Accounting for Humanity

My intention was to post last week however, as the title suggests, I was visited by a rather unwelcome guest. With last week lost to my second experience of COVID-19 (10/10 do not recommend), I will now spend this post trying to remember all of my thoughts from 2 weeks ago.

On the 18th May I attended my 2nd Research Roundtable (follow the link to read more about it) and as expected, it was another fascinating discussion. The paper reviewed on this occasion was ‘Theorizing (and) the future of interdisciplinary accounting research’ by Jacob Reilley and Lukas Löhlein and, from a PhD student perspective, this was a significant read.

Reading the work of early career researchers

Before going into the detail, a first for myself in reading articles was that Reilly and Löhlein (2023) highlight in the paper that they are not long from completing their PhD’s. While it is possible that I have (unknowingly) read the work of early career academic before, this proclamation instantly changes my experience of this paper. These are my peers, individuals only but a few paces ahead of me on the academia journey; their memories are fresh, and I can wholly relate to them. In this paper, I am not merely reading a critical discussion concerning theory and publishing, I am feeling heard and validated in my PhD experience thus far. More so as Reilly and Löhlein share my experience of the interdisciplinary background, with neither one beginning their journey in the accounting realm.

This for myself was more useful than the “X things I wish I knew before starting a PhD” content I have mentioned previously as it felt infinitely more helpful to simply know that what I am thinking and experiencing my PhD is ‘normal’ and, the points they discuss gave me much for consideration about my future in academia.

That theory is soo Business Management

The first area of interest was the notion of how theory is used in accounting research, with focus upon the limitations placed upon the researcher by wider academic society. The concept here is that, as researchers new or experienced, there is an expectation that ‘theory’ is a standardised factor. We have a list of what we could (for the sake of puns, apologies for non-accounting academics) call GAAP – generally accepted accounting philosophies. To contribute ‘acceptable’ research, knowledge and thought to the accounting realm, I should link my study to one of a pre-selected accounting theory group (Foucault, Bourdieu, Latour etc). This is fine if you consider two things; 1 – these theories actually fit what you are researching and 2 – you have a reason to and understand why you should include such theoretical thought.

Variety is the Spice of Life

Looking a point 1 above I should begin by noting that there is nothing wrong with using a recognised accounting theory such as those noted however, theory for myself is not, and never should be, about ‘ticking a box’. Theory for me is the foundation of thought, it is the reason why your questions formulate and the system that brings about the answers to those questions. I do not choose theories, I discover them in a quest to understand why I am thinking what I am thinking and thus, generally for this reason my chosen theories seldom ‘belong’ to accounting.

In my master’s dissertation, I selected Terror Management Theory (TMT) and Social Dominance Theory (SDT) for my discourse analysis into technology and accounting in professional bodies. Neither theory is an accepted accounting theory, in fact TMT is a theory derived from the worth of Ernest Becker, particularly around his work “The Denial of Death”. TMT and SDT both place the human need for value, significance, and (more so for SDT) dominance over social existence. They explore the human need to be the best, number 1 in all things and thus, what better theory would demonstrate the fear and threat society experiences in the wake of 21st technology such as AI?

In my PhD thesis I have once more reached out with the accounting theory stall, running blissfully toward a theoretical ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ that best represents the thought process that is guiding my research. In my justification of abandoning the ‘pre-approved’ theories, this approach not only better represents my thought and research philosophy, it brings new and novel contributions into my field. With new ideas come new debates, discussions, questions, and avenues of research. There is little to gain in spending a lifetime frustrated by the square peg not fitting in the round hole…

The Problems with Publishing

The second aspect of the discussion, and perhaps the most enlightening for my future was the concept of publishing and journal rankings.

I am not quite sure if I paper offering a critical view of the perceived importance of journal ranking appearing in an upper ranked journal is ironic or not, but the discussion was one of interest none the less.

In this instance there was a noting of the pressure upon academics (though particularly early career ones) to focus upon ‘top-ranked’ journals. This is a difficult discussion as, ultimately there are two strong sides to this debate however, the side in favour is arguably strong because society has allowed it to become the dominant thought.

On the side against this practice; top-ranked journals are notoriously difficult to publish thus, for an early career or unestablished academic, there is a sense of setting the bar too high or worse, setting oneself up for the continual exposure to crushing disappointment brought on by equally continual rejection. There are a plethora of interesting and useful journals a few rungs down the ladder, plenty of which could be attainable goals or, perhaps more likely, far more relevant to your area of interest. If the aim is to share your work with others in your specialist field, why would you avoid such opportunity? Or, if your aim is to share your work with the world/public, why publish in a journal that is largely inaccessible (behind a paywall) to the public? Furthermore, revisiting the accepted accounting theories, novel use of theory is suggested to be less celebrated in higher-ranked journals thus, if you wish to push truly new ‘out of the box’ thinking you might find yourself swimming upstream to get published.

Now to consider the counter views. The first being that top-ranked journals are difficult to get published in and thus, successfully publishing with them does bring a kudos and recognition that you have achieved a difficult feat and further, implies that you have produce a ‘good’ piece of work. I say ‘implies’ as, this does do a huge disservice to lower ranked journals, good research can be found everywhere and to dismiss something for “being in a 2 star journal” is a level of classism that I will never agree with. Unfortunately, not all would agree with this and as such, institutions place expectations and requirements on academic to produce top-level research, with the level being determined by the number of stars aligned to that journal. With this it is understandable that PhD supervisors and mentors may push an early academic to ignore certain publications and follow the “aim for the moon” approach, though here failing and landing among the stars may not be good enough. It is a difficult position for a supervisor/mentor who is there to guide you toward the best possible outcome and, according to academic society, that is a 4-star outcome.

When the Sh*t hit the fan

Forgive the language above, but I think my approach cannot be described any better way.

This aspect of the discussion/paper made me realise that I am not going to have an easy journey when it comes to publishing, true I doubt anyone will have it ‘easy’ but, I have made my journey infinitely harder by rejecting the socially acceptable.

My theoretical approach makes sense to me, it defines me and my research; I cannot, and I will not change that. If I attempt to publish and I am told I must change my theory to something that does not ‘fit’ or sculpt my approach to match the “Theory Sandwich” model (as described by Reilly and Löhlein (2023) and truly one of the best descriptions I have read) that does not represent my work in a ‘true and fair’ (another accounting wordplay, sorry) form, then I will not publish with that journal. I will keep searching until I find a journal that accepts my thought as it is (note; I am definitely not saying that I wont accept alterations/suggestions, just that I will not rework my views to fit into an idealised standard that does not reflect my research intent). Controversially as academic perhaps, my dream is to publish books, to share my work with both academic and wider world. I want history, technology and our place as humans in the world to be an open discussion, one we can all contribute to.

Now as I am as much a victim to societal standards and pressure, I will, and would be exceptionally proud to be published in a top-ranking journal but, I will be equally proud to publish in one with no ranking at all if I believe it can make a difference. I recently sent an article off to peer-review in a Postgraduate journal (full details will follow once I know the outcome of that) and if my work makes it in, I can assure you I will be feeling unbelievably proud of myself and honoured that my work was considered to help contribute to an important conversation (and help a group of postgraduates develop their journal).

Trying to summarise my post-COVID jumbled mind I see one key takeaway when thinking about journals, rankings and publishing; how many people these days book hotels on the star-rating alone, would you book a 4-star hotel with a score of ‘2’ on tripadvisor?

In short, whether your aim is solely to catch those big fish, or to wait it out to find a particular fish that has everything you hoped for, when it comes to research, theory and publishing; you do you and do what is right for you…

Also if you wish to know a little more about the paper’s content, head over to Dr Darren Jubb, as he has remembered the days discussion far better!