Professional Insecurity, Accountant Identity and the Erosion of Accountancy's Jurisdictional Boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines attitudes about professionalism in accounting shortly before the debacles of Enron and Andersen. Interviews with experienced Canadian Chartered Accountants (CAs) conducted mostly in late 2000 and early 2001 indicate significant doubts about the notion of auditor independence and a relatively high degree of uncertainty about the future of the profession. Accountants also expressed significant difficulties in describing the basic features of what it meant to be a professional accountant. Based on these observations we introduce and detail the construct of professional insecurity. Relying on Giddens' theoretical developments on the role of trust and systems of expertise in today's society, we reflect about the significance and implications of CAs' professional insecurity, particularly in terms of its impact on accountancy's ability to secure its jurisdictional boundaries. Our thesis is that the difficulties that accountants experienced in their day-to-day life in sustaining a coherent sense of self-identity were particularly stressful to them given people's fundamental need for coherence, and significantly affected the capacities of their profession to hold jurisdiction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".