工商管理类 | 期刊约稿信息8条

工商管理

The British Accounting Review

Call for papers: ‘Research quality in accounting education’

全文截稿: 2018-06-30

影响因子: 2.135

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review

1 Introduction  

The extent to which accounting education research attracts new and enthusiastic scholars depends on how it is perceived and the esteem in which it is held. Research in accounting education is too often not afforded the same status as other areas of accounting research (Marriott et al., 2014). Emerging scholars may disregard accounting education as a research domain when prevailing perceptions among the academy claim an absence of rigour and quality. There is a danger that such perceptions will constrain creativity and innovation in accounting education research (McGuigan, 2015), potentially inhibiting discourse on the theoretical, empirical, policy and practice domains of accounting education.

2 Factors influencing the quality of accounting education research  

There is a prevailing belief among accounting researchers that not all disciplinary spaces in accounting research are viewed, treated and respected equally (Sangster, 2015). Accounting education is one such sub-discipline, even though it bears all the characteristics of quality scholarly research and an international community of scholars accompanied by an infrastructure of dedicated conferences and journals (St. Pierre et al., 2009). However, the augmentation of accounting education research is essential to prevent both accounting education research and practice from becoming stagnant. Questions arise when the quality of accounting education practice is dependent, at least to some degree, on the generation of high quality research that provides insight and brings diverse ways of thinking to those in charge of the classroom (McGuigan, 2015). A decline in the quality of accounting education represents: a failure of the academy to execute its duty regarding the standard of education offered to its students; a failure to students in inadequately preparing them for the workplace and a failure to the profession which bears the cost of ill-prepared graduates.

Fogarty (2009) asserts that journal publications are the ‘currency’ of accounting academics. Unfortunately for researchers with an interest in accounting education, standard reward systems are generally skewed against specialist outlets (Marriott et al., 2014). A review of highly regarded mainstream journals, including critical journals, reveals an absence of accounting education (Reinstein and Calderon, 2006). Sangster (2011) bemoans the deleterious effects of research assessment on faculty working in niche areas such as accounting history and accounting education. According to Wilson (2011), these scholars are likely to be disadvantaged in terms of funding, and in terms of career development opportunities. The effects are potentially devastating when we consider accounting education special interest groups of accounting associations, such as the AAA, AFAANZ and BAFA, boast the largest membership base of all special interest groups.

3 Aims of the special issue  

The overarching goal of this special issue is to encourage debate about ways to raise the profile and quality of accounting education research. This special issue is specifically concerned with an examination of the quality of research in accounting education, rather than the practice of classroom teaching. This special issue aims to address two interrelated objectives: to understand why accounting education research is considered by some to be second-tier; and to critically examine the quality of accounting education research to better gauge where it stands relative to other research domains in accounting.

The call for contributions to this special issue welcomes manuscripts of a theoretical or empirical nature. The topics in which manuscripts are sought include but are not restricted to:

- Accounting education as a domain of intellectual inquiry.

- Theoretical influences on the scholarship of accounting education.

- The merits of diverse approaches to accounting education research.

- Assessment of research practice, perceptions and/or expectations.

- The ‘impact’ of ‘classic’ manuscripts and/or academic ‘elites’ in accounting education research.

- Engagement and impact of accounting education research.

- Assessment of research quality of accounting education with comparable disciplines.

- Critical evaluation of the ‘health’ of accounting education research.

- The role or impact of PhD programs on accounting education research.

- The future of accounting education research.

工商管理

Critical Perspectives On Accounting

Special Issue: Accounting, Accountability and Animals

摘要截稿: 2018-08-01

全文截稿: 2018-09-15

影响因子: 1.5

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting

One key task of critical accounting research is to identify new constituencies whose interests are not given sufficient attention in the existing systems of accounting and accountability (Messner, 2009). During the past few decades, critical accounting studies have made visible the exploitation and oppression of, for instance, various labour groups, women, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and the citizens of developing nations (Dillard & Vinnari, 2017). There has also emerged a large literature on accounting for the physical and ecological environment, although debate continues as to the efficacy of such reporting (see Gray, 2010). However, there remains one aspect of the natural world that has received less attention – the location of animals within the world today (but see Vinnari & Laine, 2017; Laine & Vinnari, 2017). Even academic work drawing on Actor-Network Theory, which allows for the consideration of non-human agency, has largely neglected to consider the interests of sentient non-human actors, with animals being a pertinent case in point (Baxter and Chua, 2018).

Animals form an interesting focal group for critical research because they are subject to human domination – despite growing debate about their moral status and personhood (Bryant, 2007). The numbers reflecting the extent of human exploitation of animals are staggering. Hunting, habitat destruction and other human activity are driving wild animal species’ extinction at such a pace that authoritative experts have labelled this phenomenon as ’biological annihilation’ (Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo, 2017). Also, the production of animal-derived foodstuffs and clothing results in the killing of more than 65 billion farmed animals each year (Allievi et al., 2015). Millions of animals are also used in laboratory testing, commodified in animal sports, or mistreated as companions. The arguments for improving the plight of these animals can be derived from two main strands of ethical theories. According to the deontological position, animals are subjects-of-a-life with inherent value, and killing them is as immoral as killing human beings (Regan, 1985). This radical position is held by animal rights scholars and activists, who wish to abolish all human (ab)use of animals (Francione, 1996). The more reformist case of increasing animal welfare is, in turn, made by utilitarians, who accept human use of animals to the extent that the benefits accruing to the former exceed to pain inflicted on the latter (see Singer, 1975). There are thus legitimate grounds for challenging this institutionalized yet problematic status quo through critical research, including critical research in accounting.

The aim of this special issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting is to advance understanding of animals as a constituency in relation to critical accounting and practices of accountability. This special issue will bring together a collection of theoretical, empirical and methodological papers that explore the nexus of animals, accountability, power, and ethics. The editors welcome cross-disciplinary investigations that explore animals and accountability from the perspectives of not only accounting but also, for example, critical animal studies, history, law, medicine, organization studies, political science, economics, sociology, ethics, biology or veterinary science. Potential topics to be addressed in this special issue include, but are not limited to:

- accounting’s role in conflicts and controversies involving animals, for example, the costs and benefits associated with live animal export;

- the commodification of animals (such as horses and greyhound dogs) and the networks of interests both shaping debate about and obscuring the quantification of the ‘wastage’ associated with the racing and gaming industries;

- counter accounts of animal exploitation from animal activist and welfare organisations, for example, that promote new visibilities and discursive and calculative spaces at the margins of accounting and accountability;

- the intertwining of calculation and emotion in decisions concerning animals, for example, in the booming global markets associated with the rise of animals as ‘companions’ and ‘pets’;

- making animals’ interests visible through more democratic forms of accounting, including critiques of the adequacy of extant forms of sustainability accounting;

- critical assessments of corporate accounts of animals, including entangled notions of property rights and valuation; and,

- philosophical and methodological critiques of extant representations of animals as (il)legitimate stakeholders and claimants with respect to accountability.

工商管理

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Heuristics in Technological Forecasting and Social Change

全文截稿: 2018-10-01

影响因子: 2.625

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technological-forecasting-and-social-change

Recent advancements in the study of heuristics provide detailed evidence of how heuristics are effective in forecasting and handling change and uncertainty on multi-levels. Next to some of the most broadly recognised accounts of heuristics within judgment and decision-making (Tversky & Kahneman, 1975), heuristics on the individual-level are recognized as providing foundation of human adaptive intelligence (Gigerenzer, Hertwig, & Pachur, 2011). On the organizational level, heuristics offer some of the most effective (and sometimes the only) strategies to solve intractable organizational decision-problems (Bettis, Forthcoming), and many more research opportunities remain to study the linkages of heuristics and organization (Loock & Hinnen, 2015). On the market level, heuristics are an important element of how economy emerges (Smith, 2007).

While heuristics already have been an important element of earlier discussions on economic change (Nelson & Winter, 1982), the recent progress in the study of heuristics enables novel views and novel explanations of how heuristics matter in the context of change and forecasting. Researchers have produced a more granular understanding of how heuristics work and heuristics find recognition in a broader range of scholarly discussions: heuristics are ecological rational in individual cognition (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002), we understand how heuristics are computational rational in artificial intelligence (Gershman, Horvitz, & Tenenbaum, 2015), or how heuristics are strategic rational in turbulent business environments (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011).

In this special issue we want to connect the fine potential that the study of heuristics offers with the debate of Technological Forecasting and Social Change:

- How are heuristics better able to explain and solve some of the problems that we are interested in the particular field of technological forecasting (contrasted to non-technological forecasting problems that have been mostly looked at so far in heuristic research)? For instance, how can technological developments, learning curves or prices be better predicted based on heuristics?

- How are heuristics effective within the particular dynamics of social change (contrasted to the empirical and mostly non-social environments in the current debate on heuristics)? For instance, in sustainability transitions such as the energy transition, what heuristics endure over time and how are heuristics able to accommodate the requests from social change?

- What heuristics are required to solve some of the grand challenges of our time? What heuristics enable effective solutions to the climate change? What heuristics (e.g. grow by emitting CO2) hinder effective solution? How do individuals, groups, organizations and societies choose such heuristics?

- How do heuristics relate to some of the established constructs in transition research. For instance, are business models heuristics and if so, how do business models as heuristics impact technological development and social change? How do social change and technological developments (or assumptions about it) impact business models and other heuristics?

- How is the emergence and change of heuristics impacted by events or changes in the technical, social and business environment? For instance, does the Brexit or the Financial crises require ore produce novel heuristics? If so, how. Do they change existing heuristics?

工商管理

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Public policy for open innovation: Frameworks, priorities and mechanisms

全文截稿: 2018-10-01

影响因子: 2.625

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technological-forecasting-and-social-change

Open innovation (OI) is a vibrant research area in academia and is capturing growing attention in industry. The concept, advanced by Chesbrough in 2003 was more recently redefined (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014: 17) so as to apply to a multitude of organisations. However, research has so far been mostly focused at the business level and communities of innovators.

To have a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon it is time to further advance research at other levels, namely in the context of innovation systems and public policy (Bogers et al., 2017; Santos & Mendonça, 2017). Over the past decade policymakers around the world have increasingly launched initiatives with the aim of promoting OI, the motivations, set-ups and outcomes of these efforts are still little understood.The rationale for promoting Open Innovation at the meso and macro levels has remained an under-researched topic in the literature (Santos & Mendonça, 2017). In the report, they put forth a series of recommendations for public policies aimed at improving the climate for open innovation and thus contributing to harnessing the innovation and growth potential of new developments in private sector innovation.

The Special Issue is set to attract and integrate views and evidence on public policy enhancing Open Innovation practices, goals and collective benefits.Specifically, the special Issue is mostly focusing on industrial policy aims, i.e. Open Innovation-informed policy for the private productive sector. Thisand Call for Papers springs from the assumption that Open Innovation can be enacted, fostered and strengthened by the action of public policies. Broadly speaking, this Special Issue has the main objective of clarifying the rationale and role of public policy in the creation of framework conditions for the adoption of Open Innovation by organisations and networks (private as well as public), as well as to identify specific mechanisms and applied instruments that can contribute to OI-friendly purposes. As with many policy cycles of hype (see agendas such as “smart growth” or “societal challenges”), it is important to detect mere label repackaging and shake-out rhetorical noise that diluting the original purpose of Open Innovation and to stimulate the debate and cumulative progress regarding this topic. The Special Issue is first and foremost a call for a creative consolidation of the research carried on OI when it intersects with the policy and institutional dimensions. The agenda-setting intent is to stimulate the debate and progress about these intellectual and strategic pathway.

This special issue calls for contributions that expand existing knowledge and provide guidance on how public policy can contribute to the development and diffusion of OI by inventors and entrepreneurs, companies and other organisations, incubators and science parks, universities and research laboratories, NGOs and think tanks, development banks and international institutions. It invites original works that explore novel innovation policy design (sectoral policy, regulatory measures, property rights, fiscal and financial incentives, incubator design, etc.) and strategic criteria (network failure, crowding-in, lead-market creation, breakthrough innovations, key sectors, etc.) that can boost OI activities, namely in the direction of societal challenges and looming global wicked problems (social inequality, clean governance, climate change, food security, the right to privacy, etc.). However, and given the potential diversity of approaches, it is worth emphasising the Special Issue is mostly focusing on industrial policy aims, i.e. open Innovation-informed policy for the private productive sector.

The Special Issue editors will welcome papers addressing key issues such as:

- Theoretical and conceptual developments about the relation of OI and public policies;

- Empirical evidence about the impact of public instruments and policy on the adoption of OI by organisations in specific industries (low-tech and traditional sectors, consumer and professional services, resource-dependent activities, etc.) in industrialised as well as catching-up economies;

- Consideration of future research challenges to democratise innovation in society and improve competitiveness in companies and the socio-economic development countries using the OI approach.

Possible topics could for example relate to (but are by no means limited to) the following of areas of interest:

- Rationales for supporting open innovation strategies at the micro level;

- Institutional aspects of public policy for open innovation

- Openness-friendly governance of science and technology;

- Open innovation for catching-up and development;

- Mature industry renewal and service economy up-grade;

- Post-linear innovation and smart industrial policy;

- Building open national, regional and sectoral systems;

- Cluster-oriented, smart-city and community-enhancing policy;

- Venture capital and crowdsourced-based finance;

- Facilitation of start-up emergence and spin-off survival;

- Pro, anti and post-intellectual property regulatory approaches;

- Open Data, Big Data and open environments for innovation;

- Open science as an emergent sectoral innovation system;

- Overlaps with topical concepts (industry 4.0, bioeconomy, etc.);

- Transformative OI policy;

- Political economy criticism of OI;

- etc.

工商管理

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Corporate Governance and Financing of Technological Firms

全文截稿: 2018-12-30

影响因子: 2.625

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technological-forecasting-and-social-change

New entrants in innovative and High Tech markets are characterized by an insatiable appetite for external financing. During the 80’s and the 90’s venture capital funding largely fueled financing needs of computer and info-tech based start-ups. In 2012, the Job Act has allowed a strong development of crowdfunding financing which now amounts to $17 billion. Therefore, the scope of external funders likely to finance innovative projects seems to enlarge quickly and the current distinction between business angels, venture capitalists and corporate venture capitalists can no longer reflect the diversity of personalities and objectives of these funders.

Moreover, the intrusion of new types of external funders has a strong impact on the governance of start-ups.

Da Rin et al. (2013), Hochberg (2012) and Krishnan et al. (2011) highlight the venture capitalists’ disciplinary function for their firms’ portfolio, equity crowdfunding development potentially comes along with a dilution of stock which gives primacy to the managers’ objectives over those of shareholders. We could look back to Mass funding which brought brilliant successes such as the Statue of Liberty, as well as enormous failures such as the Panama Canal.

Although the scientific research underpinning the phenomenon of alternative finance has been gaining ground, it is still a relatively under-researched field. Moreover, crowdfunding as an industry is still in its infancy. Thus, most extant scholarly research has not begun to identify the implications for entrepreneurship apart from the often-oversimplified anecdotal evidence of success (Lehner et al., 2016).

While standard practice divides innovative start-ups external financing into stages and rely each one on a particular type of funders (Wright and Robbie, 1998) comprehensive studies presenting typologies of crowd funders are still lacking. In addition, descriptive analysis of the governance mechanisms of start-ups funded with alternative financing means are scarce (Bonnet and Wirtz, 2011; Di Pietro, 2015). Finally, efficiency and value creation associated with such start-ups are open questions that call for answers.

Mature technological companies are strongly impacted by agency problems (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). The massive research and development expenses of these firms lead to the constitution of intangible capital, which can reach 70 % of their market capitalization (Lev, 2000). Daniel and Titman (2006) show that the growth of intangible capital favors information asymmetry between shareholders and managers. Aboody and Lev (2000) note that managers of such firms derive 3 to 4 times more gains from the purchase or sale of their firms’ shares than managers of other firms. The findings question the power of managers and the corporate governance of high-tech firms. Ezzi and Jarboui (2016) underline that the discretionary power of high tech firms’ managers strongly influences the choice of their innovation strategy. In addition to R&D spending, these managers can develop spinoff or CVC (Corporate Venture Capital) activities. But once again, the characteristics of governance which define the relationship of the parent firm to the financed companies strongly influence the total value created (Vantrappen and Polastro, 2015).

We welcome the submission of research papers on the following (non-exhaustive) list of topics:

- How will the forms of financing (debt, equity, or hybrid instruments) impact the survival, growth, and governance of technological firms?

- What are the principles of corporate governance centered upon managerial entrepreneurship and its impact on technological firms?

- What roles do funding actors play in the management and governance of technological firms?

- What is the impact of corporate governance on the performance of technological firms?

- What are the effects of corporate governance and ownership structure on capital structure of technological firms?

- What is the impact of legal systems and environment on corporate governance and financing of technological firms?

- What are the new forms of fundraising for technological firms and their consequences on governance of these firms?

- What are the financing and governance relationships between a spinoff and its parent company in the sector of technologies?

工商管理

Journal of Choice Modelling

Call for papers for the special issue: Choice Modelling in Social Science Research

全文截稿: 2019-03-15

影响因子: 1.162

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling

Choices are ubiquitous and have to be made by all individuals and corporate actors including organizations and nation states, and choice modelling seeks to promote our understanding of how choices and decision making processes proceed. While this is well acknowledged especially in transportation and marketing, where choice modelling has a long tradition, and also increasingly in environmental and health economics, the potential choice modelling offers for other social sciences is mainly unexploited. This applies, for example, to phenomena such as migration, education, family and crime. In fact, social scientists often want to explain individual behavior and how the myrades of individual decisions in a population aggregate to collective phenomena, such as the relationship between neighborhood choice and ethnic segregation. Here, choice modelling provides a framework for studying different concepts of choice behavior and decision making. Examples are utility maximization, satisficing, loss aversion or decision heuristics. All are elements of the theoretical repertoire in sociology, political science, or educational research, for example.

However, there are also differences between applications of choice modelling in transportation and economics on the one hand and other social science disciplines on the other hand. For example, in social science research scholars are typically less interested in monetary costs and welfare measures but more keen on interactions between theoretically relevant choice attributes, the explanation of preference heterogeneity by values, attitudes and social norms, and interactions between actors, for instance. This can, however, spark theoretical and methodological challenges to directly applying modelling techniques used in transportation and economics to social research. That said, recent developments in choice modelling such as accounting for differences in decision protocols, and theoretical perspectives from social science such as theories on social norms, might well complement each other.

The emerging interest in applying choice modelling more broadly in social science is point of departure for this special issue of the Journal of Choice Modelling. It aims at exploring the potential of choice modelling in new areas and accordingly invites papers both with a theoretical focus on and empirical applications of choice models in social science research. Potential topics of interest include (but are not limited to) the following:

- Applications of choice modelling to phenomena related to, for example, migration, education, family, interethnic friendship, crime, using among others revealed preference data, stated preference data, and agent-based models.

- Comparison of different decision making procedures in the context of social research.

- Explaining and modelling preference heterogeneity in choice data.

- Choice modelling applications in the study of social interactions based on network data.

- Uncovering causality and reversed causality in choice modelling applications.

- Methodological studies on the reliability and validity of choice modelling and stated choice experiment studies in social science research.

工商管理

Critical Perspectives On Accounting

Special Issue: Critical Auditing Studies: Adopting a Critical Lens toward Contemporary Audit Discourse, Practice and Regulation

全文截稿: 2019-03-29

影响因子: 1.5

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting

Recent decades have seen significant growth in interpretive studies of contemporary audit practice and regulation. This literature has provided valuable insights into the ongoing developments in the audit field, documenting, among other things, the shifting culture within audit firms and the proliferation of the commercialistic values and incentives; motivations for, dynamics and consequences of changes in audit technology; and individual audit practitioner’s and firm’s responses to the challenges presented by the changing regulatory environments, at both national and transnational levels (Cooper & Robson, 2006; Robson, Humphrey, Khalifa & Jones, 2007; Malsch & Gendron, 2013; Spence & Carter, 2014). While substantially enhancing our understanding of auditing as a social and organizational phenomenon, much of the literature has taken a predominantly explanatory stance on the above developments where scholars observe and make sense of, rather than critically appraise the significance and potential ramifications of, these dynamics and events. There is therefore a risk that, despite the growing scholarly interest in the backstage of audit work and the conduct and governance of audit firms, we are losing sight of the “bigger picture”, such as the implications of the above for the role and societal relevance of the audit function, the standing of auditing in a multi-disciplinary audit firm context, and the future of auditing as a profession.

This special issue provides an opportunity to engage in a critically-flavored yet constructive debate about auditing and the direction it is taking. We invite manuscripts that focus on a wide range of issues and concerns, including, among other things, the following:

- Consequences of the rise of audit firms’ commercialism. Contemporary audit research shows that the professional values traditionally attributed to an auditor, such as due care, independence, and skepticism, have come increasingly in conflict with the growing prioritization by the firms of commercialistic logics and the image of auditors as entrepreneurs (Kornberger, Justesen & Mouritsen, 2011; Carter & Spence, 2014). While simultaneous provision of audit and non-audit services has been commonly recognized as problematic from an ethical viewpoint, we have seen relatively little in-depth discussion of how this has been contributing to marginalization of auditing in a multi-service audit firm context and potentially its transformation into a support function (or an entry point) for the firm’s other service lines, particularly business consultancy (Smith-Lacroix, Durocher & Gendron, 2012). Furthermore, there is also scope for a comprehensive discussion of whether and how the tensions between the commercialist and professional cultures should have consequences for our conceptualization of the nature of auditing as a practice (Power, 2011) and how they may potentially render less relevant assumptions and postulates supporting contemporary audit theory.

- Ongoing changes in regulatory approaches to auditing. Recent years have witnessed more active scholarly engagement with issues around audit regulation, particularly as regards understanding the impact of changing regulation on auditors’ work as well as the very processes by which such regulation is produced. Yet, we have also seen a fair degree of skepticism as to the effectiveness of audit policy designed – often in a reactive fashion – to fix what is perceived to be wrong with auditing (Samsonova-Taddei & Siddiqui, 2016). In this special issue, we invite research that highlights the need for a shift in an analytical focus from questioning how (the regulation has been adopted and with what consequences) to contemplating what (content and form of regulatory provisions are needed in principle in order to lead to substantive regulatory outcomes).

- Claims about auditors’ knowledge base. Auditors have traditionally promoted an image of auditing as an expertise-intensive inference-based practice. Likewise, modern audit literature contains numerous references to audit firms as knowledge-intensive organizations. Yet, research also shows how the increasing complexity of audit environments and growing regulatory pressures have resulted in more legalistic and routinized audit approaches which are easier to justify and defend (Gendron & Spira, 2009). The extent to which knowledge work represents a significant part of what auditors do needs to be scrutinized and critically appraised. We therefore invite submissions capable of shedding light on the role that “knowledge” plays in legitimizing the audit function and in socializing members and stakeholders. We are also interested in studies seeking to identify, from a discursive perspective, the critical skillsets and competencies allegedly attributable to a modern auditor as well as studies contemplating the consequences for our understanding of the evolving nature of the audit knowledge base (Turley, Humphrey, Samsonova-Taddei, Siddiqui, Woods, Basoudis & Richard, 2016).

- Auditing and the public interest. The public questioning of the role of auditors in corporate collapses and recent financial crises, among other things, has been met with a more explicit emphasis on the audit profession’s public interest remit. In recent years, auditors themselves, their member bodies and audit regulators have all made claims about public interest agendas being central to the profession’s ability to maintain social relevance (Loft, Humphrey & Turley, 2006; Humphrey, Loft & Woods, 2009). In the age of rising inequality and the growing unrest about the impact of corporate greed and race to the bottom, we cannot leave such claims unchallenged but see them instead as assertions to be scrutinized. We therefore call for scholars to critically examine the manner in which the above claims represent the essence of today’s auditing or merely provide an attractive narrative through which to justify its existence and societal relevance.

- Shifting identities. As a result of the significant changes and scandals that have affected the auditing domain in the last few decades, what it means to be an auditor and an audit firm is likely to be viewed from a range of different viewpoints – which collectively point to fragility in professional identity (Gendron & Spira, 2010; Dirsmith, Covaleski & Samuel, 2015). We believe there is a significant need to investigate the construction of identity and the extent to which contemporary identities are consistent with society’s expectations of the audit function. How do auditors make sense of their identity in turbulent environments? Do accounting firms and their professional bodies intervene in trying to promote some identity representations – both within and beyond audit practice? If so, how? What educational challenges ensue from teaching auditing at a time when the discipline is characterized by a sense of shifting and fragile identities? Do textbooks and other educational materials provide a fair representation of the backstage of auditing practice, or do they promote fairy tales?

- Control and surveillance within accounting firms. How work is controlled within accounting firms has always been a matter for debate in the profession, and we invite scholarly contributions on the constellation of control and surveillance mechanisms that are deployed in audit firm environments (Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian & Samuel, 1998; Bedard, Deis, Curtis & Jenkins, 2008). In light of the complexities that characterize contemporary audit practice, how is audit and non-audit work coordinated and controlled within the audit firm? Is the firm’s control deployed in ways that ultimately aim to govern auditors’ mindsets and identities? How do firms seek to manage the relationship between auditing and the other service lines and specializations (consultants, IT specialists, forensic accountants, valuation experts, etc.)? How do staff and partners experience surveillance and control within audit firms? What anxieties and other detrimental consequences ensue from modern and digitalized techniques used to control auditing work?

In sum, while its foundations date back to the turn of the 1990s, we believe that critical audit research now constitutes a particularly promising domain, offering a variety of meaningful and socially important matters to investigate. Broadly speaking, there is a significant need to better understand how auditing constitutes a reinforcing and facilitating platform for certain forms of power to be exerted in society, and how auditing itself is subject to different forms of power dynamics. We are also interested in the empirical and conceptual work contemplating the future of the audit function, particularly at a time when the occupation’s jurisdictional base is often viewed as being in the process of eroding, notably as a result of “advances” in information technology.

We are open to a variety of investigative methods – critical discourse analysis, case studies, ethnographical work, archival studies, among others – as long as the authors are committed to a critical perspective (Dillard & Vinnari, 2017; Everett et al., 2015; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Gendron, 2018; Parker & Thomas, 2011). We are also interested in receiving substantive essays – crafted also from a critical perspective. As maintained by Gabriel (2016, p. 244), essay writing should not be neglected as a knowledge development mechanism: “The essay gives a voice to an author’s creative imagination, enabling him or her to critique assumptions that are rarely questioned and explore new possibilities for intellectual and social change.” Essays, in particular, may be based on autobiographical data and they may be quite powerful at developing in-depth understandings (Haynes, 2006). In highlighting the relevance of essays, we hope that a number of practitioners and stakeholders will be inclined to write a piece and submit it to the special issue. Thus, one of our objectives through this special issue is to set a platform for a meaningful conversation to take place among people concerned with auditing as a prominent socio-organizational phenomenon.

工商管理

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Global and innovative solutions to climate change and its effects on the economy and society

全文截稿: 2019-07-31

影响因子: 2.625

网址: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technological-forecasting-and-social-change

Climate change is a scourge of our time, and its effects will be devastating if urgent measures are not taken. The impact of climate change is already noticeable. Global temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising, and ice caps are melting. The economic and social impacts, which include impoverished health, reduced food production, droughts, and extreme weather events, are no less serious.

Accordingly, climate change is a global problem from environmental, political, economic, and social perspectives. As such, it demands swift action. As time passes, the required investment to counteract its severe effects rises.

The situation is complex. Furthermore, some regulations penalize self-consumption and renewable energies while fomenting dirty energies.

To aggravate the situation, some solutions that are designed to counteract the effects of climate change have continued to worsen climate change, producing a vicious circle that is difficult to break. Auffhammer et al. (2017:1889) proposes a way of breaking this vicious circle. In reference to electricity demand, Auffhammer affirms that “although increasing temperatures may spur greater adoption of air conditioners (and therefore greater temperature), they may also spur the development of more efficient air conditioning technologies.”

Potentially, therefore, technological innovation is the most reliable, effective way of breaking this vicious circle by curbing the severe consequences of climate change. Alternative technological solutions could be applied in the coming years to protect the Earth from the profound damage that it is currently suffering. But some such alternatives still have to prove their viability and effectiveness because they are risky and expensive. Examples include burying carbon dioxide underground, removing carbon dioxide from the air through giant filters, petrifying carbon dioxide through chemical reactions, fertilizing sterile seas with powdered iron to favor the growth of plankton, and placing a mirror between the Earth and the Sun to filter infrared radiation and stabilize the Earth’s climate.

The implications of climate change demand a response through changes in technology policy, lifestyle, and economics. In terms of human response, the answers to this challenge are unlikely to come from isolated solutions. Instead, the global repercussions of the problem also demand global responses that entail the participation and collaboration of different groups and interests.

From this perspective, this special issue will present papers that relate to, among others, the following themes:

- Technology applied to the circular economy and its effects on climate change.

- Implications of the Internet of Things for services and applications.

- Adaptation capacity through information and knowledge management.

- Nexus and interactions of data for climate change solutions.

- Modeling green growth and society changes.

- New forms of economies and their effects on new forms of economic order.

- Sociotechnical innovation to address social and environmental needs.

- Climate change and technological solutions to modify lifestyle.

- Climate change and technology-enabled disruptive innovation models.

- New valuable entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship management models to face climate change.

下载Call4Papers App，获取更多详细内容！