Search results

A reply to responses by Prem Sikka and Tony Willmott (“The withering of tolerance and communication in interdisciplinary accounting studies”) and Robert Scapens (“Reactions on reading ‘The withering of criticism’”) to Tony Tinker's initial paper, “The withering of criticism”.

The paper employs argument and discourse to critique the responses and defend the author's position.

The paper offers the authors' view of the comparative research approaches of Briloff, Sikka and Willmott.

The paper extends critical debate on North American and UK contributions and approaches to critical accounting scholarship.

In the UK and elsewhere, accounting vocabularies and practices have come to permeate everyday life through their involvement in the management of hospitals, schools, universities, charities, trade unions, etc. This has been accompanied by an increase in the power of accountancy and the institutions of accountancy which increasingly function as quasi‐legislators. Such developments call for a (re)consideration of the role of accounting academics/intellectuals. Argues that, in a world where major business and professional interests are organized to advance sectional interests, to promote stereotyped images and to limit public debates, accounting academics/intellectuals have a responsibility to give visibility to such issues and thereby mobilize potentialities for gaining a fuller understanding of, and encouraging more democratic participation in, the design and operation of major social institutions. Suggests that, despite the constraints on academics, there are considerable opportunities to create, develop or become active in public policy debates through networks that comprise politicians, journalists, disaffected practitioners and concerned citizens – all of whom are potential allies in furthering a process in which accounting and its institutions are problematized and accounting professionals are rendered more accountable.

During the past decade, one of the major thrusts of change in manufacturing industry has been the alignment of manufacturing methods to rapidly changing and turbulent market demands (Piore & Sabel, 1984; Smith, Child & Rowlinson, 1990). A focus upon core products and processes, involving customer responsiveness and the elimination of waste has been coupled with a drive to improve product quality and cost reduction. ‘New Wave’ lean manufacturing techniques (Storey, 1994) and management control methods (Berry, Broadbent & Otley, 1995) are therefore now widely com‐mended as a means of improving competitiveness in industry (Smith, 1990). However, it is always easier to extol the virtues of such techniques than to translate them into a coherent set of practices (Kunda, 1992).

This paper is situated within two debates. First concerns the theories of ‘disorganised capitalism’ and the like which argue for major restructuring of advanced capitalist societies. Reed (1991) usefully identifies and summarises three varieties of such theory: (i) Post‐Fordism/Flexible Specialisation (e.g. Piore and Sabel, 1982); (ii) Disorganised Capitalism (e.g. Lash and Urry, 1987); (iii) Post‐Modernism (e.g. Poster, 1984). Common to these theories of ‘disorganised capitalism’ is the understanding that the progressive development of an ‘organised society’ (Prestus, 1962) — characterised by concentration, centralisation and corporatism — is being interrupted/challenged by trends in a contrary direction. The second relates to arguments about the work of middle management (e.g. Goffee and Scase, 1986 v. Dopson and Stewart, 1990).

Reviews recent developments in new accounting research (NAR). Gives particular attention to recent empirical research within this perspective and uses the metaphor of (in)visibility to explore the distinctive nature of accounting as a set of social practices. Argues that much recent research seeks to make visible the conditions and consequences of accounting practices and the ways in which accounting(s) contribute(s) to the processes of social and organizational (re)production. In spite of this critical approach, however, NAR has very limited engagement with policy issues and debates. While recognizing the institutional pressures that tend to confine debate, urges proponents of NAR to consider how to communicate the significance of their work beyond the confines of the academic community.

Explores contributions to the process of organizing the interests of professional labour through a study of the debate on the governance of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The Tricker and Wersley Reports have illuminated the tensions and contradictions associated with the organization and regulation of labour. Shows specifically that, by striving to secure and maintain their powers and privileges, “professional” associations are caught on the horns of their dual responsibility as “self‐interested” sellers of labour and as guardians of “the public interest”.

This article reports on a recent study of personnel management in the life insurance industry. Until recently the industry has enjoyed a comparatively untroubled expansion largely because of the investment‐seeking surplus incomes of an increasingly affluent population and the market protection which large asset bases provided for the established companies. Recent developments are eroding the stability, though not the overall potential, of the market and it is against this background that our analysis takes place.

There are few social phenomena which have as significant effects on our lives in industrial societies as the management of firms. Despite this the empirical study of management is still an underdeveloped area of social scientific research. Though very much has been written about management it can still be argued that very little is known about it as a social practice in concrete historically specified contexts. Such a state of the art is mainly due to the fact that there has been a tendency to take the individual manager as the unit of analysis and abstract away from the historical, organisational and wider institutional context of managers and managing (Willmott 1984; 1987). By emphasising abstract‐general and universalistic determinations of managers and managing, most traditions of management research have missed crucial aspects of the nature of these phenomena. The problems to be solved by managers in firms and in the wide societal environment are, however, both varied and historically specific. The types of knowledge and skills required of managers are highly specific and related to particularistic objects of work (cf. Whitley 1988). In addition, success on the part of management is very much dependent on the right timing of their interventions.

The article is the response to a reply to the authors′ earlier article (in this journal) criticising the UK audit standard‐setting process. The reply claimed the article failed to prevent a balanced review of the “due process”, was not clear as to what constitutes “public interest”, and contained misrepresentations and errors. This response counter‐claims the errors and misrepresentations and accuses their critic of unwillingness to discuss the politics of accountancy regulation (compounded by his previous position as an official of the Auditing Practices Committee). These issues are discussed: clarifying the original article and dealing with the criticism point by point.

Explores the relationship between new trends in management thought (e.g. corporate culture, the Excellence literature) and postmodernist ideas. Argues that a central theme of postmodernism is the de‐differentiation of the spheres of economy and culture. Suggests that this theme is present in new management philosophies that celebrate the virtues of play, flexibility and indeterminacy. But that this celebration is partial and instrumental as, paradoxically, it is intended to extend the life of modernist institutions.