Critical race theory, counter-accounting, and the emancipatory potential of counter-stories

Abstract

PurposeIn this paper, the authors explore racialisation through human-centric counter-accounts (counter-stories) to bring together critical race theory (CRT) and counter-accounting.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilise CRT to demonstrate the emancipatory role of counter-stories in (re)telling racialized narratives, specifically the narrative of asylum seekers who arrive by sea and are subjected to the inhumane and oppressive nature of the Australian government's policy of offshore immigration detention.FindingsCounter-stories, as tools of accountability, can make visible oppressive forces and the hidden practices of racialized social practices and norms.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper emphasises that we are not in a post-racial world, and racialisation remains a fundamental challenge. We must continue to refute race as an ontological truth and strive to provide a platform for counter-stories that can spark or drive social change. This requires allies, including academics, to give that platform, support their plight, and offer avenues for change.Originality/valueThe authors introduce CRT as a theoretical tool for examining racialisation, opening space for a more critical confluence of accounting and race with potentially wide-reaching implications for our discipline. The paper also contributes to the limited accounting literature concerning asylum seekers, particularly in the use of counter-stories that offer a way of refuting, or challenging, the majoritarian/dominant narratives around asylum-seeking.

Counter-conducting environmental injustices and (un)accountability: Ken Saro-Wiwa’s accounts of the Ogoni’s struggle for emancipation

“…Thus, counter-accounts intentionally offer new visibilities and dissenting perspectives (Vinnari and Laine, 2017) to not only destabilise the prejudicial status quo but also to generate pressure for change (Twyford et al. , 2022).…”

Crisis accountability and aged “care” during COVID-19

“…Each document was read several times from the biopolitical theoretical perspective, similar to other studies adopting a close-reading method Craig, 2001, 2017;Cortese and Andrew, 2020;Craig and Amernic, 2020;Twyford et al, 2022). To determine those biopolitical elements that reveal how the most vulnerable members of society were let die to make live not only the (ostensibly) younger, healthier and more fiscally productive citizens but also "the economy", the words selected from the sources were chosen as examples consistent with the theoretical framing.…”

“…Alternative accounts, such as counter or social accounts, have been used variously in the literature to challenge representation in financial reports and give voice to vulnerable and marginalised stakeholders (Shenkin and Coulson, 2007; Irvine and Moerman, 2017; Tregidga, 2017; Apostol, 2015; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2019; George et al , 2021). The social accounts used in this study are not counter-accounts per se , instead supplementing the voids within mandated reports by addressing accountability gaps and calling organisations to account.…”

“…In this research, social accounts are analysed alongside the official accounts, including annual reports, annual reviews, board minute meetings, policy documents and submissions to the recent Australian Government inquiry into the state of aged care in Australia. Adopting a close-reading method Craig, 2001, 2017;Twyford et al, 2022), the MEDAR 31,1 accounting for, and accountability of, a public health disaster from a lens not solely dedicated to the traditional financial representation of events, uncovers the biopolitical response of an organisation and powerful agents, such as the Australian Government and New South Wales (NSW) Health.…”

Broadening the boundaries of accounting: a call for interdisciplinarity in the calculative era

“…The search criteria included all sources, authors, companies, subjects, industries, regions and languages, which yielded over 8,000 results. Following the methodological direction provided by Twyford (2022), Twyford et al (2022); Cortese and Andrew (2020), Craig and Amernic (2020); and Amernic and Craig (2017), these results were sorted by relevance, with the most relevant documents subjected to scanning.…”