No abstract

PurposeIn this paper, we concentrate on the use of research assessment (RA) systems in universities in New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Primarily we focus on PBRF and REF, and explore differences between these systems on individual and systemic levels. We ask, these days, in what way(s) the systemic differences between PBRF and REF actually make a difference on how the two RA systems are experienced by academic staff.Design/methodology/approachThis research is exploratory and draws on 19 interviews in which accounting researchers from both countries offer reflections on their careers and how RA (systems) have influenced these careers. The stories they tell are classified by regarding RA in universities as a manifestation of the spectacle society, following Debord (1992) and Flyverbom and Reinecke (2017).FindingsBoth UK and New Zealand academics concur that their research activities and views on research are very much shaped by journal rankings and citations. Among UK academics, there seems to be a greater critical attitude towards the benefits and drawbacks of REF, which may be related to the history of REF in their country. Relatively speaking, in New Zealand, individualism seems to have grown after the introduction of the PBRF, with little active pushback against the system. Cultural aspects may partially explain this outcome. Academics in both countries lament the lack of focus on practitioner issues that the increased significance of RA seems to have evoked.Research limitations/implicationsThis research is context-specific and may have limited applicability to other situations, academics or countries.Practical implicationsRA and RA systems seem to be here to stay. However, as academics we can, and ought to, take responsibility to try to ensure that these systems reflect the future of accounting (research) we wish to create. It is certainly not mainly or solely up to upper management officials to set this in motion, as has occasionally been claimed in previous literature. Some of the academics who participated in this research actively sought to bring about a different future.Originality/valueThis research provides a unique contextual analysis of accounting academics' perspectives and reactions to RA and RA systems and the impact these have had on their careers across two countries. In addition, the paper offers valuable critical reflections on the application of Debord's (1992) notion of the spectacle society in future accounting studies. We find more mixed and nuanced views on RA in academia than many previous studies have shown.

No abstract

A normative hurdle needs to be taken of moving beyond claims that relationship(s) of exploitation (neo‐Marxism) and bureaucracy (neo‐Weberian) are determinate, and that there is nothing new under the sun. Descriptive research is needed into what is new in the knowledge work economy/society. New relationships between self and organization demand the rethinking of logocentricism. In knowledge work, management by content mobilizes the self via individualist and creative work. An organizational (epistemic) regime emerges where the claim on the self is total. Ethnographic research has revealed self/organization identification, wherein the identification of the two leads via divergence and conflict to (organizational) fragmentation. Kunda has shown that self/organization identification can endanger the self through burn‐out and an unhealthy fixation on work. Establishes that identification between self and organization can endanger necessary boundary objects threatening requisite meanings and structures.

Entrainment is a theory of causality wherein different but proximate actants are tied to one another in complementary rhythms. Entrainment proposes a naturalism of interrelatedness. Manuel DeLanda has explored the logic of social entrainment. Opposing assumptions are found in Actor Network Theory. ANT merges the sociology of knowledge and an analysis of power into a theory of pragmatic causality. Social causality is in ANT (micro‐) politically constructed. The goal of this paper is to examine entrainment as a generative theory of social construction wherein linkages of ideas, persons, actions, events and objects, unlike in ANT's translation are not saturated by (principles of) social power. Illustrations of how entrainment and ANT hold up in practice are provided.