Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research

Alvesson, Mats; Sandberg, Joergen

doi:10.1177/0170840614530916

Cited by 173 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Behind this, there is a kind of anxiety reduction: if my peers are thinking about and focusing on these issues, then they must be worthy of study. While a little novelty is required to mark out a novel contribution, too much is usually punished (Alvesson & Sandberg 2014). The result is often intensive and ongoing debate among professional critics about issues which are largely of interest to them only.…”

Section: Issue Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending critical performativity

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent AbstractIn this article we extend the debate about critical performativity. We begin by outlining the basic tenets of critical performativity and how this has been applied in the study of management and organisation. We then address recent critiques of critical performance. We note these arguments suffer from an undue focus on intra-academic debates; engage in author-itarian theoretical policing; feign relevance through symbolic radicalism; and repackage common sense. We take these critiques as an opportunity to offer an extended model of critical performativity involves focusing on issue of public importance; engaging with non-academic groups using dialectical reasoning; scaling up insights through movement building; and propagating deliberation.

show abstract

Section: Issue Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending critical performativity

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As scholars, we have become boxed-in by extant organisational practice (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2014;Tregidga et al, 2015). Even when the focus changes to organisational entities with broader community and regional responsibilities (e.g.…”

Section: Non-financial Accounting Accounts and Reporting Assurance mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts

Russell

Milne

Dey

2017

AAAJ

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This paper reviews and synthesises academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrates its shortcomings. It provokes scholars to rethink their conceptions of 'accounts' and 'nature', and alongside others in this AAAJ special issue, provides the basis for an agenda for theoretical and empirical research that begins to 'ecologise' accounting.Design/methodology/approach: Utilising a wide range of thought from accounting, geography, sociology, political ecology, nature writing and social activism, the paper provides an analysis and critique of key themes associated with 40 years research in environmental accounting. It then considers how that broad base of work in social science, particularly pragmatic sociology (e.g. Latour, Boltanksi and Thévenot), could contribute to reimagining an ecologically informed accounting.Findings: Environmental accounting research overwhelmingly focuses on economic entities and their inputs and outputs. Conceptually, an 'information throughput' model dominates. There is little or no environment in environmental accounting, and certainly no ecology. The papers in this AAAJ special issue contribute to these themes, and alongside social science literature, indicate significant opportunities for research to begin to overcome them.Research Implications: This paper outlines and encourages the advancement of ecological accounts and accountabilities drawing on conceptual resources across social sciences, arts and humanities. It identifies areas for research to develop its interdisciplinary potential to contribute to ecological sustainability and social justice.Originality: How to 'ecologise' accounting and conceptualise human and non-human entities has received little attention in accounting research. This paper and AAAJ special issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work.

show abstract

“…This makes it impossible to trace the discussions that led to (sometimes substantial) revisions to the original research ( Bedeian, 2003), the decision process leading to the final publication, or whether peer review even took place. By operating as a closed system, it protects the status quo and suppresses research viewed as radical, innovative, or contrary to the theoretical or established perspectives of referees ( Alvesson & Sandberg, 2014; Benda & Engels, 2011; Horrobin, 1990; Mahoney, 1977; Merton, 1968; Siler et al , 2015a; Siler & Strang, 2017), even though it is precisely these factors that underpin and advance research. As a consequence, questions arise as to the competency, effectiveness, and integrity, as well as participatory elements, of traditional peer review, such as: who are the gatekeepers and how are the gates constructed; what is the balance between author-reviewer-editor tensions and how are these power relations and conflicts resolved; what are the inherent biases associated with this; does this enable a fair or structurally inclined system of peer review to exist; and what are the repercussions for this on our knowledge generation and communication systems?…”

Section: 01 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research

Cited by 173 publications

References 61 publications

Extending critical performativity

Extending critical performativity

Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About