Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting

Research ideology and researcher's role as practiced by Jan-Erik Gröjer

Ulf Johanson,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ulf Johanson, (2009) "Research ideology and researcher's role as practiced by Jan‐Erik
Gröjer", Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 13 Issue: 2, pp.82-92, https://
doi.org/10.1108/14013380910968601
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14013380910968601
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 05 February 2019, At: 14:20 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1685 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1995),"Narrative in research: the research and the researcher survey – women GPs
and stress", Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 9 Iss 6 pp. 35-49 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/02689239510101120">https://doi.org/10.1108/02689239510101120</a>
(2001),"Researchers are learners too: collaboration in research on workplace
learning", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 Iss 7/8 pp. 274-282 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13665620110411058">https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620110411058</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:471881 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1401-338X.htm

JHRCA
13,2 Research ideology
and researcher’s role
as practiced by Jan-Erik Gröjer
82
Ulf Johanson
Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to draw on the literature debating research policy, research and
the role of researchers, in discussing a single researcher’s (Jan-Erik Gröjer’s) research during the 1980s
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

and 1990s.
Design/methodology/approach – Jan-Erik Gröjer’s publications during the period are compared
with different research modes 1 and 2, communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality and
scepticism and PLACE within this polarized world, i.e. between demands from different research
ideologies universities as well as individual researchers perform their research.
Findings – This paper can be read as both a contribution to the debate about the researcher’s role and
as a tribute to a friend who was able to investigate and practise different roles: normative and critical,
theoretical and applied and provocative and humble, to name a few.
Research limitations/implications – Further case studies of single researchers could serve as a
valuable input to the discussion of different research ideologies.
Practical implications – The paper could be used in, e.g., doctoral student education when
discussing the researcher’s role but also when discussing the role of university research in general.
Originality/value – The used research modes have not before been analyzed using a single researcher
as a case. It could be useful for individual researchers as well as in discussions about management of
universities.
Keywords Human resource accounting, Intangible assets, Research work
Paper type Viewpoint

Journal of Human Resource Costing &
Accounting
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2009
pp. 82-92
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1401-338X
DOI 10.1108/14013380910968601
At the beginning of 2008, I was invited to give a seminar and reflect upon Jan-Erik Gröjers’
research during the 1980s and 1990s. This was a period when we worked together
frequently. We taught, discussed and authored books and papers. As preparation for the
seminar, I started to reread most of the published texts that he and I had produced during
that period that spanned nearly 20 years. Rereading the texts as well as remembering the
many discussions, differences of opinion and enjoyable moments we shared was
a cherishable experience. What struck me quite early was Jan-Eriks’ role as a researcher.
Thinking of how Gibbons et al. (1994) and Nowotny et al. (2001) and many others discuss
different modes of science, could the work that he undertook during the 20 years of
intensive cooperation be labelled “research”?
Writing this text and thinking of Jan-Erik brought home once again the grief of his
passing. Some weeks after his death, we (Catasus and Johanson, 2008) wrote an obituary
in Accounting, Organization & Society, stating among other things, Probably no
contemporary Swedish researcher in accounting has influenced so many people:
students, research colleagues, managers, professionals, and policymakers. Why is this
so? Because Jan-Erik addressed them all. Thousands of Swedish students in accounting
and other academic disciplines have listened to his stimulating lectures. While working
 on numerous projects, and without compromising his academic freedom, Research
he intellectually inspired managers in private and public organizations. He was not ideology and
afraid of moving between academia and practice. Hundreds of researchers from
accounting and other disciplines have also experienced his intellectual sharpness, either researcher’s role
when in discussions with him or when reading his books and papers.
When I met Jan-Erik for the first time in 1981, he had recently defended his pioneer
doctoral dissertation on social accounting (Gröjer and Stark, 1978a). His research was also 83
published in two international journals (Gröjer and Stark, 1977, 1978b). In 1981, I had
received a grant to develop a concept that later was labelled “personalekonomi”
in Swedish. Ten years later, we also used the term human resource costing and accounting
(HRCA). After only one meeting, we started to work together. We gave a number of
seminars; we also discussed and wrote a first chapter for a book (Gröjer and Johanson,
1983) on the subject. Very early on, Jan-Erik demonstrated his intellectual sharpness and
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

creativity. He did not enjoy talking as much as debating, which meant that we had many
debates about different matters, not just “personalekonomi”. He wanted to test his ideas
with other people in something like an intellectual contest.
After three months of cooperation with him in work, I remember telling some of my
close friends that either this collaboration would come to an end within three more
months or our collaboration would be life-long. It became a life-long partnership even
though we did not work as closely together during the first decade of the new millennium
as during the 1980s and 19990s. It was a great challenge to work in close collaboration
with him. We often disagreed on different points, but we would never have collaborated
for such a long period if we had not held some basic values in common with respect to
interpersonal relations. I lost my temper at Jan-Erik on numerous occasions; however,
we also had a great deal of fun. I have never learnt so much from anybody in my working
life as I learnt from him and I still clearly remember many situations when his remarks
made me angry or sad. However, reflecting back, I realize his frank statements
heightened my consciousness and encouraged a learning process. For example, at the
end of working on the manuscript of the 1984 book (Gröjer and Johanson, 1984) I was not
pleased with the manuscript; when I said that I would need some more time to work on it,
he replied, “The book is good enough! You have to learn that you will never be satisfied
with any written text of your own!” This statement said something about Jan-Erik. In one
respect, he was never satisfied. He was continually seeking new intellectual challenges.
In the text below, I will convey the messages from some of the books and, to some
extent, the papers that Jan-Erik published from 1983 to 2001. Drawing on the literature
concerned with the debates on research policy, research and the role of researchers, I will
reflect upon Jan-Erik’s research and Jan-Erik as a researcher with the hope that this can
contribute to the discussion about different research modes such as mode 1 or 2 (Gibbons
et al., 1994), communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality and scepticism
(CUDOS; Merton, 1973) or PLACE (Ziman, 2000). At least, it can be read as a tribute to
my friend the creative, provocative, curious and intellectually self-confident Jan-Erik.
The following text starts with explaining the concepts mode 1 and 2 as well as
CUDOS and PLACE. This is followed by a discussion of the role of the researcher under
the different conflicting research ideologies. The third section contains a concentrate of
some of writings performed by Jan-Erik. Finally, in the concluding section the writings
by Jan-Erik are used to analyze Jan-Erik’s research and Jan-Erik as a researcher in the
light of the different research ideologies. In the text bellow, you will find some words
 JHRCA or expressions written in italics. The italicizing in the first, second and third section will
13,2 be addressed (also italicized) in the concluding section.

The role of universities, modes 1 and 2, CUDOS and PLACE

Especially, during the last 20-year period, there has been an extensive discussion of
different research ideologies (Mårtensson et al., 2009). With respect to knowledge
84 production at universities, different authors, e.g. Gibbons et al. (1994) and more lately
Nowotny et al. (2001), argue that there is a need for a new research mode characterized
by transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, diversified, non-hierarchic, socially distributed
and practically validated knowledge production. There is a need to produce
“Knowledge which emerges from a particular context of application with its own
distinct theoretical structures, research methods and modes of practice but which may
not be locatable on the prevailing disciplinary map” (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 168). For
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

this approach, Gibbons uses the term mode 2, as opposed to mode 1, which refers to
homogenous, institutionalized and hierarchic research.
Mode 1 is defined by Gibbons as follows:
The complex of ideas, methods, values and norms that has grown up to control the diffusion
of the Newtonian model of science to more and more fields of enquiry and ensure its
compliance with what is considered sound scientific practice (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 168).
Mode 2 is a more reflexive but also a more instrumental mode of science whereby
individuals involved in knowledge production try to operate from the standpoint of all the
actors involved. In mode 2, reliability declines as compared with mode 1. Further,
the relevance of knowledge is justified by consensus among all participating actors. Social
responsibility is viewed as a requisite of this knowledge production process. Quality
control is not obtained by a peer review process but by usefulness, cost-effectiveness and
social acceptance.
While Gibbons and Nowotny suggest that we have to move in the direction of mode
2 science, other authors suggest that we are already facing and have for decades if not
centuries been facing a situation where knowledge is developed through close cooperation
between universities and other actors in the society (Mårtensson et al., 2009).
Merton (1973) and Ziman (2000) use other concepts when demonstrating their
differing opinions about scientific ideals. Ziman (2000) holds that the new post-academic
science is developed in the context of application. He uses the acronym PLACE for the
new norms that guide science, i.e. Proprietary, Local, Authoritarian, Commissioned and
Expert. This contrasts sharply with the scientific ideal suggested by Merton (1973), that
is, CUDOS. (Ziman, 2000). CUDOS is a deeply rooted academic ideology that has always
existed at universities. This ideology has served and serves as a defence from
oppression by totalitarian regimes.
Hasselberg (2007) asks; what would happen if the CUDOS-ideology ceased? She
suggests that such an eventuality would open up a possible situation where science is
trivialized based on an exaggerated culture of consensus. There is a risk of resembling
“an agreeable cocktail party”, a land of superficiality because “every letter of CUDOS is
a provocation of the social etiquette” (Hasselberg (2007), own translation from
Swedish). Originality is always unpleasant because it questions established truths and
power. Originality and scepticism also mean parricide and “Without parricide there is
no scientific development” (Hasselberg (2007), own translation from Swedish).
 Jörnesten (2008), who has analysed Swedish research policy after World War II, has Research
convincingly demonstrated an obvious change in policy from mode 1 to mode 2. Even if ideology and
governmental research policy reveals ambivalence with respect to mode 1 and mode 2,
commercialization of knowledge has been a subject of increasing interest during the researcher’s role
last 30-40 years. Discussion about the utility of science is not something new; however,
the focus on what Jörnesten calls academic capitalism has become more explicit and of
increasing intensity. Commercialization has been mentioned more often and more 85
distinctly in Swedish governmental policy texts over the past decades in contrast to the
first decades after World War II. Researchers have also become increasingly dependent
on grants, applying for them in competition with colleagues, and the commercial
potential of research findings leads to the privatization of scientific results to an
increasing degree.
Research ideology has also been discussed using a number of other concepts for
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

analytical or prescriptive reasons (Mårtensson et al., 2009). However, using the now
mentioned two couples of opposing perspectives is enough for the present purpose,
i.e. analysing Jan-Erik’s research as well as demonstrating the complexity in dividing
between the polarized concepts. In addition to mode 1 and 2, CUDOS and PLACE I will in
the next section refer to and later use some frank statements by Gustavsson (2007) and
Hasselberg (2007) because these statements successfully provoke the reader to react.

The role of researchers within the context of mode 1 and mode 2, CUDOS
and PLACE
In this polarized world, that is, within the constraints of demands from modes 1 and 2,
respectively, universities as well as individual researchers perform their research. This
polarization encourages conflicts or ambivalence or, quite often, both. The universities’
ambivalent role is not new or as Weiler (2005, p. 12) suggests, “Universities could
almost be defined by their ambivalences [. . .]” But what about the individual
researcher? By means of interviews, Jörnesten analysed the sociological ambivalence of
15 Swedish researchers with respect to role conflicts in the polarized scientific field.
How did they perform their role in the conflict between being orthodox, adherents to
mode 1, and thereby achieving high symbolic capital and being respected by the mode 1
society, on the one hand, while being practitioners of mode 2, and thereby being
appreciated by other actors in the society, or attaining high commercial capital, on the
other? Jörnesten (2008) is interested in the norms which shape the conflicts that
researchers face. He means that existent ideologies are unconsciously internalized by
the individual. Mills (1963) termed the latter manipulative power. That is to say that
a researcher as well as everyone in a society is subject to an unconscious manipulative
power that governs his or her behaviour.
Jörnesten claims that the ambivalence over roles is not a psychological issue.
Rather, the norms form the profession regardless of the individual processor.
For example, a professor is normally demanded to both attract external financial
resources and protect orthodox internal scientific principles. When applying for
external resources, there is an increasing demand to adjust the research problems to
what is marketable. This enforces the ambivalence between modes 1 and 2 roles. The
aforementioned manipulative power strongly affects the role of the researcher,
according to Jörnesten. He concludes that there is normally no autonomous and free
researcher role. The identity of the researcher is homologous and strongly influenced
 JHRCA by mode 1 or mode 2 norms. Ambivalence and conflicts between CUDOS and PLACE
13,2 characterize not only Swedish research policy after World War II but also the role of
the researcher.
Gustavsson (2007) holds that the role of the universities is to improve societal
conditions. When fascism was growing in the 1930s, there was a growing frustration in
England about the activities of universities. There was much academic knowledge about
86 the shortcomings in organizing society but this knowledge remained within the
universities. The social relations of science movement suggested that the activities of the
universities urgently needed to focus on and bridge the gap between what science does
and what science could do.
However, there is a conflict between thinking (at universities) and action (in firms and
working life) according to Gustavsson. He continues to discuss whether mode 1 is
superior to or inferior to mode 2 from a university governance point of view. Following
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

mode 1, the researchers are themselves responsible for the quality assurance whereas
business people and officials are strongly involved in asserting quality and relevance in
mode 2. However, even if it is subject to organized and blind critical review counting the
number of publications as academics have as an indicator of quality is questionable
(Rathsman, 2007). As an example, he states that George Herbert Mead did not write a
single book when he was alive, just some papers. After his death, his students edited and
published notes from his lessons.
Moving towards mode 2 is a highly risky business and is nothing to wish for
according to Gustvsson (2007). In a mode 2 situation, universities face the risk of
producing “technically incompetent barbarians” (Gustvsson (2007), own translation
from Swedish). It is very important not to leave the systematic traditions of reappraisal
and critical review. The latter legitimizes the role of the universities. However,
the researcher shall not be responsible for his research. That is too risky and could
hamper research. The roles of universities and of practice should not be confused.
Cooperation is good but confusion is bad, according to Nobel Prize Winner Arvid
Carlsson (Waluszewski, 2007).
One of the most significant features of professional groups is the existence of values
and norms for what is good or bad performance. From the governance perspective,
researchers, like other professionals, can be apprehended as being arbitrary when
performing their tasks. It is quite common that governance representatives try to
develop and implement rules and routines that circumscribe individual professional
judgment (Hasselberg, 2007). This can cause a serious deprofessionalization in the way
that researchers perform, in that they adhere to the rules and the standardized routines
instead of using their creativity and knowledge to develop new knowledge. This loss of
power over one’s own individual judgment is especially serious at universities because
the role of universities is not just to do research but also to educate teachers and other
academics who in the future will affect attitudes and norms in the society. If, for example,
the dean makes decisions regarding future research orientation, programmes and
projects, the incentive for individual researchers to carry out their research interests
might be hampered.
Hasselberg’s (2007) discussion of the risks to the individual professional’s judgment
opens up an avenue for presently addressing the epistemological ideology that shapes
the role of research, researchers and universities. Bjurström (2008) refers to
Wittgenstein when he discusses what knowledge is and how knowledge is generated.
 “Don’t think, but look”, said Wittgenstein. Bergson and James (in Bjurström) add that Research
the only way to understand a phenomenon is to place oneself at the very centre of the ideology and
phenomenon. However, Bjurström further holds that because of time and space there is
also a need for conceptual knowledge which could be used under different researcher’s role
circumstances. Bjurström concludes that in any case, a virtuous task for science is to be
conscious about the theories that form scientists’ perceptions as researchers.
What formed Jan-Erik as a researcher? This will be addressed in the concluding 87
section. Before that some of Jan-Erik’s writings will be described.

The content of some of the writings

During the period 1983-2001 Jan-Erik was the author or co-author of fifteen published
texts, i.e. books, book chapters or papers. I am not including reports that he wrote as
a contracted writer. I have a special interest in the texts about HRCA and intangibles,
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

respectively. There are nine texts about HRCA and three addressing intangibles. It is
primarily but not completely in relation to these books and papers that the questions
about Jan-Erik’s research and Jan-Erik as a researcher become most interesting in light
of the discussions about mode 1 versus mode 2 or CUDOS versus PLACE. The content
of each text is not described in detail. Rather the focus of the description is on the main
content of all the texts.
The aim of some of the books (Gröjer and Johanson, 1983, 1984) is to provide HRM
people and others with a language that could be used to facilitate and improve economic
behaviour or financial performance, taking humanity into account. To accomplish this,
different tools and especially the use of these tools with regard to human resource issues
or practices are demonstrated (Gröjer and Johanson, 1984, 1991, 1996, 1999; Gröjer, 1990,
1993, 1997). Traditional costing, as well as investment analyses applied to stories that
had been told to us from practitioners, is frequently used. The models that are suggested
are not at all new but they were applied to issues that we as well as many practitioners in
Sweden at that time found to be new, e.g. recruitment, competence development, health
promotion, organizational change and so forth.
A rational model for performing calculations was also offered (Gröjer and Johanson,
1984, 1991). Not even this model was a new invention. It was just a slightly adjusted
rational decision model applied to the human resource area. What was new, however, at
least when the texts were published, was the bridging of the gap between social and
humanistic matters on one side and economic thinking and tools on the other. The books
(Gröjer and Johanson, 1983, 1984, 1991, 1996) also comprise ideas and theories about the
business context in which the whole package of theories (e.g. regarding management
control, behavioural accounting and human resource valuation), calculus tools
(e.g. a rational calculation model, human resource costing models, human resource
investment analysis models and human resource key indicators) that could and ought to
be practised, and in the latest books (Gröjer and Johanson, 1991, 1996, 1999) accounting
applications (i.e. a human resource profit and loss account as well as a human resource
balance sheet).
The book, which was published in 1991 (Gröjer and Johanson, 1991), was translated
into English and served as a kind of summary of most of the earlier books and book
chapters. The first two chapters named “The management of human enterprises” and
“From the theory of human capital to HRCA”, respectively, comprise a basic theoretical
background, definitions of different concepts and a brief reference to the historical
 JHRCA development of HRCA. The book ends with a request for the development of a new
13,2 corporate theory:
[. . .] a theory about management of the human-resource-intensive-company. It is a long way
before the goal may be reached unless the journey is to be considered as a goal in itself
(Gröjer and Johanson, 1991, p. 109).

88 The books are good examples of a mode 2 approach. The content of the books is based on
a normative idea, that is, if practitioners and others are offered and succeed in applying
the knowledge that is articulated in the book, both firms and their employees will benefit.
The latter is to say that working life would be improved and firms would become more
profitable. In the process of writing the books we subjected all ideas to testing, although
not rigorously, with hundreds or rather thousands of practitioners and students. This,
again, is an example of the mode 2 approach.
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

In Gröjer (1990, 1993, 1997) as well as Gröjer and Johanson (1991), Jan-Erik
demonstrates his intellectual curiosity by suggesting models for treating employees in
the profit and loss account and in the balance sheet, respectively. The latter is a more
provocative suggestion in comparison with the former. The former, that is, the profit and
loss account treatment engendered a tremendous amount of interest from firms as well
as politicians. Hence, the government suggested in 1991 a change in accounting
legislation with a view to increasing the transparency of different employee costs.
HRM people, controllers, company doctors, politicians, labour union representatives
and managers, all demonstrated a remarkable interest in HRCA from 1984 when the first
book on the subject was published. In the middle of the 1990s, the interest declined.
We were also to some extent tired of travelling around Sweden giving speeches about the
concept and its applications. We had both transferred our interest towards intangibles in
common (not just human resources) and non-financial approaches (not just the financial
approach of HRCA).
After his dissertation in 1978, Jan-Erik had published nothing in international scientific
journals. This caused him some pain because when he applied for a position as professor
he was found by the reviewers not to have fulfilled the traditional (mode 1) publication
criteria. According to one of the reviewers, his publications were superficial consultancy
products and did not contain any contribution to research. The latter raises the question of
whether Jan-Erik performed research with respect to HRCA during the 1980s and 1990s.
At the middle of the 1990s, we started to discuss international engagements. One of our
ideas was to start the international scientific journal, Journal of Human Resource Costing
and Accounting. Jan-Erik was the one who brought up the idea and I was the first editor.
The first issue was published in 1996. At the same time, we wrote the first peer-reviewed
(and also prize awarded) paper (Gröjer and Johanson, 1998), which had as its title, “Current
development in HRCA: Reality present, researchers absent”. In the paper, we hold that
HRCA is a complex and poorly understood process of accounting change. The behavioural
impact of HRCA, the many diverging internal forces in an organization, the increasing
need for information from the capital market and action from organizations, such as the
OECD and European Commission, are all part of this accounting change process. With
Sweden as a starting point, forces stimulating and inhibiting the development of HRCA
were discussed in the paper. Our main conclusion was that the actual state of things
(reality) provides more research opportunities today than in the 1970s when human
resource accounting was a big issue. But where are the researchers?
 About the same time we started the HRCA journal and published the paper in Research
Accounting, Organization & Society, we started many other activities, e.g. we initiated ideology and
what later became known as the Meritum-project and we got funding for organizing
a couple of seminars to be held in Brussels around the topics of HRCA and intangibles, researcher’s role
respectively. The discussions from these two seminars were published through
different channels, for example, as two reports (Gröjer and Johanson, 2001a, b) with the
titles “HRCA – time for reporting regulation?” and “Voluntary guidelines on the 89
disclosure of intangibles: A bridge over troubled water?” In the first paper, we state
that HRCA, according to the discussions at the seminars, is still a vague concept with
many alternative concepts (e.g. human capital accounting, human worth accounting
etc). In addition, HRCA is still too instrumental; a theory of a contextual application is
still missing. The paper concludes with suggestions for both a research (e.g. conceptual
development, analysis of human resources and firm performance, analysis of the
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

interest in HRCA information from capital market actors) and a policy agenda
(e.g. voluntary reporting of indicators).
The latter report (Gröjer and Johanson, 2001b) discusses possible detrimental effects
from the lack of reporting intangibles. It also concludes with suggestions for further
research (e.g. research on harm, conceptual development, auditing, and the importance
of intangibles for firm performance) as well as policy actions. The seminars were held in
1998 and 1999, respectively. At that time, the Meritum-project (abbreviation for
Measuring Intangibles to Understand and Improve Innovation Management) was
launched. Meritum was an extensive research project involving about 50 researchers at
10 universities in 6 European countries (MERITUM, 2002). The project followed four
different tracks. These were classification of intangibles, management control of
intangibles, capital markets and intangibles and guidelines for managing and reporting
intangibles. More than 100 papers were published as part of the project. One of these
papers was “Intangibles and accounting classification: In search of a classification
strategy” (Gröjer, 2001). In this paper, Jan-Erik struggles to find an appropriate
classification or as he suggests in the headline, a classification strategy. I well remember
how he struggled with this paper. He wrote many versions of it before he was sufficiently
satisfied to send it to Accounting, Organization & Society.
In the paper, he starts by discussing why there is a need for classification of
intangibles. Among other reasons, he holds that classification is a way of creating order
and reducing the complex world in order to make it more understandable. There are also
technological and programmatic reasons for classification. In the next session, he
discusses the nature of classification. He holds that we classify as soon as we describe
something and to classify is ascribing an attribute to something. A good classification is
simple, consistent and exhaustive with exclusive classes. Jan-Erik discusses whether it
is possible to find a good classification of intangibles. He concludes by stating that
usefulness is probably the best criterion for classification of intangibles. A useful
classification of intangibles is a good classification regardless of whether it is exhaustive
or exclusive.

Conclusion: Jan-Erik as a researcher

In the conclusion, I compare my impressions from the written texts with the discussion
of research ideology. Words or expressions written in italics refer to similarities in the
earlier sections of the present paper.
 JHRCA Jan-Erik chose his own way. He was very clear about his role. In the second text,
13,2 we wrote together (Gröjer and Johanson, 1984), he states that his intention is to develop
accounting as a strategic and practical tool. By striving for practical experience he tried
to place himself at the very centre of a phenomenon (Bjurström, 2008) and labelled his
research applied research. His work during the 20-year period of our collaboration was,
for the first 15 years at least, focused almost completely on the context of application,
90 that is, a mode 2 (Gibbons et al., 1994) or PLACE (Ziman, 2000) perspective. Even in the
last paper mentioned above, the one pertaining to classification, Jan-Erik returns at the
end to a pragmatic approach, that is, usefulness is the best criterion for a classification
of intangibles. When one looked at his written production and listened to Jan-Erik,
it was quite clear that he was occupied with bridging the gap between what science
does and what science could do (Gustavsson, 2007).
However, as a researcher Jan-Erik never participated in “agreeable cocktail parties”
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

(Hasselberg, 2007). He disliked agreeable cocktail parties but liked to go to other parties,
whether these were organized as seminars, lessons or even cocktail parties (!) at which he
frequently could put forward creative and provocative ideas. People were upset and
angry but this did not prevent him discussing his ideas. By using his originality and
frankness, he committed many parricides (Hasselberg, 2007) at the parties or seminars.
Why did he fight for his ideas? Why did not he just relax? Because this was a way of
understanding and testing in order to reinforce or to reject different ideas. Was this
research? I would reply in the affirmative. Talking about random issues17 did not
interest him. It was always much more important to understand and to think.
The aim of circumscribing18 the researchers’ individual professional judgment
(Hasselberg, 2007) could not really hurt Jan-Erik. His intellectual capacity and creativity
were too strong. But, of course, the manipulative power (Mills, 1963) also affected him.
We are all victims of this kind of cultural power however, I would argue that Jan-Erik was
more independent than most researchers were. He had just one international publication
for 20 years. His first international paper after the dissertation was the one in AAAJ 1998
(Gröjer and Johanson, 1998). In spite of this, he had already achieved a high symbolic
capital (Jörnesten, 2008) among colleagues in the 1980s, at least among those who knew
him. He did not follow some of the accepted rules of research literatures. Hence, there are
hardly any references in his books from the 1980s and 1990s. Does this mean that the
texts were not part of a research process? Jan-Erik did not copy ideas from others. He was
very critical of whatever he heard or read. He critically reviewed (Gustavsson, 2007)
theories as well as practical phenomena. That is to say, that his written texts and his
behaviour were at least, to some extent, closely related to CUDOS and mode 1.
He was highly ambitious and was looking for a new corporate theory (Gröjer and
Johanson, 1991). All the written texts as well as discussions and debates were part of a
journey that could be considered as a goal in itself. Understanding and learning about
society were more important than the results. He held that accounting is about
understanding society (Gröjer, 1983). In the latter book, about accounting theory,
he starts by stating that the book is about a discussion between a person and a firm.
The task is to describe accounting in such a manner that people understand it and
have20 the capacity to act (Gröjer and Johanson, 1991).
Was Jan-Erik a typical representative of mode 1 or 2, CUDOS or PLACE? I would
suggest he would not fit into any of those categories. In addition, I question if any
serious researcher fits into either category. Is not research about what Jan-Erik held
 it to be: a journey to understand? Did he participate in the scientific community when Research
he wrote the texts I have referred to above? Yes, if research concerns understanding. ideology and
He was indeed performing research. But for Jan-Erik, the academic ivory tower
criticized in Nowotny et al. (2001) made no sense (Catasus and Johanson, 2008), even if researcher’s role
he defended and to a large extent practised the systematic critical thinking intrinsic
to it. He was able to investigate and to practise different roles such as normative and
critical, theoretical and applied, provocative and humble. Thank you, Jan-Erik, for 91
demonstrating the researchers’ position in relation to modes 1 and 2, and CUDOS and
PLACE!

References
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

Bjurström, E. (2008), Om den idemässiga kontexten kring krigets roll och ledningens epistemologi,
Uppsats FOI.
Catasús, B. and Johanson, U. (2008), “Jan-Erik Gröjer: an appreciation”, Accounting, Organization
and Society, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 677-9.
Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H. and Schwartzmann, S. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge,
Sage, London.
Gröjer, J.E. (1983), Grundläggande redovisningsteori (Basic Accounting Theory),
Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Gröjer, J.E. (1990), Det personalekonomiska bokslutet (The Human Resource Statement),
LaboraPress, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. (1993), Redovisa anställda på balansräkningen (Account for the Employees at the
Balance Sheet), LaboraPress, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. (1997), “Employee artefacts on the balance sheet: a model illustration and
implications”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Gröjer, J.E. (2001), “Intangibles and accounting classifications-in search of a classification
strategy”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 695-713.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1983) in Mabon, H. (Ed.), Personalekonomi (Human Resource
Costing and Accounting), Personal Administration, Norstedts, Stockholm, Chapter 4.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1984), Resultatorienterad PA. (Efficient Human Resource
Management), Liber, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1991), Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Joint Industrial
Safety Council, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1996), Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 2nd revised ed.,
Joint Industrial Safety Council, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1998), “Current development in human resource costing and
accounting: reality present – researchers absent?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 495-506.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (1999), “Att redovisa and styra intellektuellt kapital”, Kap 8
i Controllerhandboken (To Account for and Control Intellectual Capital), Chapter 8,
The Comptroller Handbook, 6th ed., Sveriges Verkstadsindustrier, Stockholm.
Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (2001a), “Voluntary guidelines on the disclosure of intangibles:
a bridge over troubled water?”, Arbetslivsinstitutet: Work Life 2000. Scientific Reports
From the Workshops. A European Presidency Conference January 2001, pp. 127-37.
 JHRCA Gröjer, J.E. and Johanson, U. (2001b), “Human resource costing and accounting – time for
reporting regulation?”, Arbetslivsinstitutet: Work Life 2000. Scientific Reports from the
13,2 Workshops. A European Presidency Conference January 2001, pp. 117-26.
Gröjer, J.E. and Stark, A. (1977), “Social accounting: a Swedish attempt”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 349-85.
Gröjer, J.E. and Stark, A. (1978a), “Contabilidad social: Una tentativa sueca”, Revista internacional
92 de economı́a y empresa, Vol. 25, Enero-Abril, pp. 21-32.
Gröjer, J.E. and Stark, A. (1978b), Social Redovisning: Social Accounting, SNS, Stockholm.
Gustavsson, S. (2007), “Oss modernister emellan”, in Rider, S. and Jörnesten, A. (Eds),
Om vetenskapens avakademisering (Reclaim the Science), Gidlunds förlag, Stockholm,
pp. 205-23.
Hasselberg, Y. (2007), in Red Rider, S. and Jörnesten, A. (Eds), Ytlandet i Reclaim the science.
Om vetenskapens avakademisering, Gidlunds förlag, Stockholm, pp. 99-109.
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:20 05 February 2019 (PT)

Jörnesten, A. (2008), Forskningens nytta. Om ambivalens i forskningspolitik och vardag,

Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.
Mårtensson, M., Holmgren, M., Almqvist, R., Johanson, U. and Wennhall, J. (2009), Work
in Progress, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna.
MERITUM (2002), Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles, Fundación Aritel
Móvil, Spanien.
Merton, R. (1973), “The normative structure of science”, in Storer, N. (Ed.), The Sociology
of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL, pp. 267-78.
Mills, C.W. (1963), “The social role of the intellectual”, in Horowitz, I. (Ed.), Power, Politics, and
People. The Collected Essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public
in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Rathsman, K. (2007), “Att mäta kvalitet eller Hur skulle det gått för Mead i dagens svenska
universitet”, in Red Rider, S. and Jörnesten, A. (Eds), Reclaim the science. Om vetenskapens
avakademisering, Gidlunds förlag, Stockholm, pp. 25-36.
Waluszewski, A. (2007), “I skuggan av ett mått”, in Rider, S. and Jörnesten, A. (Eds), Kap 9 i Om
vetenskapens avakademisering (Reclaim the Science), Gidlunds förlag, Stockholm,
pp. 205-23.
Weiler, H. (2005), “Ambivalence and the politics of knowledge: the struggle for change in German
higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 49 Nos 1-2, pp. 177-95.
Ziman, J. (2000), Real Science. What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Corresponding author
Ulf Johanson can be contacted at: ulf.johanson@mdh.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints