Search results

This chapter addresses a sensitive topic in the field of education: the relationship between and among narrative inquiry, critical analysis, and critical theory. It argues that narrative inquirers are critical – but not in the same way that critical theorists are critical, although they may draw on the same literature and terms. To make our point, we unpack three of our peer-reviewed articles and highlight our theoretical frames and research moves to demonstrate criticality in narrative inquiry. We specifically discuss (1) titles and topics, (2) research frameworks, (3) historical and contemporary data, (4) use of participants' voices (words and feelings), (5) themes, and (6) new knowledge. We mostly argue that narrative inquiry exists because of experience. From experience, everything else unfolds – including criticality – depending on where the researcher in relationship with research participants, takes the inquiry. This chapter explicitly addresses a lived issue known both inside the narrative inquiry community and outside of it.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the origins and development of the “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ) Community”, a flourishing international interdisciplinary accounting research community. This scholarly community has emerged over some 30 years from the publication in 1988 of the inaugural issue of AAAJ under the joint editorship of James Guthrie and Lee Parker. This historical account discusses the motivation for establishing the journal and the important publishing initiatives, developments and trends across this period. The study positions the journal as a key thought leader, the catalyst for other Community activities such as the Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting conference.

The investigation involved a selective review of the contents of AAAJ, particularly the annual editorials published since inception, and other relevant literature, analysis of the main research themes and the most cited papers, and oral history interviews with the joint editors. The future prospects for the AAAJ Community are addressed.

The AAAJ Community has shaped and led developments in interdisciplinary accounting research. Recognised for innovation and with a reputation for nurturing scholars, AAAJ continues to grow in stature as one of the world’s leading accounting journals, challenging the status quo and fostering inclusive scholarship.

The study does not examine the journal’s publication patterns nor assess in detail the research studies that have been published in the journal.

The study recognises AAAJ as central to the development of an interdisciplinary accounting research community, firmly located in the sociological, critical and interpretative tradition also associated with some other leading accounting journals.

This chapter explores literacy narratives as a narrative inquiry approach used in a Canadian education foundation course which focuses on story and experience as told and retold through letter-writing correspondence among teacher candidates. The process is illustrated in the chapter through a literacy narrative exemplar. The 3R framework developed by the author in her research program on poverty and education was applied to teacher candidates’ narrative ways of excavating storied experiences and assumptions in schooling. The 3R framework helps teacher candidates deconstruct their literacy narrative correspondences in order to avoid ‘hardening’ into their lived storied experiences as they work through the framework of: narrative reveal to help them excavate unconscious assumptions that surface in their writing; narrative revelation to show how they can interrogate further their own (sometimes biased) experiences, and; narrative reformation to show how prospective teachers can begin to transform teacher knowledge through awakened new narratives. Literacy narratives, as a curriculum making pedagogy to deconstruct formally and informally using personal educative experiences, readings from the course, and usage of the 3R framework, is a pedagogical example of social justice that gives dignity, respect, and perspective in order to reframe thinking about diverse issues in teaching and teacher education.

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

Critical management studies (CMS) has been criticised on a number of fronts, not the least of them being its poor track record of reflecting and challenging its internal mechanisms of hierarchy and exclusion. Acknowledging these issues, this chapter explores the role queer theory can play in developing a queer friendship with CMS, whereby CMS might be able to reflect on its normalising tendencies. This chapter does not claim that queer theory is a silver bullet which can deliver itself or otherwise work miracles for solving the complex problems that beset CMS. Rather, it seeks to fan the queer embers that already exist within CMS to spark queerer futures. Part of this endeavour involves bringing CMS and queer theory closer together, but not so close that the two become comfortable companions. As this chapter suggests, a queer friendship will involve antagonisms and tensions between queer and CMS help each other to refute the normative at every turn and gesture towards something more: queerness. Pursuing this project, this chapter provides a brief review of queer theory before outlining current queer stirrings within CMS. The remainder of the chapter focuses on what we might hope to happen from CMS and queer theory being yoked together in a queer friendship, such as bringing queers to the fore in business schools, queering management conferences and embracing forms of queer negativity that condition more radical conceptions of the future.

This chapter discusses and investigates the sustainability reporting across different sectors. The first section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and primary sector's performance (Agriculture and Food Industries Sector and Energy Sector). The second section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and secondary sector's performance (Manufacturing Sector). The final section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and tertiary sector's performance (Banks and Financial Services Sector, Retail Sector, Telecommunication and Information Technology Sector, and Tourism Sector).

In two experiments on reactions to persistent annoyance from another person, participants employed a very orderly verbal escalation sequence that fit a cascading Guttman scale. This began with requests and moved on to demands, and then to complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and abuse, in that order. The more escalated the tactic, the fewer people used it. People seldom skipped a step on the way to their most escalated tactic. Two possible explanations for this pattern seemed plausible in light of the data, that it is due to either a widely snared try‐try‐again script or a declining hierarchy of thresholds. Verbal escalation was associated with a negative view of the annoyer's character, while physical escalation was associated with blame and feelings of frustration and anger. Escalation was discouraged by membership in the same group as the annoyer. Loud noise did not encourage escalation in general but promoted the use of angry statements.

Purpose – The authors investigate the interpretations of senior university decision-makers on three questions: (1) What constitutes “relevant” research? (2) In what ways is the relevance of research typically measured? and (3) What alternative ways might be adopted in measuring the relevance of research?

Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study adopts an inductive approach, informed by data collected from semi-structured interviews with senior research-related university leaders and archival sources in five Australian and eight US universities.

Findings – There is considerable convergence in the conceptualization as well as the operationalization of the notion of relevance between the Australian and US universities participating in this study. The evidence supports a relational rather than currently prevailing transactional approaches in operationalizing the concept of research relevance. This relational approach emphasizes the importance of stakeholders, their needs and expectations, and their engagement in the articulation of measures that demonstrate the relevance of research in both the short and longer terms.

Research limitations/implications – The evidence is primarily based on the views of university senior management drawn from a relatively small number of universities leading to questions about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the findings have been informed by leaders at the most senior hierarchical levels. Although consistent with the aim of the study, the views of university leaders provide only one view on our research questions.

Originality/value – The authors provide a conceptual view of research relevance from the perspective of one pivotal group – university senior management – that has been largely and surprisingly overlooked in discussions of the relevance of academic research.