Search results
11 – 20 of over 1000This is a study of how members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) produce their talk, using the principles of ethnomethodological conversation analysis. The focus is on two interralated…
Abstract
This is a study of how members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) produce their talk, using the principles of ethnomethodological conversation analysis. The focus is on two interralated phenomena of the openings of turns. Recurrently, the first words of the turns, i.e., greetings and self‐identification, are followed with a resonse space during which members display their orientation to coparticipants through allusions to prior speakers. Positive references to prior speakers are stated directly and addressed explicitly, typically through a phrase such as: “I identified with X and what X said,” wheras critical remarks are stated implicitly and without any address. Through this procedure, members establish their individual position in each meeting without posing challenges to other members. The allusions occasions initiation of a subsequent topic of the turn that characteristically is biographically relevant for the speaker. This procedure of organization of talk permits AA meetings to handle delicate issues in a sociable, nonconfrontive way.
John Millar, Frank Mueller and Chris Carter
The paper provides a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary accounting scholars interested in performances of accountability in front of live audiences.
Abstract
Purpose
The paper provides a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary accounting scholars interested in performances of accountability in front of live audiences.
Design/methodology/approach
This is a processual case study of “Falkirk in crisis” that covers the period from September 2021 to September 2022. The focus of this paper is two-fan-Q&A sessions held in October 2021 and June 2022. Both are naturally occurring discussions between two groups such as are found in previous research on routine events and accountability. This is a theoretically consequential case study.
Findings
A key insight of the paper is to identify the practical and symbolic dimensions of accountability. The paper demonstrates the need to align these two dimensions when responding to questions: a practical question demands a practical answer and a symbolic question requires a symbolic answer. Second, the paper argues that most fields contain conflicting logics and highlights that a complete performance of accountability needs to cover the different conflicting logics within the field. In this case, this means paying full attention to both the communitarian and results logics. A third finding is that a performance of accountability cannot succeed if the audience rejects attempts to impose an unpalatable definition of the situation. If these three conditions are not met, the performance is bound to fail.
Research limitations/implications
An important theoretical coontribution of the study is the application of Jeffery Alexander’s work on political performance to public performances of accountability.
Practical implications
The phenomenon explored in the paper (what the authors term “grassroots accountability”) has broad applicability to any situation in organizational or civic life where the power apex of an organization is required to engage with a group of informed and committed stakeholders – the “community”. For those who find themselves in the position of the fans in this study, the observations set out in the empirical narrative can serve as a useful practical guide. Attempts to answer a practical complaint with a symbolic answer (or vice versa) should be challenged as evasive.
Social implications
This paper studies an engagement of elite actors with ordinary (or grassroots) actors. The study shows important rules of engagement, including the importance of respecting the power of practical questions and the need to engage with these questions appropriately.
Originality/value
This paper offers a new vista for interdisciplinary accounting by synthesizing the accountability literature with the political performance literature. Specifically, the paper employs Jeffery Alexander’s work on practical and symbolic performance to study the microprocesses underpinning successful and unsuccessful performances of accountability.
Details