Search results

This study compares the strategies and impact of six British activist groups, as documented in 1997, with data gathered on the same groups in 2000. These groups, Voice of the Listener and Viewer, Campaign for Quality Television, Deaf Broadcasting Council, Consumers Association, National Consumers Council and National Listeners and Viewers Association, attempted to build a public sphere for generating debate around and catalysing changes to broadcasting policies and programming. They were tracked in 2000 in order to identify those issues, relationships and groups that had endured. The research design provided a telescopic look at their interactions with their targets and with each other during a period of rapid technological and industry change. In a multichannel broadcasting environment where convergence and globalisation are buzzwords, activists used public relations to create a broader public forum for a wide range of significant issues with which to engage demographically, psychographically and geographically diverse publics. The ensuing media education, media advocacy and relationship building, although elite in origins, strengthened democratic discourse, thus reaffirming broadcasting’s invaluable role in civil society.

Expert witnessing in asylum cases involves depicting the conditions of the applicant’s home country as a context for judging a well-founded fear for life or safety. Most of the elements involved in the work of the expert country witness are dynamic and change over time, creating new challenges and new resources for describing and interpreting country context. Examining several characteristic Honduran asylum cases separated by 20 years reveals not only an increasingly complex and multifaceted set of relevant conditions in both the sending and the host country, but also a significant broadening of the anthropological “tool kit” available to the expert country witness (as the expert witness becomes aware of its relevance to country conditions at a particular time), and an increasingly reflexive and complex relationship of the expert witness to the country in question and to the court. In the interim, emerging problems of contextual complexity, subjectivity, changing and competing images of reality, and the shifting applicability of legal and sociological definitions and categories arise and can be partially addressed with emerging anthropological or social scientific resources, raising anew the nature of the relationship of the expert witness to the court and the possible mutual influence of social science and legal culture upon each other over time. As the number of refugee seekers increases globally, can expert witnesses trained in social sciences help asylum courts to imagine new ways of bridging the gap between legal regimes of governmentality and the subjectivity of refugees?

Bill Freudenburg’s concept of recreancy is used as a frame for explaining processes that perpetuate questionable regimes of emergency response planning. The specific instance of tar sands upgrading in Alberta, Canada, is used as a case in point. When recreancy is institutionalized so that the results correlate across permitted hazardous facilities, it must be concluded that recreancy is less of a situational response than a normative dynamic.

MANY BUSINESS OWNERS RELY ON THEIR CPAs FOR ADVICE. IF you're like that, be warned: accountant‐client communications are not protected as confidential. Information you divulge about your business, thinking that it won't go any further, could end up in the hands of the IRS. Although professional standards for CPAs prohibit them from volunteering client information, the federal government does not recognize communications between accountants and their clients as privileged. Thus, if the IRS were to mandate certain information about your business from your CPA, he or she would be legally required to share what he or she knows via written and/or oral testimony.

The progressive limits to rights mobilization have become starkly apparent in the past two decades. No new suspect classes have been forthcoming from the Supreme Court since 1977 despite continued demands for legal recognition by lesbians and gays, indigenous peoples and others interested in expanding civil rights doctrine. Public tolerance for civil rights measures has likewise dried up. Since the 1960s, referenda on civil rights have halted affirmative action programs, limited school busing and housing discrimination protections, promoted English-only laws, limited AIDS policies, and ended the judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, among other issues. Nearly 80% of these referenda have had outcomes realizing the Madisonian fear of “majority tyranny”¹ and signaling the Nietzschean dread of a politics of resentment (Brown, 1995, p. 214; Connolly, 1991, p. 64).

Speculations on the possibility of computers displaying intelligence are usually traced to Turing's 1950 paper, ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’. Claims for the literal intelligence of an appropriately programmed computer were publicly refuted by Searle in 1980. Optimism about the adequate simulation of intelligence is now further diminished. Analogies between the computer and the brain or mind have persisted. A contrasting perspective which links computers with documents through writing and through the faculty for constructing socially shared systems of signs has also been developed. From this perspective it can be shown that (i) claims for the literal intelligence of a computer rest on a similar basis to claims for the intelligence of a document, the production of depersonalised linguistic output, and (ii) that such claims are subject to an identical objection, that linguistic output is made available without a prior act of comprehension by the artefact. This paper places the Turing test in its intellectual and historical context. A claim that written words can give the appearance of intelligence, without the human capacity for dialectic response, is found in Plato's Phaedrus. This, too, must be placed in its historical context of a transition from predominantly oral to oral and written communication. Demonstrating that there are extensive similarities between the claims of computers and documents to literal intelligence is part of a progressive demystification of the computer.

The paper's purpose is to use religious thought to inform accounting, and in particular to make a contribution to the ongoing debates concerning the merits of rules‐ and principles‐based accounting systems and the value of a rule‐overriding requirement of fair presentation in financial reporting.

The paper applies to accounting a conception of religion that is heavily influenced by Jacques Derrida's writings on religion and deconstruction. In order to clarify the nature of this religion and to facilitate appreciation of its significance for accounting it is progressively recast, in the paper, first in terms of deconstruction and then in terms of a demand for an infinite justice.

At the core of the paper, religious responsibility, as a demand for justice, in accounting is explored through Derrida's analysis of the relation between justice and law, which is found to have clear application to accounting in terms of an aporetic tension between an infinite demand for fairness in accounting and accounting regulation.

The analysis implies that the pursuit of justice as fairness in accounting, “doing the truth” in accounting, will always demand the negotiation of an unstable and difficult mediation between the poles of regulation and fairness, the calculable and the incalculable, the possible and the impossible.

The paper draws on the postsecular current in religion to make a novel contribution to the critical and interdisciplinary awareness in accounting that has begun to unsettle the hold that certain modernist dichotomies, such as that of myth and reason, have had on accounting thought.

Existing literature has begun to identify the agonistic and contested aspects of the ongoing development of accountability systems. These “contests” are particularly important during periods of change when an accountability “deficit” has been identified, that is, when existing accountability systems are deemed inadequate and requiring revision. The purpose of this paper is to explore one such set of contests in the case of large technology and social media firms: the so-called “big tech”. The authors focus specifically on “big tech” because of increasing societal concerns about the harms associated with their products, services and business practices.

The authors analysed four US Congressional hearings, in which the CEO of Facebook was held to account for the company's alleged breaches and harms. The authors conducted a discourse analysis of the dialogue between the account giver (Mark Zuckerberg) and account holders (Members of Congress) in the oral testimony at the four hearings.

Two areas of contestation in the dialogue between the account giver and account holders are identified. “Epistemic contests” involved contestation about the “facts” concerning the harms the company had allegedly caused. “Responsibility contests” involved contestation about who (or what) should be held responsible for these harms and according to what standards or criteria.

The study advances critical dialogical accountability literature by identifying two areas of contestation during periods of change in accountability systems. In so doing, they advanced the theory by conceptualising the process of change as underpinned by discursive contests in which multiple actors construct and contest the “problem” with existing accountability systems. The outcomes of these contests are significant, the authors suggest, because they inform the development of reforms to the accountability system governing big tech firms and other industries undergoing similar periods of contestation and change.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has defined “soft dollar” practices as arrangements under which products or services, other than execution of securities transactions, are obtained by an investment adviser from or through a broker‐dealer in exchange for the direction by the adviser of client brokerage transactions to the broker‐dealer. In the wake of the mutual fund scandals of 2003, soft dollar practices have come under increased scrutiny by the SEC, the U.S. Congress, and others. This article is based on testimony presented by the Investment Counsel Association of America (ICAA) to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs at a hearing on soft dollars held on March 31, 2004. The article outlines the following positions: (1) the SEC should ensure that there is adequate disclosure about soft dollar practices, combined with appropriate inspection and enforcement of regulations governing such practices; (2) the consequences of abolishing soft dollars ‐ an outcome that would require Congressional action ‐ most likely would affect smaller investment advisory firms adversely, create entry barriers for new investment advisory firms, and diminish the quality and availability of proprietary and third‐party research; (3) investment advisers should be required to keep appropriate records relating to soft dollar arrangements and to develop and implement internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that soft dollar arrangements are supervised, controlled, and monitored; and (4) eliminating the use of soft dollars for third‐party research would harm investors, diminish the availability of quality research, provide a regulatory‐driven advantage for full‐service brokerage firms, disadvantage third‐party research providers, and result in less transparency to investors, regulators, and market participants.