Larson and socio-economic closures in public accountancy professionalization

PurposeThe first purpose of this study is to respond to Matthews’ (2017) criticisms of Larson's (1977) professional project and accounting historians' past use of Larson (1977) when researching public accountancy professionalization. The second purpose is to use the response to Matthews (2017) as the foundation to construct a model of socio-economic closures of potential use for research and study.Design/methodology/approachIn order to respond to Matthews (2017), the study provides an interpretive review of Larson (1977) and analyses historical professionalization research published in leading accounting journals over three decades. The review and response, together with prior theory contributions, form the foundation for the proposed model of closures.FindingsMatthews’ (2017) criticisms of Larson (1977) and accounting historians' past use of Larson (1977) are, with some exceptions, not well-founded. Larson's (1977) professional project is an ideal model of professionalization and has been used appropriately by accounting historians to introduce and explain rather than a model or test public accountancy professionalization. The analyzed data from research journals are consistent with Larson (1977) in terms of identifiable historical phases of and specific closures actions in the professionalization process.Research limitations/implicationsThe study analyses peer-reviewed studies in selected accounting research journals over a defined period.Practical implicationsThe study provides a nuanced review of Larson (1977), clarifies evidence of the past use of Larson (1977) by accounting historians, challenges criticism of this use, identifies primary research that focuses on socio-economic closures and proposes a model of such closures for future research and study.Originality/valueThe study contains a comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed research of public accountancy professionalization and proposes a model of closures inductively derived from empirical evidence and prior theoretical contributions.