Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand why a professor of accounting uses the media to expose the failure/shortcomings of the accounting profession. Using Prem Sikka's writings, the paper argues that accounting communications have become distorted thereby failing to live up to their potential to contribute to the enhancement of social well‐being. The intention is to go beyond the media exposes and appreciate the underlying pursuit of fairness and justice in society.

The approach taken was journalistic in that it sought lots of direct quotations. Such quotations, both from the professor and the responses of his audience, are available through web sites. A telephone interview was conducted with the professor. The paper attempts to place his work in a social context by providing some personal background information.

Prem Sikka's media “blogs” bring forth strong reactions. He tends to polarise people. The purpose of his media releases is to generate opposing reactions in the pursuit of an open and democratic process. By focusing on the darker side of accounting practices, Prem Sikka highlights the political aspects of accounting as accounting language that may be considered as a language of fiction. He writes from the perspective of those who least benefit from current practices and against the powerful elites who benefit from current societal arrangements. His media articles have significant potential in facilitating change for best practices in accounting services to society in a manner that truly reflects the “public interest” that accountants as a professional group ascribe to. Whether this is realised depends on how counter accounts and critiques disseminated connect with common sense of people.

The originality is a derivative of Prem Sikka's work. The paper simply tries to understand and explain how Prem Sikka uses the media to hold accountants to account. It illustrates his unique ability to identify and confront the important issues surrounding accounting practice. It adds support to his challenge to accountants to engage with issues of fairness and justice in society. Analysis bringing out accounting's ambiguous and conflict‐enhancing functioning for the socio‐political order has been especially scarce. Such writings of Sikka challenges the status quo of accountants where their charters indicate that they are a professional group that have “public interest” as their key priority but which have been illustrated otherwise by Sikka's media accounts as “dark and secretive practices” that benefit only the privileged few.

The purpose of this paper is to develop arguments for a public policy of requiring all large companies to make their tax returns publicly available. It is argued that such a policy would help to check tax avoidance, strengthen public accountability and secure fair competition.

The policy proposal rests on notions of transparency and public accountability.

The paper argues that the proposed policy is feasible.

The paper hopes to stimulate debates about the value of public filing of corporate returns and limits of public accountability.

The paper extends the range of public policies which might be able to check organised tax avoidance.

It is one of the few papers to call for public filings of large company tax returns.

This paper applies Bhabha’s concept of the third space to frame an understanding of Prem Sikka’s use of digital media to bridge the academic–activist binary. In doing this, the paper makes two contributions. First, it conceptualises Sikka’s engagement, and second, through the lens of the third space, it analyses it to establish whether, in the era of the neoliberal corporatised university, public intervention has the potential to generate new perspectives and new knowledge.

Sikka’s articles and blogs for the period 20 February 2002 to 15 April 2020 were analysed using Leximancer, a textual analysis software programme that displays the output visually. A discriminant analysis was used to identify where each year of the study is situated in the overall semantic analysis. Netnography, the examination of archived published texts, was then used to analyse the responses by members of the public, academics, accountants and auditors, tax experts, policy makers and regulators to Sikka’s digital media engagement.

As a third space practitioner, Sikka has overcome some of the shortcomings associated with academic research to challenge the activities of professional accounting firms, regulatory bodies and multinational corporations. Through extending the boundaries of accounting and accountability, he has facilitated new radical alliances aiming to create a just and equitable society. The paper also finds that by opening up a third space of engagement, academic activists’ work can play an essential part in social transformation and emancipatory change framed in terms of social justice and equity.

This is one of the few papers to provide an in-depth examination of the activities of an accounting activist over twenty years.

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.

Seeks to extend debates about the emancipatory potential of the internet by commenting on Sikka's reflections (in this issue) on the papers by Gallhofer et al. and by Paisey and Paisey (both papers in this issue).

Response to Sikka's reflections, with an elaboration of the intersection of the critical and postmodern in this work as a means of extending the debate.

The benefits of the internet vis‐à‐vis counter accounting and emancipatory change should not be taken for granted; rather the internet is another site of struggle in which to intervene. The internet, however, does alter opportunities.

Insights for a counter accounting practice on the net.

Extends debates over the internet and online reporting in facilitating emancipatory accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the core meaning of critical research.

It begins by noting the frequent divergence between “Real” history (which always marches to its own beat) and academic reflection that often fails to follow the beat of a progressive drum. Indeed, rather than facilitating a productive historical movement, scholarship may, at times, window‐dress brutality. These questions are examined by drawing on pertinent literature in social theory and cultural analysis. This work cautions that only continuous, unconditional, self‐reflective criticism provides a navigational path between barbarism and enlightenment. It proposes harnessing our full repository of critical scholarship to renew ever‐relevant forms of praxis (This is not the same notion of “practical” that involves berating workers in suits and white shirts.)

Unfortunately, an examination of contemporary progressive accounting literature exposes fundamental departures from these standards for criticism; that many fields have lapsed into a form relativism, enabling highly conservative political agendas. This degeneration is instigated at the outset of research, through an inappropriate choice of initial object for analysis (or “root metaphor”).

To address the predicament, this paper proposes a greater self‐awareness in framing the initial starting point, using a procedure drawn from Hegel and Marx's dialectics. To “test’ this methodology, the paper examines four streams of progressive accounting research: professional (e.g. Brilovian) analysis, Foucauldian (culturalist) studies, ethnographic studies, and epistemic contributions.

Each review offers suggestions for a dialectical reconstruction of the original, including a revised initial starting point (object) for the analysis.

A reply to Tony Tinker's paper, “The withering of criticism”.

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

The paper shows how oddly our work has been represented, and that Tinker's claims are unsupported. It rejects Tinker's reading of classical texts as the only valid one, and argues that his reductionist critique could hinder the advancement of interdisciplinary accounting research. We conclude our reply by urging scholars to intervene in worldly affairs by ensuring that intellectual activity is diverse, not stereotypical or predictable.

Argues the importance of scholars' engagement in worldly affairs, including matters of policy and practice, from diverse perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction and overview of the various papers in this special issue.

This takes the form of a discussion paper that explores a number of issues relating to accounting in the media.

The paper describes a variety of theoretical, methodological and empirical approaches used in the papers for this special issue. In addition, the paper suggests that although the media have provided a rich source of data that has informed accounting research, the use of media and media texts will remain a fertile area of research.

The portrayal of accounting in the media is of interest to accounting researchers, practitioners, trainees and auditors.

This special issue provides a range of examples of accounting in the media and sets an agenda for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rhetorical framings that can be discerned by applying discourse analysis to a publicly available transcript of a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiry in the UK.

In particular, the authors examine the discursive tactics used during the 2013 investigation by the House of Commons PAC, “Tax Avoidance: The Role of Large Accountancy Firms”.

Two opposing rhetorical framings of “tax avoidance” are analysed which the authors see developing incrementally and directly opposing each other. Metaphors are used by the PAC to exemplify the dark side of professions, including potentially transgressing the boundaries of what constitutes “tax avoidance”. This is counteracted by the Big Four portraying an alternative market-oriented/neo-liberal view of professions pursuing a societal good through dedication to promoting market competition.

Whilst one rhetorical framing is predicated on being able to draw a clear distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, the alternative rhetorical framing contests this distinction and contributes to an existing cultural account that paints the dark side of some of the professions. Extending the work of Creed et al. (2002) and Alexander (2011), the authors demonstrate the bridging between micro-level discursive acts and broader cultural accounts, at the macro level. As such the authors discuss the pertinence of this multi-level discursive contest, within post-inquiry sensemaking, for understanding the “dark side” of professions.

The purpose of this paper is to broaden discussions about the role of the public sphere in broadening social choices, with particular focus on accountancy magazines and national press in particular.

In replying to the commentary appearing in this edition, the paper shifts the debate to a political economy of media. In action research traditions, it also shows how academic interventions can lead to unexpected outcomes that can enrich research, teaching and social choice debates.

Public debates can be galvanised through academic interventions.

The paper suggests possible strategies for fermenting public debates and engaging with the institutions of accountancy.

Through engagement social choices can be broadened.

The paper is based on personal interventions and this offers first‐hand account of some of the public interventions and how these led to new alliances and arrangements to problematise conventional views about accounting and accounting firms.