Re‐Theorizing Change: Institutional Experimentation and the Struggle for Domination in the Field of Public Accounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using change theory integrated with Bourdieusian sociology, we re‐theorize a major institutional shift in the field of public accounting. The case we examine involves the consolidation of commercial values in the auditing profession. In reinterpreting this shift, we highlight an institutional process structured around a conflict between commercial innovators and guardians of the professional tradition. Our analysis indicates a peculiar kind of institutional work, wherein economic capital is reinforced at the field level while the logic of commercialism is strengthened in accounting firms' structures and practitioners' mindset. From our studying of the field of accountancy, we develop the concept of institutional experimentation in order to offer a view of institutional work as a fragile and unpredictable process. Specifically, the latter is subject to trials and tests by actors involved in a series of more or less connected experiments in trying to extend their professional jurisdiction through institutional innovation, while seeking to consolidate the traditional foundations of their jurisdictional legitimacy through institutional reproduction. Our paper also challenges the notion of organizational archetypes. While a focus on the firms' formal organizational parameters may suggest archetypical stability, the picture is more complex when one takes into account processes of institutional experimentation and the duality of institutional change and stability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.157 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".