This paper describes a study of doctors and the education of doctors in Germany, Italy and the UK and the changing location of accounting practices and expertise. In these countries there have been coercive reform attempts to get doctors to accept increased financial responsibility and pay greater attention to costs and budgets. Kurunmäki (2004) suggested that Finnish doctors have willingly adopted accounting practices as part of their legitimated competencies and have become a hybrid profession. This paper address the question of whether that is a valid generalisation in Germany, Italy or the UK. The key focus of the paper is on the education and training of doctors, which should have altered if hybridisation has occurred. The finding is that there is no evidence from the countries studied that accounting has become incorporated into the formal education of doctors. While there were management and accounting training courses for doctors these were only available for those in or aiming for clinico‐managerial positions. This does not support the argument that medicine has become a hybridised profession, but it does support the case for polarisation. These changes are absorbed or managed by an emergent sub‐group, the medical manager.

This paper explores the issue of accounting and accountability in the spirituality and practices of an ecumenical Christian group -the Iona Community. Fundamental to the existence and operation of the Iona Community is their Rule, which requires all full-members to account to each other for their use of money and time. This paper explores the development of that Rule and how it is actualised. It examines the accounting practices of individuals in the Community and the distinction between individualising and socialising accountabilities. Findings reported challenge the assumption that accounting has no role in a religious or sacred setting. The study also serves to illustrate that the distinction between individualising and socialising accountability is not clear. In the Iona Community structures of individualising accountability were subject to resistance. Structures of socialising accountability, while perceived as positive and empowering, had the potential to function as forms of internalised surveillance and domination.

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of colleagues in a number of institutions in Australia and New Zealand, from the ESRC/CIMA New Public Sector Workshop, University of Edinburgh, as well as those at the Fifth Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, University of Manchester, where previous drafts of a paper, upon which the current paper draws, were presented. This paper expands and develops the arguments of these previous drafts as well as drawing from the discussion surrounding them. Despite this assistance all errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

Purpose In the context of global new public management reform trends and the associated phenomenon of performance auditing (PA), the purpose of this paper is to explore the rise of performance audit in Australia and examines its focus across audit jurisdictions and the role key stakeholders play in driving its practice. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a multi-jurisdictional analysis of PA in Australia to explore its scale and focus, drawing on the theoretical tools of Goffman. Documentary analysis and interview methods are employed. Findings Performance audit growth has continued but not always consistently over time and across audit jurisdictions. Despite auditor discourse concerning backstage performance audit intentions being strongly focussed on evaluating programme outcomes, published front stage reports retain a strong control focus. While this appears to reflect Auditors-General (AGs) reluctance to critique government policy, nonetheless there are signs of direct and indirectly recursive relationships emerging between AGs and parliamentarians, the media and the public. Research limitations/implications PA merits renewed researcher attention as it is now an established process but with ongoing variability in focus and stakeholder influence. Social implications As an audit technology now well-embedded in the public sector accountability setting, it offers potential insights into matters of local, state and national importance for parliament and the public, but exhibits variable underlying drivers, agendas and styles of presentation that have the capacity to enhance or detract from the public interest. Originality/value Performance audit emerges as a complex practice deployed as a mask by auditors in managing their relationship with key stakeholders.