Purpose

This paper explores how ethnicity is implicated in an etic–emic understanding through day-to-day practices and how such practices meet external accountability demands. Addressing the broader question of how ethnicity presents in an accounting situation, it examines the mundane level responses to those accountability demands manifesting an operationalisation of the ethnicity of the people who make those responses.

Design/methodology/approach

The study followed ethnomethodology principles whereby one of the researchers acted both as an active member and as a researcher within a Salvation Army congregation in Manchester (UK), while the others acted as post-fieldwork reflectors.

Findings

The conceivers and guardians of an accountability system relating to the Zimbabwean-Mancunian Salvationist congregation see account giving practices as they appear (etic), not as they are thought and interiorised (emic). An etic–emic misunderstanding on both sides occurs in the situation of a practice variation in a formal accountability system. This is due to the collision of one ethnic group's emics with the emics of conceivers. Such day-to-day practices are thus shaped by ethnic orientations of the participants who operationalise the meeting of accountability demands. Hence, while ethnicity is operationalised in emic terms, accounting is seen as an etic construct. Possible variations between etic requirements and emic practices can realise this operationalisation.

Research limitations/implications

The authors’ findings were based on one ethnic group's emic construction of accountability. Further research may extend this to multi-ethnic settings with multiple etic/emic combinations.

Originality/value

This study contributed to the debate on both epistemological and methodological issues in accountability. As it is ill-defined or neglected in the literature, the authors offer a working conceptualisation of ethnicity – an operating cultural unit being implicated in both accounting and accountability.

中文翻译：

---

在问责制中实施族裔：来自救世军内族裔群体的见解

目的

本文探讨了种族如何通过日常实践参与 etic-emic 理解，以及这些实践如何满足外部问责制要求。解决在会计情况下种族如何呈现的更广泛问题，它研究了对这些问责要求的世俗反应，体现了做出这些反应的人的种族的可操作性。

设计/方法/方法

该研究遵循民族方法学原则，其中一名研究人员在曼彻斯特（英国）的救世军会众中既是活跃成员又是研究员，而其他人则是实地考察后的反思者。

发现

与津巴布韦-曼昆救世主会众相关的问责制的构思者和守护者将会计实践看作是表面上的（etic），而不是它们被认为和内化的（emic）。在正式问责制度中的实践变化的情况下，双方都会产生一种主位误解。这是由于一个族群的主位与受孕者的主位发生了冲突。因此，这种日常做法是由执行问责要求会议的参与者的种族取向所塑造的。因此，虽然种族以主位术语进行操作，但会计被视为一种主位结构。etic 要求和 emic 实践之间可能的变化可以实现这种操作化。

研究限制/影响

作者的调查结果基于一个族群的责任主体构建。进一步的研究可能会将其扩展到具有多种 etic/emic 组合的多种族环境。

原创性/价值

这项研究促成了关于问责制的认识论和方法论问题的辩论。由于文献中定义不明确或被忽视，作者提供了一个关于种族的有效概念——一个涉及会计和问责制的运作文化单位。