FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2103143019> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2103143019 endingPage "134" @default.
• W2103143019 startingPage "131" @default.
• W2103143019 abstract "Anthony Hopwood (e.g., 1983) has long observed that we have had few field studies that have examined accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Indeed, in his 2006 plenary address as the American Accounting Association's Presidential Scholar, Hopwood concluded that accounting research has become “increasingly detached from the practice of the craft … [as well as] too cautious and conservative, too rigid and traditional, and insufficiently attuned to grapple with the new, and to embrace novel insights and bodies of knowledge” (Hopwood 2007, 1365, 1370). In part, he urged that more innovative field research be conducted, informed by theories derived from sociology and employing qualitative, naturalistic research methods (e.g., Hopwood 2007, 1372). This special forum of Behavioral Research in Accounting is devoted to publishing original papers detailing field studies of accounting in their natural organizational and institutional contexts which have drawn on sociological perspectives and employed qualitative methods.Webster's dictionary defines sociology as “the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships: the systematic study of the development, structure, and function of human groups conceived as processes of interaction or as organized patterns of collective behavior.” As such, a sociological perspective of accounting as a form of structure focuses on examining the multiple roles accounting plays in the social constitution of organizations and institutions, or on the social constitution of accounting, rather than the orthodox view that accounting faithfully represents an objective, economic reality. On this theme, for example, Fombrun (1986; see also Van de Ven and Poole 1996; Dirsmith 1998) reasoned that such forms of structure as accounting may simultaneously serve as: technological solutions to the instrumental problems of production; political exchanges among contending organizational and institutional factions; and social interpretations within the organization and by its external, institutional constituents. Thus, accounting may simultaneously be seen as: technical solutions to the problems of fostering production rationality—the more traditional, orthodox province of accounting, and as political advocacy devices for representing the positions of various constituent groups within the organizational/institutional milieu, and as a means of fostering social discourse with a wider society. The papers that were submitted to this special forum of BRIA did indeed tend to examine facets of accounting that went beyond the orthodox perspective.The first of four articles appearing in this special forum, Anna Alon and Peggy Dwyer's “Globalization and Multinational Auditing: The Case of GAZPROM and PWC in Russia,” is directed at probing auditor-client relationships for a huge gas company, as well as the social expectations of the audit function in the transitional economy of Russia. Based upon a qualitative analysis of publicly available international and local Russian-language media accounts of three controversial episodes, the authors find that the expectations of audit practice expressed in the two forms of outlet were systematically different. They also find that not only do international and audit firm standards of practice influence the conduct of an audit in such a context, but also that local contingencies in the form of the traditional Russian notion of blat, which involves a reliance on personal networks and contacts, apparently impacted the manner in which the audit was conducted. The authors offer an intriguing set of interpretations and implications for future research.The second article, Janne Chung and Carolyn Windsor's “Empowerment through Knowledge of Accounting and Related Disciplines: Participatory Action Research in an African Village,” sought to undertake a participatory action research, grassroots intervention to inform villagers within a small village in Kenya of accounting principles and internal control procedures by leveraging off the villagers' own traditional Christian values and culture. Departing from an orthodox perspective, the authors invoked the concept of orthopraxis to achieve social and economic justice through practices of accounting, thereby serving the interests of the villagers by empowering them to better evaluate the motives, desirability, and achievements of social programs designed to ease poverty. The authors conclude with a challenge to future scholars to join them in the field with the goal of empowering the poor—where the harvest is plenty, the harvesters are few.The third article by Drew Sellers, Tim Fogarty, and Larry Parker, entitled “Unleashing the Technical Core: Institutional Theory and the Aftermath of Arthur Andersen,” used the template of institutional theory to explore the impact of organizational de-legitimation on Arthur Andersen employees. This paper worked in a relatively unexplored area of institutional theory; that is, many organizations that have been successful in obtaining the support of their critical constituencies have often been documented. In contrast, this paper focuses on an instance of an entity that had become so toxic that permission to go forward could no longer be marshaled. The results of this study suggest an unusually high degree of entrepreneurial activity is unleashed once the confining legitimacy of the organizational structure is dissolved. It also shows that the value of social capital possessed by Andersen professionals changed in character and possibly increased in value. This process of deinstitutionalization that has been documented in this study has been recognized as a new direction for institutional theory, thus this paper offers contributions to institutional theory and the practice of modern accounting.The fourth article, Steven Thornburg and Robin Roberts' “‘Incorporating' American Colonialism: Accounting and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,” examined how the corporate form of organization and corporate accounting were used by the United States government to rationalize decisions, exercise control, and exploit Alaskan resources to benefit corporate America and the existing United States. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) established Alaska Native Corporations, whose stock was distributed to qualifying Alaskan Natives in exchange for their agreement to extinguish all aboriginal land claims. Guided by prior work in accounting and postmodern colonialism, this paper identifies ways in which ANCSA, though lauded by the U.S. government as an innovative and generous settlement, perpetuated a historical pattern of indigenous exploitation by western economic interests, and employed corporate accounting policies and techniques to further the interests of the U.S. government and large corporations at the expense of Native Alaskans.Combined, the four papers appearing in this special forum of BRIA suggest that field studies of accounting drawing upon sociological perspectives and employing qualitative methods may be applied to a wide variety of social/organizational/institutional contexts and engender insights not offered by the more orthodox accounting venues.We heartily thank BRIA Editor Theresa Libby for creating the opportunity for this special forum, and the many scholars who devoted significant time and effort to supporting its mission in terms of providing insightful reviews:We should note that we received several additional papers that have considerable potential for making a useful contribution to the literature, but were ultimately rejected for publication in this special forum. We believe that these papers were in the early phase of the production cycle and will gain publication success with further development; in all such cases, the reviewers provided excellent guidance to aid in this development, suggesting that the benefits of this special forum of BRIA will hopefully extend well beyond the papers that appear in Volume 24, Issue 1. We urge the authors of these papers to persevere." @default.
• W2103143019 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2103143019 creator A5079346083 @default.
• W2103143019 creator A5087053944 @default.
• W2103143019 date "2011-12-01" @default.
• W2103143019 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2103143019 title "Introduction: Special Forum on Sociological Perspectives of Accounting" @default.
• W2103143019 cites W2005721219 @default.
• W2103143019 cites W2053380474 @default.
• W2103143019 cites W2148263350 @default.
• W2103143019 cites W4254270197 @default.
• W2103143019 doi "https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-10178" @default.
• W2103143019 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2103143019 type Work @default.
• W2103143019 sameAs 2103143019 @default.
• W2103143019 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2103143019 countsByYear W21031430192014 @default.
• W2103143019 countsByYear W21031430192021 @default.
• W2103143019 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2103143019 hasAuthorship W2103143019A5079346083 @default.
• W2103143019 hasAuthorship W2103143019A5087053944 @default.
• W2103143019 hasBestOaLocation W21031430191 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C2780514539 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C2993464850 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C121955636 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C144024400 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C144133560 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C2780514539 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C2993464850 @default.
• W2103143019 hasConceptScore W2103143019C36289849 @default.
• W2103143019 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2103143019 hasLocation W21031430191 @default.
• W2103143019 hasOpenAccess W2103143019 @default.
• W2103143019 hasPrimaryLocation W21031430191 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2023255112 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2120121766 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2152957292 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2281199399 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2614232791 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2752764095 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2755558878 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W2792902901 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W3121301551 @default.
• W2103143019 hasRelatedWork W4292266705 @default.
• W2103143019 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2103143019 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2103143019 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2103143019 magId "2103143019" @default.
• W2103143019 workType "article" @default.