Professor Robson, your latest paper looks at how the language of merit is slowing down attempts by regulatory bodies to improve diversity, among other things. What exactly is language of merit?
Well, the language of merit speaks to longstanding ideas about meritocracy and people getting what they deserve, where they are on merit. The problem with the notion of merit is how meanings come to be embedded in organizations, and that's what this paper is trying to address.
What do you mean by meanings becoming embedded in organizations?
ROBSON: Organizations often adopt the language of meritocracy as a way to signal fairness and objectivity. They say, “We hire and promote based on talent and hard work.” But in practice, what counts as “merit” is heavily influenced by cultural and social factors. These factors are rarely acknowledged but play a significant role in determining who succeeds.
In practice, what counts as “merit” is heavily influenced by cultural and social factors.
Can you give an example of these cultural and social factors?
ROBSON: I think cultural fit is really a way in which we talk about certain attributes that sound as though they might be technical. But they take on a more social or socialized notion of fit in an organization. In a UK environment, the obvious one is often social class. Professional firms in the fields of law, architecture, or accountancy have been stratified historically by social class. And class is one of the attributes that you see signaled in the way people hold themselves, the way they speak, the way they dress, their body language. And this becomes related to notions of people having merit.
So quite often the notion of merit is defined in practice by elites looking at themselves as elites.
That’s fascinating, but it also sounds deeply entrenched. How does this affect diversity efforts?
ROBSON: It creates a vicious cycle. When organizations value attributes like “cultural fit,” they’re essentially rewarding people who resemble those already in power. This makes it harder for individuals from diverse backgrounds to break through, even when they meet or exceed technical criteria. Diversity efforts often fail because they don’t address these underlying biases.
When organizations value merit, they’re essentially rewarding people who resemble those already in power.
Are there other examples beyond social class?
ROBSON: Certainly. Gender is another area where the language of merit can mask exclusion. For example, in some firms, work allocation processes subtly favor male employees for high-profile assignments. These assignments often serve as steppingstones for promotion. Women, on the other hand, might be given less prestigious tasks, which affects their career trajectory. This isn’t necessarily intentional, but it’s a direct result of how merit is understood and rewarded.
What solutions do you propose for addressing these entrenched biases?
ROBSON: To disrupt this cycle, firms must critically reflect on their practices. One approach is rethinking evaluation metrics to value diverse contributions. Mentorship and broader work allocation can also counteract favoritism. For example, ensuring that all employees have equal access to high-profile projects can make a significant difference. But change is slow because the language of merit is deeply embedded in professional cultures.
Mentorship and broader work allocation can counteract favoritism, and implementing policies can counteract bias.
How can organizations start to challenge these norms?
ROBSON: It begins with awareness. Leaders need to recognize that merit isn’t an objective concept; it’s shaped by social and cultural contexts. From there, they can implement policies to counteract bias. For instance, blind evaluations can reduce the influence of subjective factors like accent or appearance. Training programs can also help employees understand and mitigate their unconscious biases.
You’ve studied these issues extensively. Are you optimistic about the future?
ROBSON: I’m cautiously optimistic. There’s growing awareness of the need for diversity, and some organizations are making genuine efforts to change. But the language of merit is so deeply ingrained that it will take time to dismantle. Progress is possible, but it requires sustained effort and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
Professor Daniel Martinez, your editorial, "Language was always a companion of the empire," explores the role of English as a dominant language in academia. Why is language so significant in research?
MARTINEZ: Language isn’t just a neutral tool; it’s deeply intertwined with power. English has become a gatekeeper in academia, marginalizing non-native speakers, especially those lacking the networks and financial resources, and reinforcing hierarchies. Researchers from regions like Latin America face not just linguistic challenges but economic and cultural barriers when publishing in English. This perpetuates inequity, as scholars are forced to adopt a “new academic identity,” often at the cost of their native contexts.
What do you mean by a “new academic identity”?
MARTINEZ: When you’re writing in your native language, there’s a level of confidence, fluency, and cultural resonance that’s hard to replicate in a foreign language like English. But when forced to write in English, scholars have to navigate unfamiliar linguistic and cultural norms. It changes how they express themselves and, ultimately, how they are perceived. They’re often judged not on the originality of their ideas but on their ability to conform to these external standards, which can be alienating.
When forced to write in English, non-native scholars have to navigate unfamiliar linguistic and cultural norms.
You argue that English dominance affects not only individual researchers but also local research efforts. Can you explain this impact?
MARTINEZ: When researchers aim to publish in top English-language journals, they often have to prioritize topics or debates happening in North America or Europe. This distorts the focus of research, sidelining critical local issues. For example, a study rooted in South American contexts may be dismissed for lacking “global relevance,” which often means relevance to English-speaking economies, societal issues, or accounting debates. This is a problem of both language and geography. It’s frustrating to see important local problems neglected because they don’t fit the expectations of these so-called global platforms.
Do you have any specific examples of this happening?
MARTINEZ: Absolutely. I’ve seen instances where scholars from regions such as Asia, Africa or Latin America submitted research that drew on data from their own jurisdictions. Reviewers may subject it to greater scrutiny, questioning its relevance through the vocabulary of generalizability—particularly if the setting appears quite distant from that of the reviewers or the journal's editors. The irony is that the same studies might be revealing something quite intriguing in their contexts, offering insights that could inform global understanding, yet they are marginalized because they don’t align with the dominant paradigm.
They are marginalized because they don’t align with the dominant paradigm.
What can be done to combat this inequity in academic publishing?
MARTINEZ: Initiatives like multilingual publishing are crucial. For instance, Critical Perspectives on Accounting now accepts submissions in French and Spanish. The submission and review process is conducted in the authors’ language, with translation to English occurring only after the article is accepted. Both language versions are then made available. While the system is not perfect, it represents an important milestone in academic publishing within an international journal. This allows authors to write in their native language while still reaching an international audience. It’s a small but important step in challenging the English monopoly and amplifying underrepresented voices.
That sounds promising, but are there challenges with implementing such initiatives?
MARTINEZ: There are significant challenges. Translating articles is expensive and time-consuming. For many authors, especially from under-resourced institutions, covering translation costs is a huge barrier. Additionally, there’s still a perception that English-language journals are inherently superior, which discourages authors from embracing multilingual options. Journals also need to cultivate a network of reviewers who are both connected to diverse linguistic communities and attuned to the journal's standards of quality.
You’ve mentioned costs and perceptions. Are there deeper structural issues at play?
MARTINEZ: Yes. A large and influential part of this academic ecosystem is built around Anglophone norms. University rankings, citation metrics, and even grant funding are often tied to publications in English-language journals. This reinforces the cycle, making it harder for multilingual efforts to gain traction. To truly address the problem, we need systemic change—academia must recognize and value research in all languages, not just English.
Academic references:
Husillos, J., C. Larrinaga, & Martinez, D., Language was always a companion of the empire (editorial), in Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 100, n° 102753.
Keith Robson in coll. with F. Anderson-Gough, C. Edgley, N. Sharma, Diversity and the Evaluation of Talent in the Accounting Profession: The Enigma of Merit, Accounting Horizons, Mars 2024, vol. 38, n° 1, pp 27-37.
