Employing neo-Durkheimian institutional theory in cross-cultural accounting research

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory, developed by the Durkheimian institutional theory, as developed by anthropologist Mary Douglas, as a suitable theory base for undertaking cross-cultural accounting research. The social theory provides a structure for examining within-country and cross-country actions and behaviours of different groups and communities. It avoids associating nations and cultures, instead contending any nation will comprise four different solidarities engaging in constant dialogues. Further, it is a dynamic theory able to take account of cultural change. Design/methodology/approach The paper establishes a case for using neo-Durkheimian institutional theory in cross-cultural accounting research by specifying the key components of the theory and addressing common criticisms. To illustrate how the theory might be utilised in the domain of accounting and finance research, a comparative interpretation of the different experiences of financialization in Germany and the UK is provided drawing on Douglas’s grid-group schema. Findings Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory is deemed sufficiently capable of interpreting the behaviours of different social groups and is not open to the same criticisms as Hofstede’s work. Differences in Douglasian cultural dialogues in the post-1945 history of Germany and the UK provide an explanation of the variations in the comparative experiences of financialization. Originality/value Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory has been used in a wide range of contexts; however, it has been little used in the context of accounting research. The adoption of the theory in future accounting research can redress a Hofstedian-bias in accounting research.

Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research

“…Notably, CT studies of risk perception are not limited to survey research. CT case studies of risk perception include examples covering hospitals (Rayner, 1986), AIDS (Douglas & Calvez, 1990), abortion (Stenvoll, 2002), livestock (Duckett et al., 2015), transportation (Adams, 1995), climate (Lazrus, 2015; McNeeley & Lazrus, 2014), water (Gyawali, 1999; Harrison & Burgess, 1994; Koehlera, Rayner, Katuva, Thomson, & Hope, 2018; Verweij, 2000a, 2000b), the environment (Iwaki, 2011), oil and gas exploration (McEvoy, Gilbertz, Anderson, Ormerod, & Bergmann, 2017), crime (Mars, 1982, 1997), war (Archibald & Richards, 2002; Fithen & Richards, 2005; Richards, 1999; Spalding, 2000), gender (Reardon & Govender, 2013), interethnic romance (Hakak, 2015a, 2015b), and finance (Abdelrehim, Linsley, & Verma, 2017; Linsley & Kewell, 2015; Linsley & Linsley, 2014; Linsley, Linsley, Beck, & Mollan, 2016; Linsley, McMurray, & Shrives, 2016; Linsley & Shrives, 2014; Linsley, Shrives, & Douglas, 2009).…”

“…CT has also been used to study relationships among criminal behavior, law, and penal approaches in the United States and Europe in ways that inform risk assessment and management of crime (Giles‐Sims & Lockhart, 2005; Mars, 1982, 1999, 2000, 2013; Mars & Weir, 2000b, 2001a, Sparks, 2001; Vaughan, 2002a, 2002b, 2004). Additional CT case studies of risk assessment and management cover liquid petroleum gas (Hoppe & Peterse, 1993), floods (Kim, 2003), hurricanes (Dowty, May, Wallace, & Beech, 2011), hospitals (Linsley & Mannion, 2009; Lowton & Gabe, 2006; Rayner, 1986), schools (Hakak, 2012; Hakak & Rapoport, 2012), police (Frosdick & Odell, 1996; Loyens, 2013), workplaces (Loyens, 2013; Mars, 1997; Mars & Frosdick, 1997), sports (Frosdick, 1995, 2010), communication (Smallman & Wier, 1995), business (Hanson & White, 2004; Patel & Rayner, 2015; see also Patel, 2014), and finance (Abdelrehim et al., 2017; Linsley et al., 2009, 2014; Linsley & Linsley, 2014; Linsley, Linsley et al., 2016; Linsley, McMurray et al., 2016; Linsley & Kewell, 2015).…”

Operationalising ethnicity in accountability: insights from an ethnic group within the Salvation Army

“…Since the first known critique on Hofstede's cultural model was put forward, and 'nationality' as a cultural unit was articulated (Bhimani, 1999;Harrison and McKinnon, 1999), further research was called upon (Baskerville, 2003;Linsley, Beck and Mollan, 2016;McSweeney, 2002). Even though some responses were made with alternative aspects of culture and accounting (Joannidès, Wickramasinghe, and Berland, 2019), little is known about how ethnicity is operationalised in relation to the practice of accounting and accountability (Baskerville, Jacobs, Joannidès, and Sissons, 2016).…”

Ethnicity as inclusion and exclusion

“…There are two distinctive analytic ordering processes evidenced within this AAAJ Special issue: the Mary Douglas scheme of Grid and Group; and the Bourdieusian conceptual tools of field, capitals and habitus. The contribution by Linsley et al (2016) is a powerful demonstration of the ability of the Grid and Group model to theoretically frame cross-cultural and cross-country research. Unlike the approach of Hofstede, which directly and statically links culture to nation, Linsley et al (2016) highlight dynamic relations between four solidarities (i.e.…”

“…The contribution by Linsley et al (2016) is a powerful demonstration of the ability of the Grid and Group model to theoretically frame cross-cultural and cross-country research. Unlike the approach of Hofstede, which directly and statically links culture to nation, Linsley et al (2016) highlight dynamic relations between four solidarities (i.e. hierarchy, enclave, individualist and isolate) within nations.…”