 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Paolo Pietro Biancone
Silvana Secinaro
Valerio Brescia
Ginevra Degregori
Full-Text PDF
XML 643 Views
DOI:10.17265/1548-6583/2023.04.002
University of Turin, Turin, Italy
University of Turin, Turin, Italy
University of Turin, Turin, Italy
University of Social Science, Łódź, Poland
University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Over the past two decades, dialogic accounting research has evolved into a distinct field, expanding into what is now recognized as critical dialogic accounting and accountability (CDAA). The integration of critical dialogic accounting and accountability acknowledges the growing need to recognize diverse pathways within accounting practices, emphasizing the representation of marginalized perspectives, engagement with power dynamics, and the analysis of conflicts, particularly in the context of societal and environmental impacts. Based on these assumptions, the Integrated Popular Reporting (IPR) is intended as a useful practical dialogic tool designed to impartially represent the viewpoints of different stakeholders. The focus extends beyond traditional dialogic accounting, integrating a newer critical lens that explores the implications of digital technology in the reporting process. To explore these advancements, the study investigates the implementation of the City of Bari’s 2020 Integrated Popular Reporting. Leveraging tools such as Talkwalker and employing a longitudinal, interventionist approach along with semi-structured interviews, the study assesses the effects of digital technologies on the dialogic accounting process. The analysis shows that the use of digital technologies has facilitated a more participatory reporting structure, evident in increased citizen engagement and reduced bureaucratic hurdles. Notably, it has enhanced the accuracy of defining citizens’ informational needs and addressed pertinent themes ranging from mobility, economy, digitization, regeneration, and employment. Moreover, it underscores the need to address the digital divide and ensure inclusivity across diverse demographics. Ultimately, it contributes to the ongoing discourse on the role of technology in shaping the future of dialogic accounting and its broader implications for societal accountability.
critical dialogic accounting and accountability (CDAA), Integrated Popular Reporting, digital technology, dialogic accounting, longitudinal case study
Adams, C. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2019). Progress: Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2367-2394. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3399
Ahmed, S., & Uddin, S. (2018). Toward a political economy of corporate governance change and stability in family business groups: A morphogenetic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(8), 2192-2217. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2017-2833
Aleksandrov, E., Bourmistrov, A., & Grossi, G. (2018). Participatory budgeting as a form of dialogic accounting in Russia: Actors’ institutional work and reflexivity trap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(4), 1098-1123. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2016-2435
Aleksandrov, E., Bourmistrov, A., & Grossi, G. (2020). Performance budgeting as a “creative distraction” of accountability relations in one Russian municipality. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(3), 399-424. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-08-2019-0164
Argento, D., Grossi, G., Jääskeläinen, A., Servalli, S., & Suomala, P. (2019). Governmentality and performance for the smart city. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(1), 204-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2922
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Aversano, N., Tartaglia Polcini, P., Sannino, G., & Agliata, F. (2019). Integrated popular reporting as a tool for citizen involvement in financial sustainability decisions. In J. Caruana, I. Brusca, E. Caperchione, S. Cohen, & F. Manes Rossi (A c. Di), Financial Sustainability of Public Sector Entities: The Relevance of Accounting Frameworks (pp. 185-205). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06037-4_10
Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019). The popular financial reporting between theory and evidence. International Business Research, 12(7), Articolo 7. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n7p45
Biondi, L., & Bracci, E. (2018). Sustainability, popular and integrated reporting in the public sector: A fad and fashion perspective. Sustainability, 10(9), Articolo 9. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093112
Bouckaert, G., & van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “good governance”: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329-343. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003
Brown, J. (2009a). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313-342. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.08.002
Brown, J. (2009b). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313-342. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.08.002
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 176-190. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.003
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: On opening up and closing down participatory governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 961-985. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12153
Brown, J., & Tregidga, H. (2017). Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 61, 1-21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.08.002
Cameron, J., & Gibson, K. (2005). Participatory action research in a poststructuralist vein. Geoforum, 36(3), 315-331. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.006
Correa, C., Laine, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2023). Taking the world seriously: Autonomy, reflexivity and engagement research in social and environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 97, 102554. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102554
Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16-38. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003
Everett, J. (2007). Fear, desire, and lack in Deegan and Soltys’s “Social accounting research: An Australasian perspective”. Accounting Forum, 31(1), 91-97. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2006.12.002
Gray, R., & Milne, M. J. (2015). It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it? Of method and madness. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 32, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.005
Grossi, G., & Argento, D. (2022). The fate of accounting for public governance development. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(9), 272-303. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2020-5001
Grossi, G., Biancone, P. P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2021). Dialogic accounting through popular reporting and digital platforms. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(7), 75-93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2021-1163
Gummesson, E. (2006). Qualitative research in management: Addressing complexity, context and persona. Management Decision, 44(2), 167-179. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650175
Haustein, E., & Lorson, P. C. (2023). Co-creation and co-production in municipal risk governance¾A case study of citizen participation in a German city. Public Management Review, 25(2), 376-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1972704
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Korhonen, T., Selos, E., Laine, T., & Suomala, P. (2020). Exploring the programmability of management accounting work for increasing automation: An interventionist case study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(2), 253-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2016-2809
Migchelbrink, K., & van de Walle, S. (2022). A systematic review of the literature on determinants of public managers’ attitudes toward public participation. Local Government Studies, 48(1), 1-22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1885379
Modell, S., Vinnari, E., & Lukka, K. (2017). On the virtues and vices of combining theories: The case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60, 62-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.06.005
Mora, L., & Deakin, M. (2019). Untangling smart cities: From utopian dreams to innovation systems for a technology-enabled urban sustainability. Oxford: Elsevier.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854428
Piotrowski, S., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Deat, F. (2019). Numbers over narratives? How government message strategies affect citizens’ attitudes. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(5), 1005-1028. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400992
Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., Iannaci, D., & Jonathan, G. M. (2022). Does citizen involvement feed on digital platforms? International Journal of Public Administration, 45(9), 708-725. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1887216
Sorola, M. (2022). Q methodology to conduct a critical study in accounting: A Q study on accountants’ perspectives of social and environmental reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 86, 102355. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102355
Tanima, F. A., Brown, J., Wright, J., & Mackie, V. (2023a). Taking critical dialogic accountability into the field: Engaging contestation around microfinance and women’s empowerment. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 90, 102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102383
Tanima, F., Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2023b). Critical dialogic accounting and accountability engagement: Exploring the micropolitics of microfinance and women’s empowerment through participatory action research. SSRN scholarly paper 4439256. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4439256
Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0042098013494427?casa_token=9GKRDrEQPoEAAAAA%3Au2jH0XVjo6NrGmnJooIeE2LE2bzMLpo5GWXRVox8oQRq_j90Uq0dZ_tegcRTM03kIRJKL_uu7ab02A
Zuccardi, M., & Bonollo, E. (2014). Performance measurement in the smart cities. In R. P. Dameri & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (A c. Di), Smart city: How to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space (pp. 139-155). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_7