This essay, following up on the recent Sy and Tinker [2005] and Tyson and Oldroyd [2007] debate, argues that accounting history research needs to present critiques of the present state of accounting\u27s authoritative concepts and principles, theory, and present-day practices. It proposes that accounting history research could benefit by adopting a genealogical, effective history approach. It outlines four fundamental strengths of traditional history investigate only the real with facts; the past is a permanent dimension of the present; history has much to say about the present; and the past, present, and future constitute a seamless continuum. It identifies Nietzsche\u27s major concerns with traditional history, contrasts it with his genealogical approach, and reviews Foucault\u27s [1977] follow up to Nietzsche\u27s approach. Two examples of genealogical historiography are presented Williams\u27 [1994] exposition of the major shift in British discourse regarding slavery and Macintosh et al.\u27s [2000] genealogy of the accounting sign of income from feudal times to the present. The paper critiques some of the early Foucauldian-based accounting research, as well as some more recent studies from this perspective. It concludes that adopting a genealogical historical approach would enable accounting history research to become effective history by presenting critiques of accounting\u27s present state
