Search results

This experimental study investigates the connotative (measured) meaning of the concept “auditor independence” within three audit engagement case contexts, including two acknowledged in the literature to represent significant potential threats to independence. The study’s research design utilises the measurement of meaning (semantic differential) framework originally proposed by Osgood et al. (1957). Findings indicate that research participants considered the concept of independence within a two factor cognitive structure comprising “emphasis” and “variability” dimensions. Participants’ connotations of independence varied along both these dimensions in response to the alternative experimental case scenarios. In addition, participants’ perceptions of the auditor’s independence in the three cases were systematically associated with the identified connotative meaning dimensions.

Two ideal types of data can be distinguished in housing research: structured and less-structured data. Questionnaires and official statistics are examples of structured data, while less-structured data arise for instance from open interviews and documents. Structured data are sometimes labelled quantitative, while less-structured data are called qualitative. In this paper structured and less-structured data are considered from the perspective of measurement and analysis. Structured data arise when the researcher has an a priori category system or measurement scale available for collecting the data. When such an a priori system or scale is not available the data are called less-structured. It will be argued that these less-structured observations can only be used for any further analysis when they contain some minimum level of structure called a category system, which is equivalent to a nominal measurement scale. Once this becomes evident, one realizes that through the necessary process of categorization less-structured data can be analyzed in much the same way as structured data, and that the difference between the two types of data is one of degree and not of kind. In the second part of the paper these ideas are illustrated with examples from my own research on the meaning of preferences for dwelling features in which the concept of a meaning structure plays a central part. Until now these meaning structures have been determined by means of semi-structured interviews which, even with small samples, result in large amounts of less-structured data.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the extent to which there is shared meaning of the concept of auditor independence between the three major groups of parties on the demand and supply sides of the audit services market – auditors, financial report preparers and financial report users.

The paper utilises the measurement of meaning framework (semantic differential analysis) originally proposed by Osgood et al. in 1957. The framework is used to investigate the extent to which there is shared meaning (agreement in interpretations) of the independence concept, in response to alternative audit engagement case contexts, between key parties to the financial reporting communication process. The study's research data was collected in the period March 2004‐May 2005.

Findings indicate a robust and stable single‐factor cognitive structure within which the research participants interpret the connotative meaning of the auditor independence concept. An analysis of the experimental cases finds similarities in connotations (interpretations) of an audit firm's independence for the participant groups for most cases, with the exception of cases involving the joint provision of audit and non‐audit (taxation) services.

The usual external validity threat that applies to experimental research generally applies to the study. That is, the results may not be generalisable to settings beyond those examined in the study. An important implication of the study is that it emphasises the continuing problematic nature of the joint provision of audit and non‐audit services, even in situations where the non‐audit services comprise only traditional taxation services.

The study is the first to examine the concept of auditor independence by means of the Osgood et al. measurement of meaning research framework using, as research participants, the three major groups on the demand and supply sides of the audit services market.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how organizations make sense of and give sense to intellectual capital (IC) measurements, i.e. to analyse the sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensebreaking processes with reference to IC measurements. In order to achieve this aim, a case study, developed adopting an action research approach, will be presented.

This study is based on a case study for which an interventionist research method was adopted.

The main findings are the following. First, the development of an IC project requires the development of an intense sensemaking and sensegiving activity as the managers of an organization need, first, to make sense of this new object (i.e. assign it a meaning) and of the consequent new managerial practices and, second, to diffuse the sense of IC and of its measurements within the organization. Second, the development of an IC project can be seen as a series of different types of sensemaking micro-processes (guided, fragmented, restricted, etc.) and each of them can lead to a different outcome of the practice of measuring IC; thus, it seems possible to argue that the outcome of the project depends on the specific type of sensemaking/sensegiving adopted in each phase (e.g. lock-in, mobilization, etc.). Third, it emerges that IC can be a sensebreaking device, i.e. existing measurements introduced in an “IC box” can acquire different meanings. Finally this study underlines the relevance of the “leaders” within the development of IC sensemaking processes and the related outcomes.

The main limitations of this study are twofold. The first is related to the methodology adopted and to its specific pros and cons. The second is related to the specificities (size, managerial approach, etc.) of the case examined. This paper contributes to the extant literature regarding the production and use of IC measurements “in practice” as it highlights what happens when an IC measurement system is implemented. Moreover it contributes to the development of a “theory of indicators” as it suggests aspects regarding how IC indicators are interpreted. Finally, the paper adds to the growing stream of analysis dedicated to the micro-processes of sensegiving and other sensemaking patterns, i.e. to the studies focused on how measurements are “shaped” “through the creative oral intertwining of accounting and other organizational knowledge”.

Differently from the extant literature, this study does not adopt a theoretical perspective on how measurements are designed and used but is aimed at investigating how these measurements are designed and used “in practice”. Moreover, this study analyses the use of IC measurements focusing specifically on the micro-processes of sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensebreaking that tend to be overlooked. In other words, this study examines sensemaking processes related to IC measurements, i.e. the sensemaking of IC measurements and by means of IC measurements. Finally, this investigation considers the different types of sensemaking processes in order to interpret the different outcomes of measuring IC.

Many public, professional organizations have introduced performance measurement systems in the belief that they will lead to a transparent organization, offering incentives for performance and able to account for its performance. These systems produce a large number of perverse effects, however. The article presents five successive strategies aimed at preventing these effects where possible: tolerating competing product definitions; banning a monopoly on interpreting production figures; limiting the functions of and forums for performance measurement; strategically limiting the products that can be subjected to performance measurement; and using a process perspective of performance in addition to a product perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact on communication of changes in an accounting standard arising from the transition to International Financial Reporting Standards. It investigates inter and intragroup differences in measured connotative meaning of the old and new definitions of “cash”, as held by three key groups of parties to the accounting communication process (preparers, auditors and users); and determines the effect of changes in connotative meaning on decision behaviour (outcomes).

The study adopted a between‐participants 2×3 factorial design whereby the first factor reflected the definition type: old vs new definition of the concept “cash”; while the second reflected three financial reporting groups: preparers, auditors and users. The semantic differential technique developed by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum was used to measure connotative meaning.

The study finds that the three financial reporting groups do not share the same meaning of the concept “cash” and that the introduction of the new definition has changed the interpreted connotative meaning for these three groups. A link between measured meaning and the decisions made by the participants was also established.

The explanatory power of the typical three (evaluative, potency and activity) factor structure should be acknowledged; these factors typically explain 50 per cent of the total phenomena known as “meaning”. The study's findings make an important contribution to the earnings management and creative accounting literature.

The findings are particularly relevant to standard‐setters and regulators as a lack of shared meaning may lead to unnecessary misunderstandings and tensions among the many parties to the reporting process.

The study extends prior measurement of meaning studies in accounting through first, the inclusion of all three major groups of parties to the accounting communication process; second, examination of an accounting concept which is defined differently by two accounting standards in the same jurisdiction; and last, investigation of the impact on decision behaviour (outcomes) resulting from changes in meaning brought about through the introduction of a new standard across the three groups.

Indicators of economic and social phenomena can be useful descriptive and analytical inputs for public policy. The “social indicators movement” has emerged in the last decade and is devoted to the measurement of widely‐ranging dimensions of human welfare. For the most part, questions of systematic measurement for public policy are explored here. Drawing initially on some traditions of measurement in economics, the principal aim is to provide a broad theoretical frame of reference for policy indicator design. Questions of indicator development necessarily involve ideas of suitability or validity of indicators designed for a purpose. Approaches to indicator design for the purpose of enhancing collective decision‐making—including formal model building approaches—are subsumed as special cases once a more general theory is espoused in sections II and III.

Concepts equip the mind with thought, provide our theories with ideas, and assign variables for testing our hypotheses. Much of contemporary research deals with narrowly circumscribed concepts, termed simple concepts herein, which are the grist for much empirical inquiry in the field. In contrast to simple concepts, which exhibit a kind of unity, complex concepts are structures of simple concepts, and in certain instances unveil meaning going beyond simple concepts or their aggregation. When expressed in hylomorphic structures, complex concepts achieve unique ontological status and serve particular explanatory capabilities. We develop the philosophical foundation for hylomorphic structures and show how they are rooted in dispositions, dispositional causality, and various mind–body trade-offs. Examples are provided for this emerging perspective on “Big concepts” or “Big Ideas.”

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.