{"title":"Actors’ reflexivity and engagement in the formation of new accounting tools during university hybridization","authors":"E. Aleksandrov","doi":"10.1108/qram-01-2019-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46537,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","volume":"56 1","pages":"51-81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-01-2019-0008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is an international journal that promotes qualitative research at the interface of accounting and management. The journal encourages the assessment of practices in the accounting field through a variety of theoretical lenses, and seeks to further our knowledge of the accounting-management nexus in its broadest (e.g., organisational, social and political) contexts. QRAM welcomes submissions of original research papers, conceptual pieces, substantive review articles, and shorter papers such as comments or research notes. The following is intended to indicate potential topics, but is by no means prescriptive. These topics can be overlapping rather than discrete subject areas, and researchers should not feel restricted by the scope of the topics listed below. • Management accounting and control • Accountability, transition and organisational change • Performance management and accounting metrics • Accounting for strategic management • The use and behavioural effects of accounting information in organisational decision-making • Public and third sector accounting and management • Accounting and management controls for sustainability and the environment • Historical perspectives on the accounting-management interface • Methods and methodologies for research at the interface of accounting and management • Accounting and management in developing countries and emerging economies • Technology effects on accounting-management dynamics