innsbruck_edited.jpg

Emerging Scholars Seminar Series 

About
We are starting our quarterly AARN seminar series focused on promoting emerging scholars' research. Our focus will be on rotating across continents to have more representation and incorporate for different time zones. 
photo Sendirella.jfif

Our first guest presenter is Sendirella George, from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. 

 

Date: 11 November, Thursday 

Time: 11.30 am (Wellington, New Zealand time) ; 9.30am (Sydney, Australia time);

10 November 5.30pm (Quebec, Canada time); 10 November, 11.30pm (Rome, Italy time)

 

Zoom link: contact us

Accounting for and as activism: A research journey exploring social movements, counter-accounting, and critical dialogic accounting and accountability

 

Summary: Sendirella George is an emerging scholar at Te Kura Kaute, Ture Tauhokohoko (the School of Accounting and Commercial Law), Te Herenga Waka Aotearoa (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand). She completed her PhD in 2016 and has since been working on publishing her findings and undertaking various research projects motivated by an emancipatory conceptualisation of accounting and accountability. Specifically, she is interested in exploring the potential for accounting to effect meaningful social change through social movements and counter-accounting. Sendirella’s research is also influenced/motivated by the works of critical dialogic accounting and accountability and agonistic democracy theorists. In this presentation, Sendirella will take us through her research journey in the alternative accounting and accountability literature.

Eduardo_Bona_Safe_de_Matos.jpg

Our second guest presenter is Eduardo Bona Safe de Matos (Universidade de Brasília - Brazil).

The seminar will be at the following time: 

 

Québec (Canada - Quebec)

Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:00:00 pm

Brasilia (Brazil - Distrito Federal)

Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 5:00:00 pm

Sydney (Australia - New South Wales)

Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:00:00 am

Paris (France - Île-de-France)

Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:00:00 pm

Corresponding UTC (GMT)

Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 20:00:00

 

Zoom link: contact us

LOGICS OF CRITICAL EXPLANATION APPLIED TO THE IASB REGULATORY PROCESS: A NEW WAY OF VIEWING REGULATION DISCOURSE 
 

ABSTRACT 
The IFRS result from a standard setting process guided by the IASB due process handbook, in which three principles are listed: (i) transparency; (ii) full and fair consultation; and (iii) accountability. Based on that, the regulator builds a discourse of independence and technicality related to good governance practices. However, I start from an ontological and theoretical view – based on the Laclau and Mouffe (1985) post-structuralist discourse theory – that politics is present in all social phenomena. Relying on this dichotomous discursive construction between technicality and politics, I aim to reconstruct the IASB standard setting process – through the articulation of social, political and fantasmatic logics – and to analyze moments when there are (in)completeness in the application of the due process handbook principles during the standard setting. To achieve this objective, I apply the Logics of Critical Explanation (Glynos & Howarth, 2007) to the IFRS 16 – Leases – standard setting. Thereby, I problematize the technical-political dichotomy based on the alleged expertise achieved through a discourse of atomization and independence of the IASB as an international regulator. After that, I describe the process with a new theorization of the IASB standard setting based on social (financialization; atomization/independence; good practices; constituents; and expertise), political (discourses of the economic substance; the need for change; the capitalization; the single model; and symmetry) and fantasmatic logics (fantasies of the quality of the norm; of technicality; of comparability; of globalization; and of procedural justice). For the articulation, I identify and describe the main scenarios of changes in the standard (construction of the need for changes, total capitalization of leases, symmetry between lessors and lessees and the joint project between FASB and IASB) in order to demonstrate its (in)consistencies. These (in)consistencies are also observed when confronting formal and practical discourses. I argue that there is an urge to build a discursive system based on the illusion of technicality. For this, strategies are used to control antagonisms, such as articulation by means of empty signifiers and constant silencing of (in)consistencies. The construction of technicist discourse in the standards setting, therefore, is a rhetorical strategy for purifying the process that aims to maintain the hegemony of discourse.


Keywords: Post-structuralist discourse theory, IFRS 16, International accounting regulation, Due process handbook, Good governance practices. 
 

Our third guest presenter is Ms. Intan Farhana, Universiti Sains Malaysia

The seminar will be at the following time: 

Penang, Malaysia MYT (UTC+8), June 14, Tuesday, 9.00am

Banda Ache, Indonesia WIB (UTC+7), June 14, Tuesday, 8.00am

Sydney, Australia AEST (UTC+10), June 14, Tuesday, 11.00am

Quebec, Canada EDT (UTC+4), June 13, Monday, 9.00pm

London, United Kingdom BST (UTC+1), June 14, Tuesday, 2.00 am

Zoom link: contact us

Intan.jpg

Accountability and the Art of Compromising: a closer look at government budget approval processes
 

ABSTRACT 

Budget mechanisms in the public sector differ significantly from the private sector, as political and public legitimation pressures are involved in the public sector budget process that are either absent or less important in the private sector. The governmental budget process also involves political power, as there are multiple political relationships engaged with different interests, indicating the complexity of public sector relationships and leading to deeper complexity in its accountability. In Aceh province, Indonesia, the government budget showed significant problems in its budget cycle with the budget being approved late almost every year. Thus, my masters research engaged in investigating the reasons for these delays, along with their impacts on budget execution, through a case-based study with an interpretive data analysis. The findings showed that the key reasons for the budget delays were miscommunications and heated debates in budget discussions between Aceh’s legislature and executive government resulting from conflicts of interest and priorities. Their compromising arrangements in the budgeting process also highlight how an art of compromising can play a significant role in resolving the conflicting interests of the actors, but may also possible to cause problems for accountability. In my research, I analysed the findings through three linked accountability frameworks: considering accountability through relationship, responsibility, and answerability dimensions, Boltanski and Thévenot’s (1999) Sociology of Worth (SoW) framework, and Islamic accountability. The analysis generated new ideas for the classification of SoW’s orders of worth when applied to public budgeting and accountability in a devout Muslim society and outlined some challenges in implementing Islamic principles and values into government budgeting.