Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review extant accounting research combining institutional and critical theories to examine whether the paradigmatic tensions associated with such research can be alleviated whilst engendering politically engaged scholarship aimed at facilitating processes of emancipation in organisational fields.

The paper provides a review of relevant accounting research and offers recommendations for how to combine institutional and critical research approaches in a paradigmatically consistent way.

Extant accounting research combining institutional and critical theories has not dealt effectively with the partly inter-related problems of ontological drift (i.e. misalignment of ontological assumptions and epistemological commitments) and the conflation of notions of agency and structure. If such problems remain unaddressed institutional research aimed at generating politically engaged scholarship and human emancipation is unlikely to progress in a paradigmatically consistent direction. Recommendations for how to address these issues, grounded in recent advances in critical realism, are elaborated upon. This results in a contingent view of the ontological possibilities of emancipation in organisational fields as well as the epistemological premises that need to be filled to engender processes of emancipation.

The paper reviews an emerging body of research seeking to radicalise institutional accounting research and enhance its contributions to democratic debate in organisations and society. It also outlines how some pertinent paradigmatic tensions associated with such research may be addressed.

The conceptualisation of interculturality has largely been informed by the Centre-western meanings of the notions of culture, Self and the Other (Holmes, 2015). The dominant Eurocentric view of culture which is associated with the idea of civilisation, progress and growth in opposition to the notions of that which is uncivilised, backword or retrogressive, has constructed culture as a static entity with fixed boundaries that display discernible differences (Jenks, 2005). This view of culture has established that the encounters of cultures can necessarily be confrontational and traumatic. Within this context, intercultural education is expected to play a vital role in facilitating effective cross-cultural interaction, in particular, by improving the understanding of the cultural Other and avoiding Othering. In this process, the Self and the Other are recognised as categories with ascribed qualities which are fixated in a singular nationality, ethnic group or a religious faith. This thesis silences the dynamicity of the transient Self while strengthening the continuation of the existing cultural hegemonies and social–cultural binaries rather than democratising and enabling effective encounters among people. I argue that the uncontested primacy of the western dualistic world views and the absence of the non-western philosophical thinking have resulted in narrowing down the breadth and the depth of intercultural education and its capacity to help develop cross-culturally fluent graduates. In this chapter, I use the concepts of Anathma (non-Self) and Anicca (impermanence) in Theravada Buddhist philosophy (Kornfield & Fronsdal, 2011) to understand how alternative perceptions of Self can help develop cosmic compassion that contributes to successful co-existence between humans and all living Beings in the universe. My argument in this chapter is informed by the ideas of sociological absence (Santos, 2007) decoloniality (Maldonado-Torres, 2007) and Sandoval’s (2000) ideas on decolonial love.

Institutional ethnography (IE) is a sociology that focuses on the everyday world as problematic. As a theory/method of discovery, it focuses on how the work people do is organized and coordinated by text-mediated and text-regulated social organization. Actor-network Theory (ANT) is a theory/method that is concerned with how realities get enacted. ANT focuses on a multiplicity of human and nonhuman actors (e.g., computers, documents, and laboratory equipment) and how the relations between them are constituted and how they are made to hang together to create certain realities. In this chapter, we discuss some of the similarities and differences between IE and ANT. We begin with an overview of IE and ANT and focus on their ontological and epistemological “shifts.” We then discuss some of the similarities and differences between IE and ANT, particularly from an IE stance. In doing so, we put these approaches into dialog and allude to some of the potential benefits and pitfalls of combining these approaches.

This paper aims to investigate funding and performance monitoring practices in Zambia’s health sector from an institutional and stratified ontology perspective. Such an approach was deemed appropriate in view of pluralistic institutional environments characterising most African economies that are also considered to be highly stratified.

Blended with insights from stratified ontology, the paper draws on institutional pluralism as a theoretical lens to understand the institutional structures, mechanisms, events and experiences encountered by actors operating at different levels of Zambia’s health sector. The study adopted an interpretive approach that helped to investigate the multifaceted and subjective nature of social phenomena and practices being studied. Data were collected from both archival sources and interviews with key stakeholders operating within Zambia’s health sector.

The study’s findings indicate the high levels of stratification within Zambia’s health sector as evidenced by the three sector levels that possessed different characteristics in terms of actor responses to donor influence. This study equally demonstrates the capacity of agents operating under highly fragmented institutional environments to engage in enabling and constraining responses depending on the understanding of their empirical world.

Through blending insights from stratified ontology with institutional pluralism, the study contributes to the literature by demonstrating the enabling and constraining reflexive capacity of agents to exercise choices under highly fragmented institutional environments while responding to multiple demands and expectations to sustain the co-existence of diverse stakeholders. Accordingly, the study advances thinking on the application of institutional theory to critical accounting research in line with recent ontological and epistemological shifts in institutional theory.

This paper aims to describe a case study of how an unexpected event created an opportunity to reconsider and rewrite the methodology chapter in the author’s PhD thesis.

The approach that the author used that assisted her to change her methodology involved a combination of reflective and reflexive reading, thinking and writing. It was a slow and thorough process through which the author considered widely the choices that she was making. Through an iterative process of writing, reading and talking, and then re-writing, the author was able to establish a position or standpoint from which she felt confident about the underpinnings of her study.

The author came to understand herself ontologically in a new way. The author could see how she had moved significantly from a positivist view of static bodies of knowledge creation to a paradigm involving a more dynamic knowledge creation. Correspondingly, the author was able to revise and focus her methodology, and in the course of the process, she learnt and grew as a person and as a researcher. The author understood her values, assumptions and beliefs about the world much more clearly. The author also became much more aware of her own PhD journey, how she was developing personally and how her identity was evolving.

This paper will be useful for those who are embarking on their PhD journey and attempting to critique and/or rethink their methodological approach in the qualitative or interpretivist paradigm.

This chapter introduces an alternative way of creating inclusive pedagogies by engaging diverse students across geographical borders in participatory research using Voice over Internet Protocol (specifically, Skype) technology. It begins with a discussion on diversity and inclusion within the wider global context and the UK higher education (HE) context, highlighting how institutions engage (or disengage) with multiple aspects of diversity encountered within the sector. It examines how the participatory approach to conducting co-inquiry resulted in opening up inclusive learning spaces, drawing on a funded research project in which the researcher and students acted as co-inquirers. It argues that the pseudo-physical presence created by synchronic communication enhanced student engagement in meaningful cross-border conversations. It examines how the journey of co-inquiry offered holistic, inclusive learning experiences that embed emotional, cognitive and social learning for all students involved by transforming students’ views about their own sociopolitical identities and perceptions about the other. The chapter concludes highlighting how technology-mediated co-inquiring can innovatively democratise student participation and develop their authentic voice. It also examines the challenges of improving inclusive learning through co-inquiry and sends key messages to practitioners, researchers and policy makers who involve in addressing issues of diversity in HE.

The transformations in the existing forms of governmentality and power regimes are deeply rooted within the political economy of advanced neoliberalism, having profound implications in the governance matrix. The new rationalities and instrumentalities of governance involve ‘governing without government’ (Rhodes, 1996) following the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the gradual enactment of what Jessop (2002) calls the Schumpeterian Competition State. This chapter throws open the play field for competing standpoints on governing the mega corporates. Various theorists consider that there is emptiness within the existing global regulatory armoury concerning the operational activities of TNCs. The convolution of ‘steering’ in this poly-centred, globalised societies with its innate uncertainty makes it tricky to keep an eye on the fix of ‘who actually steers whom’ and ‘with what means’. There also appears to be huge disinclination to spot systemic technical description of the evolving modern institutional structure of economic regulation in a composite and practical manner. Thus, the complexity of international issues, their overlapping nature and the turmoil within the arena in which they surface defy tidy theorizing about effective supervision.

This brings in the wider questions dealt with in the chapter – Is globalisation then a product of material conditions of fundamental technical and economic change or is it collective construct of an artifact of the means we have preferred to arrange political and economic activity? The new reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal spaces of governance are getting modelled following the logic of competitive market relations whereby multiple formally equal actors (acting or aspiring to act as sources of authority) consult, trade and compete over the deployment of various instruments of authority both intrinsically and in their relations with each other (Shamir, 2008). The chapter also looks into these messy and fluid intersections to situate the key actors at the heart of processes of ‘rearticulation’ and ‘recalibration’ of different modes of governance which operates through a somewhat fuzzy amalgamation of the terrain by corporates, state hierarchy and networks all calibrating and competing to pull off the finest probable’s in metagovernance landscape. Unambiguously, this chapter seeks to elaborate on an institutional-discursive conceptualization of governance while stitching in and out of the complex terrain a weave of governances for modern leviathan – the global corporates.

Borrowing from practice theory to enhance institutional theory has much potential. It may help institutional scholars reconnect with its constructivist, processual origins. Yet previous attempts of borrowing across paradigmatic boundaries – both in organization studies and in institutional theory – teach us that borrowing is not a straightforward adoption. Instead, theories that cross known paradigmatic boundaries go through a process of translation, and may well get lost in the way. In this paper, the author focuses on methodology and points to impediments to the fruitful adoption of a practice-driven approach to institutionalization, and offers ways to overcome them. In particular, the author points to the need to change the focus from process as an outcome to the inner life of the process; capturing action in vivo and in situ; and finding ways to focus on practice yet not lose connection to its institutional context and implications.

Affect is relevant for organization studies mainly for its potential to reveal the intensities and forces of everyday organizational experiences that may pass unnoticed or pass in silence because they have been discarded from the orthodoxy of doing research “as usual.” The paper is constructed around two questions: what does affect “do” in a situated practice, and what does the study of affect contribute to practice-based studies. This paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors chose a situated practice – interviewing – focusing on the dynamic character of the intra-actions among its heterogeneous elements. What happens to us, as persons and researchers, when we put ourselves inside the practices we study? The authors tracked the sociomaterial traces left by affect in the transcript of the interviews, in the sounds of the voices, in the body of the interviewers, and in the collective memories, separating and mixing them like in a mixing console.

The reconstruction, in a non-representational text, of two episodes related to a work accident makes visible and communicable how affect circulates within a situated practice, and how it stiches all the practice elements together. The two episodes point to different aspects of the agency of affect: the first performs the resonance of boundaryless bodies, and the second performs the transformative power of affect in changing a situation.

The turn to affect and the turn to practice have in a common interest in the body, and together they contribute to re-opening the discussion on embodiment, embodied knowledge, and epistemic practices. Moreover, we suggest an inventive methodology for studying and writing affect in organization studies.