Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert

The purpose of this paper is to use the sociology of professions, institutional theory, and outsourcing literatures to examine the dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five public accounting firms, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Au...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Accounting, organizations and society organizations and society, 2003-05, Vol.28 (4), p.323-355
Hauptverfasser: Covaleski, Mark A., Dirsmith, Mark W., Rittenberg, Larry
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 355
container_issue 4
container_start_page 323
container_title Accounting, organizations and society
container_volume 28
creator Covaleski, Mark A.
Dirsmith, Mark W.
Rittenberg, Larry
description The purpose of this paper is to use the sociology of professions, institutional theory, and outsourcing literatures to examine the dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five public accounting firms, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), as it concerns the outsourcing of internal audit services to international external audit firms. Toward this end, a latent content analysis of a variety of public and private documents is performed where we find that the transformation of the jurisdiction of internal auditing to be rife with conflict, characterized by a heated dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five, the AICPA, the IIA, the SEC, and also the US Congress. Rhetorical ploys supporting this dramaturgy incorporated such key terms as: “world class services”, “global economy”, “market forces”, “commodification”, “monetization of professional services”, “knowledge experts”, “the knowledge millennium”, “leveraging knowledge”, “higher order platform of services”, “value chains”—all in addition to making more money. At issue is how the competing factions seek to re-institutionalize societal expectations of proper professional behavior to legitimate a transformation of jurisdictions, for example, to create the “knowledge expert” providing robust services in a global economy.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38432958</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0361368202000296</els_id><sourcerecordid>348980751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-2ed2b2d77b6388351844e7ad60c95bb497a4b71eb51c0b9a172f6df2930b88c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkctu1TAQhiMEEofCIyBFLBAsAr7ENzYIVdyqSiyAteXL5NRtThxs55Ty9DgN6oINSB7PyP7-0dh_0zzF6BVGmL_-iijHHeWSvEDkJUKIqI7fa3ZYCtpxItX9ZneHPGwe5XxZISQE2zX7syWF7IMrIU5mbH3I81Igt_EIqZ1THCDn7eo6pqs3bbmANky5hLJskvDLrEUbh9u7_Rhtha-meD2C30MLP2dI5XHzYDBjhid_8knz_cP7b6efuvMvHz-fvjvvXM9p6Qh4YokXwnIqJWVY9j0I4zlyilnbK2F6KzBYhh2yymBBBu4HoiiyUjpJT5rnW986-o8FctGHkB2Mo5kgLllT2VOi2H-AREnSc1bBZ3-Bl3FJ9eFZY8UwwYzgCrENcinmnGDQcwoHk240Rno1Sd-apFcHNKprNUnzqjvbdAlmcHciADAxRxf0UVNDZN1u1gIhWlOo0deYa1BSTxjTF-VQm73dmkH94GOApLMLMDnwIYEr2sfwj3F-A6-5s60</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>195121521</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert</title><source>RePEc</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Covaleski, Mark A. ; Dirsmith, Mark W. ; Rittenberg, Larry</creator><creatorcontrib>Covaleski, Mark A. ; Dirsmith, Mark W. ; Rittenberg, Larry</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this paper is to use the sociology of professions, institutional theory, and outsourcing literatures to examine the dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five public accounting firms, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), as it concerns the outsourcing of internal audit services to international external audit firms. Toward this end, a latent content analysis of a variety of public and private documents is performed where we find that the transformation of the jurisdiction of internal auditing to be rife with conflict, characterized by a heated dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five, the AICPA, the IIA, the SEC, and also the US Congress. Rhetorical ploys supporting this dramaturgy incorporated such key terms as: “world class services”, “global economy”, “market forces”, “commodification”, “monetization of professional services”, “knowledge experts”, “the knowledge millennium”, “leveraging knowledge”, “higher order platform of services”, “value chains”—all in addition to making more money. At issue is how the competing factions seek to re-institutionalize societal expectations of proper professional behavior to legitimate a transformation of jurisdictions, for example, to create the “knowledge expert” providing robust services in a global economy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-3682</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6289</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Accounting ; Big Five accounting firms ; Dramaturges ; Dramaturgy ; Institutionalization ; Internal auditing ; Internal auditors ; Knowledge ; Occupations ; Organization theory ; Outsourcing ; Professional relationships ; Sociology ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Accounting, organizations and society, 2003-05, Vol.28 (4), p.323-355</ispartof><rights>2003 Elsevier Science Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. May 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-2ed2b2d77b6388351844e7ad60c95bb497a4b71eb51c0b9a172f6df2930b88c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-2ed2b2d77b6388351844e7ad60c95bb497a4b71eb51c0b9a172f6df2930b88c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,4006,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeaosoci/v_3a28_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a323-355.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Covaleski, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dirsmith, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rittenberg, Larry</creatorcontrib><title>Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert</title><title>Accounting, organizations and society</title><description>The purpose of this paper is to use the sociology of professions, institutional theory, and outsourcing literatures to examine the dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five public accounting firms, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), as it concerns the outsourcing of internal audit services to international external audit firms. Toward this end, a latent content analysis of a variety of public and private documents is performed where we find that the transformation of the jurisdiction of internal auditing to be rife with conflict, characterized by a heated dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five, the AICPA, the IIA, the SEC, and also the US Congress. Rhetorical ploys supporting this dramaturgy incorporated such key terms as: “world class services”, “global economy”, “market forces”, “commodification”, “monetization of professional services”, “knowledge experts”, “the knowledge millennium”, “leveraging knowledge”, “higher order platform of services”, “value chains”—all in addition to making more money. At issue is how the competing factions seek to re-institutionalize societal expectations of proper professional behavior to legitimate a transformation of jurisdictions, for example, to create the “knowledge expert” providing robust services in a global economy.</description><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Big Five accounting firms</subject><subject>Dramaturges</subject><subject>Dramaturgy</subject><subject>Institutionalization</subject><subject>Internal auditing</subject><subject>Internal auditors</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Occupations</subject><subject>Organization theory</subject><subject>Outsourcing</subject><subject>Professional relationships</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0361-3682</issn><issn>1873-6289</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkctu1TAQhiMEEofCIyBFLBAsAr7ENzYIVdyqSiyAteXL5NRtThxs55Ty9DgN6oINSB7PyP7-0dh_0zzF6BVGmL_-iijHHeWSvEDkJUKIqI7fa3ZYCtpxItX9ZneHPGwe5XxZISQE2zX7syWF7IMrIU5mbH3I81Igt_EIqZ1THCDn7eo6pqs3bbmANky5hLJskvDLrEUbh9u7_Rhtha-meD2C30MLP2dI5XHzYDBjhid_8knz_cP7b6efuvMvHz-fvjvvXM9p6Qh4YokXwnIqJWVY9j0I4zlyilnbK2F6KzBYhh2yymBBBu4HoiiyUjpJT5rnW986-o8FctGHkB2Mo5kgLllT2VOi2H-AREnSc1bBZ3-Bl3FJ9eFZY8UwwYzgCrENcinmnGDQcwoHk240Rno1Sd-apFcHNKprNUnzqjvbdAlmcHciADAxRxf0UVNDZN1u1gIhWlOo0deYa1BSTxjTF-VQm73dmkH94GOApLMLMDnwIYEr2sfwj3F-A6-5s60</recordid><startdate>20030501</startdate><enddate>20030501</enddate><creator>Covaleski, Mark A.</creator><creator>Dirsmith, Mark W.</creator><creator>Rittenberg, Larry</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Pergamon Press Inc</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030501</creationdate><title>Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert</title><author>Covaleski, Mark A. ; Dirsmith, Mark W. ; Rittenberg, Larry</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-2ed2b2d77b6388351844e7ad60c95bb497a4b71eb51c0b9a172f6df2930b88c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Big Five accounting firms</topic><topic>Dramaturges</topic><topic>Dramaturgy</topic><topic>Institutionalization</topic><topic>Internal auditing</topic><topic>Internal auditors</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Occupations</topic><topic>Organization theory</topic><topic>Outsourcing</topic><topic>Professional relationships</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Covaleski, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dirsmith, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rittenberg, Larry</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Accounting, organizations and society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Covaleski, Mark A.</au><au>Dirsmith, Mark W.</au><au>Rittenberg, Larry</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert</atitle><jtitle>Accounting, organizations and society</jtitle><date>2003-05-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>323</spage><epage>355</epage><pages>323-355</pages><issn>0361-3682</issn><eissn>1873-6289</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this paper is to use the sociology of professions, institutional theory, and outsourcing literatures to examine the dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five public accounting firms, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), as it concerns the outsourcing of internal audit services to international external audit firms. Toward this end, a latent content analysis of a variety of public and private documents is performed where we find that the transformation of the jurisdiction of internal auditing to be rife with conflict, characterized by a heated dramaturgy of exchange relations among the Big Five, the AICPA, the IIA, the SEC, and also the US Congress. Rhetorical ploys supporting this dramaturgy incorporated such key terms as: “world class services”, “global economy”, “market forces”, “commodification”, “monetization of professional services”, “knowledge experts”, “the knowledge millennium”, “leveraging knowledge”, “higher order platform of services”, “value chains”—all in addition to making more money. At issue is how the competing factions seek to re-institutionalize societal expectations of proper professional behavior to legitimate a transformation of jurisdictions, for example, to create the “knowledge expert” providing robust services in a global economy.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6</doi><tpages>33</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-3682
ispartof Accounting, organizations and society, 2003-05, Vol.28 (4), p.323-355
issn 0361-3682
1873-6289
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38432958
source RePEc; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Accounting
Big Five accounting firms
Dramaturges
Dramaturgy
Institutionalization
Internal auditing
Internal auditors
Knowledge
Occupations
Organization theory
Outsourcing
Professional relationships
Sociology
Studies
title Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T11%3A09%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Jurisdictional%20disputes%20over%20professional%20work:%20the%20institutionalization%20of%20the%20global%20knowledge%20expert&rft.jtitle=Accounting,%20organizations%20and%20society&rft.au=Covaleski,%20Mark%20A.&rft.date=2003-05-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=323&rft.epage=355&rft.pages=323-355&rft.issn=0361-3682&rft.eissn=1873-6289&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E348980751%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=195121521&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0361368202000296&rfr_iscdi=true