PurposeThis paper aims to argue that the concept of “accountability” has changed and become perverted. Originally the concept meant answerability or the act of rendering an account. Those who were traditionally accountable were the powerful in organisations, public institutions and international bodies. The paper seeks point out that the notion of “accountability” has largely been emptied of its substance, as over the past few decades the concept of accountability has become perverted in discourse and in practice. The powerful are often no longer held accountable and are able to make those to whom they have hitherto been accountable, accountable to them instead.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is developed at the micro, meso and macro levels, through an analysis of the academic literature, in particular journals dealing with the interface between accounting and organisation studies.FindingsIt was found that what happens at the micro and meso levels becomes comprehensible when put into the context of the macro level. Instances of partial or reversed accountability in practice are pointed out and linked with insights from commentators in the fields of sociology and philosophy.Originality/valueConcepts of accountability have become increasingly important in organisational discourse and practice over recent decades. This is particularly so given the importance now accorded to corporate governance and new public management. This paper is intended to formulate resistance to a particular discursive domination of corporate social responsibility. The paper is also new in the linking of this analysis with the argument that the weakening and reversal of accountability might be all‐pervasive in the current era of advanced capitalism and free market ideologies, and that the subversion of accountability is an instance of politically motivated hegemony.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine why there were different representations and research applications of Burns and Stalker's The Management of Innovation. Design/methodology/approach -The approach primarily takes the form of an examination of academic journals, in particular The Administrative Science Quarterly between 1960 and 1980. Theoretical works, in particular by Bourdieu, were also used.Findings -Contrary to accepted knowledge, the journals were eclectic in their approaches and did not require authors to adopt positivist approaches.Research limitations/implications -A fuller answer to the question posed would require interviews with journal editors and university policy makers from the 1960s-1980s. This has not been possible so far. Although some answers have been provided, questions still remain as to why certain representations of this book were dominant.Practical implications -There are implications as to what counts as knowledge in academe, and how this knowledge should be treated, given that it may only partially represent the theory above and also other theories. This has implications for what is taught in universities and what is adopted by consultants as bona fide knowledge.Originality/value -To the author's knowledge such questions using this type of research have not been examined in the detail pursued here.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine what counts as knowledge in the organization/management field.Design/methodology/approach -Conventional, legitimated knowledge is analyzed through research into representations of an influential management text. Management and management accounting textbooks and research papers are investigated to establish the types of knowledge produced.Findings -Mainstream representations of this book are partial, focusing on a ''model'' of what is likely to ensure successful organizational change -structural and systemic adaptations. What has been ignored is the problematization of structural change and the role of human agency. The foci and omissions of these representations cohere with divisions in the social sciences more generally -between ''objectivist'' and ''subjectivist'' ontologies and epistemologies.Research limitations/implications -There is a need for further research into representations of texts about organizational change, the way the objectivist/subjectivist divide is played out, and its significance for organization/management studies and more widely for the social sciences.Practical implications -Questions arise as to the validity and sustainability of such knowledge. Omissions about the difficulties in implementing structural change raise epistemological and practical difficulties for students, managers and consultants.Social implications -Omissions of human subjectivities and agency from mainstream knowledge is problematic regarding successful organizational change and social issues more widely.Originality/value -The paper's value lies in the in-depth analysis of representations of a text in the organization/management area and the linking of the type of knowledge produced with broader epistemological and methodological issues in the social sciences.

No abstract