International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of AccountingInformation Systems

Critical dialogics, agonistic pluralism, and accountinginformation systems

Jesse Dillard a,b,⁎, Kristi Yuthas b

a Queen's University Management School, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdomb School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Business AdmE-mail address: jdillard@pdx.edu (J. Dillard)

1467-0895/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Incdoi:10.1016/j.accinf.2011.07.002

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 17 September 2010Received in revised form 30 June 2011Accepted 25 July 2011

Wepropose heteroglossic accounting as a context wherein accountinginformation systems may be conceptualized so as to provide a morecomplete and complex basis for including competing, and possibilityincompatible, information needs associated with interested anddiverse constituencies. Given that information needs to vary basedon such dimensions as geography, values, views, and vision, onerepresentation is unlikely to be adequate. Incorporating pluralisticperspectives facilitatesmore relevant comparisons required to derivedcriteria of judging among the viable alternatives, especially in caseswhere no one perspective can be shown to be inclusive. Agonisticpluralism employed in developing alternative accounting informationsystems provides insights into the underlying ideologies, assumptions,values, worldviews, and power relationships that inform alternativepositions, indicating those being privileged. Accounting informationsystems conceptualization, development, and implementation basedon the principles of critical dialogics recognizes the countervailingforces operating both pulling the dialog and debate toward hegemonicconsensus as well as pushing it toward antagonistic separation.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Heteroglossic accountingAgonistic pluralismCritical dialogicsMethodology

1. Introduction

Confidence in discovering the grand theory of social behavior appears to be waning. Lakoff and Johnson(1999) argue that the fundamental assumptions underlying western philosophy have been renderedobsolete by the findings in the cognitive and brain sciences. The idea that there is logic, and a single,objective world, “out there” awaiting discovery no longer provides sufficient legitimacy for social science

inistration, Portland State University, Portland, OR, United States.

. All rights reserved.

114 J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

methodology. Coming from this social constructionist perspective (Berger and Luckmann, 1967), the socialworld is as we create it, and for humans, this means linguistically creating the context within which we act.Such a position nudges us toward a pluralistic vision of “truth,” and as wemove toward such a position, wefind it desirable to move toward pluralistic theories and methodologies. Accounting information systems(AISs) research needs to begin to incorporate pluralistic visions of “truth” as the basis for designing,implementing, and evaluating systems and their outputs. One example is to expand the scope of theinformation systems beyond economic sustainability to include social and environmental sustainability(Brown et al., 2005).

Research associated with designing, implementing, and evaluating such systems requires new andpluralistic ways of thinking in order to adequately respond to the needs of an increasingly pluralisticsociety. Two theories that may be of particular relevance to AIS design and implementation are criticaldialogics and agonistic pluralism. Critical dialogics refers to the facilitating democratic mechanismswhereby interested groups can engage in conversation and debate concerning contestable issues. Thesemechanisms explicitly recognize power as an important contextual factor in the production of meaningthrough accounting information. Critical dialogics provides insights into how dialog can be used in gainingan understanding and responding to diverse information needs. Agonistic pluralism is a branch ofdemocratic theory that conceptualizes progressive social change through democratic dialogic meansrecognizing the complexity of prevailing power dynamics and that competing perspectives and interestscannot be resolved through logic or reason. Agonistic pluralism provides the theoretical socio-politicalbasis for conceptualizing and sustaining diversity within a pluralistic and democratic context. Combiningthe two can inform the construction of pluralistic accounting information systems capable ofaccommodating conflicting positions.1

In previous work (Dillard, 2008), several theoretical perspectives are discussed as alternative ways ofviewing AIS research and applications. Here, we continue this line of inquiry by considering how to frameAIS research and application within a pluralistic context so as to initiate and sustain multiple voicesengaging in dialog and debate. Such a framing provides theoretical and methodological guidance in thedesign, implementation, and evaluation of AIS in work organizations.2

Following Macintosh (2002), acknowledging the pluralistic and political nature of the socio-economicworld in which accounting resides calls for heteroglossic accounting. Heteroglossic perspective discardsthe notion that accounting can or should produce one single accounting that represents the meaning of theunderlying empirical phenomena that leads to a single interpretation of the meaning of those phenomena.It views accounting more like an ongoing conversation among competing interests that hold differentperspectives about the empirical phenomena themselves. Supporting these pluralistic perspectivesrequires accounting information systems designed to gather, process, and represent the requisitemultidimensional information.3 Heteroglossic accounting and related AISs represent multiple views basedon multiple, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, sets of assumptions, moralities, strategies,priorities, ideologies, power relationships, and desired outcomes. The basis for choosing among thesealternative sets is inherently political given the presumed lack of first principles upon which to base theselection. Following Brown (2009) and Dillard and Roslender (2011), we propose a critical dialogicframework operationalized through agonistic pluralism4 as a general model for AIS research and practice.This framework is outlined in the next section. In section three, we discuss constructing pluralistic systems.The final section provides brief closing remarks.

2. Critical dialog based framework

Critical dialogic framework provides a general set of guidelines useful in identifying and studyingheteroglossic accounting and related AIS possibilities. The framework provides a means for studying themechanism for democratizing the social space represented, and facilitated, by AIS. Following an extensive

1 See Brown (2009) for a more extensive treatment of critical dialogics and agonistic pluralism as they relate to accounting.2 These ideas follow directly from the work of Brown (2009), Dillard and Roslender (2011), Macintosh (2002), and Brown and

Dillard (2010).3 See Brown et al. (2005) for an example of alternative environmental AIS information requirements.4 See, inter alia, Mouffe (1993, 2000, 2005), Laclau (1966), Laclau and Mouffe (1985).

Table 1Dialogic framework.

Dialogic principle Enactment

1 Recognition and specification of multiple perspectives Engage in stakeholder analysis2 Recognizing narrowness of traditional financial reporting Determine alternative information needs

Develop a plan for gathering the informationIncorporate the information into the decision processes

3 Recognize the subjective nature of views on fairness andobjectivity

Develop procedures for monitoring and reporting on theprocesses in place indicating asymmetric powerrelationships and their impact

4 Representations, rules, and implications understandable to allparticipants

Develop a forum/process through which alternativeperspectives can be explained and/or discussions beundertaken

5 Participatory process Develop participatory process based on the agonisticpluralism and critical dialogics

6 Recognize power relationships Develop systems privileging alternative power arrangements(e.g., owners, workers, environmental community,customers, suppliers, civil society)

7 Recognize the potential for ongoing, interactive discussionsamong the effected groups, respecting the plurality ofperspectives and the asymmetrical distribution of power

Develop dialogic processes that ensure ongoing engagement,evaluation, and accountability

8 Maintain the contestability of the emerging dialog Develop and maintain multiple and competing systems

115J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

review of the critical dialogics literature, Brown (2009, esp. 314–329) specifies eight general principles thatwe present as a useful framework for research directed toward designing, implementing, and evaluatingpluralistic AISs. The principles and examples of their enactment are presented in Table 1.

The first principle requires the recognition and specification of the multiple assumptions, values, andperspectives held by those involved with, and affected by, organizational decision making.5 A variety oftechniques are needed in order to engage with, and identify the differences among, the various constituencygroups. For example, not onlywould owners,managers, and creditors be involved in designing, implementingandevaluating theAIS, sowouldworkers, suppliers, customers, interestedNGOsand related entities, aswell aslocal community and government groups. One of the primary tenets of the agonistic pluralism is that eachgroup has different values, expectations, and information needs that should be reflected in the AIS. Thisrequires the researcher and systems developer to identify not only the specific information requirementsof the groups but also their alternative moralities, needs, expectations, and values. The results should providethe theoretical and practical criteria for new and creative AIS that support these alternative positions. Forexample, the practical criteria could expand stakeholder engagements in terms of both participants andcontent.

We recognized that some consider our calls for a deeper understanding of an expanded constituencygroup unrealistic. Some might deem it infeasible to identify and engage all interested parties. However,we contend that such efforts are necessary in order to overcome the current inequities and exclusionsembedded within extant information systems research and applications. The perceived enormity of thetask should not deter our efforts. We need to be creative and innovative in areas such as applying existingand emerging communication technologies.

The second principle in a dialogic framework recognizes the narrow focus resulting from an exclusivereliance on quantitative, monetary valuation. This quantitative fixation reflects the reductionist orientationof traditional AIS. Nonmonetary, nonfinancial representations need to be identified, developed andincorporated into the information systems and might take the form of worker self accounts, accounts frommembers of civil society, local resource needs statements, and community norms and values. Criticaldialogics questions the primacy currently granted to instrumental logic and supplements it with qualitativerepresentations. The remaining six principles relate to engaging in the requisite dialog and expanding thequalitative representation set.

5 Critical dialog consciously privileges democratic forms of engagement; therefore, all interested parties are admitted into thedialog.

116 J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

The third principle recognizes the subjective and contestable nature of what has heretofore beenassumed to be equitable, just, and/or objective representations provided in traditional AIS.

The fourth principle requires that representations, decision rules, and implications be understandableto all participants. Identifying and clearly articulating group norms and values expand the context forAIS experts, scholars, and practitioners just. This requires articulating different viewpoints within andbetween expert groups. Brown (2009) points to the need for “border crossing” experts in initiating andsustaining, understanding and facilitating polyvocal dialog and debate among disparate perspectives. Suchengagements facilitate interactions within and across boundaries, with experts learning from thenon-experts and vice versa. By recognizing and understanding that technique and technology are groundedin particular values and assumptions and reflecting the interrelationships among expertise, knowledge, andpower, the representations, decision rules, and implications becomemore transparent and understandable.

Principle five ensures a participatory process where each participant has an opportunity and facilityto speak and be heard and access to the necessary information. Efficacy of the participatory process hingeson an interactive, dynamic, and ongoing dialog among the various groups as well as among the groupsand the information providers. Accountability within the critical dialogic framework relates to the efficacyof the participatory process. First, the individual participant is responsible to sustain the others and theirdifference(s), which includes their right to hold an alternative position. Second, the individual is ac-countable for defending one's position in a “noble”way6 by being held responsible for the truth, rightness,and truthfulness of the claims. Third, the individual is accountable for one's actions within the context ofprevailing moral values.

Principle six recognizes power relationships and how AIS embody, articulate, and alter power rela-tionships through the allocation of administrative resources. Constructing alternative AISs make decisionprocesses as well as the related distributional effects visible. As marginalized groups are identified andincluded, accounting techniques and practices need to be developed so the groups' needs and perspectivescan be differently and clearly anticipated. Likewise, each must have the right to participate on their ownterms with their own voice or to abstain if they so choose.

Principle seven recognizes the potential of dialogically based understanding being used pluralisticallyfor agonistic discussion, debate, and reflection. Dialogical investigation and learning construct, reinforceand modify the facilitating practices of agonistic democracy. The resulting AIS provides the context foraction that has the potential to construct, reconstruct, and modify the institutions and discourses thatfoster democratic values and institutions.

Principle eight warns against creating new forms of monologic discourse. Once new AISs have beendeveloped and implemented so as to facilitate debate, discussion, and reflection, there is a danger that anew tyranny will replace the old ones. Multiple and competing (dialogically motivated) AIS can helpmaintain the contestability of the representational technologies. Next, we consider how we might applythe critical dialogical framework in researching and developing AIS.

3. Constructing pluralistic systems

Employing principles of the critical dialogical framework in constructing pluralistic systems requiresan expansion of the traditional conception of accounting systems with regards to systems developmentand use as well as for research. Most importantly, in attempting to democratize accounting systems,polylogic techniques – techniques that accommodate dialog among multiple stakeholders – must beapplied. Accounting systems incorporate tools that assist organizations and their managers in identifyingresource needs, allocating resources across organizational programs and components, planning, evaluatingoutcomes, and rewarding performance. These systems as currently implemented are built upon amonological set of ontologies and system requirements and are designed to support managerial controlhierarchies and the pursuit of shareholder interests. Pluralistic systems provide an alternative to traditionalAIS that can support the diverse interests of a variety of constituencies such as workers, supply chainpartners, members of the community, and civil society. The focus is to include and understandablyrepresent information reflecting the broad implications of the business' activities. For example, pluralistic

6 These claims are fashioned after Habermas' (1984, 1987) principle validity claims.

117J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

AIS would include actual and anticipated economic, environment and social impacts of such things aseffluent discharges, energy consumption, worker associations, community programs, education andtraining, skill enhancement, and diversity programs. The reporting medium might vary depending on theuser and the use of the system outputs.

To adequately sustain agonistic pluralism, the AIS must provide a comprehensive starting point thatenables and supports pluralistic discussion and decision making. These systems would accommodateconflicting values, disparate worldviews, and participatory and democratic dialog providing a meansfor exploring and challenging possibilities. The political interests of participants and their subjectiveperspectives would be explicitly acknowledged. Working with constituencies both inside and outside theorganization is recognized as at least as important as the content of the resulting accounts. Alternativedecision models and evaluative mechanisms employed by these constituents reflect alternative values,ideologies, priorities, strategies, inputs, and outcomes. Therefore, the first requirement for construction of apluralistic approach is identification of interested constituencies. Traditional stakeholder mappingapproaches can provide the foundation for identifying individuals and entities that can potentially affect,or would be affected by, the actions or decisions of the organization. A pluralistic approach recognizes thatthe needs of these disparate constituents cannot be satisfactorily served by a single monolithic accountingsystem designed for producing mandatory financial reports. Consideration of the real perspectives andinterests of constituents is required.

Facilitating an articulate and forceful voice by all interested parties requires that organizationsengage constituencies in system development processes, consulting groups with different ideologicalorientations. These groups work in concert or in parallel identifying, explaining, and justifying dif-ferences and different ways of knowing that define desired system components. For example, workersmay privilege issues relating to freedom of association and redress of grievances, workplace safety,enhanced job opportunities, community involvement, and family benefit opportunities. Environmentalgroups may privilege concerns about species extinction and the effect of local actions on the largerecosystem. Community leaders may be more concerned with local human, social, and cultural capital,and organizational management might focus on financial concerns and resource appropriation. Eachgroup has a unique view of the world that leads to a unique ontology for information capture anddifferent perspectives of which phenomena are sufficiently important to render an accounting of, andwhich aspects should be accounted for. The organization can develop procedures and programs,supported by appropriate technologies and systems design experts that enable various constituencygroups to engage with the organization and each other in a manner that is sufficiently protective ofvulnerable constituencies and minority positions to enable these voices to become part of the broadconversation about information gathering, processing, and use.

Dialogically motivated AISs are necessary in incorporating the inherent tensions and interrelationshipsamong and between the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainability as well as theneed to identify and employ different epistemologies and value structures to accommodate the range ofconstituents. AIS researchers and developers can develop methods to identify and articulate represen-tational schema and decision rules that incorporate, in a meaningful and legitimate way, the varied andconflicting perspectives, values, knowledge, interactions, and conversations of the relevant constituencies.Central to the conceptualizations of critical dialogics and agonistic pluralism, the objective is not unifyingthe positions of alternative constituencies or even of members of a group, but to articulate and representdifferences as well as commonalities. “Rather than ‘over emphasizing’ individual or group perspectives,agonistic exchanges could be structured around documented typologies of competing ideological discourses”(Brown, 2009:332).

By recognizing the inherent conflicts among the constituency groups as part of AIS research and design,the possibility exists to enhance transparency by identifying and engaging in discourse and debate on themotivating value judgments, assumptions, uncertainties, and techniques involved. From the perspective ofagonistic pluralism, legitimate democratic engagement recognizes the reality and necessity of pluralities. Forexample, as the differences among the constituencies are exposed, individual(s) can more clearly articulateand understand their own positions as well as better comprehend positions taken by others. Thus, thepossibility exists for a more authentic dialog facilitating more clearly informed action. Better understandingof the inherent conflicts facilitates differentiating between primary and secondary differences in positions,which improves the quality of the dialog.

118 J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

Following Brown (2009),7 asymmetric power relationships become less dominant as individuals andgroups become more dialogically transparent about their assumptions, values, and interests. The partialityand incompleteness of allegedly universalistic positions are revealed and their dominance demystified.For example, the current practice of privileging management's claims to “objective” information in orderto expropriate resources from the local community through the exclusion of externalities reflectsinstitutionalized power relationships, enabling certain possibilities while constraining others.

The issues we are considering cannot be resolved by technological means, be they scientific oradministrative. They are political ones and must be recognized as such. The implementation of these ideasis predicated on establishing and maintaining democratic institutions that support the political tensionsand necessary debates. As alternative perspectives are presented and understood, the more likely thecurrent dominant performance criteria of maximizing market capitalization will be seen as one of manyalternative evaluation criteria. Agonistic pluralism does not imply that one's view should change, thoughthe possibility exists. What this does imply is a democratic consciousness and greater mutual respect,based on a more realistic perspective of power and its implications for decision making and resourceallocation (Brown, 2009). While the issues cannot be resolved by technologies, they can be more fullyexplored through the application of, for example, technologies that enable the anonymity that is neededfor full participation by weak constituents or that supports transparency and critique of values, interests,and beliefs.

4. Closing remarks

We propose dialogically motivated AIS as facilitators in constructing and maintaining a dialogicalcontext that provides a more complex and complete platform for judgment and decision making byincorporating the competing, and often incompatible, information needs of disparate groups. Relevantevaluative criteria can vary depending on physical location, interests, values, and worldviews. It is unlikelythat one representation can incorporate all necessary perspectives. Supporting pluralistic perspectivesallows for comparisons whereby one perspective may be judged “better” than another, but wherein noperspective can claim to be complete. “Better” is a socially constructed conceptualization and is arbitratedwithin the context of the democratic institutions and processes of agonistic pluralism. Agonistic pluralismemployed in developing heteroglossic AISs specifies the underlying ideologies, assumptions, values,worldviews, and power relationships that inform alternative positions as well as the resulting privilegesbestowed on various positions. AISs constructed using the principles of critical dialogics make moretransparent the countervailing forces operating both pulling the dialog and debate toward hegemonicconsensus as well as pushing it toward antagonistic separation. This is especially important in an area suchas AIS where powerful hegemonic forces of quantitative, economic representation currently dominate.

DialogicallymotivatedAISs facilitate pluralistic discoursewithin a context of agonistic pluralism, reflectingalternative perspectives and providing heteroglossic accountings, for example, in a communitarian way, in alabor theory of valueway, and in a way that assesses human rights implications. New, imaginative AISmovesbeyond the presumption of representing an unbiased, objective reality, giving noneconomic “events” a voicewithin the information system, and enablingmultiple descriptions, categorizations, andmeasurements of thesame set of phenomena.

Realizing the potential of critical dialogics based on agonistic pluralism in designing and implementingAISs requires thinking and acting differently. One of the major issues is identifying and collecting theneeded information. AIS researchers and systems designers need to develop effective ways to assist allconstituencies in understanding complex systems and representations. Themost significant challengemaybe to overcome the management capture of the prevailing discourse and its economic reductionism.Agonistic pluralism provides a useful theoretical frame attempting to do so.

Our primary objective has been to propose a critical dialogic framework for research directed towarddesigning, implementing, and evaluating pluralistic AISs. The next step is to move forward with such anagenda. At this preliminary stage of development, much work is needed as we begin to develop the meansand methods for implementing the proposed framework. For example, field research is needed to identify

7 Based on the work of Söderbaum (e.g., 2006, 2007).

119J. Dillard, K. Yuthas / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 113–119

the interested groups, their needs, and their values, as well as the most effective means of communicatingwith them. This would include employing traditional methodologies associatedwith systems developmentas well as anthropological and sociological based interpretative research techniques. As these attributes areidentified, the associated information requirements would need to be specified. These efforts must be asinclusive and exhaustive as possible. Another critical areas requiring future research concern developingnonmonetary, noneconomic denominated representations. As they are developed, AIS researchers need toconsider designs that incorporate thesemeasures into the information and reporting systems, for example,how might workers self accounts be collected, analyzed and incorporated into the reporting systems, andhow might the information be presented so that it can be understood by the interested groups. Muchcreative research by AIS researchers is necessary if the promise of critical dialogics and agonistic pluralismis to be achieved.

Managers, accountants, and engineers are steeped in linear, objective modernist logic and pluralist“truth” can be difficult to accept. However, a pluralistic perspective is needed in considering moresubjective evaluations of situationally contingent outcomes. Communication is central requiring all partiesto both speak in a comprehensible manner and listen in a spirit of understanding. However, there is alegitimate concernwith agonistic pluralism leading to an uncritical relativism and ultimately an inability toact. Sooner or later constituencies must act, and in doing so, they make decisions requiring a choice amongmeanings. An agonistic approach recognizes the necessity of making a decision but does not valorizeconsensus that gives an erroneous appearance of depoliticizing the act of deciding. What is valorized arethe requisite democratic institutions that support the right of each participant to articulate a position andto be heard. What is explicitly recognized is the influence of power in the choice of action.

References

Berger P, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday; 1967.Brown J. Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting 2009;20:313–42.Brown J, Dillard J. The ‘death of environmentalism’ debates: a review and some lessons for social and environmental accounting.

Working paper; 2010.BrownDJDillard,Marshall S. Incorporating natural systems as part of accounting's public interest responsibility. Journal of Information

Systems 2005;19(2):79–104.Dillard J. Responding to expanding accountability regimes by re-presenting organizational context. International Journal of Accounting

Information Systems 2008;9:21–42.Dillard J, Roslender R. Taking pluralism seriously: embedded moralities in management accounting and control systems. Critical

Perspectives on Accounting 2011;22(2):135–47.Habermas J. The theory of communicative action, vols. 1 & 2 translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press; 1984.Laclau E. Emancipation(s). London: Verso; 1966.Laclau E, Mouffe C. Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso; 1985/2001. p. 2e.Lakoff G, Johnson P. Philosophy in the flesh. NY: Basic Books; 1999.Macintosh N. Accounting, accountants and accountability: poststructuralist positions. London: Routledge; 2002.Mouffe C. The return of the political. London: Verso; 1993.Mouffe C. The democratic paradox. London: Verso; 2000.Mouffe C. On the political. London: Routledge; 2005.Söderbaum P. Democracy and sustainable development—what is the alternative to cost-benefit analysis? Integrated Environmental

Assessment and Management 2006;2(2):182–90.Söderbaum P. Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 2007;60:613–26.