While prior accounting research documents normalizing strategies within the accounting profession and in instances of accounting adoption, the potential of accounting itself as a strategic tool toward normalizing that which is considered socially abnormal (i.e., dirty) remains an important and unexamined area of inquiry. In this study, we conduct in-depth interviews to examine the role accounting plays in the development of the US cannabis industry (CI) as it transitions from the illicit market in which formal accounting was systematically avoided to a state-legal market in which participants are subject to conventional business processes. Facing impediments to traditional operating practices and pressures to increase normative conformity for industry survival, cannabis operators (COs) incorporated the use of accounting in three normalizing strategies (creative concession, collaborative facilitation, and experimentation), seemingly influenced by the incongruencies between prior illicit-market culture and experiences and the state-legal operating environment. In response to what operators perceived to be coercive regulation, they employed creative concession strategies, including influencing, bargaining, challenging, escaping, and cessation tactics. However, in response to pressures to adopt more commonly accepted forms of accounting, COs instead deployed two different strategies, one focused on acquiescence to normalizing pressures when doing so facilitated essential relationship building (i.e., collaborative facilitation strategies), and one deployed as strategic experimentation, working to normalize industry activities in areas of perceived threats to industry acceptance and continuity. Given CO accounting naiveté, its usefulness was often introduced by peripheral industry parties attempting to normalize their own participation with the CI. Notably, we also find that normalizing pressures occasionally resulted in unintended consequences, including reversion to the illicit market * Accepted by Yves Gendron. We thank Yves Gendron and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We are also grateful for the invaluable comments from

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the use of blockchain technology in contested markets. The authors specifically consider the development and utilization of this accounting system as a device that might democratize contested markets for vulnerable populations, supporting contested entrepreneurs while “cooling” the moral contestation to the market.Design/methodology/approachThis study analyzes the relationship between vulnerable populations and contested market activities, the inclusive development and potential trust created by a blockchain accounting information system and how this interaction potentially creates support for economic and social systems.FindingsThis paper demonstrates that, in an era of decreased trust especially as it relates to a digital, globalized marketplace, blockchain has the potential to create democracies of access, trust and agency. This system overcomes many of the deficiencies associated with transparency and accountability and connects market participants with society, strengthening its potential to bridge two opposing vulnerable population viewpoints necessary for possible contested market development.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of emerging technologies in the interconnectedness between vulnerable populations in a contested market. Recognizing that blockchain is an imperfect version of its ideal intention, the authors also discuss the limitations of the system with respect to corruption, collusion and potential issues of adoption, and how this reduces the influence of blockchain as a “cooling” device within contested markets.Practical implicationsThe authors provide an illustrative example whereby an entire industry might be persuaded from avoidance to promotion of new traceability devices and supported in the development of an accessible market.Social implicationsGlobal government's economic support for social systems continues to experience significant declines. With ever-degrading healthcare, infrastructure, public education, childcare, etc., new sources of economic influx are often desired. One potential source of additional funds is from the tax revenues derived from contested market transactions, those stigmatized industries often operating illegally. With substantial public distrust, blockchain potentially provides such industries with democratization and the trust necessary to transition the industry into a legal environment, with tax revenues benefiting various social systems.Originality/valueThis study goes beyond the preliminary discussions of the benefits and consequences of blockchain. Instead, the authors focus on the use of blockchain within contested markets and its ability to influence vulnerable populations. The authors also consider the use of blockchain-based accounting information systems to provide a holistic and more democratic platform from a regulatory, market participant and societal standpoint.

No abstract

This study examines to what extent study design decisions influence the perceived efficacy of consensus messaging, using medicinal cannabis as the context. We find that researchers’ decisions about study design matter. A modified Solomon Group Design was used in which participants were either assigned to a group that had a pretest (within-subjects design) or a posttest only group (between-subjects design). Furthermore, participants were exposed to one of three messages—one of two consensus messages or a control message—attributed to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. A consensus message describing a percent (97%) of agreeing scientists was more effective at shifting public attitudes than a consensus message citing substantial evidence, but this was only true in the between-subject comparisons. Participants tested before and after exposure to a message demonstrated pre-sensitization effects that undermined the goals of the messages. Our results identify these nuances to the effectiveness of scientific consensus messaging, while serving to reinforce the importance of study design.