Search results

Presents, from a systemic perspective, an examination and discussion of performance measurement, performance indicators and associated improvement initiatives, as typically applied in public sector organisations. Such mechanisms are usually implemented as a causal loop which is established between perceived performance and resulting actions, thereby constituting a form of feedback control. Within this context a two‐dimensional matrix model is postulated in which the independent dimensions are the source of control and the nature of the resultant control‐action. The paper examines the implications revealed by this model within the context of performance management and system dynamics. The potential role of influence diagrams and dynamic simulation models is thereby introduced as a potential means of unravelling the complex behaviour which can often arise in the presence of such interactive cause‐effect loops. A number of typical examples, drawn from within the public sector, are invoked to illustrate the discussion.

In 1982 my book Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century was published. At the 2017 History of Economics Society meeting, a session was held to mark the 35th anniversary of that event. Papers by Wade Hands, Kevin Hoover, Tony Lawson, and the trio Peter Boettke, Solomon Stein, and Virgil Storr were prepared. In this paper, I respond by reflecting on how I came to write Beyond Positivism and on the state of the field of economic methodology at the time, and then commenting briefly on each of the papers noted above.

Computer based accounting information systems (AIS) have been a major force behind the current wave of corporate downsizing and reengineering (Deloitte & Touche LLP, 1996). While greater economy and competitiveness is typically associated with these changes, conventional AIS literature usually eschews a counter‐hypothesis: that this new technology may also degrade both the quality and quantity of work, and therefore people’s working lives. The advent of Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies in 1991, with an espoused aim of “critically analyzing the relationships among our information systems designs, the qualities of our social and economic life, and our practices of management and control” (Boland and O’Leary, 1991, p. 2) presents a major opportunity to redress this deficiency. This paper reviews the journal’s inaugural issue and ancillary literature to assess its likely contribution. This literature is found to lack a sufficient appreciation of the social and historical context of AIS developments and thus compromises the new journal’s ability to achieve its espoused aims. The paper calls for a better understanding of the upheavals currently under way in the accounting workplace and ways in which AIS technology (and ethnographers) may compound these instabilities. A different kind of ethnographic research is called for: one capable of recognizing the dysfunctionalities of AIS‐induced downsizing and restructuring, and more politically and socially self‐aware of AIS agency in social and technological change.

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.

This paper aims to address workplace learning in terms of investigating school leadership development in an inter-professional team (the team) in which principals, administrators and researchers work together on a local school improvement project. The purpose is to provide an enriched understanding of how school leadership development evolves in a team during two years as the team works on different problem-spaces and the implications for leadership in schools.

The paper is based on a larger study with a qualitative research design with longitudinal, interventional, interactional and multiple-time level approaches. Empirically, the paper draws on tools, video and audio data from the teams’ work. By using cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT), school leadership development is examined as an object-oriented and tool-mediated activity. CHAT allows analyses of activities across timescales and workplaces. It examines leadership development by tracing objects in tool-mediated work and the ways in which they evolved. The object refers to what motivates and directs activity.

The findings suggest that the objects evolved both within and across episodes and the two-year trajectory of the team. Longitudinal trajectories of tools, schools and universities seem to intersect with episodes of leadership development. Some episodes seem to be conducive for changes in the principals’ schools during the collaboration.

There is a need for a broader study that includes more cases in other contexts, thus expanding the existing knowledge.

By switching lenses of zooming, it has been possible to examine leadership development in a way that is not possible through surveys and interviews.