应对国家卫生服务机构(英格兰)中基于雇员的种族不平等:问责制和劳动力种族平等标准

Alpa Dhanani, Penny Chaidali, Nina Sharma, Evangelia Varoutsa
{"title":"应对国家卫生服务机构(英格兰)中基于雇员的种族不平等:问责制和劳动力种族平等标准","authors":"Alpa Dhanani, Penny Chaidali, Nina Sharma, Evangelia Varoutsa","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-08-2023-6621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper examines the efforts of National Health Service (England) (NHSE) to respond to employee-based racial inequalities via its Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). The WRES constitutes a hybridised accountability initiative with characteristics of the moral and imposed regimes of accountability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The study conceptualises the notion of responsive race accountability with recourse to Favotto <em>et al</em>.’s (2022) moral accountability model and critical race theory (CRT), and through it, examines the enactment of WRES at 40 NHSE trusts using qualitative content analysis.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Despite the progressive nature of the WRES that seeks to nurture corrective actions, results suggest that trusts tend to adopt an instrumental approach to the exercise. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice, the instrumental approach prevails across both the metric reporting that trusts engage in to guide their actions, and the planned actions for progress. These planned actions not only often fail to coalesce with the trust-specific data but also include generic NHSE or equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and mimetic adoptions of best practice guidance that only superficially address racial concerns.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\n<p>Whilst the WRES is a laudable voluntary achievement, its moral imperative does not appear to have translated into a moral accountability within individual trusts.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Responding to calls for more research at the accounting-race nexus, this study uniquely draws on CRT to conceptualise and examine race accountability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":501027,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responding to employee-based race inequalities in National Health Service (England): accountability and the Workforce Race Equality Standard\",\"authors\":\"Alpa Dhanani, Penny Chaidali, Nina Sharma, Evangelia Varoutsa\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aaaj-08-2023-6621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>This paper examines the efforts of National Health Service (England) (NHSE) to respond to employee-based racial inequalities via its Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). The WRES constitutes a hybridised accountability initiative with characteristics of the moral and imposed regimes of accountability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The study conceptualises the notion of responsive race accountability with recourse to Favotto <em>et al</em>.’s (2022) moral accountability model and critical race theory (CRT), and through it, examines the enactment of WRES at 40 NHSE trusts using qualitative content analysis.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Despite the progressive nature of the WRES that seeks to nurture corrective actions, results suggest that trusts tend to adopt an instrumental approach to the exercise. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice, the instrumental approach prevails across both the metric reporting that trusts engage in to guide their actions, and the planned actions for progress. These planned actions not only often fail to coalesce with the trust-specific data but also include generic NHSE or equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and mimetic adoptions of best practice guidance that only superficially address racial concerns.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\\n<p>Whilst the WRES is a laudable voluntary achievement, its moral imperative does not appear to have translated into a moral accountability within individual trusts.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Responding to calls for more research at the accounting-race nexus, this study uniquely draws on CRT to conceptualise and examine race accountability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":501027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal \",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal \",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-08-2023-6621\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-08-2023-6621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了英格兰国家卫生服务局(NHSE)通过其劳动力种族平等标准(WRES)来应对雇员种族不平等问题的努力。WRES 是一项混合型问责举措,具有道德问责和强加问责两种制度的特征。研究结果尽管 "响应式种族问责 "具有渐进性,旨在培养纠正行动,但研究结果表明,信托机构倾向于采用工具性方法来开展这项工作。虽然有一些良好实践的证据,但无论是信托机构为指导其行动而进行的指标报告,还是为取得进展而计划采取的行动,都普遍采用了工具性方法。社会影响虽然 WRES 是一项值得称赞的自愿性成就,但其道德要求似乎并未转化为各信托机构内部的道德责任。原创性/价值为了响应在会计与种族关系方面开展更多研究的呼吁,本研究独特地借鉴了 CRT,对种族责任进行了概念化和研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responding to employee-based race inequalities in National Health Service (England): accountability and the Workforce Race Equality Standard

Purpose

This paper examines the efforts of National Health Service (England) (NHSE) to respond to employee-based racial inequalities via its Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). The WRES constitutes a hybridised accountability initiative with characteristics of the moral and imposed regimes of accountability.

Design/methodology/approach

The study conceptualises the notion of responsive race accountability with recourse to Favotto et al.’s (2022) moral accountability model and critical race theory (CRT), and through it, examines the enactment of WRES at 40 NHSE trusts using qualitative content analysis.

Findings

Despite the progressive nature of the WRES that seeks to nurture corrective actions, results suggest that trusts tend to adopt an instrumental approach to the exercise. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice, the instrumental approach prevails across both the metric reporting that trusts engage in to guide their actions, and the planned actions for progress. These planned actions not only often fail to coalesce with the trust-specific data but also include generic NHSE or equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and mimetic adoptions of best practice guidance that only superficially address racial concerns.

Social implications

Whilst the WRES is a laudable voluntary achievement, its moral imperative does not appear to have translated into a moral accountability within individual trusts.

Originality/value

Responding to calls for more research at the accounting-race nexus, this study uniquely draws on CRT to conceptualise and examine race accountability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信