Accountability and the metaverse: unaccounted digital worlds between techwashing mechanisms and new emerging meanings

Maurizio Massaro, Rosanna Spanò, Sanjaya Chinthana Kuruppu
{"title":"Accountability and the metaverse: unaccounted digital worlds between techwashing mechanisms and new emerging meanings","authors":"Maurizio Massaro, Rosanna Spanò, Sanjaya Chinthana Kuruppu","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper aims to understand the main challenges connected with accountability issues across multiple layers of the metaverse, to identify whether and how any techwashing is taking place and to discuss implications for accounting research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>To develop the research, the authors refer to a critical dialogic accountability framework, operationalized in the current paper by leveraging the perspectives of accountability as virtues and as mechanisms (Bovens, 2010). The authors discuss who is accountable to whom, for what and in what manner in a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world, through the layers of virtual reality introduced by MacKenzie <em>et al</em>. (2013) and Llewellyn (2007). Methodologically, the study concentrates on 32 start-ups working in the metaverse selected from the Crunchbase database and relies on interviews, direct observation in the field and white paper reports analyzed by means of NVivo coding.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The findings show how metaverse creators deal with accountability as a virtue and accountability as a mechanism. Companies who operate metaverses primarily consider accountability in the virtual-physical domain, which focuses on developing the necessary internal and external architecture to enable a particular metaverse to function. Metaverse companies also emphasize the virtual-agential dimension that concentrates on onboarding, engaging with and incentivizing individuals in virtual worlds. There is an emphasis on outlining the virtues or standards that metaverse companies aspire to, but there is very little detail provided. Similarly, there are uneven and limited discussions of the mechanisms that can support accountability in most layers of a virtual world.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>The analysis raises significant questions about the purpose, scope and use of metaverses, which are still a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world. The paper advances the idea that the current creators of metaverses are “techwashing” their projects, providing a utopian ideal of what their universes will look like but obfuscating the realities of their ventures in tech jargon that few people are likely to understand. Therefore, meaning and truth at all levels of the real and virtual worlds remain unaddressed, with implications to be explored in terms of legitimacy and trust of metaverses and the interests that shape them.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This paper is one of the first to address the issue of accountability in metaverses. It advances an analytical framework to guide future accounting and accountability research into virtual worlds.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":501027,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to understand the main challenges connected with accountability issues across multiple layers of the metaverse, to identify whether and how any techwashing is taking place and to discuss implications for accounting research.

Design/methodology/approach

To develop the research, the authors refer to a critical dialogic accountability framework, operationalized in the current paper by leveraging the perspectives of accountability as virtues and as mechanisms (Bovens, 2010). The authors discuss who is accountable to whom, for what and in what manner in a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world, through the layers of virtual reality introduced by MacKenzie et al. (2013) and Llewellyn (2007). Methodologically, the study concentrates on 32 start-ups working in the metaverse selected from the Crunchbase database and relies on interviews, direct observation in the field and white paper reports analyzed by means of NVivo coding.

Findings

The findings show how metaverse creators deal with accountability as a virtue and accountability as a mechanism. Companies who operate metaverses primarily consider accountability in the virtual-physical domain, which focuses on developing the necessary internal and external architecture to enable a particular metaverse to function. Metaverse companies also emphasize the virtual-agential dimension that concentrates on onboarding, engaging with and incentivizing individuals in virtual worlds. There is an emphasis on outlining the virtues or standards that metaverse companies aspire to, but there is very little detail provided. Similarly, there are uneven and limited discussions of the mechanisms that can support accountability in most layers of a virtual world.

Research limitations/implications

The analysis raises significant questions about the purpose, scope and use of metaverses, which are still a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world. The paper advances the idea that the current creators of metaverses are “techwashing” their projects, providing a utopian ideal of what their universes will look like but obfuscating the realities of their ventures in tech jargon that few people are likely to understand. Therefore, meaning and truth at all levels of the real and virtual worlds remain unaddressed, with implications to be explored in terms of legitimacy and trust of metaverses and the interests that shape them.

Originality/value

This paper is one of the first to address the issue of accountability in metaverses. It advances an analytical framework to guide future accounting and accountability research into virtual worlds.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
问责制和虚拟世界:在技术清洗机制和新出现的意义之间的未知数字世界
本文旨在了解与跨多个层面的问责制问题相关的主要挑战,以确定是否以及如何发生任何技术清洗,并讨论对会计研究的影响。设计/方法论/方法为了开展研究,作者参考了一个关键的对话问责框架,通过利用问责作为美德和机制的观点,在本文中进行了操作(Bovens, 2010)。作者通过MacKenzie等人(2013)和Llewellyn(2007)引入的虚拟现实层,讨论了在一个相对不受监管和不负责任的世界中,谁对谁负责,对什么负责,以什么方式负责。在方法上,研究集中于从Crunchbase数据库中选择的32家在虚拟世界中工作的初创企业,并依赖于访谈,现场直接观察和通过NVivo编码分析的白皮书报告。研究结果显示了虚拟世界的创造者是如何将问责制作为一种美德和一种机制来处理的。运营元数据的公司主要考虑虚拟物理领域的责任,该领域侧重于开发必要的内部和外部架构,以使特定的元数据能够正常工作。虚拟世界公司还强调虚拟代理维度,专注于在虚拟世界中加入、参与和激励个人。书中着重概述了虚拟世界公司所追求的美德或标准,但提供的细节很少。同样地,对于能够在虚拟世界的大多数层次中支持问责制的机制,也存在着不均衡和有限的讨论。研究的局限性/意义该分析提出了关于元数据的目的、范围和使用的重要问题,这仍然是一个相对不受监管和不负责任的世界。这篇论文提出了一种观点,即当前的元世界创造者正在对他们的项目进行“技术清洗”,提供一个乌托邦式的理想世界,但却用很少有人可能理解的技术术语混淆了他们冒险的现实。因此,现实世界和虚拟世界的各个层面的意义和真理仍然没有得到解决,需要从元世界的合法性和信任以及塑造它们的利益方面进行探索。原创性/价值这篇论文是第一批解决元数据库中问责问题的论文之一。它提出了一个分析框架,以指导未来的会计和问责制研究进入虚拟世界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ways of not seeing: visibility, blindness, and the transparency game Accounting for racial inequality in South Africa with the black economic empowerment policy Boundary objects: sustainability reporting and the production of organizational stability Responding to employee-based race inequalities in National Health Service (England): accountability and the Workforce Race Equality Standard The failure of the United Kingdom’s accounting and fiscal governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1