Search results

This paper examines the efforts of National Health Service (England) (NHSE) to respond to employee-based racial inequalities via its Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). The WRES constitutes a hybridised accountability initiative with characteristics of the moral and imposed regimes of accountability.

The study conceptualises the notion of responsive race accountability with recourse to Favotto et al.’s (2022) moral accountability model and critical race theory (CRT), and through it, examines the enactment of WRES at 40 NHSE trusts using qualitative content analysis.

Despite the progressive nature of the WRES that seeks to nurture corrective actions, results suggest that trusts tend to adopt an instrumental approach to the exercise. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice, the instrumental approach prevails across both the metric reporting that trusts engage in to guide their actions, and the planned actions for progress. These planned actions not only often fail to coalesce with the trust-specific data but also include generic NHSE or equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and mimetic adoptions of best practice guidance that only superficially address racial concerns.

Whilst the WRES is a laudable voluntary achievement, its moral imperative does not appear to have translated into a moral accountability within individual trusts.

Responding to calls for more research at the accounting-race nexus, this study uniquely draws on CRT to conceptualise and examine race accountability.

This paper aims to develop understanding of how the pursuit of practice change in auditing, especially in relation to audit methodologies, is conveyed, presented, reflected in and enabled (or hindered) through discursive, textual constructions by audit firms.

The paper uses an extensive series of interviews with audit practitioners, educators and regulators and a textual study of the content, concordances and narratives contained in two key audit methodological texts published by KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms.

Major discursive shifts in audit methodologies are identified over the last decade, with the dominant audit discourse switching from one of “business value” to one of “audit quality”. Such shifts are analysed in terms of developments in the wider, organisational field and discursive (re)constructions of audit at the level of the audit firm.

The identified shifts in auditing discourse are important in a number of respects. They demonstrate the significance of discursive elements of audit practice, contradicting influential prior claims that methodological discussions and developments in audit over the last decade had focused consistently on notions of “audit quality”. Methodologically, they demonstrate the importance and opportunities for knowledge development available by combining institutional, field‐wide analysis with a detailed discursive study of individual interviews and texts.

This paper aims to introduce the AAAJ special issue on “Accounting as codified discourse”, explicate the idea of codification and locate the notion of a “codified discourse” within the broader tradition of discourse studies in management.

The approach is conceptual and discursive, and provides a theoretical framework for understanding codification and a discursive context for the accepted papers in this special issue.

Theoretically, consideration of the more determinate relationship between codified discourse and practice can add to the general understanding of the discourse/practice dynamic in organisation studies. Several issues are identified that call for further empirical investigation. First, some of the broad‐spectrum accounting codes (e.g. historic cost) are currently under review in the expectation that change will enable constructive accounting innovation. Second, the impact of more codified accounting on management practice in organisations requires evaluation. Third, how far “intangibles” and “externalities” can be codified is a pertinent current agenda. Fourth, work is needed on whether and to what extent professional power is curtailed when politicians and policy makers introduce more codified discourses.

Currently “codification” is not well understood in the literature. This AAAJ special issue opens up the debate but there remains considerable scope for future work to take this agenda forward – to enable more detailed understanding of accounting as codified discourse.

Although “discourse studies” and “discourse analysis” are now firmly embedded in the organisational/management literature, “codified discourses” have not featured in the debate. This is a significant omission as codification is a key feature of many discourses – especially in professional fields like accounting, law, and medicine. Moreover, codified discourses are becoming more widespread. The value of this paper lies in its exposition of accounting as codification in relation to discourse.

Finding ways in which technology can be used to modify, strengthen, scale up and sustain lesson study (LS) is an emerging field of research. It has become even more important due to a pandemic leading to teacher and student learning being delivered online. The purpose of this paper is to present research findings about experiences of online LS and identify issues for further research.

A systematic search of articles from 2010 to 2020 identified 13 relevant papers, and through analysis, some major themes were identified. All papers in the special issue were synthesized from the lens of the identified themes; finally, further directions are discussed.

In general, various online LS models were found to have features that resulted in positive effects on teaching and learning, but, whilst several characteristics of effective online learning were identified, some studies also highlighted issues.

There is a need for larger scale projects over an extended period to assess the effectiveness of online LS. Future research focused on carrying out learning study online as well as consideration of equity issues associated with online LS are also suggested.

The studies presented in this issue address the opportunities and challenges of conducting online LS during a pandemic and beyond. Together, the literature review and contributory papers provide an international perspective of using online LS and identify important issues for further research.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on 30 years of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ), and contemplates the future. It makes a case for diversity, including a broad range of theories and research methodologies, as a defining feature of AAAJ. As we have done since 1988 in AAAJ’s first editorial, we continue to urge interdisciplinary accounting researchers to undertake innovative research and be both original and creative, avoiding the narrow focus and detachment from society that is characteristic of globally pervasive North American economics-based accounting research.

The paper employs an analysis and critique of trends in interdisciplinary research, drawing upon the previous 29 editorials/commentaries published in AAAJ. It also elucidates the field of scholarship associated with AAAJ in 2016 as evidence of the patterning of recent research and publishing trends.

This paper identifies challenges confronting interdisciplinary researchers in the globalised academic community. These include our obsession with theoretical engorgement and our adversarial rather than cooperative approach to knowledge development. Furthermore, the authors argue that researchers must reflect on their motivation, informing theories and values if they intend to contribute to practice, policy and a wider societal good. Accounting researchers have a responsibility to go beyond observation, engaging in and constructing a more equal and fair society.

This commentary reflects on developments in AAAJ and its community over three decades. The authors also address the wider AAAJ community, including the Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) conference attendees, AAAJ special issue editors, the editorial board, ad hoc reviewers, authors and supporters across AAAJ’s 30 years.