Categorías de análisis

Goffman (1974) introduced framing to enhance understandings of social interactions. Goffman (1974) argues that when a person enters an arena in front of others, that person projects the impending situation and reacts with his or her accumulated knowledge about the people in front of him or her (Goffman 1959, p. 241). Accordingly, that person creates a frame about other people for interactions with them. Therefore, framing is an extension of the principles of actors, audience and region. Goffman (1974, p. 21) highlights that primary

frameworks are a system of entities, postulates and rules of social interactions of actors or agents. Goffman (1974, p. 22) classifies primary frameworks into natural and social frameworks. Goffman (1974, p.21) argues that any meaningless aspect of a social or natural event can be framed as a meaningful interaction of natural or social events. An example of a natural framework is a weather report, and an example of a social framework is the interactions between humans or organisational actors. As such, this study focuses on the social frameworks of actors and organisations. Framing provides the space within a boundary for actors and their audience to interact to achieve their objectives. It disentangles many complications and relationships maintained by the actors and structures in order to create a well-defined negotiation or interaction stage.

Callon (1998, 1999) adopted Goffman’s (1974) notion of framing to study economic markets, combining framing with the economic concept of externalities. In this way, Callon developed the dual notion of framing and overflowing. Framing provides a secure space for actors to perform their interactions and transactions. Framing interactions have human actors, non-human actors, and structures or devices. Framing allows the actors to define and separate their objectives, tasks, and the goods and services with which they are associated. Callon (1998) highlights that there exist calculative agents functioning in economic markets. These calculative agents are buyers, sellers, goods and services, and other various actors. In order to operate these economic markets, calculative agents develop frameworks or contracts:

Framing is an operation used to define individual agents which are clearly distinct and dissociated from one another. It also allows for the definition of objects, goods and merchandise which are perfectly identifiable and can be separated not only from other goods, but also from other actors involved, for example in their conception, production, circulation or use. It is owing to this framing that the markets can exist, that is to say that distinct agents and distinct goods can be brought into play since all these entities are independent, unrelated and unattached to one another (Callon 1999, p. 188).

The above statement highlights that the individuals, goods and structures within the framed space are distinctly identifiable, and this demarcation of actors and structures is identified as disentanglement. Disentanglement implies that there are entanglements of actors and their goods and services in their normal day-to-day activities due to the social interactions.

Therefore, Callon (1998, 1999) argues that framing provides clear and well-defined interaction pathways.

The frames fabricated by actors are not perfect and cannot contain the unintended consequences arising from power struggles between actors and the influences emanating from the economic, social and political environment. Frames can thus overflow due to inherent limitations within them or developments in the surrounding environment. Economists identify these overflows as externalities. In turn, the power struggles between the actors can generate overflows and reshape the relationship between the actors. These overflows and restructured relationships need to be subsequently reframed. These overflows can have negative or positive consequences for the economic, social and political environment. Overflows that spill out from the frames developed by actors may be normal or abnormal and, as highlighted by Callon (1998, p. 252), cannot be framed completely because of changing circumstances in the economic, social and political environment. If framing provides the order for social interactions, overflowing produces the disorder of social interactions in individuals and organisations. Callon (1998) provides two categories of framing scenarios:

1. framing is the norm, while overflows are leaks (Callon 1998, p. 250)

2. overflows are the norm, while framing is expensive and always imperfect (Callon 1998, p. 252).

Callon (1998, p. 261) also recognises that the overflows relevant to economic markets fall into two categories: hot and cold. If the overflows are hot, it is difficult to measure and frame their effect because hot overflows create many entanglements and much public debate. It is complex to identify the actors and sources and describe the overflowing process with accurate estimates. If the overflows are cold, their effect can be measured, their possible world status can be identified, and their sources and actors can be identified with some reliability; thus, framing devices can be developed (Callon 1998, p. 261).

If actors, structures and their relationships can be measured with accuracy, then framing is the norm, and overflows are leaks that can be contained by subsequent framing. Overflows

are the norm in situations where the actors, structures and their relationships cannot be measured with accuracy, and framing is an expensive, long-term and complex process (Callon 1998, p. 252). Some overflows can be both the norm and hot. For example, mad cow disease and its effect on the economic, social and political environment was identified as a situation of overflow, which is both a norm and hot, because it is a complex process of framing, with many actors and immeasurable relationships (Callon 1999, p. 261). This study does not predict either overflows or framing as a norm in order to analyse the development of auditability for the VFM audit practice. I argue that VFM audit practice requirements and standards can be enshrined within the audit methodologies, but occasionally need to be upgraded to accommodate the expansion of professional practice and audit environment requirements.

Framing and overflowing work within an observable space that needs to extend to communicate with the outside world. For that reason, this study draws on the concept of inscriptions (Callon 1986, 1998, 1999; Robson 1992). The inscriptions provide the discursive and communication paths of the stakeholders in VFM audit practice. There is an inherent limitation to framing because it assumes that the relationships of actors take place within a demarcated boundary. However, this limitation of organisational boundaries in framing can be overcome by using the inscriptions that can move between the actors and stakeholders (the Auditor-General’s Office and audit environment).

In summary, this study examines the back-of-house (backstage) practices of an Auditor- General’s Office—namely, the development of VFM audit methodologies and strategic planning processes—using the dual notion of framing and overflowing, supplemented with the concepts of actors and inscriptions. This approach is effective in examining the imperfect nature of the technologies and their re-emergence within the social and political environment (Whittle & Mueller 2010, p. 630). These back-of-house activities have connections with the front-of-house practices of an Auditor-General’s Office. This study argues that audit methodologies and strategic planning documents can work as scripts and inscriptions, and support the growth of the VFM audit practice. For example, auditors, with the support of audit methodologies, produce VFM audit reports for the Parliament, auditee

organisations and general public. This study thus focuses on both human actors and inscriptions that move between the actors and organisations relevant to the development of VFM audit practice, establishing a research argument that the back-of-house activities of developing audit methodologies and strategic planning in an Auditor-General’s Office are central to the development of VFM audit practice.

3.4 Theorising the Development and Operationalisation of VFM Audit