social accounting from a social movement theory perspective
DESCRIPTION
Dr Colin Dey, University of Stirling. Presentation for the 2010 CSEAR UK Conference, St Andrews.TRANSCRIPT
Social accounting from a social movement theory perspective
Dr Colin DeyUniversity of Stirling
Are we really part of a movement...?
If so… do we agree on our aims?
Dissecting the social accounting movement
“Accounting theorists tend to go no further than producing critiques of corporate practice... as interventions either to be published in academic journals or submitted to policy-related inquiries. The modern anti-corporate movement has chosen, in contrast, a distinctly different mode of engagement. Their critical interventions are maintained through the participation of various communities of activists: investigative journalists and columnists, writers and broadcasters, documentary filmmakers, humanitarian pressure groups, independent corporate watchdogs, and local resistance movements.”
Coulson and Shenkin, 2007
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative
Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it and polarize it
Other well-established activist rules include:Be oppositionalCommunicate valuesTarget the undecided
Convergence of communications techniques between activists and dominant institutions
Increasing emphasis on behavioural change at the individual level rather than problematising systemic concerns
Academic concepts of external social accounting
Political intent Implicit Explicit
Discursive approach
Dialectical? As a single account
Dey (2007) Harte & OwenShaoul Gallhofer & HaslamCooper
Dialogical? As multiple accounts
Gray Adams
Georgakopoulos & ThomsonDey et al. (2010)
Social movement theory
Resource mobilisationPolitical process/opportunityFrame analysis
Frame analysis in social movement theory
Framing as a basis for mobilising collective action: beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of social movement organisations
Research has focused on identifying and analysing the various frames used by campaign organisations
Framing as ‘conceptual scaffolding’
“To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation”
Entman, 1993
Framing resource use… 1950’s style
Framing the same issue today...?
CORE FRAMING TASKS
1. DIAGNOSTIC FRAMING2. PROGNOSTIC FRAMING3. MOTIVATIONAL FRAMING
FRAMING DYNAMICS
AMPLIFICATIONBRIDGING
FRAMING CONTESTS AND COUNTERFRAMING
EXTENSION
TRANSFORMATION
SUCCESSFUL FRAMING: LINKED TO THE
NOTION OF RESONANCE
Framing contests: Climate change Progressive Weak Political right
Framing Strategies
Agitate/shame/ pressurize via media, regulators, investors and consumers
Capture of reform agenda and debate via variety of routes inc news and broadcast media
Counter-framing -undermining credibility of climate change evidence, conspiracy theories. Also astroturfing,
Articulation and Amplification
Appeals to common good, worst-case scenarios, risk predictions, overwhelming evidence base
Win-win scenarios, risk and reputation management,
Attacks on weak and biased and elitist science; think tank reports from neo-liberal perspective
Bridging Wider social movements, consumer reform, investor reform,
Cost efficiency, risk management, inves
Nanny-state, inefficient public sector, public distrust of science and the state
Extension Social justice, reform, wellbeing
Accountancy, PR Neo-liberalism
Transformation Resilience, zero-growth economy, progressive culture and lifestyles
Sustainable economic growth; Competitive strategy
Threats and conspiracies against western economic growth
Resonance: Objective relevance
Expert science but this is under attack May not translate into real personal or institutional change
Supported by ‘real-life’ cases of win-win examples, testimonies of influential figures and institutions
Weak but being pushed by media-driven counter-expert ‘science’
Resonance: Narrative fidelity
May require greater imagination or pre-existing liberal ‘values’
Reformist, popularist, focus on role of the individual
Appeals to limited personal experience or existing personal prejudices
Framing contests: Health inequality
Emergence of health inequality mirrors that of climate change
Initial coverage driven by expert science and popular risk predictions
Apparent political consensus emerges but conceals major schisms and tensions
Recent descent into all-out framing contest driven by political right
What is the role of social accounting in framing contests?
Towards a typology of shadow accounts as framing processes
Where/how is shadow accounting used?
In what circumstances is it successful?
Classify tactical approaches used:
Reformist or radical:
Symbolic or material damage
Mass participation or elite participation
Proactive companies vs laggard companies
Symbolic damage or gain
Towards a democratic and emancipatory social accounting…?