Institutionalization and structuring of certified public ... - IngentaConnect

Institutionalization and structuring of certified public accountants An analysis of the development of education and experience requirements for certified public accountants

Requirements for certified public accountants 81

Philip H. Siegel Monmouth University, Long Branch, New Jersey, USA and

John T. Rigsby School of Accountancy, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA An important focus of research in recent years has been how entrants to an organization are influenced by the organization’s methods of socialization (Blank et al., 1991; Fogarty, 1992). At employment entry, young professionals attempt to make sense of an ambiguous organizational context. The nature of the new entrants behavior is conditioned by the interaction of their prior knowledge and the additional knowledge provided by the organization. Jones (1983) indicates that the organization continuously attempts to adjust and reunite differences between prior knowledge and additional knowledge through its socialization practices. The concept of professional socialization has been defined, measured and researched for many years (Aranya and Ferris, 1984; Aranya et al., 1981; Blank et al., 1991; Harrell, 1986; Mayer-Sommer and Loeb, 1981; Ponemon, 1992; Siegel et al., 1991; Wright, 1977). A significant area of research has examined the relationship between the structure of educational institutions, the professional socialization process, and how new entrants to the accounting profession subsequent adapt to the profession (Deppe et al., 1992; Rhode et al., 1977; Siegel and Rigsby, 1988; Siegel et al., 1991; Wright, 1977, 1988). An important development in organizational socialization has been the creation of concepts such as industry, sector, population, domain and field (Burt, 1983; Hannan and Freeman, 1989). These constructs are crucial in analysing and explaining patterns of interorganizational influence, growth, co-ordination and innovation since these concepts define the boundaries within which these processes function (DiMaggio, 1988). The investigation into the origin of organizational fields has received little attention in the professional literature. This investigation is of particular significance for institutional theories of organizational change. Institutional

Journal of Management History, Vol. 4 No. 2, 1998, pp. 81-93. © MCB University Press, 1355-252X

Journal of Management History 4,2 82

research is principally concerned with the processes of mutual influence among organizations. Field boundaries as such are perceived by participants as affecting how organizations select models to emulate, influencing where organizations concentrate information-gathering capabilities, determining which organizations they measure themselves against, and affecting the personal recruitment, selection and advancement process. Institutional theory also centers its attention on organizations such as professional associations and regulatory bodies that are situated outside the profession or industry per se but which still exist within a particular sector or field. These agencies influence and/or constrain the service-producing organizations within the profession. Institutional theory develops a collective definition of a group or set of organizations such as an industry or profession with formal and informal networks linking such organizations. These organizations are committed to supporting the profession as well as setting policy for and toward the profession. This process has been referred to as the structuration of organization fields and is a significant factor in the institutionalization of organizational forms (DiMaggio, 1983). The structuration of organizations takes place historically and logically prior to the process of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio, 1988; Fogarty, 1992). DiMaggio (1988) recommends that in order to understand the institutionalization of organizational forms, it is crucial to first analyse the institutionalization and structuring of organizational fields. Prior research has neglected the study of how institutional processes have a significant impact on organizational change. Such fields have not been investigated and yet are very meaningful to both professional accountants and academicians. These organizations include specialized professional and legalistic organizations that, as noted earlier regulate, organize, and constrain the level of the field itself as well as represent it. The oversight of structural processes frequently results in an explanation or theory of institutional change that is deductive as well as using taken-forgranted evaluative processes. This approach does not consider intuitional, directed, and conflict-laden processes that define fields. The purpose of this paper is to describe the time period 1915-1985, in the structuration of one organizational field, the certified public accounting profession’s educational and experience requirements. Much of the analysis is not surprising. The national diffusion of education and experience requirements was accompanied by the emergence of fieldwide organizations and developing consensus about many factors of the accountancy profession’s form and function. The development of the education and experience requirements for public accountants was supported by a central agency, the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA), which played a pivotal role in the structuration of the field. It and other organizations in the accounting profession were instrumental in every step of this institutionalizing process. The AICPA was the first accounting

organization which sought to represent all of the public accounting Requirements for practitioners in the USA (Carey, 1969). A major difficulty, though, has been that certified public entry to the profession in the USA is regulated by the legislature of each state, accountants rather than nationally. As each state passed its public accountancy law, a state board of accountancy, generally made up of well-known CPAs from the state, was also established to regulate the profession within that state and determine 83 its entry requirements. The result has been a great deal of variation in the education, experience, and other entry requirements to enter the profession among the states, which variation still remains a problem today, though to a lesser extent than previously. To try to address these concerns and better co-ordinate their activities, the state boards of accountancy jointed together to form the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA), another important organizational player in the process. Other influential organizational players are the American Accounting Association (AAA), representing accounting academicians in USA’s colleges and universities, and state societies of CPAs, representing the interests of CPA professionals within particular states. These organizations, among others, have been influential in affecting the entry requirements to the accounting profession. This analysis highlights three aspects of institutionalization which have not previously been discussed in the accounting professionalism literature. The first aspect is concerned with models of diffusion. The models of diffusion of new or developing organizational forms generally emphasize organizational essentials and local decisions. This emphasis suggests that organizational forms are standardized via the effortless evolution of practical understandings about how to organize. However, the accounting profession is manifest with considerable contention about key aspects of professional accounting form and function. In addition, substantial discord exists regarding the emergence of a national and international infrastructure. Professional organizations such as the AICPA and the NASBA are at the core of the process and are committed to both shaping and accelerating the diffusion. A second aspect deals with tension inside the institutionalization process. Institutional research has studied the tendency for organizational forms to become legitimized as they gain professional recognition and acknowledgement. This acceptance, however, resulted in a mobilization of a constituency which includes both professionals, users of services (clients and other financial statement users), and government officials (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). Third, accounting professionals were at the forefront of continuing debates as to the nature of scholarship and experience for the profession. The professional organizational literature leads us to expect such dialogue (MacNeill, 1967; Mautz, 1978; Perry, 1955; Previts and Merino, 1979; Roy and Skousen, 1977; Schlosser et al., 1987). What is interesting, is the low conflict level that occurred inside accounting organizations and how much was developed and played out at the field level (Blank et al., 1991; Fogarty, 1992).


Accounting professionals seem to have a dual personality or consciousness that allowed them to function conservatively in organizational roles while simultaneously they employed fieldwide organizations to launch attacks on the business and economic system that employed them (Anderson and Ellyson, 1986; Carey, 1969; Rhode et al., 1977; and Young, 1986). The role of professionals is central to all three aspects since they dominated both fieldwide organizations and efforts to change. There are numerous studies of organizational fields and of professionalization (Aranya et al., 1981, 1984; Blank et al., 1991; Dillard and Ferris, 1989; Harrell, 1990; Mayer-Sommer and Loeb, 1981; Siegel et al., 1991; and Viator and Scandura, 1991). However, these studies rarely take an historical perspective or consider the influence of professionalizing occupations on interorganizational relations (Fogerty, 1992). This paper combines these perspectives by a design that enables one to study both employing organizations and also professionally controlled organizations within the employment environment. The emergence of institutions in the accountancy profession that have been especially powerful in influencing and changing the rules and regulations guiding professional behavior in public accounting is examined in this research, particularly the AICPA. Attention is directed to the historical processes by which meaning is interpreted and dispersed by emerging professional institutions in affecting the establishment of entry requirements into the profession. The US accountancy laws originated in the late nineteenth century as both public authorities and educational institutions were interested in improving professional CPA performance by establishing and increasing entrance standards and regulating the professional. Table I shows the schedule of CPA legislation indicating the year that the jurisdiction required the CPA certificate. The professional educational requirements originated in the late nineteenth century and by 1915 26 jurisdictions required a high school diploma or its equivalent (see Table II). During this period of the late nineteenth century until 1915, public officials recognized that requiring a high school education for CPAs was excessive since most of the population prior to the First World War did not have this level of education (Previts and Merino, 1979). States generally allowed individuals to substitute experience for education (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989), and states tended not to strictly enforce the educational requirements (Sterrett, 1905). During this period the emphasis of the AICPA and other professional organization with state legislators and the public was on the need to establish a public accounting profession in order to safeguard the investing public. This institutional thinking within the accounting profession was gradually recognized and accepted as legitimate by the public and state legislatures across the country. However, there was tremendous resistance in state legislatures to the establishment of entry requirements to the profession for fear of establishment of a monopoly. Rather a mishmash of education and experience requirements were passed by the different states, with many states allowing the substitution of experience for education, and some states not even

State

Year

1. New York 1896 2. Pennsylvania 1899 3. Maryland 1900 4. California 1901 5. Washington 1903 6. Illinois 1903 7. New Jersey 1904 8. Michigan 1905 9. Florida 1905 10. Rhode Island 1906 11. Utah 1907 12. Colorado 1907 13. Connecticut 1907 14. Ohio 1908 15. Louisiana 1908 16. Georgia 1908 17. Montana 1909 18. Nebraska 1909 19. Minnesota 1909 20. Massachusetts 1909 21. Missouri 1909 22. Virginia 1910 23. Wyoming 1911 24. West Virginia 1911 25. Vermont 1912 26. North Carolina 1913 27. North Dakota 1913 1967Source: Siegel and Rigsby (1989)

Level College: Five years Four years Two years One year Some High school or equivalents Discretion of board No requirements Total states

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

State

Year

Nevada Delaware Maine Wisconsin Oregon Tennessee South Carolina Kansas Texas Iowa Arkansas Kentucky Oklahoma South Dakota Alabama Arizona Idaho Mississippi Indiana New Hampshire New Mexico District of Columbia Hawaii Puerto Rico Alaska Virgin Islands Guam

1913 1913 1913 1913 1913 1913 1915 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916 1917 1917 1919 1919 1919 1920 1921 1921 1921 1923 1923 1927 1937 1942

1915

1934

Number of states 1951

1965

1985

0 0 0 0 0 26 1 11 38

0 0 0 0 0 49 0 2 51

0 2 1 1 2 45 0 1 52

0 12 13 0 0 28 0 0 53

2 39 5 0 0 7 0 0 54

Source: Siegel and Rigsby, 1989, p. 48


Table I. Schedule of CPA legislation

Table II. Schedule of educational requirements


Table III. Schedule of experience requirements

requiring experience. Recognizing that the establishment of this variety of requirements was not adequately protecting the public, the AICPA sought to bring about structural and strategic transformation in the profession by encouraging more uniform standards for entry into the profession. However at this stage of development, there was little support for the move. The best that could be achieved was continued emphasis on the need for the establishment of the profession itself, which was gradually accepted by more and more states as public accountancy laws were passed state by state. Institutional thinking within the accounting profession next sought to influence entry requirements by legitimizing the experience requirement in trying to establish some kind of uniform standard across the nation. The rhetoric used and meanings attributed to the minimum necessary qualifications sought to establish experience as the minimum standard to enter the profession. For example, accounting practitioners in this country were highly influenced by progressive philosophers, one of whom, John Dewey, declared that “experience, not formalized education, was the vital factor in developing an educated person” (Previts and Merino, 1979, p. 156). To lead the way, in 1916 the AICPA increased its experience requirements for membership to five years. The AICPA is a voluntary professional organization, though, and has to depend on its moral persuasion in affecting entry requirements to the profession. State boards of accountancy are the ones who actually issue CPA certificates. However, CPA practitioners on state boards of accountancy across the country heard and accepted the need to establish some minimum standard to enter the profession, and increased their experience requirement. Table III summarizes the experience requirements for issuance of the CPA certificate. This increased emphasis on experience requirements was owing in part to the profession’s inability to increase education experience. During this period there was a continued strong populist movement by state legislatures which opposed increasing formal educational requirement that would restrict entry into the

Years of experience required

1915

1934

1951

1965

1985

Six Five Four Three Two One Discretion of board No requirements Total states Mean years of experience

0 1 0 16 5 4 1 11 38 1.79

0 3 3 25 14 2 00 4 51 2.59

2 6 8 19 12 2 0 3 52 3.02

3 2 12 18 11 4 0 3 53 2.94

4 0 5 7 29 6 0 3 54 2.39

Source: Siegel and Rigsby, 1989, p. 49

profession. Differences owing to the availability of educational facilities and Requirements for types of services required to meet those demands probably also accounted for certified public changes in the entry requirements. Industrial states would have different needs accountants and resources than the less industrialized regions (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). The AICPA also sought to indirectly increase the educational requirement in the profession. At the same time that it increased the experience requirement to five 87 years, it also required that new members of the AICPA must have passed the uniform CPA examination. In addition, during this period there was a tremendous growth in business curriculum among US colleges and universities, with accounting leading the way, though there was little actual change in the educational requirement by the states. During the 1950s, the institutional thinking regarding entry requirements to the profession changed, with the AICPA again leading the way. The dominant model of professional requirements was developed by the AICPA’s Standards of Education and Experience (1956), which recommended that all new entrants to the accounting profession be college graduates. The higher educational standards have gradually been accepted by state boards of accountancy and there has been a related reduction in the experience requirement, as shown in Tables II and III. The model also recommended two years of experience or one year plus a graduate degree (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). This model, though, has resulted in a struggle between the AICPA and the NASBA over the educational and experience requirements for entry into the profession and the manner in which the CPA certificate should be viewed. An alternative model to the dominate model discussed above places emphasis on graduate education and eliminates the experience requirement. For example, Florida was one of the early states to eliminated the experience requirement for individuals with a graduate education (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). The difference in meaning and conceptualization attributed to the two models is based on different ways of viewing what the requirements to enter the accounting profession should represent and mean. Those emphasizing the dominant model, which views both education and experience as necessary requirements to enter the profession, perceive the CPA certificate as representing a level of competency in the practice of public accounting. This rhetoric and meaning is favored by most state boards of accountancy, state societies of CPAs, and the NASBA. In contrast, the AICPA has gradually moved to the graduate education model, which considers the CPA certificate instead as an indicator of the attainment of a certain level of academic preparation and knowledge. Competency is then achieved once one enters the profession. This approach is a practical response to the increasing number of individuals taking the CPA examination to enhance their standing in industry or education, but never intending to practice public accounting (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). In addition, support for the elimination of the experience requirement is in response to the difficulties of transferring certification from one state to another. Because of the various ways in which experience is defined by different states, reciprocity in


transferring one’s certificate from one state to another can sometimes be a problem, particularly for large international CPA firms with many individuals transferring around the country regularly. The AICPA’s goal continues to be uniform standards and entry requirements across the country. It depends on its rhetorical ability in establishing legitimacy and meaning, largely among individuals and professional organizations within the public accounting profession, but also affecting and influencing those outside of the profession, e.g. the public and state legislatures. In contrast, most CPAs, state boards of accountancy, and the NASBA are mainly concerned that only qualified individuals should be able to practice public accounting, and that means that these individuals should have some level of experience in accounting before they are certified. The opinions of state boards of accountancy also carry weight, since they are the ones who actually regulate the profession within each state. These differences in meaning and attribution continue to be threshed out today in the profession, and have resulted in many states adopting a two-tier approach. Under this method, a CPA certificate is issued without any experience requirements, only passage of the uniform CPA examination. However, individuals are required to obtain professional experience in order to receive a license to practice. This approach distinguishes the issuance of the CPA certificate from recognition of competency to practice public accounting (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). Factors facilitating the professionalism and educational requirements Institutional theory has often not considered the contradictory tendency of successful institutionalization projects to legitimize not just new organizational forms, but also new groups of authorized professionals whose goals deviate from those individuals controlling the organizations. Moreover, the theory has not included a discussion of efforts to develop new resources that such professionals can use in their efforts to bring about organizational change. It was the success of the economy and the profession as an organizational form in the 1920s and 1930s that provided cadres and resources for groups who sought to change it. As indicated in Table I, by 1934 51 jurisdictions had passed CPA legislation with most states (49) requiring a high school education or equivalent. In the same year three jurisdictions started the movement toward a higher education requirement for CPA candidates. This movement, moreover, reduced the experience requirements for individuals with college education. For example, the District of Columbia reduced the experience requirement from three years to one, for candidates graduating with an accounting degree (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). The disparity among jurisdictional educational requirements engendered professional concern for legislative solutions. However, legislatures resisted placing higher educational requirements for entry into the accounting profession. This prompted Robert Montgomery, a leading accounting

professional to direct the profession’s efforts toward co-ordination between the Requirements for state and national bodies (Montgomery, 1926). certified public As discussed earlier, the American Institute of Accountants (AIA), the accountants predecessor of the AICPA, was interested in increasing the educational requirements for CPAs. By 1937, 43 states required CPAs to pass a uniform CPA exam prepared by the AIA. Since this examination is basically academic, the 89 most successful candidates were those who had a college education (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). The significant impact of the adaption of the uniform CPA examination was to shift the emphasis from experience to education as a requirement for CPA screening. This change resulted in a dramatic reduction in the experience level of candidates taking the CPA examination. Prior to 1915 CPA candidates had four to five times the experience level of those taking the examination in the 1930s. The majority of CPA candidates took the examination with much less experience and at an earlier stage in their career. Education started to replace experience as the most significant requirement for entry into the public accounting profession (Siegel and Rigsby, 1989). These developments reflected a broad expansion of interest in education during the 1940s and 1950s. However, according to Table III the average experience requirement increased from 2.59 years in 1934 to 3.02 years in 1952. Nonetheless, in 1951, 75 per cent of all CPA examination candidates had a college education (Perry, 1955). Despite the shift in emphasis toward education, the experience requirement increased through 1951. The professionalization of CPAs was fueled directly by the expansion of higher education into the field. Whereas in 1898 only a few colleges or universities courses were available in accounting, by 1951 every jurisdiction had at least one or more universities offering courses and/or degrees in accounting. This expansion had three major effects. The first was to produce university-educated consumers of the accounting services who sought and demanded university educated CPAs (Siegel et al., 1991). The second was to produce experts. Significantly more individuals were educated in accounting or related areas between 1940 and 1950 than in all the years before 1940. The third was the consolidation of accounting courses, previously scattered among academic specialties, into departments or schools of accountancy. Consolidation heightened interaction among faculty at different universities and drew universities closer to the accounting profession. Therefore, after 1951 26 jurisdictions permitted CPA candidates to reduce experience requirements if they had additional education. The academic programmes created a cadre of experts who favored and promoted education. The AICPA promoted legislation during the 1950s to increase the minimum education required of CPA candidates to a bachelors degree. These efforts were largely successful. By 1965, 12 jurisdictions required a four-year college degree, 13 states required two years of college education, while 28 retained the high school education requirement level. This clearly indicates a significant increase in the educational level of individuals entering


accounting professions. As indicated in Table II, by 1985 the number of jurisdictions requiring at least some college education was 47, with only seven jurisdictions maintaining the high school requirement. Graduate education became a significant factor in 1965, when six jurisdictions granted credit for graduate education as a substitute for the experience requirement. This trend towards encouraging graduate education indicates that the education model’s challenge to the experience model was successful achieving its goal of requiring higher levels of education and increasing the CPA’s level of professionalization. The CPA’s education and experience requirement changes illustrates the capacity of professionals to mobilize the environment around organizations that employ or support them. The education model group brought about significant change in the accounting profession. They refocused the CPA’s requirements on higher levels of education; legitimatized new forms of expertise in accounting (tax, EDP auditors, consultants, etc.); altered the entrance experience requirements; and introduced a uniform CPA examination. These changes enhanced the educational model professionals’ control over the skills and resources of public accounting. The education group was able to de-emphasize the skills and resources dominated by the experience group. Conclusions First, the professional organizations which organized at the field level to effect institutional change never appeared to be oppositional in their organizational roles, but always as developmental in furthering the benefits society would receive from the next step in changing the rules regulating entry to the profession. The previous discussion enables us to observe the intraorganizational behavior of some of the key organizations that participated in the environment such as state legislatures, state societies of CPAs, universities, the AICPA, and NASBA. These organizational groups helped structure the interorganizational contexts which were characterized by formal and professional control. In addition, these organizations always sought to structure the environment within which the advice was given and frequently were forced to work incrementally. Giddens (1984) discusses professional rationality within the professional environment. Professional dialogue favored an elaborated code depicting what Gouldner (1978) has described as a “culture of critical discourse” emphasizing the right to question the rationality of arrangements on the basis of technical criteria and basing authority on expertise rather than formal position. Since organizational discourse cannot be separated from the relationships between speaker and listener, the professionalized environment provided sites for the development of critical alternatives to existing organizational arrangements. Because professionally-sponsored innovations could be developed in phases, the professionalized environment served as a supporting area in which change could be sought (Siegel et al., 1993). Thus, professional and educational organizations trying to change rules regulating

the profession always sought to “expertise” the advise and direction given and Requirements for provide legitimacy for the next step, and tended to work in stages of certified public development. accountants Third, fieldwide structures were used. Most studies of the institutionalization of organization forms have focused primarily at the local level, using organizations as the unit of analysis (Fligstein, 1987; Fogarty, 1992; 91 Siegel et al., 1993). Such work would lead us to expect that the CPA entrance requirements came to be taken for granted as a local jurisdictional matter. In contrast to the local focus, the diffusion of the educational requirements in accounting was guided and shaped by the emergence of fieldwide structures at the national level (AICPA, NASBA, AAA) which were outside the boundaries of particular states or jurisdictions. Fourth, the institutional rhetoric discussing the need for the change in rules is based on the concept of dynamic legitimacy. Studies of institutional diffusion have contended that organizational forms become more legitimate as they spread, concentrating on the form rather than on variation of organizations of a certain form with respect to structure and goals. In the CPA professional case, we perceived a contradictory dynamic whereby the legitimization of the form authorized and empowered the education requirement movement which provided a delegitimizing force against the experience group. Through dynamic legitimacy, institutionalization produces openings for substantive changes. Institutional analyses has focused on the general and political process in which views or norms that are societal in reach influence the form of new organizations (Blank et al., 1991; Fogarty, 1992; and Meyer et al., 1987). These views argue that organizational forms are influenced or shaped by professional culture which requires organizations to justify their actions on the basis of widely accepted notions of progress and justice. References Anderson, C. and Ellyson, R. (1986), “Restructuring professional standards: the Anderson Report”, Journal of Accountancy, September, pp. 92-104. Aranya, N. and Ferris, K. (1984), “A re-examination of accountants organizational-professional conflict”, The Accounting Review, January, pp. 1-15. Aranya, N., Pollock, J. and Amernic, J. (1981), “An examination of professional commitment in public accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 6, pp. 271-80. Blank, M., Siegel, P. and Rigsby, J. (1991), “Determinants of international CPA firm orientation among accounting students”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 23, pp. 281-300. Burt, R. (1983), Corporate Profits and Cooptation, Academic Press, New York, NY. Carey, J. (1969), The Rise of the Accounting Profession, AICPA, New York, NY. Commission on Standards of Education and Experience for Certified Public Accountants, Standards of Education and Experience for Certified Public Accountants (1956), Bureau of Business Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Deppe, L., Smith, J. and Stice, J. (1992), “The debate over post-baccalaureate education: one university’s experience”, Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, pp. 18-36. Dillard, J. and Ferris, K. (1989), “Individual behavior in professional accounting firms: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Accounting Literature, pp. 208-34.


DiMaggio, P. (1983), in Hall, R.H. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds) “State expansion and organizational fields”, in Organizational Theory and Public Policy, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 147-61. DiMaggio, P. (1988), in Zucker, L.G. (Ed.) “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, Institutional Patterns and Organizations, Ballenger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-22. Fligstein, N. (1987), “The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919-1979”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52, pp. 44-58. Fogarty, T. (1992), “Organizational socialization in accounting firms: a theoretical framework and agenda for future research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. XVII, pp. 129-49. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Gouldner, A. (1978), “The new class project I”, Theory and Society, Vol. 7, pp. 153-202. Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1989), Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. Harrell, A. (1990), “A longitudinal examination of large CPA firm auditors personnel turnover”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. VIII, pp. 233-46. Harrell, A, Scewning, E. and Taylor, M. (1986), “Organizational-professional conflict and the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of internal auditors”, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 5, pp. 111-21. Jones, G. (1983), “Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: an interactionist perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 464-74. Mautz, R. (1978), in Bizzell, A. (Ed.), “The case for professional education in accounting”, in School of Accountancy: A Look at the Issues, AICPA, New York, NY, pp. 23-35. Mayer-Sommer, A. and Loeb, S. (1981), “Fostering more successful professional socialization among students”, The Accounting Review, January, pp. 125-36. Meyer, J., Boli, J. and Thomas, G. (1987), in Thomas, G. et al. (Eds) “Ontology and rationalization in the Western culture account”, Institutional Structure, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 12-37. Montgomery, R. (1926), “Legislation for the professions”, International Accountants Congress, Mussess, J., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Perry, D. (1955), Public Accounting Practice and Accounting Education, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, MA. Ponemon, L (1992), “Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. XVII, pp. 239-59. Previts, G. and Merino, B. (1979), A History of Accounting in America, Ronald Press, New York, NY. Rhode, J., Sorensen, J. and Lawler, E. (1977), “Sources of professional staff turnover in public accounting firms revealed by the exit interview”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, June, pp. 165-76. Roy, R. and MacNeill, J. (1967), Horizons for a Profession: The Common Body of Knowledge for Certified Public Accountants, AICPA, New York, NY. Schlosser, R., Lee, B. and Rabito, G. (1987), “Continuing professional education 1887-1987”, Journal of Accountancy, pp. 240-45. Siegel, P., Agrawal, S. and Rigsby, J.T. (1993), “Organizational and professional socialization: institutional isomorphism in an accounting context”, working paper, University of Memphis, TN. Siegel, P., Blank, M. and Rigsby, J.T. (1991), “Socialization of the accounting professional: evidence of the effect of educational structure on subsequent auditor retention and advancement”, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 58-70. Siegel, P. and Rigsby, J.T. (1988), “The relationship of accounting internships and subsequent professional performance”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 3, pp. 423-32.

Siegel, P. and. Rigsby, J.T. (1989), “An analysis of the development of education and experience requirements for CPAs”, Research in Accounting Regulation, Vol. 3, pp. 45-68. Siegel P., Rigsby, J.T. and Leavins, J. (1992), “An analysis of the relative contribution of experience/education to the professional development of auditors”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 10, pp. 143-58. Skousen K. (1997), “Accounting education: the new professionalism”, Journal of Accountancy, pp. 54-8. Sterrett, J. (1905), “Education and training of a certified public accountant”, Journal of Accountancy, pp. 1-15. Viator, R. and Scandura, T. (1991), “A study of mentor-protege relationships in large public accounting firms”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 5, pp. 20-30. Wright, A. (1988), “The comparative performance of MBA vs. undergraduate accounting majors in public accounting”, The Accounting Review, pp. 123-36. Wright, W. (1977), “An empirical study of the professional socialization of accounting students”, International Journal of Accounting, Education and Research, pp. 53-76. Young, S. (1986), “Accounting licensure, quality and the Cadillac effect”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, pp. 5-19.
