{"title":"The disillusion of calculative practices in academia","authors":"D. Argento, D. Dobija, G. Grossi","doi":"10.1108/qram-12-2019-0130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight and compare insights from research conducted in different disciplines on the effects of the use of calculative practices in academia. It also acts as an introduction to the special issue on “governing by numbers: audit culture and contemporary tales of universities’ accountability”.,This paper reviews the findings and reflections provided in academic literature on the various types of consequences stemming from the diffusion of the “audit culture” in academia. In so doing, it draws upon insights from previous literature in education, management and accounting, and other papers included in this special issue of Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management.,The literature review shows that a growing number of studies are focussing on the hybridization of universities, not only in terms of calculative practices (e.g. performance indicators) but also in relation to individual actors (e.g. academics and managers) who may have divergent values, and thus, act according to multiple logics (business and academic logics). It highlights many areas in which further robust academic research is needed to guide policy and practice developments in universities.,This paper provides academics, regulators and decision-makers with relevant insights into the critical issues of using calculative practices in academia. Despite the negative effects have been observed in various disciplines, there is an evident perpetuation in the use of those practices.,This paper contributes to the ongoing debates on the disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Yet, positive changes can be achieved within the complex settings of “hybrid” universities when the apparent class division between academics and managers is bridged.","PeriodicalId":46537,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","volume":"20 1","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-12-2019-0130","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to highlight and compare insights from research conducted in different disciplines on the effects of the use of calculative practices in academia. It also acts as an introduction to the special issue on “governing by numbers: audit culture and contemporary tales of universities’ accountability”.,This paper reviews the findings and reflections provided in academic literature on the various types of consequences stemming from the diffusion of the “audit culture” in academia. In so doing, it draws upon insights from previous literature in education, management and accounting, and other papers included in this special issue of Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management.,The literature review shows that a growing number of studies are focussing on the hybridization of universities, not only in terms of calculative practices (e.g. performance indicators) but also in relation to individual actors (e.g. academics and managers) who may have divergent values, and thus, act according to multiple logics (business and academic logics). It highlights many areas in which further robust academic research is needed to guide policy and practice developments in universities.,This paper provides academics, regulators and decision-makers with relevant insights into the critical issues of using calculative practices in academia. Despite the negative effects have been observed in various disciplines, there is an evident perpetuation in the use of those practices.,This paper contributes to the ongoing debates on the disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Yet, positive changes can be achieved within the complex settings of “hybrid” universities when the apparent class division between academics and managers is bridged.
期刊介绍:
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is an international journal that promotes qualitative research at the interface of accounting and management. The journal encourages the assessment of practices in the accounting field through a variety of theoretical lenses, and seeks to further our knowledge of the accounting-management nexus in its broadest (e.g., organisational, social and political) contexts. QRAM welcomes submissions of original research papers, conceptual pieces, substantive review articles, and shorter papers such as comments or research notes. The following is intended to indicate potential topics, but is by no means prescriptive. These topics can be overlapping rather than discrete subject areas, and researchers should not feel restricted by the scope of the topics listed below. • Management accounting and control • Accountability, transition and organisational change • Performance management and accounting metrics • Accounting for strategic management • The use and behavioural effects of accounting information in organisational decision-making • Public and third sector accounting and management • Accounting and management controls for sustainability and the environment • Historical perspectives on the accounting-management interface • Methods and methodologies for research at the interface of accounting and management • Accounting and management in developing countries and emerging economies • Technology effects on accounting-management dynamics