The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 153 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to discussions about engagement in social and environmental accounting, drawing on dialogic theory and philosophy. A dialogic approach, building on existing critical inquiries, is introduced to derive principles to inform “on the ground” engagements. Applying dialogic thinking to social and environmental accounting encourages the development of dialogic forms of accountability, more authentic engagements and is more likely to contribute to sustainable social and environmental change. Design/methodology/approach: Contains a synthesis of literature from within and beyond social and environmental accounting to shed light on the issues addressed by the special issue. Findings: Research engagements in social and environmental accounting need not be taken in a haphazard manner uninformed by theory. In particular, the “learning turn” in social sciences has generated a large body of theorizing (informed by concrete engagement activities) that can be used to shape, guide and support engagement. Practical implications: The principles developed can be used to inform future research design, with the aim of increasing the likelihood that such engagements will yield outcomes of “value” usually defined as emancipatory changes. Originality/value: This paper develops a new (to accounting) theoretical perspective.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics
Mouffe, C., & Laclau, E. (1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,303
Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4628 · Cited by 8,835
The theory of communicative action
(2014) · The Philosophy of Habermas · doi:10.4324/9781315710495-5 · Cited by 8,634
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 6,992
Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature
McNeil, M., & Haraway, D. J. (1992) · Feminist Review · doi:10.2307/1395245 · Cited by 6,794
Participation and Democratic Theory
Pateman, C. (1970) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511720444 · Cited by 6,159
Globalization and Its Discontents
(2015) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society · doi:10.4135/9781452206905.n316 · Cited by 5,477
Metadata
- Authors
- Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2007-06-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-381
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105564577
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 153
- FWCI
- 28.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570710748544
- The paper
- Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748544
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.