Search results

This purpose of this paper is to investigate the introduction of French theory into English language accounting research and to assess the impact of the work of French social theorists on the accounting research domain.

The paper presents a citation analysis of articles appearing in selected English language accounting research journals for a sample of French authors, during the periods from the inception of the journals to mid‐2009. In performing this citation analysis, 39 French authors who are well known as social theorists, philosophers, economists or sociologists were included. The accounting research journals chosen for analysis included the top four journals listed in many league tables for accounting research along with several journals that regularly publish research in accounting history or that focus on alternative research paradigms.

The citation analysis identified the following French authors as being the most frequently cited: Michel Foucault, followed by Bruno Latour and Pierre Bourdieu. The citation analysis also identified the English language accounting research journals in which French social theorists have been most often cited. The two most significant journals have been Critical Perspectives on Accounting and Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, followed by Accounting Organizations and Society, Management Accounting Research and European Accounting Review. The analysis also shows the effects of mimeticism, which seems to have produced a sort of isomorphism in the styles of publication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, appears to be the standard‐setter of the critical‐interpretive field of accounting research.

This paper is the first known to provide a comprehensive analysis of the introduction of French theory into English language accounting research.;

On Justification: Economies of Worth (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991/2006) was a synthetic and comprehensive parsing of common goods, goods that could and had to be justified in public. In response to Bourdieu’s critical sociology, they rather provided a robust and disciplined sociology of critique, the situated requirements of justification. They refused power and violence as integral to the operability of justification. They emphasized the ways in which conventions of worth afforded coordination, not their constitution of or by domination. They refused to make either capitalism, or the state, into primary motors of social order. Indeed, they refused social sphere, structure, or group as the ground of the good. They emphasized the cognitive capacities of agents. There was no passion, no desire, no bodily affect in these justified worlds. There wasn’t even any account of production of value, of children, or of money. And while they recognized the metaphysical aspect of the good and even used Christianity as a template for one of their cités, they rigorously excluded religion. The theory was designed to analyze moments of controversy, not quiescence or quietude. In his subsequent work, Boltanski aimed to address these absences. In this essay, we examine how Boltanski sought to restore love, violence, religion, production, and institution across five texts: Love and Justice as Competences (1990/2012), The New Spirit of Capitalism, co-authored with Eve Chiapello (1999/2007), The Foetal Condition: A Sociology of Engendering and Abortion (2004/2013), On Critique: A Sociology of Emancipation (2009/2011), and La «Collection», Une Forme Neuve du Capitalisme – La Mise en Valeur Economique du Passé et ses Effets (2014) co-authored with Arnaud Esquerre.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and illustrate the insights of the sociology of worth as advanced by sociologist Luc Boltanski and his collaborator economist/statistician Laurent Thévenot in their works, including their path‐breaking book De la justification published in 1991.

The paper explores the basic tenets of this “new sociology” and draws on it to render a reinterpretation of Ansari and Euske's study of cost accounting in a military depot.

The sociology of worth complements extant sociological approaches to accounting by providing a language and a conceptual tool‐box for understanding the multiple rationalities in which accounting is implicated. In addition, given its pragmatic micro level approach to accounting, it has the potential to act as a bridge between institutional theory and practice theory.

This paper is the first known to render an extensive discussion of Boltanski and Thévenot's work in the accounting literature and to apply insights from this work to accounting research.

This paper aims to discuss how Bruno Latour's version of actor‐network theory has influenced accounting research. It also seeks to show that Latour's writings contain unexplored potential that may inspire future accounting research.

The paper takes the form of a critical literature review and discussion.

Since the early 1990s, actor‐network theory, particularly the work of Bruno Latour, has inspired accounting researchers and led to a number of innovative studies of accounting phenomena. In particular, Latour's book, Science in Action, has been the primary source of inspiration for accounting research. This means that there is unexplored potential in Latour's more recent writings which may lead to further inspiration and research in the field of accounting.

The paper reviews only a few of the relatively large number of accounting papers that apply actor‐network theory. A different sample might have given a somewhat different picture. Furthermore, it focuses on the influence of Latour's work and refrains from discussing how the writings of Michel Callon, John Law or other thinkers within the actor‐network tradition are used in accounting research.

This is the first extensive review discussing the influence of Latour on accounting research that engages in a critical discussion of under‐explored potential in Latour's recent work.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Barthes' influence on, and potential for, accounting communication research; and to apply Barthes' principles to visual images of professional accountancy.

The study seeks to provide: a synthesis of prior accounting research that has drawn on Barthes' work, followed by an overview of Barthes' work in both its rational, structuralist, phase, and its more sentimental, post‐structuralist, phase, that identifies strands of interest to accounting communication; and Barthesian semiotic interpretations of visual images of accountancy portrayed in the annual report front covers of a major UK accounting firm through their linguistics (anchorage and relay), denotation and connotation.

Barthes' work has been surprisingly little used in accounting; a number of aspects of Barthes's work could be more fruitfully exploited, especially those from his later post‐structuralist phase; a Barthesian approach assists in reading the dual portrayal of accountancy as both an art and a science, and as business‐aware as well as traditionally professional.

The theoretical section is limited to a broad overview of Barthes' very extensive work; the empirical section provides a detailed analysis of one organization. It would be useful to extend the research to more extended analyses based on Barthes' prolific work, and to many aspects of accounting communication.

The analysis may be of interest to all accounting researchers, practitioners, trainees and auditors, since communication is central to accounting.

The paper adds to theoretical work in accounting communication, to the empirical literature on the interpretation of verbal and visual signs in accounting and accountability statements, and to understanding of the external images of professional accountancy.

Accounting researchers have frequently borrowed theories and methods from other disciplines. A noteworthy importation movement in recent decades involves the work of French intellectuals and philosophers, not least Pierre Bourdieu. This paper aims to contribute to the sociology of the accounting discipline by examining how Bourdieu's works have been translated into the domain of accounting research.

The investigation is articulated through three modes of analysis. First, it evaluates Bourdieu's recognition in the domain of accounting research, through an examination of the extent to which Bourdieu's writings are cited in accounting articles. Focusing on accounting articles which rely significantly on Bourdieu's thought, the paper then examines which of his publications have been mobilized, and how researchers have articulated his ideas in studying accounting phenomena. The third line of inquiry addresses the extent to which accounting researchers have used Bourdieu's core concepts holistically, that is to say in mobilizing simultaneously the concepts of field, capital and habitus.

Several of the studies which rely significantly on Bourdieu have employed his work holistically, while others have not. Moreover, about half of the studies reviewed in the paper are characterized by a gap between Bourdieu's view of academic research as a support to political and social causes debated in the public arena versus a more dispassionate approach to research. While it is difficult to be conclusive about the implications of these translational gaps, they nonetheless make one aware of some central epistemological issues: Should accounting researchers be more concerned about bringing “the achievements of science and scholarship into public debate”? What are the pros and cons of drawing upon ideas from politically‐engaged intellectuals in order to conduct research characterized by political dispassion? Does it make sense to use certain concepts excerpted from a comprehensive system of thought in a piecemeal way?

The paper mobilizes and develops the notion of translation in investigating an interdisciplinary movement.

Accounting is part of a cosmology, even an anthropology, which goes beyond the simple input/output operation. This is why its object is in the deepest sense a political term: accounting reports on and informs the relations that a society creates. As the true working heart of a company and of the State, it constitutes, however, a kind of a black box, the design of which would be reserved for certain specialists claiming to be of a scientific neutrality that conceals very political choices. From a normative point of view, accounting standardisation is an instrument of corporate or state governance insofar as it accounts for what is valued: as such, it reflects what matters in a society, not only in the strictly economic sense but also more generally in the social and political sense. As far as the company is concerned, we can conceive of it as an entity owned by the people who work there while holding a mandate of the company as a whole as long as its activity fits into the horizon it sets out. In this sense, it aims to maintain the capital (human, natural and financial) that constitutes it and to meet social needs. As for the State, re-envisioned from the perspective of the common, it becomes the object of institutions thoroughly invested by citizen control at all levels, from a perspective of complete federalism in which political and economic needs are coordinated under the principle of subsidiarity.

This volume presents state-of-the-art research and thinking on the analysis of justification, evaluation and critique in organizations, as inspired by the foundational ideas of French Pragmatist Sociology’s economies of worth (EW) framework. In this introduction, we begin by underlining the EW framework’s importance in sociology and social theory more generally and discuss its relative neglect within organizational theory, at least until now. We then present an overview of the framework’s intellectual roots, and for those who are new to this particular theoretical domain, offer a brief introduction to the theory’s main concepts and core assumptions. This we follow with an overview of the contributions included in this volume. We conclude by highlighting the EW framework’s important yet largely untapped potential for advancing our understanding of organizations more broadly. Collectively, the contributions in this volume help demonstrate the potential of the EW framework to (1) advance current understanding of organizational processes by unpacking justification dynamics at the individual level of analysis, (2) refresh critical perspectives in organization theory by providing them with pragmatic foundations, (3) expand and develop the study of valuation and evaluation in organizations by reconsidering the notion of worth, and finally (4) push the boundaries of the framework itself by questioning and fine tuning some of its core assumptions. Taken as a whole, this volume not only carves a path for a deeper embedding of the EW approach into contemporary thinking about organizations, it also invites readers to refine and expand it by confronting it with a wider range of diverse empirical contexts of interest to organizational scholars.