Search results

This introductory chapter introduces standards and standardisation as concepts of outmost relevance to current educational practice and policy across the world, and frames them historically, empirically, as well as theoretically. Furthermore, it gives an overview of how the book is structured and how it can be seen to contribute to the wider field of research in education. The chapter starts by introducing the concepts before it provides the reader with a background description of the broad discursive landscape of policy developments, as painted by educational policy research. Subsequently it describes how standards and standardisation have been theorised within educational research, and concludes with a presentation of the different contributions.

Standardisation in education is an ambiguous process. Standards of time, measurement, technology and other aspects have evolved historically as basic preconditions for social life and communication, in education as well as in society at large. But excessive standardisation, especially in domains of culture and knowledge, often works as cultural and symbolic violence, undermining the qualities of education and learning situations. This chapter investigates these ambiguities, presenting concepts of standards and standardisation and developing their implications for education through selected theoretical contributions and empirical cases. The theoretical contributions include Berger and Luckmann's constructivist sociology of knowledge, Bourdieu's theory of symbolic capital and Habermas' theory of communicative action. The empirical cases include the processes of centralisation and standardisation of education in the United States and the process of standardisation in European higher education.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which accounting standards for social impact reporting are in the public interest. This study aims to explore what the public interest means for social impact reporting by charities; and assess the extent to which the accounting standardisation of social impact reporting supports the public interest so defined.

This study conducts a case study of how stakeholders in Australian charities conceptualise the public interest when discussing accounting standardisation. This paper distinguishes three concepts of the public interest from prior research, namely, aggregative, processual and common good. For each, this paper analyses the implications for accounting and how accountants serve the public interest, and how they align with stakeholder views.

Stakeholder views align with the aggregative and processual concepts of public interest, however this was contested and partial. Accounting standards for social impact reporting will only serve the public interest if they also capture and implement the common good approach.

Clarifying how key stakeholders interpret the public interest can help standard-setters and governments design (or withhold) accounting standards on social impact reporting. This paper also distinguishes different practical roles for accountants in this domain – information merchants, umpires or advocates, which each public interest concept implies.

This paper extends prior research on accounting for the public interest to social impact reporting. The paper empirically demonstrates the salience of the common good concept of public interest and demonstrates the diversity of views on the standardisation of social impact reporting by charities.

This paper seeks to set out a framework for assessing whether and how to intervene in the standardisation of new technologies, based on the experience of Ofcom, the UK converged communications regulator.

As part of its duties to promote the interests of consumers and citizens, Ofcom needed to decide whether or not to intervene in the standardisation of wholesale access to superfast broadband, in the context of the roll out of the next generation of telecommunications access networks.

Ofcom found that the case for intervention was finely balanced between, on the one hand, the risk to innovation and, on the other, the consumer welfare generated by the right combination of standardisation and network effects. Ofcom identified four basic models of intervention: take no formal action; require that infrastructure providers use open standards, without specifying which standards should be used; mandate a particular standard to be used; and specify the standard to be used. Ofcom developed a policy framework that assesses interventions in terms of prospects for innovation and network effects. This led it to choose an approach that initially involves no formal action. Instead, Ofcom facilitates industry leadership of standardisation whilst monitoring the emerging competitive environment and signalling both its desired outcomes and its determination to take action if competition does not develop.

It is too early to say whether this approach will ultimately prove successful, however the framework allows for progressive strengthening of intervention if competition is not forthcoming.

The paper delivers value in conceptualising and clarifying the overall approach to standardisation.

Corporate reporting infrastructure and communication are being transformed by the emergence of digital technologies. A key element of the digital accounting infrastructure underpinning international corporate reporting is the IFRS Taxonomy, a digital representation of international accounting standards that is required by firms to produce digital corporate reports. The purpose of this paper is to trace the development, governance and adoption of the IFRS Taxonomy to highlight the implications for accounting practice and standard-setting.

The authors mobilise Actor Network Theory and a model of transnational standardisation to analyse the process surrounding the formation and diffusion of the IFRS Taxonomy as a legitimate “reference” of the IFRS Standards. The authors trace the process using interview, observation and documentary evidence.

The analysis shows that while the taxonomy enables IFRS-based reporting in the digital age, tensions and detours result in the need for a realignment of the perspectives of both accounting standard-setters and taxonomy developers that have transformative implications for accounting practice and standard-setting.

The study explains how and why existing accounting standards are transformed by technology inscriptions with reflexive effects on the formation and diffusion of accounting standards. In doing so, the paper highlights the implications that arise as accounting practice adapts to the digitalisation of corporate reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the ways in which standardization for patient safety is approached from different positions in the field, namely nurses and managers in a hospital department, the hospital management and standard inventers. We understand safety standardization and the responses to it as a strategizing process, where standards are legitimized, taken up, handled or countered.

Ethnographic fieldwork was conducted in a Danish hospital department. The study included observations, interviews and documents studies. The authors apply a Bourdieusian perspective, where the authors focus on the narratives told by standard inventers, managers and nurses to examine and understand their strategizing activities in relation to safety standardization. We understand strategizing as interested action emerging in the dialectics between a habitus and a position in a field.

The authors show how the standardization of work rests on the master narrative of patient safety management and how this narrative clashes with the nurses’ practical perception of good care, which rests on the counter-narrative of the clinical judgment.

Safety standardization in healthcare is often studied within the broader framework of performance management using functionalist outside-in and prescriptive approaches. This study contributes to this literature by approaching standardization and the responses to it as taking place in a dialectic movement between subjective shop floor experiences and wider field-level forces. Furthermore, the study contributes to the organization and management literature concerned with change and strategic action by endorsing the Bourdieusian conception of strategizing.

This paper examines the historical evolvement of competing institutional logics (i.e. religion, profession, state, market and community) underpinning Islamic accounting standardisation projects and power relations between internal actors representing these logics.

The paper adopts a case-study approach and analyses two Islamic accounting standardisation projects implemented at the national and international levels. Documentary review and semi-structured interviews are used for data collection. Analysis is informed by the “Institutional Logics Perspective” and Bourdieu's notion of “power as capital in a field”.

Research findings illustrate how some local actors pre-dispose themselves in promoting strict compliance to IFRS, while others endeavour to ensure compliance to “Islamic Sharia requirements” in financial reporting. In this power dynamic, there is an ongoing “constructive resistance” actively exerted by the latter group against the former, preserving the existence of religion-based reporting demands in Islamic accounting standardisation approaches. The paper also highlights chronological “dynamic” accounts that explain the evolvement of institutional logics prevailing in these projects over different historical stages at both national and international levels.

This paper's findings contrast and challenge the existing assumption that the “epistemic community” promoting IFRS agenda always faces “passive responses” from local actors. Moreover, the paper's offering of a dynamic view to institutional logic mapping extends the previously used “static analyses” of logics prevailing in Islamic accounting standardisation projects.

Managing business processes means establishing and maintaining their regulatory power, i.e., their capacity to guide and shape the practice of users and stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the regulatory power of standardized business processes can be established and managed.

Building on a theory of standardization and on qualitative data, the authors suggest a “model of self-reinforcing business process management.”

Business process management consists of several phases (process design, process implementation, process application and process follow-up). A cyclical perspective on how these phases work together to create process legitimacy as presented in the model of self-reinforcing business process management can foster better understanding of the self-reinforcing dynamics of business process management.

The paper offers starting points for interdisciplinary research on business process management. The proposed model should be further examined with regard to its usefulness for overcoming tensions and dynamics associated with standardization.

The model of self-reinforcing business process management provides a guideline for managers involved in planning, implementing, applying, or improving business processes or further areas of change-related organizational governance.

By modeling a cyclical sequence of business process management and highlighting the role of different kinds of legitimacy, the authors integrate functionalist and social perspectives on business process management in one model.

Extensible business reporting language (XBRL) presents new opportunities for integrating the flow of financial information within communities of diverse organizations, thereby significantly enhancing the business information supply chain and addressing existing efficiency, accuracy and transparency problems. Vital to its success, XBRL standardization is proving to be challenging. This paper aims to investigate the phenomena that occur when heterogeneous actors interact in attempts to standardize XBRL.

Drawing upon actor‐network theory (ANT) the authors “follow the actors” participating in the standardization of XBRL in Australia. Supporting qualitative empirical evidence was collected via interviews and reviews of XBRL artifacts and relevant technical documentation.

The authors confirm the critical role of focal actors in standardizing XBRL in networks of heterogeneous actors. In addition to clear and indispensable value propositions and solid political and financial support, focal actors must also undertake effective problematization which can determine the manner in which interessement unfolds in their network. It is found that separation or even lack of alignment between technical standardization efforts and social and strategic orientation can be detrimental to translation effectiveness and network stability, and therefore, adversely affect standardization outcomes.

By presenting unsuccessful and potentially successful focal actors side by side, the paper contributes to the current body of knowledge by enhancing current understanding of their role in achieving effective translations in XBRL standardization networks. It also provides the most analytical review to date of actor interaction in XBRL standardization in the literature.