Salinan Terjemahan Dillard2008 PDF

International Journal of Sistem Informasi Akuntansi 9 (2008) 21-42
Menanggapi memperluas rezim akuntabilitas dengan re-

menghadirkan konteks organisasi ☆
Jesse Dillard
School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR, Amerika Serikat
Diterima November 2006 5; menerima dalam bentuk direvisi 8 Januari 2008; diterima 11 Januari 2008
Abstrak
sistem informasiAkuntansi (SIA) menyediakan informasi yang dibutuhkan untuk mengelola, mengendalikan, dan
mengevaluasi kegiatan organisasi. Sebagai rezim akuntabilitas perusahaan memperluas ke daerah-daerah seperti tanggung jawab
sosial dan lingkungan, sistem informasi ini juga harus memperluas dalam rangka memenuhi kebutuhan informasi yang
diperlukan. Memadai menangani kebutuhan informasi yang muncul mensyaratkan bahwa fokus bergerak di luar keasyikan adat
dengan aspek teknis desain AIS, implementasi, dan penggunaan untuk menggabungkan konsep yang lebih luas dari konteks
organisasi. Langkah awal dalam merancang lebih menonjol AIS adalah untuk mengenali kekuatan-kekuatan sosial dan konflik
terkait hadir dalam organisasi kerja yang berhubungan dengan isu-isu dalam lingkup rezim akuntabilitas diperluas. Saya
mengusulkan bahwa organisasi dilihat melalui kacamata teori sosial sebagai cara untuk memperluas apa yang secara tradisional
perspektif yang sempit, eksklusif, dan instrumental. Re-menghadirkan konteks organisasi menggunakan alternatif perspektif teori
berbasis sosial membuka konvensional, diambil-untuk-diberikan lingkup dan fungsi AIS untuk pemeriksaan dan kritik,
menyediakan ruang untuk perubahan. Saya menunjukkan bagaimana perspektif alternatif dapat memberikan dasar untuk
mengungkapkan asumsi, konflik, dan ideologi yang mendasari aplikasi sistem konvensional, memfasilitasi desain yang lebih
inklusif yang menggabungkan rentang yang lebih besar dari nilai-nilai, kepentingan, dan tujuan. Saya menggunakan tiga teori-
teori sosial yang berbeda untuk menggambarkan kemungkinan berikut dari representasi organisasi alternatif. Dari teori proses
kerja, kami memperoleh pemahaman tentang kekuatan yang mendasari representasi dari pekerjaan oleh organisasi yang
beroperasi dalam konteks kapitalisme pasar. Siklus akumulasi Latour menyediakan deskripsi dari proses tertanam dimana
informasi dikumpulkan, diproses, dan diterapkan untuk mempertahankan kontrol organisasi. Sebuah varian dari pemikiran
postmodern mengungkapkan asumsi kontekstual hegemonik dan kendala yang mendasari berlaku representasi organisasi. Sebuah
pemahaman yang lebih komprehensif konteks organisasi meningkatkan kemungkinan bahwa AIS akan memberikan informasi
☆ Saya ingin mengakui kontribusi intelektual dan editorial dari Neil Ramiller untuk proyek ini dan membantu komentar George
Cobb, Christine Heiller dan peserta Konferensi Eropa ke-9 pada Sistem Informasi Akuntansi. Dublin, Irlandia, 20-21 Maret 2006.
Saya ingin mengakui bantuan yang diberikan oleh Pusat Profesional Integritas dan Akuntabilitas, School of Business
Administration, Portland State University.
Alamat E-mail: jdillard@pdx.edu.
1467-0895 / $ - melihat hal depan © 2008 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved. doi: 10,1016 / j.accinf.2008.01.001
22 J. Dillard / International Journal of Accounting Sistem Informasi 9 (2008) 21-42
diperlukan untuk mendukung rezim akuntabilitas yang lebih inklusif yang timbul dari gagasan memperluas bertindak dalam
kepentingan publik. © 2008 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.
Kata kunci: Akuntabilitas; Kepentingan umum; Proses kerja; Siklus akumulasi; postmodernisme; Etika akuntabilitas
1. Pendahuluan
Sebagai rezim akuntabilitas menjadi lebih inklusif, kita tidak bisa lagi mengambil untuk diberikan kemanjuran
struktur organisasi tradisional dan metrik. Tidak hanya meningkatkan kompleksitas dan tekanan kompetitif
memotivasi perubahan dalam organisasi, sehingga permintaan masyarakat yang tinggi untuk tindakan yang
bertanggung jawab. Tanggung jawab ditingkatkan mengatur tentu panggilan kriteria akuntabilitas sebagainya
ditingkatkan, dan keduanya membutuhkan informasi yang tepat waktu dan relevan. Sebagai sistem informasi utama
dalam organisasi bisnis, sistem informasi akuntansi (AIS) harus hadir untuk kebutuhan informasi diperluas tersebut.
Tidak hanya manajemen panggilan untuk kemampuan diperluas, begitu juga konstituen eksternal yang kuat yang
dirasakan sistem akuntansi untuk memberikan informasi penting dan kredibel (Gray dan Bebbington, 2001).
Memadai menangani informasi ini muncul kebutuhan melibatkan bergerak di luar keasyikan adat dengan aspek
teknis akuntansi systems.1 informasi
akuntansi sistem informasi mewakili realitas organisasi dengan membangun, setelah fakta, sistematis merupakan
gambar dari fungsi organisasi dan kinerja. Manajemen organisasi melibatkan representasi kognitif dan manipulasi
strategis konteks dan proses dari suatu entitas ekonomi. Tindakan masa depan mengikuti dari konseptualisasi dan
representasi dari hubungan sistemik. Representasi kognitif yang dibangun dan dimodifikasi menggunakan umpan
balik yang mengambil bentuk informasi yang menggambarkan saham sumber daya dan arus. Umpan balik ini
sendiri ditulis dalam bentuk simbolik abstrak dan bermakna yang mengekspresikan terjemahan konten dan proses
organisasi pekerjaan yang sebenarnya. Representasi organisasi tersebut diaktifkan dan dibatasi oleh bingkai yang
mendasari atau model atas mana mereka didasarkan. Frame menyediakan structure2 dan set “variabel,” dan
bersama-sama mereka menghasilkan representasi. Frame ini sama pentingnya untuk apa tidak termasuk sebagai apa
itu termasuk, karena laten dalam pengecualian yang kemungkinan representasi alternatif. Misalnya, jika unsur-unsur
tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan dan hubungan dikecualikan dari AIS, maka representasi dari pertimbangan ini
tidak akan secara eksplisit dimasukkan dalam manajemen set informasi.
Kemampuan AIS langsung membentuk manajemen organisasi, dan di bawah pengaruh mereka, manajer akan
cenderung membuat keputusan yang menghasilkan, dan bereproduksi, beberapa jenis realitas organisasi bukan orang
lain (Brown et al, 2005;. Dillard dan Yuthas, 2006) . Seperti saat ini ditafsirkan, AIS adalah penggabungan teknik
dan teknologi tertentu. Teknik ini akuntansi dan audit metode dan prosedur dimana transaksi tertentu / peristiwa
diakui, dicatat, diringkas, dan ditampilkan, dan komputer sistem informasi berbasis merupakan teknologi melalui
mana teknik ini diterapkan. Dasar tradisional di mana AIS dibangun mewakili organisasi melalui lensa teori
ekonomi neoklasik dengan memaksimalkan nilai pemegang saham sebagai tujuan utamanya.
1 Contoh ini dapat dilihat pada buku teks AIS, misalnya, Gelinas dan Dull (2007); Sakit (2008) serta dalam literatur. Sebagai
contoh, sebagian besar pekerjaan Ulasan di Arnold dan Sutton (2002) bisa jadi ditandai. 2 Dengan struktur, maksud saya jaringan
hubungan timbal balik yang menghubungkan node individu ( “variabel”).
23 J. Dillard / International Journal of Sistem Informasi Akuntansi 9 (2008) 21-42
organisasi-presenting Re mengacu pada tindakan melihat organisasi melalui lensa alternatif memfasilitasi
representasi organisasi alternatif. Secara khusus, saya mengusulkan kembali menghadirkan konteks organisasi di
mana AIS dirancang, dilaksanakan, dan digunakan. Sebagai dasar untuk ini re-presentasi, saya mengusulkan
menggunakan teori-teori sosial yang beragam dalam mengembangkan alternatif re-presentasi dari organisasi bisnis
yang diperlukan untuk mendukung rezim akuntabilitas berkembang yang timbul dari gagasan yang berkembang dari
tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan (CSR) 0,3
Salah satu kesulitan dalam mengembangkan lebih responsif secara sosial AIS telah sempit, keasyikan sebagian
besar teknis dengan pengembangan dan aplikasi mereka, dan diambil untuk diberikan parameters.4 ekonomi
neoklasik Jika tanggung jawab sosial, kelestarian lingkungan, keadilan sosial, dan masalah terkait sekarang untuk
dipeluk lebih serius, kita harus memperluas AIS sehingga pertimbangan tersebut dapat secara eksplisit
direpresentasikan dalam manajer dapat dinilai set informasi. Memperluas konseptualisasi AIS panggilan untuk
pemahaman yang lebih baik dari arsitektur sosial memotivasi, penataan, dan mengabadikan re-presentasi struktur
yang ada. Mengandung representasi alternatif tergantung pada pemahaman kita tentang dasar-dasar sejarah, dan
mekanisme sosial yang bekerja untuk mengabadikan, AIS seperti yang disaksikan hari ini.
Tujuan dari skripsi ini adalah untuk memfasilitasi dialog yang mengarah ke pemahaman yang lebih baik dari
kekuatan sosial dan konflik terkait yang merupakan bagian penting dari konteks organisasi di mana AIS dirancang,
dilaksanakan, dan digunakan. Saya melakukannya dengan memberikan contoh-contoh dari perspektif alternatif yang
memfasilitasi wacana yang lebih terbuka dan inklusif. Tujuan utama dari program penelitian ini adalah untuk
mendorong pengembangan dan pelaksanaan AIS yang akan memberikan jenis representasi organisasi yang
transparan dan komprehensif diperlukan untuk mendukung rezim akuntabilitas inklusif yang timbul dari gagasan
diperluas tentang apa artinya bagi organisasi bisnis untuk bertindak dengan cara yang bertanggung jawab secara
sosial. Strategi adalah salah satu dari kritik. Saya menganggap tiga teori sosial, bukan berbeda dalam diskusi. Saya
kira tidak hanya melemparkan cahaya pada keterbatasan saat AIS, tetapi juga, melalui re-presentasi dari konteks
organisasi, memotivasi maju berpikir tentang kemungkinan alternatif untuk representasi baru yang merangkul
dimensi konteks organisasi yang tidak mudah terlihat melalui tradisional ekonomi terfokus lensa. Dengan demikian,
keragaman ini yayasan sosial-teoritis disengaja (Page, 2007).
Diskusi ini diselenggarakan sebagai berikut. Pertama, saya menganggap gagasan rezim akuntabilitas yang lebih
inklusif yang timbul dari gagasan diperluas bertindak dalam interest.5 publik Saya kemudian secara singkat
mewakili konteks organisasi menggunakan frame. Selanjutnya, saya mempekerjakan teori-teori sosial yang dipilih
sebagai lensa alternatif yang akan digunakan untuk kembali hadir konteks organisasi AIS. Pertama, saya meneliti
teori proses kerja untuk menggambarkan motivasi struktural membumi, yang timbul dalam kapitalisme pasar, yang
cetakan representasi dengan tuntutan jaringan kontrol dalam organisasi kerja. Kedua, saya menganggap siklus
akumulasi Latour untuk melihat proses pengendali yang digunakan dalam jaringan untuk kontrol dan untuk
wawasan sarana yang asimetri informasi dibuat antara controller dan dikendalikan. Akhirnya, saya menghibur varian
pemikiran postmodern untuk perspektif pada efek hasil reputasi pada anggota organisasi. Saya kemudian
memberikan ringkasan dari argumen dan menyimpulkan komentar.
3 Ketika saya menyebut tanggung jawab sosial, saya menafsirkan istilah ini secara luas mencakup tanggung jawab lingkungan,
sosial, dan ekonomi.
4 Lihat titik untuk isi AIS teks sebagai bukti (misalnya, Gelinas dan Dull, 2007; Terluka, 2008) serta ulasan tentang bidang-
bidang seperti REA (Smith-David et al, 2002), sistem pakar (Leech dan Sangster, 2002), dan keputusan kelompok sistem
pendukung (Murthy, 2002).
5 Dengan kepentingan umum, maksud saya baik komunal atau kolektif sebagai lawan konsep atomistik keuntungan pribadi atau
individu.
2. memperluas rezim akuntabilitas

Bagian ini mempertimbangkan kriteria melegitimasi dimana organisasi hak klaim manajemen sehubungan
dengan kontrol dan eksploitasi sumber daya masyarakat ekonomi. Saya perhatikan, khususnya, bagaimana kriteria
ini secara tradisional muncul dalam konteks kerangka ekonomi yang sempit neoklasik dan memberikan
reinterpretasi dari kontrak sosial antara bisnis dan masyarakat. Pembahasan dimulai dengan menetapkan etika
akuntabilitas diikuti dengan diskusi tentang harapan masyarakat memotivasi rezim akuntabilitas berkembang.
Akhirnya, kemampuan penelitian AIS untuk secara efektif mengatasi tuntutan baru yang dikenakan dianggap.
2.1. Etikaakuntabilitas
Bertindakdalam kepentingan publik melegitimasi klaim manajemen organisasi untuk hak untuk melakukan
kontrol atas sumber daya masyarakat ekonomi. Etika accountability6 adalah sentral dalam memahami hubungan
timbal balik diantisipasi antara organisasi bisnis, dan manajemen, dan masyarakat serta secara efektif melaksanakan
dan memantau struktur sosial kritis dan hubungan. Membangun yang ideal ini menentukan seperangkat kriteria yang
tindakan organisasi dapat dievaluasi dengan berbagai pemangku kepentingan di berbagai tingkatan. Dengan
demikian, kriteria ini tidak hanya memberikan pembenaran untuk tindakan organisasi tetapi juga patokan untuk
mengevaluasi tujuan dan hasil organisasi. Saya akan lanjut menegaskan bahwa hubungan tanggung jawab antara
konstituen memberikan bimbingan untuk desain, implementasi, dan penilaian berkelanjutan dari AIS.
Tindakan agen membuat dan menciptakan konteks sosial dan kendala di mana tindakan di masa depan adalah
undertaken.7 Ini adalah tanggung jawab moral agen sosial untuk bertindak dalam kepentingan publik, yang
didefinisikan sebagai bertindak sehingga dapat meningkatkan kesejahteraan society8 dan yang anggota, baik
sekarang dan masa depan. Sementara semua anggota masyarakat memiliki tanggung jawab moral untuk bertindak
dalam kepentingan publik, manajemen organisasi memiliki muatan tertentu dalam hal itu telah secara khusus
diberikan kontrol atas resources.9 ekonomi masyarakat Dengan menerima hak untuk mengontrol sumber daya
masyarakat ekonomi, manajemen organisasi menimbulkan suatu tanggung jawab fidusia kepada masyarakat
sehubungan dengan penggunaan dan pengelolaan sumber daya tersebut. Relationship10 sosial ini menghasilkan satu
set timbal balik dari hak dan kewajiban. Akibatnya, etika akuntabilitas didirikan dimana manajemen organisasi
setuju untuk dimintai pertanggungjawaban oleh orang-orang yang memberikan hak-hak ini, dan mereka yang
memberikan hak-hak menerima tanggung jawab untuk memegang aktor jawab untuk hasil yang terkait.
Fungsi akuntansi, yang AIS merupakan bagian integral, memfasilitasi dan memonitor manajemen organisasi dalam
melaksanakan tanggung jawab fidusia mereka. Dengan demikian, akuntan dan desainer sistem akuntansi prihatin
dengan integritas dan akuntabilitas sistem keuangan dan administrasi. AIS desainer dan pengguna harus menyadari,
dan tindakan mereka kompatibel dengan, tanggung jawab tersebut. Etika akuntabilitas terdiri dari empat elemen
utama: solidaritas, ditafsirkan tindakan masa lalu, tindakan merenungkan, dan akuntabilitas. Solidaritas adalah
jaringan terletak agen manusia bertindak sebagai anggota suatu masyarakat yang sedang berlangsung bekerja
menuju tujuan kolektif dan sadar keterhubungan mereka dengan, dan ketergantungan pada, sistem alam. Sebuah
interpretatif
6 ide ini membangun karya Dillard dan Yuthas (2001) menggunakan Niebuhr (1963) tanggung jawab etika dan lebih
berkembang di Dillard (2007).
7 Inspirasi utama di sini adalah Giddens (1984). 8 kesejahteraan masyarakat meliputi baik sistem sosial dan alam yang
berkelanjutan serta sistem ekonomi. 9 Ini termasuk alam, manusia, keuangan, dan sumber daya teknologi. 10 Saya
membayangkan ini bukan sebagai kontrak sosial dalam arti ekonomi tradisional tetapi kewajiban mengatur berlaku di antara
anggota komunitas yang sedang berlangsung.
25 J. Dillard / International Journal of Accounting Sistem Informasi 9 (2008) 21-42
apresiasi tindakan masa lalu mengakui bahwa pemahaman yang serius dan sadar konteks di mana tindakan
dimaksud dilakukan mendahului tindakan yang bertanggung jawab. Tindakan dimaksud adalah tindakan antisipasi
yang harus dilakukan dengan pemahaman dan penerimaan hak terkait dan tanggung jawab yang diberikan dan
diharapkan dari aktor oleh masyarakat. Melalui proses dialogis meresap secara demokratis, 11 masyarakat
menetapkan dan mengimplementasikan proses evaluatif dan kriteria serta pemantauan yang efektif dan mekanisme
pelaporan, dan aktor menyediakan informasi yang diperlukan untuk membuat penilaian informasi. Tindakan tidak
dapat ditafsirkan sebagai suatu peristiwa atom, ditangguhkan dalam ruang dan waktu, tetapi diakui sebagai bagian
dari percakapan yang sedang berlangsung antara aktor dan pihak yang terkena dampak dalam konteks masyarakat.
The baik dan benar muncul dari proses penentuan tindakan yang tepat sadar tempat aktor dalam masyarakat yang
sedang berlangsung. Terbuka dan dapat dipercaya wacana antara aktor dan anggota masyarakat adalah prasyarat
untuk tindakan pas dan tindakan memegang akuntabel. Struktur berevolusi dari dialog antara anggota masyarakat.
Setelah dari konteks teoritis ini, orang mungkin berpendapat bahwa itu adalah tanggung jawab AIS desainer,
pelaksana, dan pengguna secara eksplisit mempertimbangkan implikasi dari tindakannya pada masyarakat dan
anggotanya. Untuk memadai melakukannya, dialog harus memperluas luar lensa satu dimensi ekonomi neoklasik,
merangkul bingkai yang lebih kaya dan lebih komprehensif.
2.2. Rezim akuntabilitas diperluas
Dimulai dengan masalah lingkungan yang muncul (lihat Gray dan Bebbington, 2001; Unerman et al, 2007.) Dan
debacles perusahaan di awal 2000-an (misalnya, Enron, World Com, dll), penekanan baru sedang ditempatkan
tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan (misalnya, UN global Compact, global Reporting Initiative). Banyak yang
berhubungan dengan akuntansi menyangkut panggilan untuk rezim akuntabilitas yang lebih inklusif yang timbul
dari gagasan diperluas bertindak dalam kepentingan publik. Pada 1980-an dan 1990-an menyusul pemerintah
Thatcher di Inggris dan pemerintahan Reagan dan Bush di AS, hubungan antara bisnis dan masyarakat telah
ditentukan terutama dalam hal ekonomi. Memaksimalkan nilai pemegang saham adalah, tanpa pertanyaan, kriteria
evaluasi yang dominan. Mengikuti teori ekonomi neoklasik yang berlaku, kesejahteraan sosial terbesar dapat dicapai
oleh setiap individu bertindak dalam nya kepentingan diri mencerahkan sendiri. Pemotongan privatisasi, pajak
terutama untuk orang kaya, dan deregulasi dianggap prasyarat untuk pasar yang kuat dan efisien, yang menyediakan
mekanisme yang tepat untuk mengalokasikan sumber daya masyarakat: manusia, alam, dan teknis serta ekonomi
(Phillips, 2002).
Sebuah realisasi pertumbuhan akan datang degradasi lingkungan dan meningkatnya kekhawatiran untuk
kesejahteraan sosial, ditambah dengan kekayaan yang luar biasa dikendalikan oleh organisasi bisnis global telah
mengakibatkan minat ditingkatkan dalam mempertimbangkan kembali peran yang tepat bisnis dalam masyarakat
(Kelly, 2001; Korten, 1995). Perdebatan luas dan kompleks (misalnya, Hacker, 2006), baik di luar cakupan diskusi
ini. Tujuan dari bagian ini adalah untuk menggambarkan agenda diperpanjang terkait dengan rezim akuntabilitas
yang lebih inklusif menyusul gagasan diperluas behavior.12 organisasi yang bertanggung jawab saya menggunakan
pedoman dari United Nations Global Compact13 (lihat Lampiran) untuk menggambarkan masalah-masalah di
samping untuk yang ekonomi.
Sepuluh prinsip mengatasi bidang hak asasi manusia, perburuhan, lingkungan, dan anti korupsi. Seperti
disebutkan sebelumnya, jika manajemen sedang bertanggung jawab di wilayah ini, AIS harus
11 Lihat Habermas (1984, 1987). 12 Lihat misalnya Hacker (2006), Kelly (2001), Thomson (2007), dan Dillard (2007) untuk
ulasan dan diskusi. 13 Lihat http://www.unglobalcompact.org.
dirancang sedemikian rupa sehingga mereka tidak hanya menyediakan baik manajemen dengan informasi yang
diperlukan untuk mengelola tetapi juga memberikan informasi yang diperlukan bagi masyarakat untuk mengevaluasi
sejauh mana manajemen adalah memenuhi tanggung jawab untuk bertindak dalam kepentingan publik (Brown et al.,
2005). Hal ini membutuhkan render diperluas AIS desain, implementasi dan penggunaan. Resolusi masalah ini
adalah di luar kemampuan setiap satu artikel atau buku untuk menyelesaikan. Tujuan di sini adalah untuk
mempertimbangkan bagaimana kita secara kolektif mungkin mulai memperluas konseptualisasi kami konteks
organisasi AIS sebagai awal.
2.3. AIS dan tanggung jawab representasi
sisteminformasiAkuntansi dapat dilihat di sepanjang tiga dimensi. Yang pertama adalah manifestasi materi
teknologi dan teknik seperti yang diwujudkan dalam sistem informasi akuntansi. Dimensi kedua menyangkut
practices14 yang timbul sebagai sistem yang diterapkan dan digunakan dalam konteks organisasi. Dimensi ketiga
mengacu pada konteks sosial politik di mana praktik sistem yang berhubungan muncul dan dipelihara di seluruh
waktu dan ruang. Seperti disebutkan di atas, tingkat sistem bahan merupakan fokus utama dari banyak penelitian
AIS saat ini, dalam hal ini berkaitan dengan metode dan prosedur yang digunakan, media implementasi, dan aplikasi
sistem dan penggunaan. Sedikit kerja telah dianggap sebagai basis sosial atau ideologi teknik, praktek, atau konteks
dimana sistem informasi akuntansi yang applied.15 Berfokus seperti halnya pada sistem desain karakteristik dan
segera, respon perilaku nyata di tingkat penggunaan, penelitian saat ini menyediakan terbatas wawasan urusan
responsibility.16 sosial dan lingkungan Sebagai masalah praktis, yang sama dapat dikatakan dari desain dan
implementasi AIS sendiri. Proyek AIS biasanya ditentukan dalam istilah teknis, dengan sedikit pertimbangan untuk
implikasi yang lebih luas untuk latihan dan bahkan kurang untuk dampak sosial-politik. Dengan berfokus pada
teknik dan teknologi, AIS implementasi cenderung tidak untuk mengatasi memadai kepentingan umum atau untuk
berbicara sepenuhnya untuk masalah organisasi concern.17 segera
Itu penelitian dan praktek tidak membahas konteks praktis dan sosio-politik, bagaimanapun, tidak berarti bahwa
mereka bebas dari landasan ideologi dalam konteks yang lebih besar. Justru sebaliknya, dalam sangat lingkup apa
yang mereka lakukan dan tidak merangkul, mereka secara diam-diam cermin-dasar ideologis mereka. Secara
khusus, lazim dalam teori, desain, dan praktek AIS saat ini adalah asumsi implisit bahwa aplikasi sistem harus
mendukung kegiatan instrumental, efisiensi-oriented, dan nilai-memaksimalkan organisasi neoklasik ideal. Sebagai
agen atau organisasi, tindakan manajer yang pada akhirnya disahkan oleh kontribusi mereka dianggap kesejahteraan
masyarakat. Penilaian ini didasarkan pada kriteria yang masyarakat mendefinisikan, frame, dan mengevaluasi
kontribusi. Saat ini, manajemen yang berlaku dibebaskan dari berbagai signifikan dari tanggung jawab sosial dan
lingkungan karena tafsiran sempit peran mereka dalam hal itu dibatasi oleh konstruksi seperti “memaksimalkan nilai
pemegang saham.” AIS, dalam menawarkan representasi bersamaan sempit status organisasi dan kinerja, membantu
membentuk dan, memang, untuk memvalidasi praktek manajemen menuju akhir ini sangat dibatasi.
14 Praktek mengacu pada aplikasi dan penggunaan teknik oleh manusia dalam konteks sosial politik (Burchell et al, 1980;..
Covaleski et al, 1996).
15 Untuk pengecualian, lihat Dillard dan Burris (1993), Dillard (1996), Tinker dan Yuthas (1995), Tinker (1998). 16 Misalnya,
kecuali untuk Dillard dan Yuthas (2002), tidak untuk ulasan sastra AIS disajikan di Arnold dan Sutton (2002)
mempertimbangkan isu-isu terkait sosial atau lingkungan di luar ekonomi.
17 Lihat O'Leary (2000) sebagai contoh dan diskusi oleh Dillard et al. (2005) dan Dillard dan Yuthas (2006).
Namun, pertanyaan yang telah lama berlama-lama tentang kedua kecukupan ekonomi dan etika dari representasi ini
telah akhir-akhir ini berkembang ke menonjol yang lebih besar (Kelly, 2001). Sebagai kompleksitas dan fluiditas
dari kedua organisasi dan implikasi lingkungan mereka telah meningkat, konsekuensi potensial aksi organisasi
(terutama yang negatif) telah dikalikan. Bahkan saat kompleksitas sistem informasi akuntansi juga meningkat dan
aplikasi mereka sangat diperluas, ruang lingkup bingkai teoritis yang mendasari mereka tetap pada dasarnya sama
(misalnya, Gelinas dan Dull, 2007) tersebut. Akibatnya, AIS telah menjadi semakin tidak cukup ketika datang ke
mewakili kekayaan dan kompleksitas keterlibatan organisasi dan kontradiksi yang mengganggu mereka. Dalam
tandem, AIS semakin gagal dalam mendukung manajer dalam perjuangan mereka dengan konflik yang melekat
dalam bentrokan antara drive untuk kontrol single-minded dan efisiensi, di satu sisi, dan tuntutan yang dikenakan
oleh harapan kelembagaan, nilai-nilai budaya yang lebih besar, pasar pergeseran tren, dan komitmen pribadi, di sisi
lain (misalnya, Brown et al., 2005). Ketika aplikasi AIS, bahkan pada mereka yang terbaik, menghasilkan
representasi dibatasi dan dibatasi oleh bingkai ekonomi neoklasik saat ini, mereka berfungsi secara ideologis untuk
mencegah pertimbangan manajerial konteks dianggap dan perhitungan atas mana mereka representasi based.18
Harus manajerial pelaku mencoba untuk merefleksikan konteks, mereka dihadapkan dengan lapisan yang tampaknya
kedap legitimasi formulasi (Dillard dan Ruchala, 2005). Pada kenyataannya, bahkan untuk merenungkan latihan
dalam sejarah peletakan dan mengevaluasi struktur yang mendasari akan dianggap tidak rasional. Penerimaan tanpa
menjadi norma, tindakan atas dasar informasi AIS memberikan dibatasi untuk orang-orang pilihan yang dibuat
“nyata” oleh frame. Timbal balik, representasi diperkuat dan diperluas, memfasilitasi dan memperkuat kekuatan
yang frame memegang untuk membentuk dunia tindakan dan hubungan.
Perubahan yang akan membawa AIS menjadi sesuai dengan etika akuntabilitas dan isu-isu kepentingan publik
yang lebih luas memerlukan melanggar bebas dari kendala ideologis di mana AIS saat ini dirancang, dilaksanakan,
dan digunakan. Kunci untuk transendensi kritis diberitahu tentang teori dan praktek yang ada sangat pengakuan
bahwa AIS keduanya media dan hasil dari proses yang sedang berlangsung historis diinformasikan tertanam dalam
suatu masyarakat yang sedang berlangsung. Praktek timbul dari kontradiksi dan konflik yang melekat dalam sistem
sosial yang berlaku. Juga, prinsip dasar pendekatan kritis informasi adalah keyakinan bahwa sistem yang berlaku
dan lintasan jelas mereka tidak ditentukan dan tak dapat diubah tetapi sebenarnya rentan terhadap perubahan.
Menjadi sosial dibangun, mereka dapat direkonstruksi. Akhirnya, di luar hanya kritik, perlu untuk mengidentifikasi
dasar untuk berbicara dalam cara yang positif, segar, dan inklusif untuk kemungkinan terlibat akuntansi dan AIS,
lebih khusus, dalam hal-hal yang terkait dengan rezim akuntabilitas yang lebih inklusif yang timbul dari suatu
gagasan diperluas dari kepentingan publik.
Bagian berikutnya secara singkat menjelaskan konteks organisasi saat ini didasarkan pada teori ekonomi
neoklasik dan kemudian mempertimbangkan tiga perspektif alternatif untuk melihat konteks organisasi. Setiap
alamat dimensi yang berbeda dari kegiatan organisasi, dan masing-masing frame dimensi berbeda dari ekonomi
tradisional yang didasarkan perspektif. Secara kolektif, perspektif alternatif memberikan contoh re-presentasi
berguna dalam memperluas konteks organisasi AIS.
3. Re-menghadirkan konteks organisasi
Sementara frame neoklasik yang mendukung tradisional AIS menyisihkan sebagai “eksternalitas” banyak yang
sebut di bawah rubrik kepentingan umum, apa yang dibutuhkan untuk jenis kritik dan rekonstruksi dipanggil di sini
adalah penelitian teori beralasan yang secara langsung merangkul sosial-politik
18 Sebagai Eagleton (2001) catatan, itu adalah ciri dari ideologi yang menyembunyikan sifat yang sangat ideologis.
konteks. Dalam hal ini, tiga perspektif alternatif dianggap bahwa asuh yang mewakili dari konteks sosial dan
organisasi di mana AIS dirancang, dilaksanakan, dan digunakan. Setiap perspektif dianggap dalam hal fokus, tujuan
memotivasi yang menyediakan konteks legitimasi untuk bertindak, alat utama dengan mana tujuan dikejar, hasil
merenungkan, dan sarana untuk menyelesaikan kontradiksi sistemik. Ini serta frame neoklasik adalah
Tabel 1 Penyajian dan re-presentasi organisasi konteks
Bingkai Fokus dari analisis Tujuan Berarti Hasil Resolusi
Mewakili Managerialism /
neoklasikekonomiteori
organisasiKerjadalam konteks ekonomi globalpasar kapitalisme
Pertumbuhandanakumulasi
Pasarkekayaan,kontrol dan sistem insentif yang menyelaraskan individu dan tujuan organisasi
Maksimalkan pemegang saham / pemilik nilai ekonomi jangka panjang
pasar bebas dan terbuka
Re-menghadirkanproses buruh
teori
pekerja sebagai faktor produksi dalam bagian dari modus kapitalisproduksi
pengendalianlebih tenaga kerja melalui pengendalian alat produksi
deskilling pekerjaan, manajemen dan pengendalian akuntansi sistem
Teknologi diarahkan pada deskilling pekerjaan dan pengurangan tenaga kerja biaya
Modifikasi struktur sosial politik adalah Mengganti tenaga kerja
yang dibutuhkan di dengan modal
kepentingan Vested
untuk mengenali
dipertahankan
mengatasi tenaga kerja sebagai faktor
throukontrol gh
eksploitasiproduksi
Menyediakan pandangan
tenaga kerja melalui harus diminimalkan
dari yang mendasari
kontradiksiteknologi
implementasidalam kapitalisAkumulasi Model
siklus
Tentukan Technology
hubungansebagai alat
antara kapitalisme modal
dan tenaga kerja di bawah kapitalis produksi
Teknologimuncul dari konteks sosial
Menetapkan kontrol melalui pengetahuan asimetri
Mengumpulkan dan mengangkut informasi ke pusat-pusat perhitungan
informasiasimetri
Buka kotak hitam, Duadimensi
representasi pertanyaandari
asumsi, multidimensi
dll yang mendahului fenomena
bidang Angkatan presentasi antara dikontrol dan controller Postmodernisme Sejarah adalah
suksesi peristiwa, bukan akumulasi progresif.
Memobilisasi, pengarsipan, meringkas, menyusun kembali, menyederhanakan, peringkat
Kenali ambiguitas dan sifat relativistik dari dimensi penataan masyarakat
Menciptakan ruang melalui kritik
ruang baru bagi pemahaman dan tindakan
Mempertanyakan asumsi modernitas membuka ruang untuk bertindak berbeda Technology adalah produk akal modernis dan
dikendalikan oleh ideologi dan kekuasaan
ideologi dan kekuasaan merupakan dasar untuk melegitimasi tindakan
tindakan tidak lagi dapat dilegitimasi berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip universal
dirangkum dalam Tabel 1. tiga teori alternatif yang berbeda dan tidak kompatibel bersama beberapa dimensi. I do
not try to resolve their incommensurabilities, but aim instead to use them to gain pragmatic insights into the socio-
political context of AIS, with the larger view of what an enriched discourse on these systems, accountability
schemes, and the public interest might begin to look like. Prerequisite to the discussion of the alternative
perspectives, I sketch the parameters of the current one. Management action predicated on neoclassical economic
theory is the traditional business organization context within which AIS are designed, implemented, and used. The
focus of analysis is the work organization within the economic context of global capitalism. The overriding
objective is economic growth and wealth accumulation. The economic transaction motivated by the economic
contract and presumably regulated by the market represents the fundamental organizing unit within AIS. Systems so
grounded are presumed to provide objective inputs for rational decision making.
Accounting for economic transactions is the focus of AIS. The system symbolically represents the underlying
economic activities. The relationships embedded within the AIS follow from the presumed relationships and
processes represented within the economic context and are thus granted legitimacy. The transactions are translated
into manipulable symbols by the transactional calculus of accounting. Equitable exchange within a market context is
presumed to ensure unbiased transactions. The integrity of the system is determined by the faithfulness of
representation of “economic reality”and the responsibility is circumscribed by the contractual relationships
prescribed by the economic contract. Anything of relevance with respect to organizational behavior is presumed to
be ultimately reflected in the manifestations of these transactions.
Market activity is the mechanism through which the organization acquires resources and distributes its products
and services. Management systems are designed to interface with market dimensions. Control and incentive systems
align individual goals with those of the organization. The critical evaluative outcome is the maximization of
shareholder/owner long term economic value. The resolution to inefficiencies and conflicts is exposure to free and
open markets. The managerialist assumptions19 provide the context within which AIS are designed, implemented,
and used.
For example, presume that there is a factory in Vietnam producing athletic shoes. An internationally branded
corporation has a contract with the manufacturer to deliver some specified number of pairs of shoes at a contracted
cost per shoe. The AIS for the international corporation captures the cost associated with the contract, the shoes
delivered, and some indication of their conformity with contractual quality standards. It compares the expected
output with the actual output, nothing more. If the manufacturer is not fulfilling the terms of the contract, it will be
terminated, and another supplier will be hired. If the manufacturer cannot produce the product for the prevailing
price, the plant will close and the more efficient producer will gain the contract, maximizing the use of society's
economic resources. As a result of the expanding accountability regimes, companies are beginning to consider such
social issues.20 As these issues become more integrated in management decisions, AIS must be capable of
providing related information. The perspectives considered below address various dimensions of the organizational
context within which AIS are designed, implemented, and used, each providing alternative viewpoints to the
conventional ones.
19 The description of the managerialist context for AIS draws on the descriptions provided by Hopper et al. (1987) with respect
to management accounting.
20 See the corporate responsibility reports of such companies as Wal-Mart, Nike, Intel, BP, etc. as discussed in Kolk (2003).
30 J. Dillard / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 9 (2008) 21–42
3.1. Labor process theory: exposing motivation
People constitute the primary developmental resource of any human society (eg, Pearce and Barbier, 2000).
Organizational management's efficacy in meeting its responsibilities related to human resources is one of the
primary issues associated with meeting its social responsibilities as indicated by their prominent position in the
United Nations Global Compact's principles.21 While the conventional frame reduces people to factors of
production and invites accounting measures relating to their output, cost, margin of productivity, and the like (eg,
Gelinas and Dull, 2007), labor process theory provides a socio-political perspective that brings in a richer set of
considerations, including issues of control, freedom, and the value (or the lack thereof) in the experience of work
(Braverman, 1974; Burawoy, 1985). It also sheds light on how socio-political forces become manifest within the
work place. As such, labor process theory offers a lens for understanding and evaluating the motivations that
underlie conventional AIS design as well as the anticipated effects of their implementation.22 It also points toward
alternative organizational representations that differ from those of the neoclassical framework. First, the theory is
briefly discussed followed by possible applications to AIS.
3.1.1. Theorizing the labor–management relationships
Labor process theory23 brings together stratification theory and industrial sociology in theorizing the notions of
labor within the economic system of market capitalism, and it provides a means for investigating characteristics of
the workplace and inclinations of management under a capitalist mode of production. The nature of skill, the decline
of skilled labor, worker control strategies, and worker resistance (Meiksins, 1994) constitute the primary issues.
Labor process theory deals with the effect of context (organizational structures) on practice (behavior), and as such,
provides a framework for gaining insights into the motivation behind, and design characteristics of, AIS as
implemented in work organizations.
Labor process theory concerns the control of labor power. Labor power is the human's ability to perform work.24
The labor process is predicated on the conditions whereby the worker sells his or her labor power to the employer.
The exchange of labor's ability to produce represents the unique characteristic of capitalist production. The worker
enters into such an agreement because she has no alternative means of livelihood. Because of the political and social
relationships, the drive toward the accumulation of capital controls and constructs the labor process. “It thus
becomes essential for the capitalist that control over the labor process pass from the hands of the worker into his
own. This transition presents itself in history as the progressive alienation of the
21 Four of the ten principles directly address labor standards. The UN Global Compact is a voluntary set of principles
representing a minimum international standard for corporate social and environmental responsibility. See Appendix.
22 Sutton (1993), Sutton and Byington (1993) consider deskilling within an AIS context but do not directly appropriate labor
process theory. Dillard and Bricker (1992) use labor process theory in considering the effects of knowledge based expert systems
in auditing.
23 The primary source is Braverman's 1974 Labor and Monopoly Capitalism, which revitalized this area of interest. It should be
noted that Braverman's work is not without its critics, for example, see Burawoy (1996), Meiksins (1994), Noon and Blyton
(1997), Spencer (2000).
24 “For humans in society, labor power is a special category, separate and inexchangeable with any other, simply because it is
human. Only one who is the master of the labor of others will confuse labor power with any other agency for performing a task,
because to him, steam, horse, water, or human muscle which turn his mill are viewed as equivalents, as 'actors of production'.”
(Braverman, 1974: 51, italics in original).
process of production from the worker; to the capitalist, it presents itself as the problem of management”
(Braverman, 58, italics in original).
The worker is relieved of any agency, as he or she becomes another factor of production carrying out
management's dictates. Consistent with the tenets of scientific management, analytical decomposition of the labor
process separates the production process into its elemental features, providing the basis for the specialization of
labor. The of production processes are continually being refined and perfected, based on ever-more sophisticated
measurement tools, imposing pressure on the workers to increase productivity. Decomposition, task specialization,
and ongoing measurement and control become the basis for the design of AIS,25 which are complicit in
transforming working humanity into exploited factors of production.
Labor process theory, in describing how management organizes and imposes work processes, points to the
deskilling of the work force (which can include administration, as well as labor) as a central focus of action.
Deskilling consists of a progressive degrading of work, primarily by separating manual labor26 from mental labor.
The motivation behind deskilling is the core demand of capitalism to increase control over labor, with the ultimate
objective of replacing labor with capital in an attempt to reduce variations in, and costs of, production. The shift can
occur as a result of both administrative and material technology. The means of accomplishing deskilling can range
from standardized work design to the development of knowledge-based expert systems. Stratifying the work force
along gender and ethnic lines is also a means by which control and exploitation of the work force is achieved.27
New workplace technologies such as work teams28 and electronic surveillance are also implicated in the labor
process.29 Such a perspective is contrary to the conventional view where the ultimate well being of the society,
including the worker, is dependent on the wellbeing of the organization. Scott and Hart (1989) refer to this as the
organizational imperative. As a corollary the implementation of advanced technology in support of organizational
well being becomes a technological imperative (Dillard and Burris, 1993).
The early preoccupation in labor process theory with the issue of deskilling (Braverman, 1974) has subsequently
given way to a more diverse set of concerns, as computerization in organizations produced ambiguous and
contradictory evidence on the issue of information technology's effects on worker skills (Attewell and Rule, 1984).
Information systems have been implicated on the one hand in increased skill levels, worker discretion, and
independence, and on the other hand in enhanced managerial monitoring, task overloading, and intensifying pressure
to produce (Sutton and Byington, 1993; Dillard and Yuthas, 2006). Criticism in this revised context now points to
the instrumental links between worker “autonomy” and the capitalists' continuing demands for profit and increased
productivity (Sewell, 1998). For example, work place design methodologies,30 fostered and supported by the
measurement capabilities provided by AIS applications, remain fully consistent with the capitalist mode of
production and its historical focus on controlling
25 Presentations in the standards AIS texts substantiate such a view (eg, Gelinas and Dull, 2007; Hurt , 2008). 26 Manual labor
does not necessarily have to be physical. Repetitive mental tasks such as data entry or transformations also are the result of
deskilling.
27 See Beechey (1982), Littler (1982), West (1990), Cockburn (1983). 28 See Sewell (1998), Baker (1993), McKinley and
Taylor (1996). 29 See for example, Garson (1988); Carayon (1993); Kallman (1993); Poster (1990), Lyon (1993); Zuboff (1988),
Robins and Webter (1988); Robey (1981).
30 For example, reengineering, total quality management, lean production, flexible specialization, and rightsizing—See Gendron
(1996), Hammer (in press), O'Leary (2000).
worker resistance and productivity, toward the traditional goals of growth and wealth accumulation.
3.1.2. Applications of AIS
While there have been numerous applications of labor process theory in the accounting literature,31 little appears
within the AIS literature (for exceptions see Dillard and Burris, 1993; Tinker and Yuthas, 1995). However, labor
process theory can assist in providing an expanded representation of organizations within which AIS are applied.
From a labor process perspective, these management information and control systems constitute devices predicated
on maintaining management's control over resources. As such, AIS are readily recognized as a physical and
administrative technology directed toward maintaining vested interests (Tinker, 1998). Moreover, in the particulars
of their design they can be seen not as the products of a larger vision for the role of commercial organizations in
society, but rather as the incrementally and, at times, problematically constructed response to crises, conflicts, and
opportunities that arise in an ongoing way out of the capitalists demands for growth and wealth accumulation. For
example, performance evaluation systems based on standard labor activity and output metrics can be interpreted as a
mechanism for disciplining and controlling labor toward the end of enhanced economic efficiency. Monitoring the
change in these standards could provide an indication as to work redesign leading to deskilling tasks. The
dehumanizing of labor brought about by the demands of the capitalistic workplace becomes more visible when
viewed through the lens of labor process theory. For example, the substitution of capital for labor is something to be
expected and monitored. These tendencies can be reflected in worker training programs, professional certifications
required and held by employees, and expenditures on technology. Here exist an opportunity for the AIS to interface
with the human relations systems to integrate cost information with employee characteristics.
Where the conditions of labor are taken to be within the scope of corporate social responsibility— and this is
certainly the case within the ethical and political traditions of the advanced industrial world (eg, UN Global
Compact)—labor process theory's illumination of corporate management's failure to properly consider these
conditions points, in turn, to the need for scholarly inquiry into the role of AIS in creating and perpetuating the
problem. For example, labor process theory theorizes the inherent antagonistic relationship between management
and labor. An accounting information system sensitive to such a perspective could include the collection of related
items in its design. Referring to the UN Global Compact, labor standards uphold the freedom of association. The
information system could gather costs expended by the firm in labor negotiations or training to familiarize the
workers with union activities. Another principle is the abolition of child labor. AIS incorporating a labor process
perspective would be more attuned to such issues and would identify our facilities and install measurement and
monitoring devices such as payroll tracking and employee databases. For example, monitoring is a way to make
visible the type of workers employed, what they are paid, etc. The AIS would also be useful in monitoring suppliers'
practices especially as common interfaces are developed and data sharing arrangements are developed.
Returning to Vietnam, labor process theory alerts the system designer to the possibility of labor exploitation.
Even though the factory worker may not be directly employed by the international apparel company, such
companies are becoming more proactive in pursuing their social responsibilities. If this is the case, then following
the arguments in Brown et al. (2005), AIS must be expanded to include the requisite information set. Child labor
practices can be monitored.
31 See Dillard (2006) for a review.
Working conditions can be evaluated, and indications of the extent to which workers are justly and fairly treated can
be included.
Systematic study of such issues provides the groundwork for the design of accounting information systems that
can make transparent the effects and implications of organizational actions on workers.32 The necessary public
debate and ultimate societal tradeoffs that must be made with respect to the allocation and use of economic
resources requires more complete and balanced information of this kind.
As discussed earlier, the larger ethical and political context imposes on organizations an ethic of accountability.
In this regard, labor process theory offers one potential foundation for expanding the discourse on AIS by providing
an alternative view of the fundamental relationship that exists between the worker and the work organization. A
labor process theory shifts the focus from the organization and its wellbeing to the workers, articulating the
inherently adversarial relationship embedded within the prevailing context.
3.2. The accumulation cycle: exploring process
In the excursion through the three theories, I have taken up labor process theory for its particular utility in
speaking to some of the fundamental motivations behind the structuring of AIS. While labor process theory also
provides some perspective on processes (eg, decomposition and specialization) and outcomes (eg, alienation), I will
turn now to Latour's33 accumulation cycle for its alternative view of the organization that provides insights into the
processes used to collect, aggregate, report, and analyze information.34
AIS are both a product and medium for the accumulation cycle.35 Information systems are designed to represent
and facilitate physical and administrative processes within work organizations. The purpose of these processes is to
coordinate the transformation of economic resources into products to be valued within a market. Acting in a socially
responsible way requires an understanding of the processes used in representing and managing these work
organizations. Latour (1987) provides a lens through which to view the calculative processes used in controlling
purposeful social collectives. Following previous work (Dillard, 1995), I consider accounting information systems in
light of a Latourian framework.36
As an example, continue to consider the workplace and the accounting for labor costs. The Vietnamese worker
sewing athletic shoes is conceptualized by the AIS as a homogenous commodity. Her actions are translated into
digital representations convertible to a common economic unit. This information is transformed, stored in a central
database, and assessed periodically by those managing the athletic clothing plant. Within the current environment,
labor is seen by organizational management as a factor of production. An accounting information system is designed
to record the resources consumed by the worker in performing her task under a
32 In saying this, I do not mean to suggest that workers are the only constituency that must be heeded; the emphasis on workers
at this point necessarily derives from the particular focus of labor process theory.
33 I am relying on Latour's early work, Science in Action, in this discussion (Latour, 1987). However, by no means do I intend
to say that this is all that can be found in Latour's large body of work that speaks to the subject. I refer the reader, in particular, to
Latour's recent “trilogy” (Latour, 1999, 2004, 2005).
34 The accumulation cycle can be viewed as a way of implementing the forces underlying the labor process as well as other
processes with alternative ideological grounds.
35 As discussed more fully below, the accumulation cycle refers to the process by which collectors are sent out to gather data
and to bring it back to a central location for management use in controlling the activities associated with the organization.
36 See also Orlikowski et al. (1996), Czarniawska and Hernes (2005), Doolin and Lowe (2002).
piece rate system. The number of shoes sewn is recorded and the piece rate paid. This information is accumulated
over time, collected in a central location where the actual output is compared with an expected level of output, given
the inputs. The worker can be controlled at a distance, and abstractly using this information, given that there are no
recognized rights or collective worker associations. There is no reflection of working conditions in the data. Those
acting at a distance can control and manipulate the local worker with no indication of her humanness. The question
of exploitation would not arise. The morality of child labor could not be recognized in the AIS. The system is
predicated on facilitating efficient economic production. On the other hand, the worker cannot penetrate the center
of calculation. Centers of calculation (Latour, 1987: 232ff) characterizes the place were the information collected is
brought for analysis. As a result of these “calculations,” those at the center have a more complete understanding of
the terrain, putting the locals at a disadvantage because of the information asymmetry.
AIS are the physical means whereby the accumulation of information takes place. So, studying AIS is facilitated
by an understanding of the process of which it is an integral part. Latour provides theoretical explanations for why
AIS are implemented and what they are expected to do. This should be useful in initiating change. For example, if
the one group is privileged through a particular property rights regime, it becomes obvious that change must be
instituted with regard to the tenets of the dominant economic parameters or with respect to the property rights
regime. To attempt to bring about changes without recognizing and addressing the issues at these levels would at
best result in a superficial change.
As socio-technical constructions, AIS are part of an “accumulation cycle” guided by “centers of calculations.”
The centers of calculation develop extensive collection and calculative networks that provide the means for
searching, collecting, and aggregating. Gathering techniques accumulate information from all parts of the
organizational domain and deliver it to the centers of control. The more extensive the data gathering systems, the
more complete will be the representations and understanding of the domain over which the center is attempting to
establish and maintain control. The more complex the environment, the more complex are the symbolic
representations required in order to provide the representational systems needed to translate the information into a
medium that can be gathered, mobilized, archived, summarized, reassembled, simplified, and ranked by the control
center. The translation process results in a two-dimensional representation that collapses multidimensional existence
into symbolic forms used in constructing extensive knowledge networks that establish force fields between the
controllers and the controlled. As the controllers acquire more information and the knowledge asymmetry widens
between the controller and the controlled, the greater the control that can be imposed. However, if the mobility of
the facts is somehow impaired or if they change state during the process of transportation, distortions can arise
within the representations.
One means for maintaining the information asymmetry required for control is the black box technology used in
constructing and maintaining these knowledge networks. Latour (1987:2–3) defines black box as being concerned
only with the inputs and outputs of a complex process with little or no understanding of the processes whereby the
inputs are translated into the outputs. For example, inputs disappear into AIS and emerge as reports of the economic
results of an entity. The transportation and manipulation of data requires assumptions, calculations, and translations
that are buried under levels of hierarchy and architecture. The assumptions, calculations, and translations are not
obvious; therefore, it can be difficult for those being controlled to gain information in order to reduce the
information asymmetry created by the accumulation cycle.
Centers of calculation control the material and human resources within work organizations. Knowledge networks
sustain the activities of the controllers through calculative accuracy,
accounting convention, control philosophy, and management strategy. An extensive array of assumptions, functional
relationships, and rules for manipulation sustain these knowledge networks. Development of new systems
progresses along a path that builds on prior structures, with the latter justifying the former. As the information
system develops, the initial conditions become invisible and therefore not subject to question. What was originally
problematic becomes assumed, and things proceed in a direction favoring the objectives of the controllers.
A given actor's focus, in the course of carrying out an organizational task, is on the current object of concern,
with little consideration of what immediately came before. This is partially because of the obscurity of the prior
“facts” and partially because of the legitimacy accorded the techniques and devices used in creating them. To delve
into these calculations would be construed as irrational or, at best, a waste of time. The knowledge networks that
dictate actions are comprised of representations produced by the accumulation cycle. Using Latour's metaphor, as
the knowledge networks progress, the assumptions, calculations, and manipulations institute a series of black boxes
that are closed as each step is subsumed, and assumed, within the following ones. Once a black box is closed, it is
difficult to reopen it in order to question its validity or to ascertain its influence.37
Latour's accumulation cycle describes much of what constitutes AIS development, implementation, and use
within work organizations. A strategy, then, for broadening the discourse on AIS, managerial action, and the public
interest is to open the sequence of black boxes that constitute existing AIS, and purposefully question the
assumptions, processes, and content upon which the systems are grounded. A transparent rendering of organizational
processes in this fashion will expose the underlying ideologies and asymmetrical power relationships that are both
the foundation for, and reproduced by, the AIS. For example, to the extent that AIS support workplace designs and
worker stratification based on neoclassical assumptions (as labor process theory argues), analysis of the type
proposed can reveal how this is operationalized through the accumulation cycle.
3.3. Postmodernism: examining outcomes
Labor process theory has given us one way to consider the motivating structure that lies beneath the dual
construction of AIS and work system organization. Latour's accumulation cycle has provided a view of the
processes through which technologies of control become established, and organizational representations and “facts”
acquire their taken-for-granted quality. Within labor process theory, this would be the exploitation of labor, for
example. I now consider a third social-theoretic perspective, derived from variations of postmodern thought
(primarily Bauman, 1992, 1993), for its help in contextualizing both the processes and the outputs, toward the
particular end of expanding the collective discourse on organizational action.38
The postmodern perspective39 proclaims the arrival of a new societal era in which the previous assumptions,
paradigms, and structures based on faith in the ability of human reason are no longer valid. In the postmodern view,
the promise of reason has not been, and cannot be, fulfilled. History,
37 Although this statement is good enough to serve the current discussion, it is in truth a bit simplistic. A key aspect of the actor
network approach to analyzing sociotechnical systems and “programs,” for which Latour (1987) helped lay the foundation, is that
the “black boxes,” once closed, have a way of opening up again. Technologies of control tend to serve their masters imperfectly,
leading to unforeseen and unintended consequences. Also, other “allies,” taken to be comfortably “enrolled” and “mobilized” on
behalf of a program, sometimes break out of the representations in which controllers had sought to bind them, and then
subsequently defect. (I wish to thank Neil Ramiller for this insight.).
38 This discussion draws heavily on earlier work, specifically Dillard (1998) and Yuthas and Dillard (1999). 39 See, for example,
Ritzer (1997), Best and Kellner (1991), Seidman (1994), and Dickens and Fontana (1994) for review and critique.
previously assumed to follow a progressive trajectory, actually unfolds as a succession of incidents. There are no
first principles upon which to ground and legitimate laws or morality. Given such a context, a claim of universal,
rational grounds for acting cannot be substantiated.
Given these tenets, postmodernism would seem to provide an unlikely theoretical basis for exposing the
construction of the existing order (on what basis would reliable claims to such sociological knowledge be made?)
and, especially, for fostering more open discourse on future possibilities. Skeptical postmodernism tends to lapse
into discouragement and nihilism. Affirmative postmodernists, on the other hand, celebrate the disintegration of
universalism as an opportunity to foster participation and communication in ways that respect local context and
community (Rosenau, 1992). This liberation is accomplished, in part, because of the rejuvenated ability that the
postmodern context provides for questioning hegemonic modernistic assumptions, constructs, and perspectives, and
for undoing the power asymmetries embedded within prevailing social arrangements and the technologies, including
AIS, that support them. An affirmative postmodernist perspective holds that by undermining these constructions the
possibility for a more inclusive and intelligible perspective emerges.40
Bauman (1992, 1993) observes that within organizational contexts constructed under the influence of traditional
neoclassical economics, the responsibilities an actor has to members of the ongoing community tend to be obscured
and limited by such constructs as contractual agreements, hierarchically legitimized modes of control, and socially
constructed behavioral norms. For example, any responsibilities an AIS designer has to the Vietnamese worker in
the athletic shoe factory are obscured by the technical and temporal as well as geographical distance. These
technologies and techniques of “reason” have therefore not been successful in solving larger problems that arise
with respect to recognizing human qualities and assuming moral responsibility. However, recognizing the ambiguity
and relativistic nature of these structuring dimensions, as postmodernists would have us do, potentially creates space
for acting differently. For example, we can redesign AIS that consider social and environmental responsibilities of
the organization. Information can be included depicting the effect of management decisions on the living and
working conditions of the Vietnamese worker.
Postmodernism also points toward the dismantling of more explicit, ideological justifications for the given order
(Bauman, 1992, 1993). An example of the kind of universal, legitimating principle that perpetuates traditional power
relationships is the organizational imperative mentioned previously. AIS applications that perpetuate the traditional
power relationships are specifically justified by the technological imperative: Since technology is necessary for the
organization's well being, the individual must submit to the dictates of the technology (Dillard and Burris, 1993).
The post-modern critique undermines the validity of these legitimating claims, and such justifications for
asymmetrical power arrangement and exploitation then collapse.
As a result, to argue that priorities should be specified and choices made based on the “most valuable” outcome
has no specific and uniquely defendable meaning (Bauman, 1993: 194). The crucial implication for AIS, then, is that
the choices made among systems application alternatives are exposed as outcomes of the play of ideology and
power. Also, the traditional basis for legitimation in economics, to which labor process theory points, is revealed in
its rhetorical character. Moreover, the technology of calculative transformations, which Latour illuminates, is shown
clearly in its role as a device for ideological control. For example, the inevitability of off shoring jobs because of the
financial market demands for lower labor costs can be increasingly and critically questioned. If the
40 However, at the present time there is little convincing political theory to guide how this new context is to be achieved.
cost to the individuals losing their jobs and the costs incurred by the communities were included, a different decision
might be made, or at least it would be a more informed one.
The postmodern lens, then, can help in understanding how the interaction of accounting information systems with
organizational processes and outcomes is rooted in, and perpetuated through, ideological motivation and power
asymmetries. At the same time, it invites a larger view of how individuals' actions on and through the technology
can have significant impacts on others beyond what is codified within the economically circumscribed language of
contracts. In so doing, it potentially opens up collective discourse that transcends the supposedly “rational”
boundaries and dictates of the technology. Such discourse cuts the ground from under deter- ministic claims like
those of the organizational and technological imperatives described above, and exposes the coercive nature of the
forces that keep existing arrangements in place, sometimes in the service of self-defeating outcomes.
At the same time, the post-modern perspective is not sanguine about the individual's or the collective's ability to
move beyond the definition of moral responsibilities bounded by negotiated, self-interested contractual obligations.
As noted earlier, the economic contract is a powerful core tenet for representation of, and representation within, the
modern work organization. Thus, the economic transaction provides the conceptual core of accounting information
systems, leading to the presumption that the systems provide rational, accurate, and relevant outputs, and the view
that these outputs can be evaluated with respect to objective standards. AIS outputs, presumably abstracted from
objective contractual transactions, imply a “calculability” of action, and, when combined with objective standards,
classify actions as being either expedient or useless (Bauman, 1993: 52ff). Calculability implies the application of
specific formulas embedded within the accounting information system have received authoritative approval.
Authoritative approval, in turn, allows individuals to abdicate individual responsibility beyond the proper
application of the formula. There is no call on the individual to justify the outcome or to take responsibility for the
consequences. The means legitimate the ends, and individual responsibility is buried under the rational calculative
practices.
Within the context of the organization, actions are circumscribed within the context of the AIS and are motivated
by implicit and explicit sanctions. Reciprocity, construed as equity in exchange, defines and circumscribes what is
deemed to be acting in the public interest. Accounting for economic transactions becomes the dominant focus of
AIS, and the system's outputs thus limit the field of vision. The morality of the system and the related outputs are
reduced to the calculative representation of the transactional calculus. Ultimately, each party is constructed and
conceptualized by the system as an element in the exchange of goods and services. The relationships among the
parties do not extend beyond an equitable exchange within the contracting parameters.
The postmodern world is thus constructed by technology. On the one hand, this world is flexible, fluid, ripe with
opportunities, and resilient to fixation. On the other hand, it is pliable, vulnerable, and lacks defenses against
technological ingenuity and its insatiable appetites (Bauman, 1993:194). The motivating force within society is now
the pursuit of ever-increasing efficiency, economic resources, higher profits, economic value added, total quality,
and continuous improvement. Managerialist rhetoric furnishes the legitimizing criteria for action, and what passes
for reason has been reduced to the economic calculus. Meanwhile, restricting the scope of responsible action to
rationally grounded, technological objectives of efficiency and effectiveness enhances the chances for detrimental
consequences.
Bauman (1993) argues that the responsible self requires a human connection but that individuals suffer under the
current conditions of fragmentation brought about and enhanced by technology. The connectedness of the self and
others has become extremely difficult to establish, in great part because technology, including AIS, functions to
separate the application of advanced
information technology, in time and space, from its impact. This serves to amplify the separation already noted
between the actor and the consequences of his/her actions. The complexity, distancing, and far-reaching (yet
obscure) effects make anticipating the possible implications of personal actions problematic. AIS applications, of
course, play a key role in all this, and with their increasing complexity, matters are made worse. The application of
technology begets more technology. If the systems application is successful, then a next iteration based on more
technology can be even more successful. If the system is a failure, then a technical fix will most likely be proposed.
Both the desired and unanticipated consequences are responded to with the addition of more technical layers—one
kind of succession of Latourian black boxes. In this context, Bauman (1993:194–195) argues that what is called
progress is more often only movement, with as many detrimental consequences as desirable ones.
Where, then, does this perspective leave us when it comes to discourse on matters of corporate social
responsibility and the public interest? It clearly points to the need to unpack the black boxes that prevent individuals
and organizations from tracing the consequences of their actions, and to question the ideologies that narrow and
constrain our collective vision of what constitutes ethically responsible action on the part of economic enterprises
and their representatives. On the other hand, because postmodernism suggests that acting in the public interest
cannot be achieved through the application of universal principles, this also implies that no other set of universal
principles can be established and imposed to replace those entailed by the neoclassical economic ideology.
Organizational action and the associated applications of AIS must be addressed through commitment to open
discourse, locally engaged in the particulars of community life, and cognizant of fluidity, uncertainty, and
indeterminacy characteristic of the post-modern context.
4. Summary and closing comments
As corporate accountability regimes expand, AIS must respond. Meeting these emerging internal and external
information needs requires that we expand our perspective beyond the traditional technical aspects of design,
implementation, and use. The preceding discussion proposes social theory as one useful lens for expanding our
understanding of the organization context, providing space for change. Three alternative perspectives are suggested
that help to bring to light values, interests, and objectives that form, and inform, the organizational context within
which AIS operate. The justification for this undertaking is that through a more comprehensive understanding of
organizational context, AIS will be better able to provide the information necessary to support the more inclusive
accounting regimes arising from an expanding notion of corporate social responsibility. I briefly summarize the
ideas developed in this essay intended to facilitate a more inclusive dialogue among the relevant constituency
groups.
Accounting information systems can be viewed along three dimensions: physical manifestations of technology
and technique; praktek; and socio-political context. From a societal perspective, managers' actions are ultimately
legitimized by their contribution to enhancing the wellbeing of society. As the complexity of AIS increase and their
applications expand, we cannot adequately comprehend this complexity and inherent contradictions embedded
within organizational structures, particularly as they relate to institutional and personal implications if we do not
expand the research agenda. Considering and integrating dimensions of alternative perspectives increases the
likelihood for recognizing the complexity in the organizational environment wherein accounting practices take place
and for translating this expanded understanding into the systems applications that frame management
conceptualizations. The three diverse theories considered herein re-present the organizational context, providing
alternative views of the sociopolitical
milieu within which organizational occupants act, one addressing motivation, one addressing process, and one
addressing outcomes. The common attribute among these social theories is their attempt to link the organizational
action space with the sociopolitical context.
Neoclassical economics remains the dominant theory in effect within society that defines responsible corporate
and managerial action. Much of the time, the theory functions tacitly to underpin working definitions and ongoing
interpretations of what does and does not lie within the scope of corporate responsibility. However, the theory is also
more or less explicitly referenced when overt ideological work is undertaken as when it is argued that the sole
responsibility of management is to attend to shareholder value.
As we have seen, the more fully “social” theories entertained here put the neoclassical premises in their own
larger context, and expose the ways in which they have systematically limited discourse especially on matters of
corporate and managerial responsibility. These theories help us to understand how existing designs and
implementations of AIS serve the conventional premises by operationalizing a suitably narrow vision of what
constitutes organizational “performance” in the economy and society.
It is not my intention to privilege the three theories considered. Other theories might have been entertained; neo-
institutional theory, structuration theory, and Habermas' theory of communicative action all come readily to mind. In
fact, this is the key point. What is needed is an inclusive approach, both practical and scholarly, that creates new and
expanded possibilities for the consideration of diverse interests and concerns. The focal point around which such
discourse must revolve is the question of how to operationalize an ethic of accountability for corporate and
managerial action and what this means for the design and capabilities of the associated AIS. Today, the requirements
are excessively narrow, especially in light of the expanding accountability regimes, and many interests are
marginalized as a result. Labor process theory points to one particular set of disenfranchised interests, those of the
employed, but obviously, there are others. The post-modern perspective invites us to think about the disruption and
damage imposed by firms on other aspects of social and natural systems. Latour sheds light on how the underlying
forces become obscured. Taking these in helps us begin to recognize the scope that a wider discourse on might
embrace.
I am not proposing that shareholder value has no place in the discourse. However, given that acting in the public
interest represents management's legitimizing claim for controlling society's economic resources, the interests and
participation of society must be engaged, and a more expansive set of criteria established by which an organization's
actions can be measured and evaluated. Such criteria then provide the context within which organizations operate.
Measuring organizational performance against the emergent, fluid, and negotiated criteria that define the emerging
regimes of accountability presents the fundamental challenge involved in designing, implementing, maintaining, and
utilizing a new order of accounting information systems.
The characteristics of the expanding accountability regimes reflect ongoing negotiations among the affected
participants concerning what constitutes the appropriate allocation of rights and responsibilities and how the
participants are to hold, and be held, accountable. An ethic of accountability holds management responsible not only
for its actions but also for providing information whereby their actions and outcomes can be understood and
evaluated. More critically, members of society must accept responsibility for holding organizational management
accountable. The appropriate design and use of accounting information systems, as an essential, instrumental
element in implementing an ethic of accountability, is predicated on the full and responsible participation of all
affected societal interests. As AIS scholars, educators, designers, and users, we are called upon to employ alterative
organizational perspectives through which we understand the organization and its actions differently. Representing
organizational context using alternative social
theory-based perspectives opens the conventional, taken-for-granted scope and functions of AIS to examination and
critique, providing space for unconventional perspectives that reveal assumptions, conflicts, and ideologies that
underlie conventional systems applications, facilitating more inclusive knowings that incorporate a greater range of
values, interests, and objectives.
Appendix A. The ten principles
The Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption
enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development The United Nations
Convention Against Corruption
The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core
values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labour Standards
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to
collective bargaining; Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; Principle 5: the
effective abolition of child labour; and Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation.
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; Principle 8: undertake
initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and Principle 9: encourage the development and
diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
Anti-Corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
(http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html)
References
Arnold V, Sutton S, editors. Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. Sarasota, FL: American
Accounting Association; 2002. Attewell P, Rule J. Computing and organizations: what we know and what we don't know.
Commun ACM 1984;27
(12):1184–92. Barker J. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control of self managing teams. Adm Sci Q 1993;38:408–37.
Bauman Z. Intimations of postmodernity. London: Routledge; 1992. Bauman Z. Postmodern ethics. London: Routledge; 1993.
Beechey V. The sexual division of labor and the labor process: a critical assessment of Braverman. In: Wood S, editor.
Skilling, deskilling and the labor process. London: Hutchinson; 1982. p. 54–73. Best Steven, Kellner D. Postmodern theory:
critical interrogations. New York: Guilford Press; 1991. Braverman H. Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in
the twentieth century. NY: Monthly Review Press; 1974. Brown D, Dillard J, Marshall S. Incorporating natural systems as part of
accounting's public interest responsibility. J Inf
Syst 2005;19(2):79–104. Burawoy M. The politics of production. London: Verso Books; 1985. Burawoy M. A classic of its
time. Contemp Sociol 1996;25(3):296–9. Burchell S, Clubb C, Hopwood A, Hughes J, Nahapiet J. The roles of accounting in
organizations and society. Account
Organ Soc 1980:5–28. Carayon P. The effect of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker stress: review of
the literature and
conceptual model. Hum Factors 1993;26:385–95. Cockburn C. Brothers: male dominance and technological change. London:
Pluto Press; 1983. Covaleski MA, Dirsmith MW, Samuel S. Managerial accounting research: the contribution of organizational
and
sociological theories. J Manage Account Res 1996:1–35. Czarniawska B, Hernes T, editors. Actor–network theory and
organization. Malmo, Sweden: Liber; 2005. Dickens D, Fontana A, editors. Postmodernism and social inquiry; 1994. New York.
Dillard J. A termite theory of accounting information systems research. Adv Account Inf Syst 1995;3:163–80. Dillard J.
Organizational sociology and accounting information systems research. Adv Account Inf Syst 1996:333–46. Dillard J. The
ethical twilight zone of accounting information systems. Adv Account Inf Syst 1998:39–58. Dillard J. The labor process. In:
Hoque Z, editor. Methodological issues in accounting research: theories and methods.
London: Spiramus; 2006. Dillard J. Legitimating the social accounting project: an ethic of accountability. In: Unerman J,
Bebbington J, O'Dwyer B,
editors. Sustainability, accounting and accountability. London: Routledge; 2007. Dillard J, Bricker R. A critical evaluation of
expert systems in the audit environment. Crit Perspect Account
1992:205–24 [September]. Dillard J, Burris B. Technocracy and management control systems. Account Manag Inf Technol
1993;3(3):151–71. Dillard J, Ruchala L. The rules are no game: from instrumental rationality to administrative evil. Account
Audit Account J
2005;18(5):608–30. Dillard J, Ruchala L, Yuthas K. Enterprise resource planning systems: the physical manifestation of
administrative evil. Int
J Account Inf Syst 2005;6(2):107–28. Dillard J, Yuthas K. A responsibility ethic of audit expert systems. J Bus Ethics
2001;30:337–59. Dillard J, Yuthas K. Ethics research in AIS. In: Arnold V, Sutton S, editors. Researching accounting as an
information
systems discipline. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association; 2002. Dillard J, Yuthas K. Enterprise resource planning
systems and communicative action. Crit Perspect Account 2006;17
(2–3):202–23 (Feb–April). Doolin B, Lowe A. To reveal is to critique: actor–network theory and critical information systems
research. J Inf Technol
2002;17(2):69–78. Eagleton T. Ideology: an introduction. Verso; 2001. Garson B. The electronic sweatshop: how computers
are transforming the office of the future into the factory of the past.
New York: Simon and Schuster; 1988. Gelinas U, Dull R. Accounting information systems. Ed 7. OH: Thompson
Southwestern Mason; 2007. Gendron M. Learning to live with the electronic embodiment of reengineering. Harvard Manag
Update 1996 November: 3–4. Giddens A. The constitution of society. Berkeley: California University Press; 1984. Gray R,
Bebbington J. Accounting for the environment. 2nd Ed. London: Sage Publications; 2001. Habermas J. The theory of
communicative action, vol. I. Boston: Beacon Press; 1984. Translation by T. McCarthy. Habermas J. The theory of
communicative action, vol. II. Boston: Beacon Press; 1987. Translation by T. McCarthy. Hacker J. The great risk shift. NY:
Oxford University Press; 2006. Hammer, M. in press. Reengineering, SAP and business processes. Unpublished presentation
given at SAPPHIRE,
Orlando. FL. August. (Reported in O'Leary, 2000). Hopper T, Storey J, Willmott H. Accounting for accounting: towards the
development of a dialectical view. Account Organ
Soc 1987:437–56. Hurt R. Accounting information systems. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin; 2008. Kallman E. The wisdom of
teams: creating high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1993.
Kelly Marjorie. The divine right of capitalism. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2001. Kolk A. Trends in sustainability
reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Bus Strategy Environ 2003;12(5):279–91. Latour B. Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press; 1987. Latour B. Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press; 1999. Latour B. Politics of nature: how to bring science into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2004
(trans.
Catherin Potter). Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2005. Leech S, Sangster A. Expert systems in accounting research: a design perspective. In: Arnold V, Sutton S, editors.
Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association; 2002. Littler C.
The development of the labor process in capitalistic societies. London: Heineman; 1982. Lyon D. An electronic panopticon: a
sociological critique of surveillance theory. Sociol Rev 1993;41:653–78. McKinley A, Taylor P. Power, surveillance and
resistance: inside the 'factory of the future'. In: Ackers P, Smith C, Smith P,
editors. The new workplace and trade unionism. London: Routledge; 1996. p. 279–300. Korten D. When corporations rule the
world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1995. Meiksins P. Labor and monopoly capital for the 1990s: a review and critique
of the labor process debate,. Mon Rev
1994;46((6),):45–59. Murthy U. Group support systems research in accounting: a theory-based framework and directions for
future research. In: Arnold V, Sutton S, editors. Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. Sarasota, FL:
American Accounting Association; 2002. Niebuhr R. The responsible self. San Francisco: Harper Press; 1963. Noon M, Blyton
P. The realities of work. London: Macmillian; 1997. O'Leary D. Enterprise resource planning systems: systems, life cycle,
electronic commerce, and risk. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press; 2000. Orlikowski W, Walsham G, Jones MR, DeGross JI, editors. Information technology and
changes in organizational work.
London: Chapman & Hall; 1996. Page S. The difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press; 2007. Pearce D, Barbier E. Blueprint
for a sustainable economy. London: Earthscan; 2000. Phillips K. Wealth and democracy. NY: Broadway Books; 2002. Poster M.
The mode of information: poststructuralism and social context. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1990. Ritzer G. Postmodern social
theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997. Robey D. Computer information systems and organization structure. Commun ACM
1981;24:679–87. Robins K, Webter F. Cybernetic capitalism: information, technology, everyday life. In: Mosco V, Wasko J,
editors. The
political economy of information. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; 1988. p. 44–75. Rosenau P. Post-modernism and
the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992. Scott W, Hart D. Organizational values in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; 1989. Seidman S. The postmodern turn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. Sewell G.
The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Adm
Sci Q 1998;43:397–428. Smith-David J, Gerard G, McCarthy W. Design science: an REA perspective on the future in AIS.
In: Arnold V, Sutton S, editors. Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. Sarasota, FL: American
Accounting Association; 2002. Spencer D. Braverman and the contribution of labour process analysis to the critique of capitalist
production—twenty-five
years on. Work Employ Soc 2000;14:223–43. Sutton SG. On audit epistemology and auditors' cognitive processing: the
societal impact of information technologies.
Adv Account Inf Syst 1993;2:1–13. Sutton S, Byington JR. An analysis of ethical and epistemological issues in the
development and implementation of audit
expert systems. Adv Public Interest Account 1993;5:231–44. Thomson I. Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In:
Unerman J, Bebbington J, O'Dwyer B, editors.
Sustainability, accounting and accountability. London: Routledge; 2007. Tinker T. Hamlet without the prince: the
ethnography turn in information systems research. Account Audit Account J
1998;11(1):13–33. Tinker T, Yuthas K. Unsettled frameworks: voluntarism and the dialect of MIS research. Adv Account Inf
Syst 1995:181–200. Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., O'Dwyer, B. 2007. Sustainability, accounting and accountability London:
Routledge. West J. Gender and the labor process: a reassessment. In: Knights D, Willmott H, editors. Labour process theory.
London:
Macmillan; 1990. p. 244–73. Yuthas K, Dillard J. Ethical development of advanced technology: a postmodern stakeholder
perspective. J Bus Ethics 1999:35–49. Zuboff S. In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books; 1988.

Salinan Terjemahan Dillard2008 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Salinan Terjemahan Dillard2008 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Sistem Informasi Akuntansi 9 (2008) 21-42

Menanggapi memperluas rezim akuntabilitas dengan re-

2. memperluas rezim akuntabilitas

Вам также может понравиться