1. The Manufacture of the Academic Accountant Kenneth A. Fox & Alycia Evans Edwards School of Business University of Saskatchewan Discussant: Cameron Graham Schulich School of Business

2. Overview of the Paper  Introduction  The accounting academy  Social studies of science  Method  Findings  Discussion  Conclusion 2

3. Introduction  Panozzo (1997)  US academy has rigorous research paradigm  European academy has fragmented paradigms  This paper studies a “streamed” doctoral program  Questions  Does multivocal environment promote innovation?  What are the mechanisms at work in training?  Contribution  Rich environment of mediators  Role of texts 3

4. The Accounting Academy  Dominance of US paradigm  Contribution to science?  Relevance to practice?  Reproduction of quantitative researchers  Education and training  Publication and choice of journals  Recruitment, tenure and promotion 4

5. Social Studies of Science  Constructivist perspectives  Bloor: sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK)  Latour & Callon: ANT and ethnomethodology  Popper: philosophers of science  Knorr-Cetina (1981)  Science as “community”: Too introspective  Science as “economic system”: Too limited  Trans-scientific field Includes non-academic actors Struggle over resource relationships ›Scientists ›Resources ›Mechanisms of knowledge production 5

6. Method  Observation of a doctoral accounting program  Financial Economics stream  Judgement & Decision Making stream  Interdisciplinary stream  Auto-ethnography or document analysis?  Semi-structured “analytical” interviews  Joint production of knowledge with interviewees  7 (or 8?) on-campus doctoral students  30-60 minutes each  6 hours in total 6

7. Findings 1  Characteristics of students’ backgrounds  3.75 years in program  Accounting or business degrees  Most had attended doctoral colloquia 7

8. Findings 2  Experiences  Varying perceptions of stream structure  Theoretical or methodological boundaries?  Related to wider field of research 8

9. Findings 3  Doctoral colloquia  Socialization  Networking  Reputation building 9

10. Findings 4  Relationship with academic supervisor  Resource relationship Funding Conferences  Reputation of supervisor Acceptance of research Legitimacy of student Feeling of belonging 10

11. Findings 5  Production of research papers  Emphasis on writing during training  Potential for publication is internalized  Circulation of papers for comment 11

12. Discussion  Reproduction of the research field  Structure of doctoral program is insufficient  Depends on ties to greater field through colloquia  Force of supervisor varies in relation to the field  Production of academic papers  linked to the mediator and the greater field  Process for exercising resource relationships  Embodies epistemological processes of the field 12

13. Conclusion  Epistemic processes reproduce resource relations  Position of supervisor  Clarity of field’s paradigm, theory & methods  European accounting  Lacks identifiable paradigm  Limits innovation & discovery 13

14. Discussant Assessment  Clearly written  Well positioned in SSK tradition  Unique data set  Paper has excellent potential 14

15. Discussant Comments 1  Clarity about data and methods  Auto-ethnography? Where does this show up?  Document analysis? Which ones?  Where did five “findings” categories come from? 15

16. Discussant Comments 2  Uncritical analysis  AAA colloquium is “most prestigious”  “The potential to publish is seen as the major benefit of writing” 16

17. Discussant Comments 3  “Freedom” of structured streams?  Is this what your interviews indicate?  ID student said lack of structure was “difficult” not “constraining”  This is your key counterintuitive finding, yet the data support is weak 17

18. Discussant Suggestions  Tighten up the paper  Reduce section 2 on accounting academy  Focus section 3 more on Knorr-Cetina  Draw on other data mentioned in methods section  Documents  Autoethnography  Weave critique into analysis  Add critical reflection after each quotation  Make the discussion add value by theorizing  Draw on Knorr-Cetina’s vocabulary 18