Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
PurposeThe aim of this paper is to add to knowledge regarding the role of accounting in managing a crisis, specifically to show the emergence of multiple and contesting accountings and their roles in governing crises.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical case concerns management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. The analysis is qualitative and based on documents.FindingsThe analysis reveals different enactments of the pandemic multiple: scientific, business, political, patient and household. Within these, accounting representations were used in contention with each other. On the one hand, efforts were made to control the pandemic by testing, quarantines, curfews and other restrictions, supported by the accounts of managerial, political and economic calculations. On the other hand, these accounts were challenged by counter accounts using medical professional calculations.Originality/valueThis study adds new knowledge about the role of calculations in crises by elaborating on the emergence, persistence, transformation and proliferation of accounts that enabled accountingization of the crisis. By understanding the pandemic as an object multiple, I unpack the multiplicity of accounting representations in different enactments. The study also provides new insights into discussions regarding the (in)completeness of accounting. More specifically, different enactments of the pandemic multiple were supported by the perception of completeness among the actors in their accounting representations. The study explored how accounting sustains different versions of objects that existed before accounting while simultaneously trying to relate the different versions: there were both flows and closures between the different enactments of pandemic. In contrast to the argument that the relative completeness of accounting can resolve multiple tensions and that absences trigger innovation, I observed differing interactions among accounting representations while perceived completeness became the source of managing and coordinating the object multiple. That is, accounting is not only used for coordination but also for maintaining the closeness of each enactment of the pandemic.
PurposeThe aim of this paper is to add to knowledge regarding the role of accounting in managing a crisis, specifically to show the emergence of multiple and contesting accountings and their roles in governing crises.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical case concerns management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. The analysis is qualitative and based on documents.FindingsThe analysis reveals different enactments of the pandemic multiple: scientific, business, political, patient and household. Within these, accounting representations were used in contention with each other. On the one hand, efforts were made to control the pandemic by testing, quarantines, curfews and other restrictions, supported by the accounts of managerial, political and economic calculations. On the other hand, these accounts were challenged by counter accounts using medical professional calculations.Originality/valueThis study adds new knowledge about the role of calculations in crises by elaborating on the emergence, persistence, transformation and proliferation of accounts that enabled accountingization of the crisis. By understanding the pandemic as an object multiple, I unpack the multiplicity of accounting representations in different enactments. The study also provides new insights into discussions regarding the (in)completeness of accounting. More specifically, different enactments of the pandemic multiple were supported by the perception of completeness among the actors in their accounting representations. The study explored how accounting sustains different versions of objects that existed before accounting while simultaneously trying to relate the different versions: there were both flows and closures between the different enactments of pandemic. In contrast to the argument that the relative completeness of accounting can resolve multiple tensions and that absences trigger innovation, I observed differing interactions among accounting representations while perceived completeness became the source of managing and coordinating the object multiple. That is, accounting is not only used for coordination but also for maintaining the closeness of each enactment of the pandemic.
PurposeThis essay focuses on an argument that challenges the notion of market reform as a desirable idea. It examines how market requirements, accounting practices, political intervention and organizational conditions interact and create conflicts in the implementation of market reform. In our case study, we aim to elucidate the detrimental effects of expanding pricing mechanisms into areas typically untouched.Design/methodology/approachThe essay adopts a critical perspective toward the marketization in the public sector organizations based on the authors' previous studies and observations of the reforms in Swedish schools over the last 30 years. The case is conceptualized within Callon’s framework of the sociology of worth.FindingsThe paper provides an example of market dynamics introduced without the presence of pricing and qualification mechanisms, resulting in a trial-and-error situation. In this context, we document and problematize a trend toward marketization that has had negative consequences for Swedish schools. In doing so, the paper shows how market requirements, accounting practices, political interventions and organizational conditions interact and create conflicts during the implementation of market reforms. The case shows the emergence of a new economic entity and its underlying rationale, the quantification/pricing mechanism, with a special emphasis on the role of accounting and the repercussions on subjectivities as values shift.Originality/valueThis paper follows up on the New Public Financial Management (NPFM) global warning debate on the emergence of pricing/charging mechanisms in public services. It provides a critical overview of the diffusion and relevance of accounting evaluation processes to sustain continuous reforms, despite claimed criticisms, limitations and (un)intended consequences. The paper also provides some reflections on new avenues for further research and some possible ways out for accounting studies.
By utilizing the concepts of field, habitus, and capital inherited from Bourdieu, this study explores publicness as a social practice. In doing this, the paper problematizes publicness concerning accountability and public value and empirically explores the organization of social support delivery in Istanbul. We posit our research question: In what manners does publicness open up a space for collaboration and convergence in relation to accountability? The data gathering and analysis follow a qualitative methodology. We found different forms of publicness under three different conditionalities: (1) publicness as political authority based on hierarchization and centralization; (2) publicness as competing positions produced by diverse actors and their diverse positions taken beyond hierarchical relations; (3) publicness as social inclusion and diversity that is all‐embracing by employing more inclusive practices. Publicness relationally unfolds public value with and among formal rules, voluntary practices, and networks. By delving into constitutive elements of practice—symbolic capital and habitus—engaging in the field struggles of redefining and owning publicness, the paper goes beyond the conventional dichotomy of normative versus empirical conceptualizations of publicness and instead differentiates among distinct forms of publicness in different conditionalities and contributes to the literature by bridging publicness and accountability habitus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.