In generating theories of accounting based upon what accountants actually do, it is assumed (often implicitly) that what is done by the majority of accountants is the most appropriate practice. In adopting such a perspective there is, in a sense, a perspective of accounting Darwinism—a view that accounting practice has evolved, and the fittest, or perhaps ‘best’, practices have survived. Prescriptions or advice are provided to others on the basis of what most accountants do—the ‘logic’ being that the majority of accountants must be doing the most appropriate thing. What do you think of the logic of such an argument?