Gold-collarism in the Academy: the dilemma in transforming bean-counters into knowledge consultants

Abstract

Kelley (1985) coins the term "gold-collar" to signify the end of knowledge workers' struggle for control over the labour process. He argues that their ability to turn knowledge into profits make them crucial for the survival of the firm in the Information Age. Kelley's win–win outcome (making the world a better place) is dependent on the formulation of new rules of engagement and accountability to harness gold-collar knowledge and creativity. By definition, gold-collarism includes accountants and it draws attention to the "ethics versus profits" dilemma the profession is embroiled in. The (gold-collared) profession appears to have abandoned its public interest role for a more lucrative one of consulting-partner to the business community despite its presumed impartiality in transforming management's rules of engagement (with multiple stakeholders). Further, its pronouncements on future directions seek to commodify accounting education to produce compliant hegemonic technicians. It should instead seek to formulate ethical accountability by enabling a healthy struggle over ideologies. This paper applies Gramsci's (1971, 1995) dialectic of formative-instructive education to argue that it is an opportune moment for critical accounting to raise awareness of the politics behind these rules of engagement - as a precursor to innovating sustainable business practices for the 21st century.