage with, explore and respond to the research proposals of George Shackle has led directly to two undesirable consequences. First, the neoclassical economic research community has denied the fundamental challenges posed by the research proposals that Shackle identified and sought to confront; this act of denial is generally justified on the basis of methodological grounds (Earl and Kay 1985). Second, contiguous disciplines that have been strongly influenced by the precepts of the neoclassical economic research community have inter alia also failed to actively engage with the Shacklean research proposals. In this chapter I argue that although this second-order failure with respect to contiguous disciplines, can be explained, it is often less excusable because the methodological rationales for not addressing the Shackle proposals are less apparent or less valid in the context of the contiguous research communities. In order to illustrate the argument I endeavour to relate the experiences of the management accounting research community to the insights offered by the Shackle research proposals with regard to the investment decision process.
