Researchers Seeking Accountability, When Appropriate?

• In Event: 1.02 Government Research Concurrent Session: Reporting & Accountability

Abstract

Building on a foundation of multiple case studies over the past 10 years, this paper wrestles with some of the difficult methodological choices facing governmental and nonprofit (GNP) accounting researchers when they uncover and complete a written report identifying a lack of accountability. The case studies draw from several entities, with a primary focus on local School Districts in a single state. The rules, norms and community preferences around the steps ‘after the report is written’ are complex, nuanced and often in tension or conflict. We oversimplify the choice of next steps into 4 discrete options: 1) exit, 2) more communication, 3) more research, and 4) actively seek accountability via advocacy escalation. We propose a 5-level ‘appropriateness’ scale to assist researchers in assessing their next steps. The paper makes several contributions. First, it concludes with brief researcher checklists allowing quick self-assessments of the proposed tools. Second, it draws attention to the broader academic literature on accountability that is rarely used by US-based accounting scholars. Third, it illuminates a host of research opportunities in school districts, a deeply under-researched institutional setting for which GNP scholars have competitive advantages. Fourth, it makes more explicit the ethical, economic and professional demands that seem to incentivize relatively too much time on new incremental research and relatively too little timely on communicating completed research, coordination among researchers and advocacy escalation.

Authors

• Ken Smith, School Accountability Group, LLC

• John Richard Kurpierz, York University