Rethinking Accounting Research through Postmodernism: Mapping Citation Networks and Intellectual Structure
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20800535Mots-clés :
Postmodern accounting, Dialogic approaches, Citation Analysis, GenealogyRésumé
This study examines the epistemic coherence and conceptual structure of postmodern accounting by analysing 220 scholarly publications through a dual lens of citation mapping and conceptual classification. Drawing on four interrelated theoretical strands—postmodernism, genealogy, deconstruction, and dialogic accounting—the research investigates whether postmodern accounting constitutes a fragmented discursive space or a cumulative, pluralistic intellectual tradition. Using bibliometric data from Web of Science and ScienceDirect, the study identifies key authors, highly cited publications, and patterns of conceptual convergence. The findings indicate the emergence of a discernible epistemic architecture, in which dialogic approaches have gained significant prominence in the past decade, while genealogical and postmodern foundations remain influential through the works of Foucault, Miller, and Hoskin. A small set of publications—such as Brown and Dillard, 2015 and Miller and O’Leary, 1987—function as epistemic hubs, bridging multiple paradigms and shaping the critical grammar of the field. By integrating heatmap visualizations and network diagrams, the analysis highlights a core–periphery structure in which multi-paradigm works act as conceptual anchors and reveal dynamic research trends. Overall, the study concludes that postmodern accounting is not dissolving into theoretical fragmentation but is consolidating into a reflexive, discursively rich, and pluralist field of inquiry.Références
Acedo, F. J., and Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14(5), 619–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.05.003
Arrington, C. E., and Francis, J. R. (1989). Letting the chat out of the bag: Deconstruction, privilege and accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(1–2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(89)90030-5
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: 4 essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. (2007a). Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.021
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., Thomson, I. (2007b). Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748544
Bourdieu, P., and Collier, P. (1996). Homo academicus (Reprinted). Polity Press.
Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.08.002
Brown, J., and Dillard, J. (2013a). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.001
Brown, J., and Dillard, J. (2013b). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.003
Brown, J., and Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic Accountings for Stakeholders: On Opening Up and Closing Down Participatory Governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12153
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (2019). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life (1st edn). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609751
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical Developments in Accounting Thought. The Accounting Review, 61(4), 601–632.
Deetz, S. (1996). Crossroads—Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.191
Derrida, J. (1994). Of grammatology. Motilal Banarsidass.
Derrida, J. (2017). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Dillard, J., and Roslender, R. (2011). Taking pluralism seriously: Embedded moralities in management accounting and control systems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.06.014
Dillard, J., and Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.; Second Vintage Books edition). Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
Foucault, M. (with Gene Berry and Jeffrey Campbell Collection (Library of Congress)). (1978). The history of sexuality (1st American ed). Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M., and Gordon, C. (2010). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (Nachdr.). Pearson Education.
Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00003-9
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1, Reason and the rationalization of society. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon.
Hoskin, K. W., and Macve, R. H. (1986). Accounting and the examination: A genealogy of disciplinary power. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(2), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(86)90027-9
Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
Lehman, G. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: A role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00044-0
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
McKernan, J. F. (2011). Deconstruction and the responsibilities of the accounting academic. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(7), 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.01.012
Miller, P., and Napier, C. (1993). Genealogies of calculation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7–8), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)90047-A
Miller, P., and O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90039-0
Miller, P., and Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149000000001
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. (E. Wagner, Interviewer). Verso.
Neimark, M., and Tinker, T. (1986). The social construction of management control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(4–5), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(86)90008-5
Power, M. (1992). The politics of brand accounting in the United Kingdom. European Accounting Review, 1(1), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638189200000003
Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
Thomson, I., and Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(5), 507–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2003.06.003
Tinker, T. (1985). Paper prophets. A social critique of accounting. Praeger.
Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology – I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00083
Whitley, R. (2006). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2. ed., reprinted). Oxford Univ. Press.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences 2026
Ce travail est disponible sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International .
The Author(s) must make formal transfer of copyright for each article prior to publication in the International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences. Such transfer enables the Journal to defend itself against plagiarism and other forms of copyright infringement. Your cooperation is appreciated. You agree that copyright of your article to be published in the International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences is hereby transferred, throughout the World and for the full term and all extensions and renewals thereof, to International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences.
The Author(s) reserve(s): (a) the trademark rights and patent rights, if any, and (b) the right to use all or part of the information contained in this article in future, non-commercial works of the Author's own, or, if the article is a "work-for-hire" and made within the scope of the Author's employment, the employer may use all or part of the information contained in this article for intra-company use, provided the usual acknowledgements are given regarding copyright notice and reference to the original publication.
The Author(s) warrant(s) that the article is Author's original work, and has not been published before. If excerpts from copyrighted works are included, the Author will obtain written permission from the copyright owners and shall credit the sources in the article. The author also warrants that the article contains no libelous or unlawful statements, and does not infringe on the rights of others. If the article was prepared jointly with other Author(s), the Author agrees to inform the co-Author(s) of the terms of the copyright transfer and to sign on their behalf; or in the case of a "work-for-hire" the employer or an authorized representative of the employer.
The journal is registered with the ISSN : 1925-4423.
IJCEAS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.
