Search results

This paper aims to investigate the unfolding dynamics and evolving processes relating to the formation of accounting tools by university actors. It answers the research questions: How do individual actors engage in the formation of new accounting tools during university hybridisation? Specifically, what forms of reflexivity do these actors display in various phases of university hybridisation?

This is a longitudinal case study of the development of new accounting tools in one Russian technical university from 2010 to 2016. It is based on an institutional work perspective, involving 29 interviews, documentary analysis, and observations of internal meetings relating to new accounting tools’ formation.

The findings show that academics themselves were gradually engaged in the marginalisation of academic demands in university governance in favour of managerialism via accounting. Nevertheless, the role of accounting morphed over time from a dysfunctional and negative carrier of managerial ideology and its domination, to what could arguably be considered a mediation device between academic and managerial demands. These dynamic processes and the role of accounting within them are explained by the constant challenge stemming from the involvement of several groups of actors in institutional work, which is often unpredictable and fluid due to the intricate play of plural reflexivities and actors’ identities during university hybridisation.

This paper advances the field by showing that the engagement and reflexivity of academics in the formation of accounting tools is not a “panacea” to deal with hybridisation within universities. The results highlight several obstacles, including variation in the reflexive capacities of actors within the university, leading to a reflexivity lag and reflexivity trap.

This paper aims to respond to the recent calls to discover the research developments in the field of public budgeting. Particularly, it explores whether and how research dialogue unfolds within the public budgeting field over time and how to stimulate it further, by investigating the case of a specific journal oriented to budgeting topics.

Applying a case study strategy, this paper reviews previous studies on public budgeting published in one specific journal, the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management (JPBAFM), from its “online inception” in 1994 to 2020. Borrowing ideas from dialogue literature, the authors analyse 108 selected papers according to a multi-dimensional framework for exploring research dialogues taking into account the year of publication, authorship (and affiliation), research setting, method and theoretical approach, and, above all, research topics on budgeting.

The findings illustrate that whilst public budgeting research has been fluctuating over time in the JPBAFM, there is a growing interest in the topic over the last several years (2015–2020). Yet, the journal illustrates a limited dialogic development of the field of public budgeting, where produced knowledge has been significantly North America-oriented, normative and quantitative-dominated. Until recently, only a limited role has been given to dialogue formation between researchers and practitioners, but the current debate is increasingly being enriched by new perspectives and a wider range of experiences. Finally, public budgeting has been addressed from multiple perspectives over time, with a significant impact determined by performance and participatory budgeting. Although multiple topics are receiving growing attention, it is still under-developed in the inter-dialogue formation between topics and theories, despite the more recently growing use of different theoretical approaches and empirical and analytical rigour.

The research is limited to one journal as a case study and does not claim to provide an overall reflection of public budgeting research and related empirical generalisations. Instead, the authors strive for a theoretical generalisation of multi-dimensional dialogue importance in the field.

The value of the research lies in a comprehensive analysis of research dialogue formation within public sector budgeting over time in an international journal that has actively engaged with public sector issues and, specifically, with budgeting. By so doing, this paper adds a critical stand on the value of dialogue in fostering inter-contextual and inter-disciplinary research in the field of public budgeting.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how participatory budgeting (PB) as a democratic governance tool has been translated within the Russian public sector by addressing the local specifics of its design and mobilization through the formation of networks.

The paper is based on a case study of one pioneering municipality. Data have been gathered through triangulation of interviews, document search, video and netnographic observations. By relying on ideas from actor–network theory, the study focuses on the relational and rhetorical work of human (allies/inscriptors) and non-human (inscriptions) actors involved in the development of PB in Russia.

The findings indicate that the initial democratic values of PB underwent several stages of translation as a continuous inscription-building process and the formation of networks. The main finding is that putting democratic idea(l)s of PB into practice proved problematic, since PB depended on many “allies” which were not always democratic. Paradoxically, in order to launch democratic practices in Russia, PB relied largely on bureaucratic and even New Public Management inscriptions, which it was originally supposed to fight against. Notwithstanding, while these inscriptions can fog the democratic values of PB, they are also capable of uncovering its democratic potential over time, albeit not for a long time as the “external referee” is needed.

The paper juxtaposes PB development in Russia with the translation literature. Not only does the study emphasize the role of human, but non-human actors as well.

The paper explores how the implementation of performance budgeting unfolds public managers' attention and responses to competing accountability demands over time.

This is a longitudinal study of one Russian municipality's implementation of PB under central government pressures during 2013–2017. Using triangulation of 25 interviews, documentary analysis and field observations, we employed institutional logics to guide the study.

The paper demonstrates the dynamic properties of PB construction under competing accountability demands via the “creative distraction” metaphor. PB was a “distraction” mechanism, which, on one hand, strengthened external accountability, while, on the other, distracting the municipality from internal municipal demands. Nevertheless, this “distraction” was also “creative,” as it produced proactive responses to competing accountability demands and creative effects over time. Specifically, PB also led to elements of creative PB negotiations between departments when managers started cooperating with redirecting the irrelevant constraints of performance information in budgeting into necessary manipulations for municipal survival. The demonstrated “creative distraction” is explained by the changing institutional logics of public managers supplemented by a set of individual factors.

The paper responds to the recent calls to study PB practice under several accountability demands over time. In this regard, we show the value of public managers' existing institutional logics as they shape PB's capacity to balance competing accountability demands. As we revealed, this capacity can be limited, due to possible misalignment between managers' attention toward “what to give an account for” during budget formation (input orientation driven by OPA logic) and “what is demanded” with the introduction of PB (output orientation driven by NPM logic). Yet, the elements of proactive managerial responses are still evident over time, explained by a set of individual factors within the presented case, namely: learning NPM logic, strengthened informal relationships and a common saturation point reflected by managers.

This paper aims to explore whether and how contemporary rankings reflect the dialogic development of smart cities.

This paper is based on the synthesis of smart city (SC), rankings and dialogic accounting literature. It first analyses ranking documents and related methodologies and measures and then reflects on four SC rankings, taking a critical stand on whether they provide space for the polyphonic development of smart cities.

This study argues that rankings do not include divergent perspectives and visions of smart cities, trapping cities in a mirage of multiple voices and bringing about a lack of urban stakeholder engagement. In other words, there is a gap between the democratic demands on smart cities and what rankings provide to governments when it comes to dialogue. As such, rankings in their existing traditional and technocratic form do not serve the dynamic and complex nature of the SC agenda. This, in turn, raises the threat that rankings create a particular notion of smartness across urban development with no possibility of questioning it.

The paper responds to recent calls to critically examine the concept of the SC and the role that accounting has played in its development. This study brings new insights regarding the value of dialogic accounting in shaping a contemporary understanding of rankings and their criticalities in the SC agenda.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how participatory budgeting (PB), as a form of dialogic accounting, is produced in practice.

This is a qualitative case study of PB development for the period 2013-2016 in one Russian municipality. Based on triangulation of in-depth semi-structured interviews, documentary analysis, videotape data and netnographic observation, the authors employ ideas of dialogic accounting and institutional work.

The study shows that the PB experiment, which began with dialogic rhetoric, in reality, had very limited dialogic effects. However, the authors also observed that the PB dynamics over time made the practice neither inherently monologic nor dialogic. The authors explained such transformations by the way in which the individual reflexivity of actors altered when carrying out institutional work. Curiosity reflexivity was the most essential, triggering different patterns of institutional work to set up the PB experiment. However, further, the authors demonstrated that, over the course of the experiment’s development, the institutional work was trapped by various actors’ individual reflexivity forms and in this way limited PB’s dialogic potential.

The study shows the importance of understanding and managing individuals’ reflexivity, as it shapes the institutional work performed by different actors and, therefore, influences the direction of both the design and materialization of dialogic accounting experiments such as PB. In a broader sense, this also influences the way in which democratic governance is developed, losing democratization potential.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight and compare insights from research conducted in different disciplines on the effects of the use of calculative practices in academia. It also acts as an introduction to the special issue on “governing by numbers: audit culture and contemporary tales of universities’ accountability”.

This paper reviews the findings and reflections provided in academic literature on the various types of consequences stemming from the diffusion of the “audit culture” in academia. In so doing, it draws upon insights from previous literature in education, management and accounting, and other papers included in this special issue of Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management.

The literature review shows that a growing number of studies are focussing on the hybridization of universities, not only in terms of calculative practices (e.g. performance indicators) but also in relation to individual actors (e.g. academics and managers) who may have divergent values, and thus, act according to multiple logics (business and academic logics). It highlights many areas in which further robust academic research is needed to guide policy and practice developments in universities.

This paper provides academics, regulators and decision-makers with relevant insights into the critical issues of using calculative practices in academia. Despite the negative effects have been observed in various disciplines, there is an evident perpetuation in the use of those practices.

This paper contributes to the ongoing debates on the disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Yet, positive changes can be achieved within the complex settings of “hybrid” universities when the apparent class division between academics and managers is bridged.

The purpose is to explore the role of international financial institutions (IFIs) during public financial management reform in a transitional economy. In particular, the study focuses on interaction between external enablers and local actors.

The paper is based on a qualitative study of public financial management reform in Ukraine during 1991–2014. This period is divided into stages corresponding with two projects financed by the World Bank: “Treasury System” and “Public Finance Modernization.”

First, IFIs supported a Ukrainian economy weakened by financial crisis and insisted on a comprehensive reform of public financial management to facilitate recovery. By strategically addressing local challenges, eliminating local uncertainties and maintaining stable interactions, IFIs gained support from the central government. Local actors continued the reform by negotiating with other actors and getting quorum support. In the second stage, IFIs could not implement planned changes. Even though the change was well-perceived at the beginning, developed tensions between local actors were overlooked by IFIs, which resulted in loss of commitment of the State Treasury representatives. The continuous political instability in Ukraine constrained interaction between IFIs and the Ministry of Finance and reduced political will for conducting reforms.

The study contributes to the debate on the adequacy of externally driven public management reforms in developing countries by exploring actions and interactions of global and local actors during the change in public sector practices.

This study addresses the implications of smart city development paths (techno-centric and human-centric) by investigating the evolution of a city strategy, focusing on how different actors in a dialogue centred on strategic planning documents for Saint Petersburg, Russia, visualised the smart city and then made it calculable.

The authors conducted a case study based on a documentary analysis supported by ethnographic elements relying on the smart city conceptual proposals, the approved city strategy and the artifacts of expert discussions leading to the strategy implementation plan.

Through the lens of dialogue theory, the authors show how government and non-government actors in different organisational settings devised techno-centric smart city calculations, which arose despite an initial human-centric vision.

While the case study allowed the study to illustrate the depth and richness of the context of the authoritarian Russian state where the role of citizens in public decision-making is rather limited, different and even contrasting results could be produced in other contexts.

There is a gap between a smart city vision and its grounding in calculations. Thus, the human-centric elements require special attention, and the organisation of the dialogue on smart city strategy must enable plurality of voices besides those of government actors.

The case suggests viewing the human-centric and techno-centric perspectives not as dichotomous, but rather emerging consecutively throughout the journey from an initial strategic vision to its implementation in the city's calculations.