Merging the Profession: A Historical Perspective on Accounting Association Mergers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The history of creation of new professional accounting associations, mergers and proposed mergers among professional associations in Canada is reviewed through the lens of institutional theory to identify the conditions associated with major changes in the structure of the profession. Five waves of merger activity are identified between 1880 and 2010. These waves of mergers: (1) created isomorphism between the structure of accounting associations and the political structure of Canada, (2) differentiated associations to reflect the division of labour among accountants (primarily the separation of public and management accounting), (3) differentiated associations to reflect different educational paths into accounting (broadly conceived), and (4) consolidated the profession to facilitate the regulation of public accounting by the state. Contemporary issues affecting the structure of the profession are also identified including the globalization of accounting credentials. The historical waves of merger activity are argued to be an enactment of state and market institutional logics. These factors are compared with justifications/rationales and proposals for the merger of the accounting profession under the Chartered Professional Accountant, CPA, designation. The merger proposal would create a hybrid organization that retains within it historical institutional patterns. Issues concerning the stability of hybrid organizations in the literature are identified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".