IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/138945.html

"Making up" user voice: accounting for experiences of the vulnerable

Author

Listed:
  • Kuhlmann, Finia
  • Mennicken, Andrea
  • Miller, Peter

Abstract

Over the past two decades, policy and regulation in social and healthcare settings, as well as across public service delivery more broadly, have placed increasing emphasis on “user voice” and “user experience” in the commissioning and evaluation of services. Yet the formats and methods through which such accounts of user feedback should be produced often remain indeterminate. This paper examines the organizational processes involved in eliciting, assembling, and representing “user voice” within a large social care organization. Drawing on an ethnographic study, we investigate how the organization responds to diverse user feedback requests from external bodies, such as commissioners and regulators, as well as to internal demands for useable and appropriate accounts. Building on Hacking's concept of dynamic nominalism and his later engagement with Goffman, we analyse how user voice is “made up” through processes of tracing, framing, and connecting in the interstices between locally situated lived experiences of service users and top-down professional and regulatory discourses of care and service quality. Our analysis demonstrates the multiplicity, ambiguity and situational malleability of user voice, revealing how it both expands and escapes classification. Together, these dynamics highlight the lateral, transversal movements that occur in the interplay between top-down abstract classifications and bottom-up practices and situated concerns of the classified. The paper concludes by reflecting on both the organizational appeal and the potential dangers of demands for user voice.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuhlmann, Finia & Mennicken, Andrea & Miller, Peter, 2026. ""Making up" user voice: accounting for experiences of the vulnerable," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 138945, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:138945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/138945/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graham, Cameron, 2010. "Accounting and the construction of the retired person," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 23-46, January.
    2. Cherrie Yang & Deryl Northcott, 2019. "Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via the co-production of performance measurement," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 253-261, May.
    3. Sargiacomo, Massimo & Ianni, Luca & Everett, Jeff, 2014. "Accounting for suffering: Calculative practices in the field of disaster relief," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 652-669.
    4. Wällstedt, Niklas, 2020. "Sources of dissension: The making and breaking of the individual in Swedish aged care," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    5. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2017. "The expressive role of performance measurement systems: a field study of a mental health development project," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46364, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    7. Mohammed Mohi Uddin & Ataur Rahman Belal, 2019. "Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountability: an NGO case study," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 113-134, January.
    8. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2017. "The expressive role of performance measurement systems: A field study of a mental health development project," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 60-75.
    10. Brendan O'Dwyer & Jeffrey Unerman, 2010. "Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights of beneficiaries of development NGOs," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 451-471.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boomsma, Roel & O'Dwyer, Brendan, 2019. "Constituting the governable NGO: The correlation between conduct and counter-conduct in the evolution of funder-NGO accountability relations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-20.
    2. Kingston, Kylie L. & Furneaux, Craig & de Zwaan, Laura & Alderman, Lyn, 2023. "Avoiding the accountability ‘sham-ritual’: An agonistic approach to beneficiaries’ participation in evaluation within nonprofit organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    5. Urquía-Grande, Elena & Estébanez, Raquel Pérez & Alcaraz-Quiles, Francisco José, 2022. "Impact of Non-Profit Organizations’ Accountability: Empirical evidence from the democratic Republic of Congo," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    6. Olive, Mattia Vincenzo & Gastaldi, Luca & Appio, Francesco Paolo, 2026. "Relational coordination in medical work: The role of digital health practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    7. Franck Aggeri, 2017. "How can performativity contribute to management and organization research? Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework [Qu'est-ce que la performativité peut apporter aux recherches en management et sur les organisations ? Mise en perspective," Post-Print hal-01609172, HAL.
    8. Tripathi, Muktak & Ayabakan, Sezgin & Bardhan, Indranil & Banker, Rajiv, 2025. "Performance of risk-based models in value-based healthcare: Evidence from accountable care organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5fb16v625i8vdbgdiskfbht5i5 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Clerkin, Brendan & Quinn, Martin & Connolly, Ciaran, 2024. "Decoupled accounting in a non-profit context: An explanation for stable management accounting?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Patrick Gregori & Patrick Holzmann, 2022. "Entrepreneurial practices and the constitution of environmental value for sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3302-3317, November.
    13. Ben W. Lewis & W. Chad Carlos, 2023. "The risk of being ranked: Investor response to marginal inclusion on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 117-140, January.
    14. Susan Scott & Wanda Orlikowski, 2022. "The Digital Undertow: How the Corollary Effects of Digital Transformation Affect Industry Standards," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 311-336, March.
    15. Menon, Alka V., 2017. "Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Jean Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without Legitimacy? Online Consumer Reviews in the Restaurant Industry," Post-Print hal-03389275, HAL.
    17. Alena Coblence & Luděk Sýkora, 2022. "THE PERFORMATIVITY OF METROPOLIZATION: How Material‐Discursive Practices Institutionalize the Prague Metropolitan Region," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 502-521, July.
    18. Frey-Heger, Corinna & Barrett, Michael, 2021. "Possibilities and limits of social accountability: The consequences of visibility as recognition and exposure in refugee crises," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Saverio Dave Favaron & Giada Di Stefano, 2025. "Let Us Not Speak of Them, But Look and Pass? Organizational Responses to Online Reviews," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 651-676, March.
    20. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Vanessa M. Conzon & James C. Mellody, 2025. "Concerted Quantification: How Knowledge Workers Limit Overwork While Maintaining Client Satisfaction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 1834-1860, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:138945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.