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