Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how actors subjected to public performance evaluations may “contest commensuration,” i.e. may seek to influence how such ratings and rankings will be construed among important stakeholders.

A qualitative study of press releases, and interviews with department heads, is used as a basis for the analysis.

The empirically derived taxonomy of public responses to a state-initiated performance evaluation of educational programs shows that actors may mobilize an array of commensuration management tactics so as to maintain or improve one’s relative positional status. Such tactics may have at least three different foci, namely, on the comparison object (i.e. on the new grouping of actors), the comparison dimension (i.e. the standardized format for comparison) and the comparison rate (i.e. the rate received), respectively. The authors also find that not only are threats to positional status likely to spur commensuration management tactics, but also the opportunity to exploit a good rate.

The paper augments recent research that has problematized the so-called “reactive conformance thesis” by focusing on how evaluated organizations may directly try to influence external stakeholders through public responses. The study is also one of the first that analytically disentangles how they may skillfully exploit different forms of “plasticity” that are inherent in any type of commensuration.

The purpose of this study is to examine the management perceptions towards calculative practices behind the reconstruction of a mandatory hospital accreditation (HA) system that transforms multiple facets of health-care quality into a single performance index.

This study contributes to the sociology of quantification mobilising the concept of commensuration as a social process to reflect on contemporary changes in managing HA systems. Data are collected adopting a case study of a Spanish public hospital drawing on semi-structured interviews, observation and documentary review.

Findings emphasise a shift from standards’ compliance to a more comprehensive view encouraging continuous quality improvement. Accreditation acts as a tin opener to facilitate external inspection removing contextual differences amongst hospitals and reducing organisational practices into controllable objects. It also reveals underlying ethical concerns as the system was built as a care quality measure that promptly developed into an attainment goal.

The valuable role of HA to enhance quality standards and the limitations resulting from its commensuration practices will be of interest to policymakers, organisational managers and researchers.

Despite a growing emphasis on audit and valuation practices in health care, accounting studies examining the capacity of public hospitals to manage quality improvement are scarce. This study inspires further research on accreditation to overcome commensuration flaws regarding external transparency, evaluation ambiguity and extra incentives.

The idea of “best practice” is very much built into information systems and the ways in which they organise and structure work. The purpose of this paper is to examine how “best practice” may be identified (produced) through a community-based evaluation process as opposed to traditional expert-based evaluation frameworks. The paper poses the following research questions: how does “best practice” (e)valuation in online communities differ depending on whether they are produced by community members or experts? And what role play these two practices of valuation for online community performance?

The paper is based on a three-year ethnographic study of a large-scale online community initiative run by the European Commission. Participant observation of online and offline activities (23 events) was complemented with 73 semi-structured interviews with 58 interviewees. The paper draws on Science and Technology Studies, and in particular actor-network theory.

Promoting the idea of “best practice” is not just an exercise about determining what “best” is but rather supposes that best is something that can travel across sites and be replicated. The paper argues that it is crucial to understand the work performed to coordinate multiple practices of producing “best practice” as apparatuses of valuation. Hence if practices are shared or circulate within an online community, this is possible because of material-discursive practices of dissociation and association, through agential cuts. These cuts demarcate what is important – and foregrounded – and what is backgrounded. In so doing new “practice objects” are produced.

The research was conducted in the European public sector where participants are not associated through shared organisational membership (e.g. as employees of the same organisation). An environment for determining “best practice” that is limited to an organisation’s employees and more homogeneous may reveal further dynamics for “best practice” production.

This paper sheds light on why it is so difficult to reach commensuration in crowd-sourced environments.

The paper provides an analysis of how online community members collaborate in order to identify relevant and meaningful user-generated content. It argues that “best practice” is produced through a process of commensuration.

US tax-exempt nonprofits are chronically underdeveloped when it comes to reporting, communicating and comparing the value they create. This paper aims to explore an approach to address these reporting and disclosure issues, for the purpose of sustainability and impact.

First, the authors ask and then answer: is it time to clean up US tax-exempt nonprofit reporting? Second, the authors develop a theoretical argument, based on commensuration of impact, for a specific tax-exempt integrated report (IR), to compare the value of tax-exempt nonprofits. Third, this study offers an example of this tax-exempt IR in practice.

First, this study evidences the need for a drastic shift in the expectations and reporting practices of US tax-exempt nonprofits. Second, this study offers an IR framework that responds to recent scholarly calls to address organizational accountability boundaries and impact assessment in the nonprofit sector. Third, this contributes to sustainability policy conversation by mapping out an approach that US tax-exempt nonprofits could deploy to speed up the implementation of sustainable solutions (Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] 17).

This study contributes to sustainability conversation by closing with a discussion of why policymakers, managers and scholars should continue to push for maximum impact from US tax-exempt nonprofits. If addressing the UN SDGs is a desired outcome, then there is an immediate need for change in the way US nonprofits report what they do. This study suggests that learning from the European Union reporting practices and regulations will facilitate a move toward improved reliability, comparability and impact from US nonprofits.

The aim of this paper was to present a disclosure framework that provides reliable and comparable information of the value created by tax-exempt nonprofits. This principle-based framework is rooted in the IR literature and extends into the prosocial world of tax-exempt nonprofits, recognizing that is it goes farther than simply being a framework; it is a social process.

This paper responds to recent calls for more oversight and comparison disclosure mechanisms of US tax-exempt nonprofits, for the purpose of reducing social or environmental inequality. The framework makes an important contribution to the field of sustainability accounting, in that it promotes a principle-based approach for measuring and regulating tax-exempt nonprofits, in a way that motivates oversight and comparison of sustainability-related practices.

This paper aims to investigate the process by which performative technologies (PTs), in this case accreditation work in a business school, take form and how humans engage in making up such practices. It studies how academics come to accept and even identify with the quantitative representations of themselves in a translation process.

The research involved a longitudinal, self-ethnographic case study that followed the accreditation process of one Nordic business school from 2015 to 2021.

The findings show how the PT pushed for different engagements in various phases of the translation process. Early in the translation process, the PT promoted engagement because of self-realization and the ability for academics to proactively influence the prospective competitive milieu. However, as academic qualities became fabricated into numbers, the PT was able to request compliance, but also to induce self-reflection and self-discipline by forcing academics to compare themselves to set qualities and measures.

The paper advances the field by linking five phases of the translation process, problematization, fabrication, materialization, commensuration and stabilization, to a discussion of why academics come to accept and identify with the quantitative representations of themselves. The results highlight that the materialization phase appears to be the critical point at which calculative practices become persuasive and start influencing academics’ thoughts and actions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the management control systems developed by universities and groups within them, to manage research within UK University Business and Management Schools. Specifically, the paper analyses how universities develop their internal management control systems in response to an externally imposed regulatory system. It also provides an agenda for future research.

The paper uses a middle range approach to consider the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the previous Research Assessment Exercises. It uses the language provided by a number of conceptual frames to analyse insights from the lived experience, and builds on previous literature that has recognised the perverse outcomes of such performance measurement systems.

The study finds that the internal management control systems developed by academics themselves amplify the controls imposed by the REF. These internal control systems are accepted by some academics although they encourage a movement away from previously held academic values.

This study contributes to debates about the dysfunctional impacts of the use of performance measures to manage research. Its originality lies in explaining that the management control systems developed to resist the imposition of external performance measurement systems may lead to symbolic violence where participants become involved with their own subjugation.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the socio-political role of materiality assessment in sustainability reporting literature and discuss the potential of materiality assessment to advance more inclusive accounting and reporting practices, in particular critical dialogic accounting.

Drawing on literature on the concept of materiality together with insights from stakeholder engagement, commensuration and critical dialogic accounting the paper analyses disclosure on materiality in sustainability reports. Empirically, qualitative content analysis is used to analyse 44 sustainability reports from the leading companies.

The authors argue that, first, the technic-rational approach to materiality portrays the assessment as a neutral and value-free measurement, and second, the materiality matrix presents the multiple stakeholders as having a unified understanding of what is considered important in corporate sustainability. Thus, the technic-rational approach to the materiality assessment, reinforced with the use of the matrix is a value-laden judgement of what matters in corporate sustainability and narrows down rather than opens up the complexity of the assessment of material sustainability issues, stakeholder engagement and the societal pursuit of sustainable development.

The understandings and implications of the concept of materiality are ambiguous and wide-reaching, as, through constituting the legitimised set of claims and information on corporate sustainable performance, it impacts our understanding of sustainable development at large, and affects the corporate and policy-level transition towards sustainability. Exploring insights from critical dialogic accounting help us to elaborate on the conceptions and practical implications of materiality assessment that enhance stakeholder engagement in a democratic, rather than managerial, spirit.

The purpose of this paper is to report the outcome of an interdisciplinary discussion on the concepts of profit and profitability and various ways in which we could potentially problematize these concepts. It is our hope that a much greater attention or reconsideration of the problematization of profit and related accounting numbers will be fostered in part by the exchanges we include here.

This paper adopts an interdisciplinary discussion approach and brings into conversation ideas and views of several scholars on problematizing profit and profitability in various contexts and explores potential implications of such problematization.

Profit and profitability measures make invisible the collective endeavour of people who work hard (backstage) to achieve a desired profit level for a division and/or an organization. Profit tends to preclude the social process of debate around contradictions among the ends and means of collective activity. An inherent message that we can discern from our contributors is the typical failure of managers to appreciate the value of critical theory and interpretive research for them. Practitioners and positivist researchers seem to be so influenced by neo-liberal economic ideas that organizations are distrusted and at times reviled in their attachment to profit.

Problematizing opens-up the potential for interesting and significant theoretical insights. A much greater pragmatic and theoretical reconsideration of profit and profitability will be fostered by the exchanges we include here.

In setting out a future research agenda, this paper fosters theoretical and methodological pluralism in the research community focussing on problematizing profit and profitability in various settings. The discussion perspectives offered in this paper provides not only a basis for further research in this critical area of discourse and regulation on the role and status of profit and profitability but also emancipatory potential for practitioners (to be reflective of their practices and their undesired consequences of such practices) whose overarching focus is on these accounting numbers.

The purpose of this paper is to deal with the problem of labour law effectiveness, i.e. the comparison between the protective rules’ reasons for existence and their practical effects.

The paper briefly reviews the most important economic models from which arguments can be drawn in support of (or against) the coherence between labour law aims and effects, particularly focusing on the principal/agent model, which considers the work contract as partially functioning as a sort of insurance policy aimed to guarantee a certain degree of equality among workers notwithstanding their different ability and luck. The paper then assumes the traditional labour law commitment to building equality among workers as a test‐bench of the labour law effectiveness. It then proposes a crucial test for the equalization principle's practical functioning: when is it fair to dismiss an inefficient worker? The paper analyses the current mechanism of judicial application of just cause for dismissal, showing how, in its Italian version, it actually causes the most rigid courts’ orientation – instead of the average one, or the median one – to be assumed by employers and employees as a benchmark for their behaviour in case of litigation.

This mechanism appears theoretically coherent with the guarantee, traditionally pursued by labour law, of equality among workers independently of the differences among their performances; but this effect is based on the prerequisite that they are hired “under the veil of ignorance” about the efficiency of their future performance; this is why this effect can operate only within the firm where they are employed. Outside the firm, in the external labour market, the same traditional mechanism causes an effect of exclusion for the worker whose lack of efficiency is already visible. The paper concludes that the best effective guarantee of welfare for the worker who turns out to be the loser in the natural or social lottery is today given – rather than by a strong protection of stability of the work relationship – by a system of education, professional training, information and intensive assistance in the labour market, capable of reducing as much as possible, or even eliminating, his/her deficit of initial endowment or handicap, either pre‐existing or acquired.

The paper offers insight into the issue of whether labour law actually produces equality among workers.

The authors examine how performance measurement systems (PMSs) and academic agency influence the meaning of research quality in practice. The worries are that the notion of research quality is becoming too simplistically and narrowly determined by research quality's measurable proxies and that academics, especially manager-academics, do not sufficiently realise this risk. Whilst prior literature has covered the effects of performance measurement in the university sector broadly and how PMSs are mobilised locally, there is only little understanding of whether and how PMSs affect the meaning of research quality in practice.

The study is designed as a comparative case study of two university faculties in Finland. The role of conceptual analysis plays a notable role in the study, too.

The authors find that manager-academics of the two examined faculties have rather similar conceptual understandings of research quality. However, there were differences in the degree of slippage between the “espoused-meaning” of research quality and “meaning-in-practice” of research quality. The authors traced these differences to how the local PMS and manager-academics’ agency relate to one another within the context of increasing global and national performance pressures. The authors developed a tentative framework for the various “styles of agency”. This suggests how the relationship between the local PMS and manager-academics’ exerted agency shapes the “degrees of freedom” of the meaning of research quality in practice.

Given that research quality lies at the heart of academic work, the authors' paper indicates that exploring the three matters – performance measurement, the agency of manager-academics and the meaning of research quality in practice – in combination is crucial for the sustainability of the academe. The authors contribute to the literature by detailing the way in which local PMS and manager-academics' agency have material impacts on what research quality means in practice. The authors conclude by highlighting the pressing need for manager-academics to exercise the agency in efforts to safeguard a broad and pluralistic understanding of research quality in practice.