ACTG 5100 Schulich School of Business
Download
Report
Transcript ACTG 5100 Schulich School of Business
The Manufacture of the
Academic Accountant
Kenneth A. Fox & Alycia Evans
Edwards School of Business
University of Saskatchewan
Discussant:
Cameron Graham
Schulich School of Business
Overview of the Paper
Introduction
The accounting academy
Social studies of science
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
2
Introduction
Panozzo (1997)
US academy has rigorous research paradigm
European academy has fragmented paradigms
This paper studies a “streamed” doctoral program
Questions
Does multivocal environment promote innovation?
What are the mechanisms at work in training?
Contribution
Rich environment of mediators
Role of texts
3
The Accounting Academy
Dominance of US paradigm
Contribution to science?
Relevance to practice?
Reproduction of quantitative researchers
Education and training
Publication and choice of journals
Recruitment, tenure and promotion
4
Social Studies of Science
Constructivist perspectives
Bloor: sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK)
Latour & Callon: ANT and ethnomethodology
Popper: philosophers of science
Knorr-Cetina (1981)
Science as “community”: Too introspective
Science as “economic system”: Too limited
Trans-scientific field
• Includes non-academic actors
• Struggle over resource relationships
› Scientists
› Resources
› Mechanisms of knowledge production
5
Method
Observation of a doctoral accounting program
Financial Economics stream
Judgement & Decision Making stream
Interdisciplinary stream
Auto-ethnography or document analysis?
Semi-structured “analytical” interviews
Joint production of knowledge with interviewees
7 (or 8?) on-campus doctoral students
30-60 minutes each
6 hours in total
6
Findings 1
Characteristics of students’ backgrounds
3.75 years in program
Accounting or business degrees
Most had attended doctoral colloquia
7
Findings 2
Experiences
Varying perceptions of stream structure
Theoretical or methodological boundaries?
Related to wider field of research
8
Findings 3
Doctoral colloquia
Socialization
Networking
Reputation building
9
Findings 4
Relationship with academic supervisor
Resource relationship
• Funding
• Conferences
Reputation of supervisor
• Acceptance of research
• Legitimacy of student
• Feeling of belonging
10
Findings 5
Production of research papers
Emphasis on writing during training
Potential for publication is internalized
Circulation of papers for comment
11
Discussion
Reproduction of the research field
Structure of doctoral program is insufficient
Depends on ties to greater field through colloquia
Force of supervisor varies in relation to the field
Production of academic papers
linked to the mediator and the greater field
Process for exercising resource relationships
Embodies epistemological processes of the field
12
Conclusion
Epistemic processes reproduce resource relations
Position of supervisor
Clarity of field’s paradigm, theory & methods
European accounting
Lacks identifiable paradigm
Limits innovation & discovery
13
Discussant Assessment
Clearly written
Well positioned in SSK tradition
Unique data set
Paper has excellent potential
14
Discussant Comments 1
Clarity about data and methods
Auto-ethnography? Where does this show up?
Document analysis? Which ones?
Where did five “findings” categories come from?
15
Discussant Comments 2
Uncritical analysis
AAA colloquium is “most prestigious”
“The potential to publish is seen as the major
benefit of writing”
16
Discussant Comments 3
“Freedom” of structured streams?
Is this what your interviews indicate?
ID student said lack of structure was “difficult” not
“constraining”
This is your key counterintuitive finding,
yet the data support is weak
17
Discussant Suggestions
Tighten up the paper
Reduce section 2 on accounting academy
Focus section 3 more on Knorr-Cetina
Draw on other data mentioned in methods section
Documents
Autoethnography
Weave critique into analysis
Add critical reflection after each quotation
Make the discussion add value by theorizing
Draw on Knorr-Cetina’s vocabulary
18