Democratizing accounting technologies: A case of a performance evaluation system for academics

This paper explores how a country's constitutionally imposed democracy in an academic performance evaluation system was designed and practiced. Building upon agonistic democracy and deliberative democracy perspectives, a qualitative inductive case study in a Vietnamese public university involved 52 interviews, direct observations, and the analysis of archival documents. The findings revealed three dimensions of democracy in the university's performance evaluation system, namely, democratic context, democratic discourse, and democratic outcomes. The university enforced democracy in its performance evaluation system for academics in line with the country's constitutional obligation. In such an explicit democratic context, there happened democratic discourse (debating academics’ performance in public forums) and implicit discourse (informal social interactions). The outcome of this democracy at the practice level resulted from temporary consensus supported by shared cultural values within the country's socio-political context with an understanding that it will change as with any change in the macro or micro contexts. These findings contribute to the literature by providing insights into how individuals pursue democracy in an accounting tool legally built to promote democracy through their multiple voices and collective wisdom. Thus, democratizing accounting technologies and processes, such as an academic performance evaluation system, can effectively promote democracy in multi-cultural workplaces across the globe.