IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijcrac/v5y2013i1p81-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In whose interest? A critical examination of public interest appeals made by the public accounting profession in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Thornburg
  • Robin W. Roberts

Abstract

This paper presents a critical analysis of public interest arguments employed by the USA public accounting profession. We build on prior research that deals with the public accounting profession's public interest commitments, specifically Willmott (1990), Parker (1994), Robson et al. (1994), Roberts and Dwyer (1998), and Cooper and Robson (2006), by focusing more specifically on an analysis of the logic, authority, and emotional appeals of the profession's rhetoric. In addition, we engage more extensively with functionalist arguments concerning market control over auditor independence and quality. Relying principally on an Aristotelian (Aristotle, Trans. 1954) definition of rhetoric and Toulmin's (1969) model of argument, we evaluate the logic, authority and emotional appeal of these claims and present arguments and evidence in rebuttal. Our analysis indicates that, although, public interest claims are not totally void of merit, without consistent ethical performance by accounting professionals, their public interest rhetoric rings hollow, damaging the reputation of the profession as a whole and laying the foundation for further regulatory restrictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Thornburg & Robin W. Roberts, 2013. "In whose interest? A critical examination of public interest appeals made by the public accounting profession in the USA," International Journal of Critical Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 81-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijcrac:v:5:y:2013:i:1:p:81-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=53356
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lisa Baudot & Robin W. Roberts & Dana M. Wallace, 2017. "An Examination of the U.S. Public Accounting Profession’s Public Interest Discourse and Actions in Federal Policy Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 203-220, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijcrac:v:5:y:2013:i:1:p:81-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=328 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.