Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /cpa

The Third Policeman: ‘The true and fair view’, language and the habitusof accounting

Gavin Hamiltona, Ciarán Ó hÓgartaighb,∗

a Lioncourt, Dublin, Irelandb University College Dublin, UCD School of Business, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 October 2007Received in revised form26 December 2008Accepted 12 February 2009

Keywords:AccountingAuditingHabitusBourdieuLanguage‘True and fair view’

a b s t r a c t

This paper explores the role and context of the ‘true and fair view’ (‘TFV’) in accounting andauditing. Utilising the work of Bourdieu as a lens, the paper argues that the world of the TFVis a subjective world with which we think we are objectively familiar. Bourdieu’s ‘practicaltheory’ of habitus suggests that the TFV is shaped by the practice of ‘native virtuosos’ whohave a ‘feel for the game’. The paper argues that the conceptualisation of the TFV privilegespractice and authenticates the accounting habitus. Hence, whilst language maintains andreinforces social structures, it is in turn created by the routines of practice. By dominating thedeclaration of the TFV, the auditor effectively reinforces the status quo and the constitutionof hierarchy and inequity that exists in the accounting field: the TFV, in Bourdieu’s terms,‘becomes what they are’.

© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The gross and net result of it is that people who spent most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rockyroadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of the bicycle as a result of theinterchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts whonearly are half people and half bicycles. (Flann O’Brien, The Third Policeman)

1. Introduction

The Third Policeman, a novel by Flann O’Brien first published in 1967, begins ‘by establishing a world with which we thinkwe are familiar’ (Shea, 1992, p. 113–4). The novel, however, moves quickly into the surreal, into an ‘exorbitant’ world (Shea,1992) where the protagonist’s experiences are in an after-life, a ‘reality’ which is not revealed until the end of the novel.

Throughout the novel, the protagonist has no name. Commenting on the role of the self-conscious narrator in The ThirdPoliceman in the context of ‘modern linguistics’, Hopper (1995, p. 120) writes that ‘without a name’ the protagonist:

is intangible, somehow ‘unreal’ in a world which calls things into being (out of a vast continuum) by naming them.Without language we cannot talk reality, without a name you do not exist.

Hopper continues, quoting from The Third Policeman (O’Brien, 1967, p. 40), that ‘names, despite being “arbitrary labels”,which just differentiate. . .define one’s place in the ruling framework; it “confers a certain advantage. . .in documents”, i.e. atext’.

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: ciaran.ohogartaigh@ucd.ie (C. Ó hÓgartaigh).

1045-2354/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2009.02.003

G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920 911

The true and fair view (‘TFV’) is, as the opinion expressed by the auditor on financial statements in the EU, one of thedifferentiating ‘names’ of the financial reporting process: ‘the terms used to express the auditor’s opinion [on financialstatements] are “give a true and fair view” or [in the US] “present fairly, in all material respects,” and are equivalent’ (APB,2004a, para. 18). This paper contributes to the critical literature on the TFV and accounting more generally by exploringthe process which produces this ‘legitimate language’ of accounting. Drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002)to recreate the accounting field, the paper discusses the linguistic exchange involved when an auditor declares financialstatements as ‘true and fair’. Much of the prior research on the TFV has focussed on whether a shared meaning exists for theTFV. This paper argues that the TFV is constructed and laden with meaning through the rites and rituals of the professionrather than through language and linguistics. Whilst language maintains and reinforces social structures: it is in turn createdby the routines of practice which constitute what Bourdieu (1977, 1988) terms the ‘habitus’:

a system of durable and transposable dispositions (schemes of perception, appreciation and action), produced byparticular social environments, which functions as the principle of the generation and structuring of practices andrepresentations (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 782).

The TFV in particular is defined by practice and, hence, is about professional practice and power more than grammarand meaning, about ‘collective belief’ (Bourdieu, 1991) more than shared meaning. Prior literature has contributed to ourunderstanding of the accounting profession. For example, Marxist perspectives have given primacy to the antagonistic rela-tionships between labour and capital (e.g. Armstrong, 1985; Puxty et al., 1987; Schmitter and Streeck, 1985). Weberiantheories of closure (MacDonald, 1985; Amark, 1990; Walker and Shackleton, 1998; Walker, 2004) recognise ‘that profes-sionalization projects are more complex than the headlong pursuit of monopolistic control and collective, social mobility’(Walker, 2004, p. 128), Foucauld’s perspectives have been widely employed to analyse power and control in and by account-ing (e.g. Burchell et al., 1985; Loft, 1986; Robson, 1991; Miller, 1990). Baudrillardian poststructuralist critiques characterise‘auditing as simulacrum’ and ‘posit that accounting today no longer refers to any objective reality but instead circulates in a“hyperreality” of self-referential model’ (Macintosh and Shearer, 2000, p. 620). The institutional literature (e.g. Scott, 1995)has added to our understanding of the professionalization process by characterizing professions as ‘institutional agents’,ruling ‘by controlling belief systems. . .They exercise control by defining reality’ (Scott and Backman, 1990, p. 290).

Bourdieu (1977, 1988), in one of his primary contributions to the sociological field, controversially characterises suchtheories as ‘objectivist’ views of ‘subjective’ practices. The present paper extends our understanding of the accounting fieldby employing Bourdieu’s theory of practice and his concept of habitus (Bourdieu, 1977; Schatzki, 1987) to characterize theTFV. In so doing, the paper adds to our understanding of the TFV by situating it in the practices and routines of ‘native‘virtuosos’ who have a ‘feel for the game’. Integrating O’Brien’s The Third Policeman and Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, theworld of the TFV is a subjective world with which we think we are objectively familiar.

Characterized as one of ‘France’s great intellectuals and activists’ (Cooper, 2002, p. 451) and a ‘leading light’ of Frenchpublic sociology (Burawoy, 2005, p. 275), Bourdieu’s influence in the social sciences ‘has been substantial, interdisciplinaryand international’ (Swartz, 2003, p. 520). At the heart of Bourdieu’s writings is the desire to overcome the dualism of‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ in the social sciences. Whilst criticized (e.g. by Evens, 1999) for reverting into a ‘sophisticatedform of objectivism’, Bourdieu’s ‘habitus’ echoes Habermas’ (1992) ‘lifeworld’.1 However, considering the potential of thework of Bourdieu as a means of extending and deepening Habermas’ critique of the public sphere, Crossley (2004, p. 89–90)argues that Habermas ‘fails to consider how the concept of ‘distorted communication’ might be implemented in empiricalanalyses of actually existing publics’. Bourdieu’s work ‘allows us to put the pieces of actually existing communication backtogether, in its ‘contaminated’ form’.

Furthermore, Bourdieu contributes to our understanding of the accounting field by seeing a distinct habitus in eachdisposition towards action. King (2000, p. 418–9) maintains that ‘by recognizing this practical theory’, Bourdieu’s writingcomes to offer ‘a genuine advance in social theory’, ‘a substantial contribution’ to the resolution of key debates in thesociological arena. More particularly, Bourdieu’s work ‘effects a framework in which we can realize, both empirically andtheoretically, an analysis of “systematically distorted communication”, such as was deemed central to critical theory byHabermas (1970a,b) in his earlier work’ (Crossley, 2004, p. 88).

A number of accounting researchers have used the work of Bourdieu in areas such as business planning (Oakes et al.,1998), auditing (Everett, 2002), accounting education (e.g. Cooper, 2002; Jacobs, 2003; Cooper et al., 2005), managementaccounting (e.g. Goddard, 2004) and environmental accounting (Everett, 2004). The application of Bourdieu’s ‘organisationalfield’ to accounting is particularly relevant to the present paper:

For Bourdieu, fields are networks of social relations, structured systems of social positions within which struggles ormaneuvers take place over resources, stakes, and access. Bourdieu (1990) described positions within fields as ‘positionsof possibility’ because they are not stable but reflect positions of power (Oakes et al., 1998, p. 260).

Oakes et al. (1998), applying Bourdieu’s theories of language and control to the pedagogy of business planning, continue(p. 263) that Bourdieu ‘allows us to look more specifically at how legitimacy is constructed and maintained and at the

1 The focus of the present paper does not include a detailed discussion of the differences between the work of Bourdieu and Habermas. For a detaileddiscussion comparing and contrasting Habermas and Bourdieu, see Eliasoph and Lichterman (1999) and Crossley (2004).

912 G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

implications of its loss’. The playing out of this symbolic power is a recurring theme of the business and accounting literaturewhich draws on Bourdieu’s work.

Cooper (2002), in her discussion of critical accounting in Scotland, refers (p. 453) to Bourdieu’s characterisation of theauthority of intellectuals as having its foundation in ‘autonomous fields of cultural production’. Similarly, Jacobs (2003, p.569) draws on Bourdieu’s work on education and class as a theoretical framework within which to explore discriminationin recruiting practices of accounting firms ‘against applicants from working class communities’.

Everett (2002, p. 79) examines how management techniques such as comprehensive auditing are employed as efforts to‘establish control over both meaning in a field and a field’s resources, over that which is both “the legitimate right to name”(Bourdieu, 1977) and the accumulation of capital (Bourdieu, 1986) in a field’. Everett’s focus is particularly on language which,he argues (after Bourdieu, 1991), is more than a means of communication but (p. 79) is ‘very much a social practice, a modeof power, and a means by which social relations are reproduced and transformed’. Consequent shifting of meaning result inwhat Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) term a ‘symbolic violence’ where contested terms such as ‘accountability’ are sites ‘ofstruggle and manoeuvre over resources, stakes and access’ (Everett, 2002, p. 81).

The ‘symbolic violence. . . exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 167)is also highlighted by Oakes et al. (1998) in their consideration of ‘business planning as pedagogic action’. They comment (p.273) that the ‘power of business plans lies in their monopoly of legitimate naming. They actively construct the seeable and thesayable by specifying what will be documented and what will be ignored’. This paper extends this application of Bourdieu’s(1991) work, specifically on language and symbolic power, to explore the shared meanings contained in accounting conceptssuch as the TFV. In particular, the paper explores the ‘gentle, hidden form’ of violence (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 196), the ‘symbolicviolence’, by which accountants and auditors, through their habitus, have gained control of the naming of a fundamentalaccounting construct such as the TFV. The paper argues that such concepts in turn create and consecrate the habitus ofaccounting, in Hopper’s (1995) terms, proffering existence by the very act of naming.

The paper is in three main sections. The next (second) section reviews the literature in the area of TFV, in particularthe linguistic approaches to defining the TFV. Arguing that such approaches are endowed with political connotations and‘subjectivism’, the section concludes that Bourdieu’s linguistic habitus offers a particular perspective on symbolic dominationwhich is distinct from that found in the prior literature. Section three explores the socio-economic context of the TFVand suggests that it is essentially an ethos which is part of the ‘legitimate language’ of accounting, placing the TFV as acentral part of the accounting and auditing ritual. This section applies the work of Bourdieu to the audit field, a field whereexperience is privileged and embedded, recreating the habitus. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implicationsof the perspectives outlined for the conceptualisation not only of the TFV but of accounting itself. In particular, the papersuggests that the development of the TFV in the practices and procedures of accounting and audit creates an enclosed world.Bourdieu’s perspectives suggest that the distinct habita of ambiguous concepts such as the TFV limit the potential for currenttrends in international harmonisation as such concepts then carry different meanings in practice across institutional andinternational boundaries.

2. In search of the TFV

Literature on the TFV stems from two sources: the first consists of different attempts to give the TFV a definition whilstthe second attempts to assess whether different user groups share a similar cognitive structure, and hence meaning, whenassessing the term the TFV. The central tenet of earlier research with regard to the TFV is that the lack of a definition couldbe advantageous only if the term carried similar meanings to all groups – users and preparers – so that no communicationgap exists. This section briefly discusses the different meanings that have been attributed to the TFV in the prior literature.

2.1. The meaning of the TFV

Walton (1993) categorises the meanings attributed to the TFV in the literature as revolving around three basic ideas.First, going from the widest to the narrowest definition, the legal residual clause functions as a safety net to catch any legaleventuality not foreseen in legislative requirements (Walton, 1993, p. 50):

By the legal residual clause is meant the sort of clause which often is added to statutes, contracts and other legaldocuments to cover circumstances other than those specifically foreseen in other clauses in the document. . .in effectthis kind of clause operates as a safety net put in by the creator of the contract to catch any eventuality not specificallyforeseen in the other clauses and is not generally expected to be invoked except in unusual circumstances.

Secondly, the TFV is perceived as an independent concept, which represents a higher objective to be sought in the auditof financial statements. Finally, generally accepted accounting principles (‘GAAP’) are sometimes vested with such authoritythat the accounting standards underpinning them define the TFV. Under this narrow definition, the TFV means compliancewith GAAP as underpinned by accounting standards. Other, broader definitions elevate the TFV to a higher order, inculcatingthe concept with professional judgement and a ‘higher objective’ beyond GAAP. These definitions suggest that compliancewith GAAP is not enough and that the TFV depends on the auditor’s judgement beyond GAAP.

Willmott (1986) considers that the legal residual clause serves to create a veil of professional mystique for the accountingprofession. This is related to how rules and procedures help create the audit ritual, reifying a boundary between auditor and

G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920 913

audited. This perspective, which is rooted in the way the profession constitutes and construes itself, is at the heart of thearguments developed in this paper and is explored in more detail in later sections.

Chastney (1975), Rutherford (1985) and Walton (1991) all find little evidence to support the TFV as an independentquality, and all tend towards the view that the TFV is defined by current accounting practice. This argument, Walton (1993)reasons, is given some weight by legal judgements, for example that of Woolf J. in Lloyd Cheyham & Co. v. Littlejohn & Co.1986. However, this explanation of TFV fails to account for the fact that accounting standards are constantly being altered,as generally accepted accounting principles evolve or are no longer ‘generally accepted’.

The view that the TFV equates with GAAP seems to have been rejected by legal advice (e.g. Arden, 1997), which clearlycasts doubt over the reasoning of Chastney (1975), Rutherford (1985) and Walton (1993). Arden (1997) argues that it is amatter for the Courts to decide what is true and fair, as it is a legal clause and that its meaning will be different to the onewhen the TFV was first introduced into law. In this respect, its meaning is dynamic and subject to change. Arden (1997) viewsthe TFV as a stopgap to prevent the abuse of rules and to cover gaps in the accounting rules. Hence, the TFV has a widermeaning than compliance with GAAP alone and requires that preparers and auditors exercise judgement cognisant of GAAPbut not constrained by it. In this perspective, the TFV (Arden, 1997, para. 14):

is a dynamic concept. Thus what is required to show a true and fair view is subject to continuous rebirth and indetermining whether the true and fair requirement is satisfied the Court will not in my view seek to find synonymsfor the words “true” and “fair” but will seek to apply the concepts which those words imply.

Moreover (para. 2), ‘while the true and fair view which the law requires to be given is not qualified in any way, the task ofinterpreting the true and fair requirement cannot be performed in the Court without evidence as to the practices and views ofaccountants’. Arden’s (1997) legal advice with regard to the TFV – and particularly her suggestion that it gets its meaning fromthe practices and procedures of accountants – places the TFV unambiguously in the habitus of accounting and audit practice.

2.2. Structural linguistic approaches to the meaning of the TFV

Structural linguistic approaches to the meaning of the TFV explore whether different groups share the same meaning ofTFV and are rooted in the approaches of Levi-Strauss (1963), Barthes (1973) and, most importantly, Saussure (1967). Walton(1993, p. 51) uses Saussure’s (1967) ‘classic analysis of the development of meaning’ to highlight how the TFV is intendedonly to be understood by people who understood accounting, that its meaning is constructed and that its meaning changesover time. Walton concludes that these words, true and fair, have different ‘playground’ (Lyas, 1993 p. 169) meanings, andthese meanings have been abstracted in accounting from this level to a new technical level.

Prior research on the meaning of the TFV by Low et al. (1997) and Houghton (1987, 1988) follows the structural linguisticapproach, testing whether meanings held within a certain structure (e.g. the accounting profession) can be passed to orshared by other subgroups (e.g. readers of financial statements). Low et al. find that perceptions of the TFV did not differsignificantly across the groups while Houghton found significant differences between the perspectives of the TFV held byaccountants and private shareholders.

Similarly, in the particular context of European harmonisation, drawing on Austin’s (1980) work on speech acts, Nobes(1993) and Aisbitt and Nobes (2001) found that, when applied in European law, the translation and application of the TFVhad differing signifiers across national boundaries. Such speech acts are privileged and institutionalised ‘as the practices thatsupport the dominant group’s position and goals are recognised and rewarded’ (Dillard et al., 2004, p. 534).

Bourdieu (1991, p. 44) is also critical of the manner in which structural linguists convert ‘the immanent laws of legiti-mate discourse into norms of correct linguistic practice, sidestepping the question of the economic and social conditionsof acquisition of the legitimate competence and of the constitution of the market in which this definition of legitimate andillegitimate.’ Here again, Bourdieu’s work provides a counterpoint to Habermas: in terms of linguistic theory, Bourdieu sug-gests that by dehistoricizing and decontextualizing its object ‘Habermas falls into the same trap as Saussure and Chomsky’by overlooking the socio-historical conditions which create language (Crossley, 2004, p. 92).

In an accounting setting, what Bourdieu is saying is that, for example, by gaining their qualifications as evidence oftheir legitimate competence, auditors have the right to say what is true and fair. Structuralists ignore how the professionalqualifications are recognised as the legitimate competence. Bourdieu argues that the search for connotative meaning islooking for meaning in the wrong place: what matters is whether a ‘collective belief’ (1991, p. 125) actually exists. UsingBourdieu’s analysis of legitimate language, an alternative perspective is one which elucidates and explicates the structureswhich control the legitimate language of the accounting profession and which imbue the TFV with meaning, focusing onwhether and why the auditor is accredited with having full control over the legitimate language. Bourdieu’s ‘practical theory’of habitus – where a ‘sense of the game’ is inculcated by practice – offers an alternative perspective on the ‘meaning of theTFV’ as a concept nurtured by the everyday playing out of the practice of accounting. Hence, Bourdieu’s habitus – derivedfrom practice – is apt in its application to the TFV—defined by practice.

2.3. Bourdieu’s linguistic habitus and symbolic domination

Adopting Bourdieu’s perspective, the primary criticism of the mainstream articles on the TFV (Houghton, 1988; Low etal., 1997; Rutherford, 1985; Walton, 1993) is those authors’ attempts to give an objective view of the TFV from a subjec-

914 G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

tive perspective. This criticism appears all the more powerful considering the social and historical factors which shapedthe TFV. Bourdieu’s criticism of ‘subjective’ perspectives suggests that those inculcated in the habitus of the British con-ceptualisation of the TFV would without question accept the TFV as the legitimate language, and look internally to find ameaning.

Bourdieu offers the theory of the habitus to overcome the difficulties of both the subjective and the objective. In thesubjective category, social agents – those actually involved in social interaction – are ‘native virtuosos’ who have a ‘feel forthe game’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 79). Their actions defy rationalisation or, in sociological terms, categorisation: ‘indeed, socialaction has nothing to do with rational choice, except perhaps in very specific crisis situations when the routines of everydaylife and the practical feel of habitus cease to operate’ (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 783).

‘Objectivism’ is in dialectic opposition to ‘subjectivism’. It tries to look at the social world from the outside in, seekingto construct ‘a cultural map’ of the objective relations which structure practices and representations (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 2;1988, p. 782). In attempting to be objective, researchers presuppose a break with their immediate primary experience, andelucidate the structures which depend wholly upon these very primary experiences they are trying to break from. This is thekind of structural analysis developed by Houghton (1988), Low et al. (1997) and Walton (1993). Bourdieu’s framework offersthe possibility of overcoming these weaknesses without viewing the world from a subjective perspective, without seekingto grasp, from the outside, the way the world appears to the individuals who are situated within it. Bourdieu’s conceptof habitus attempts to ‘capture and encapsulate’ the dialectic between ‘subjectivism’ and ‘objectivism’ (Bourdieu, 1988). Itcharacterises social acts as a set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in a certain way.

Hence, whilst linguistic approaches to the concepts such as the TFV explore the outcomes or ‘the utterer’s meaning andintention’ (Grice, 1989, p. 86) of language, Bourdieu’s habitus is also concerned with the origins of such meanings: by empha-sising the ‘nativist’ characteristics of accounting players, Bourdieu adds to Giddens’ structuration theory which ‘specificallyrefers to routinized practices that are carried out or recognized by the majority of members of a collectivity’ (Giddens, 1984,p. 38–9). It is in reaction to the non-routine and the non-rule that Bourdieu’s social agents find their virtuosic tendencies.Hence, whilst Giddens’ structuration theory has contributed to our understanding of the ‘ordering’ of organizational prac-tices (Scapens and Macintosh, 1996, p. 682), Bourdieu’s habitus offers a distinct perspective on reactions to ambiguous acts– such as the TFV – by natives of the field.

Thompson (1991, p. 13) explains the concept further, saying that the dispositions which constitute the habitus are incul-cated, structured, durable and transposable. From an accounting perspective, the acquisition of an accounting habitus througha process of inculcation (or indoctrination) is most important. Through a myriad of mundane processes of training and learn-ing, such as double entry bookkeeping or – more conceptually – what constitutes an operating lease or a finance lease, asubsidiary or an associate and so on, the individual acquires a set of dispositions which become second nature. These dis-positions are structured in the sense that they reflect the social conditions in which they were acquired, for example freemarket capitalism. (In other words, the accounting habitus in a strictly communist country would be different from that of acapitalist accounting habitus). They are durable, because through the process of inculcation, the individual cannot ‘unlearn’his/her set of dispositions. Finally, the dispositions are generative and transposable in the sense that they are capable ofgenerating a multiplicity of practices and perceptions in fields other than those in which they were originally acquired, suchas in tax consultancy and insolvency advice.

Whilst Bourdieu’s theories with respect to the dialectic conflict between ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ are criticised in theliterature for their tendency towards the objectivism which he himself refutes (e.g. Garnham and Williams, 1980; Jenkins,1982, 1993; Schatzki, 1987, 1997; Evens, 1999), his concept of habitus is supported as a ‘practical theory’ by others (e.g. Taylor,1993; King, 2000; Wacquant, 2004). As discussed further in this paper, the exploration of the habitus is particularly apt inthe context of the TFV as it represents a playing out of a practice that has as its ‘principle not a set of conscious, constantrules, but practical schemes’ (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 12). Similarly, Wittgenstein (1974, p. 190) argues that rules are invariablysocial and, as a consequence, understandable only within the context of a social practice: ‘What is the criterion for the waythe formula is meant? It is, for example, the kind of way we always use it, the way we are taught to use it’.

The most crucial aspect of the habitus is that it naturalises itself and the cultural rules, agendas and values that make itpossible. All practices are informed by notions of power, politics and self-interest. But in order for the habitus to functionsmoothly and effectively, individuals must normally think that the possibilities from which they choose are in fact neces-sities, common sense, natural or inevitable (Webb et al., 2002, p. 35). Even if prior research (for example, by Houghton,1988; Nobes, 1993; Aisbitt and Nobes, 2001) finds that there is an absence of a common understanding of the TFV, theycontinue to define their interests within the accounting field’s parameters, narratives and values: ‘the application of rulesis not determined by their intrinsic logic, as rationalist philosophers would have it, but by social agreement’ (King, 2000,p. 420).

The habitus also explains why the authors of the mainstream literature fail to account for the ‘carnal’ (Wacquant, 2003,p. 18) conditions of formation of the TFV. As Webb et al. (2002, p. 39) explain ‘systems, rules, laws, structures and categoriesof meaning and perception can only function effectively as habitus if we do not think about the socio-cultural conditionsor contexts of production and existences: or what Bourdieu (1977, p. 78) calls ‘the forgetting of history which history itselfproduces’. Thus the preservation of the habitus in practice is dependent on individuals, or agents, accepting the socialstructures (in this case the British form of regulation) as given, the natural order of things, and hence not questioned in anyanalysis of the TFV. This ‘forgetting of history’ perpetuates the legitimate language of the accounting field as discussed inmore detail in the next section.

G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920 915

3. Ethos: production of the legitimate language

The previous section highlighted the limitations of previous research in the area of TFV. Although the methodologicalreasoning employed in the literature on the TFV is both thorough and fastidious, it ignores some essential issues that needto be addressed before an adequate linguistic analysis can be performed on the efficacy of the TFV. Why the role of the TFVhas only (re-)emerged as a focus of academic debate, and why a simple three letter phrase has become a hotbed of debateon the nature of European harmonisation are two of these issues. This section, as demanded by Bourdieu, addresses howthe TFV became imbued with such significance, by exploring the social and cultural forces that shaped its formation. As aconsequence, this section moves to a broader view of TFV which sees it as part of the ethos – or ‘tone of the community’2 –of accountants and auditors.

3.1. The socio-economic context3

By trying to view the TFV objectively, linguistic approaches ignore the social, cultural, historical and political factors thatshaped the function and role of the TFV. The end result is an internal looking focus on the nature of the TFV. Such a failureto adopt a reflexive attitude in considering the TFV is highlighted again by Stewart (1988) who considers the meaning of‘true and fair’ from philosophical perspectives on what ‘truth and fairness’ should try to achieve. Truth he attributes to theindividual, whilst fairness, he believes, functions on a societal level. In attempting to be objective, the subjective nature ofthese perspectives on the TFV shines through. What started off as an attempt to explicate the TFV became sub-consciouslyan attempt to defend the British method of self regulation (Stewart, 1988, p. 121).

Hopwood (1990) explores the drafting of the Fourth European Directive where the status of the TFV was a source ofconsiderable debate. The directive defines company law as it relates to financial reporting by member states of the EU. Whenthe directive was being drafted, the inclusion of the requirement that financial statements give a TFV – a concept which hasits origins in British law – was a key demand of the UK. This debate, which eventually led to the introduction of the TFV inEU law, symbolised the struggle over harmonisation of accounting practices.

This analysis suggests that the TFV acts as a symbolic token (Giddens, 1990, p. 22) of the British regulators’ claims tothe legitimate language of external financial reporting. At its core, argues Hopwood (1990), was whether the UK model ofself-regulation bolstered by professional judgement would emerge as the dominant position in the accounting field. Whatcan be seen here is that the TFV is embroiled in a struggle much more politically charged and symbolically endowed than asimple problem over an absence of shared meaning (as in, for example, Houghton, 1988; Low et al., 1997)—it is not only asimple statutory requirement, but also an icon of British self-regulation.

Hopwood (1990) was the first to identify that the TFV may have a more symbolic role than a purely operational one.He argues that the TFV belongs to the rhetoric of the accounting regulatory institutions. Consistent with the sociology andinstitutionalisation of professions more generally (e.g. Abbott, 1988), he outlines the important social, political and culturalmilestones that influenced the nature of the TFV.

Parker (1989, p. 23) concludes that ‘the phrase ‘the true and fair view’ is Britain’s contribution to twentieth centuryaccounting terminology’, drawing on the requirement of the UK Companies Act 1844 for a ‘full and fair balance sheet’.Further, Hopwood (1990, p. 84) argues that the TFV functioned in a ‘rather lowly if not insignificant ritualistic role’, untilthe debates surrounding the accounting implications of the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Community. Hop-wood’s analysis highlights how, if the British model of regulation could achieve dominance, its terms and terminology, suchas the TFV, would become in Bourdieu’s terms the ‘legitimate language’ of this field. In the face of this new adversary,and the threat to the relative autonomy that the British accounting regulators had enjoyed, the relevance of the TFV was‘rediscovered’.

What was at stake here was more than just philosophical inquiries into what ‘true’ and ‘fair’ should try to achieve(Stewart, 1988), or linguistic explorations (such as by Walton, 1993). Symbolically, true and fair was charged with a differentmeaning, one of self-regulation, autonomy, judgement and professional independence. Hopwood (1990, p. 152) concludesthat:

. . .the phraseology of true and fair had to be imbued with the full significance of the underlying dispute over theterritorial claims as to who should regulate and influence accounting and how that influence should be exercised. Inthe process, the arcane wording took on a new meaning and significance.

Bourdieu (1991, p. 50) explains that the emergence of a legitimate language is often the product of unification of thelinguistic market. This unification, he suggests, accompanies a move towards economic unification and globalisation. This ishow the legitimate language of accounting emerged. Users’ demands have become more complex, and the desire for com-parability across national and institutional boundaries has pushed accountancy towards ‘harmonisation’ (Schipper, 2000),or to use Bourdieu’s term, ‘unification’. The power struggles between the various regulators have manifested themselvesimplicitly in the language accounting uses. This is also a feature that Bourdieu (1991, p. 50) attributes to the unification of

2 Oxford Dictionary of Current English: ethos characteristic spirit or tone of a community.3 We are grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for highlighting the significance of the socio-economic context of the TFV.

916 G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

the market:

Thus the effects of domination which accompany the unification of the market are always exerted through a whole setof specified institutions and mechanisms, of which the specifically linguistic policy. . .forms only the most superficialaspect.

Hence, the struggle for domination is exerted through many media—the power to name things is one of these media. TheTFV is one of the symbols of the British accountants’ claims to holding the legitimate language (the conceptual frameworkwould be an example of another), and so it became essential to them that it was incorporated into European legislation.

This particular unification project failed as the TFV meant different things in different habita (Nobes, 1993; Aisbitt andNobes, 2001). The endorsement of International Accounting Standards (IASs) by the EU has superseded the Directives processas the vehicle of accounting harmonisation in Europe. A similar project is underway in auditing with the development ofInternational Standards in Auditing (ISAs). The stated aim of such standards (IAASB, 2006, p. 1) is to contribute ‘to enhancedquality and uniformity of practice in these areas throughout the world, and strengthened public confidence in financialreporting’. More specifically, the hegemony of IASs is threatened by differing standards of audit quality internationally(sometimes termed ‘IAS lite’ after Schipper, 2000) and ISAs are intended to strengthen the application of IASs through theimplementation of global standards in auditing as well as accounting.

However, as discussed by Kauppi (2003), Bourdieu offers a broader point in the context of the integration of Europeanpolitical capital more generally, suggesting that the embedded nature of habitus is a natural obstacle to harmonisation efforts.Patterns of practice originating in one habitus do not easily transfer to another: Bourdieu (1977, 1984) argues, for example,that golf in France may look the same as golf in Japan but their contrasting habita (such as social context) render them subtlydifferent in practice. This further extends Shapiro’s arguments (1997, 1998) regarding the ‘contested outcomes’ (1998, p. 659)of national and international standard-setting processes: the inculcation of the TFV in a particular habitus poses problemsfor the harmonisation process as the institutionalisation of practice in different national or cultural contexts creates differentmeanings. This undercuts efforts to export ambiguous concepts such as TFV across institutional boundaries and underminesthe current globalisation project of the IASB and others (e.g. SEC, 2007).

As has been highlighted in the analysis above, the TFV is part of the legitimate or dominant language in accounting –the language of the British regulators – and this is why it is so symbolically significant. The next section further analysesthe auditing field more specifically to identify how one gains access to the right to use the legitimate language through therituals of practice and through ownership of the elements of audit practice which constitute the TFV.

3.2. The field, capital and the economics of linguistic exchange

A cultural field is defined as a series of ‘institutions, rules, rituals, conventions, categories, designations, appointmentsand titles which constitute an objective hierarchy, and which produce and authorise certain discourses and activities’(Webb et al., 2002, p. 22). From this definition alone, it can be seen that the accounting profession clearly constitutes aseparately identifiable cultural field. While, for example, ‘Habermas’ democratic and accountability model is constrained byits rule-governed approach’ (Lehman, 2006, p. 756), Bourdieu’s cultural field is dynamic: it does not comprise institutionsand rules alone, but it also includes the interaction between these rules and institutions as well as practices which developedbeyond rules. This section explores the factors which contribute to the creation of the habitus of accounting and audit,including education and admission to partnership. The role of the experience in the architecture of the TFV through relianceon the prior year and through judgments such as materiality and analytical review is also discussed.

The TFV is a product of the relation between the linguistic habitus of the accountant and the field of accounting. Auditorsare social agents in the accounting field, whose habitus was formed and acquired through the process of inculcation duringtheir educational and training period. Only by obtaining their qualification from the recognised accounting bodies are audi-tors allowed to partake in this market. Yet to gain this qualification, the auditor must undergo a training and educationalexperience which is controlled and often run by the very professional bodies to which they aspire. These same bodies areresponsible for drawing up the rules and practices that constitute the game. Therefore the accounting regulators throughtheir monopoly on education and training of new accountants and auditors can employ these resources to reproduce existingsocial relations in students through a process of inculcation. By obtaining these qualifications, students become endowedwith the linguistic capital to give them access to the legitimate language, and with cultural capital in the form of an academicand professional qualification.

This privileging of practice is further accentuated by the requirement under another EU Directive, the Eighth Directive, forauditors to hold a ‘practicing certificate’, granted only where a professional accountant has a minimum of 3 years’ experienceas an auditor (see, for example, Fearnley and Hines, 2003). More specifically, the audit partner as his/her firm’s signatoryto the audit report is the arbiter of the TFV. Recent trends suggest (Guinn et al., 2004) that it takes on average 13 yearsto be admitted to partnership in US accounting firms. This period of ‘inculcation’ in the habitus of accounting practice issignificant given that the practices of accounting firms are developed within the firm’s culture and that accounting firmsseek to actively acculturate their staff (see Jenkins et al., 2008, for a very useful synthesis of research in this area). Hence,admission to partnership – and the ability to ‘name’ the TFV’ – is not only based on technical knowledge but more profoundlyon adherence to the ‘field’, the ‘clan’ and a sense of ‘fit’ in the audit firm (Benke and Rhode, 1984; Fogarty, 1992; Ponemonand Gabhart, 1993; McGarry and Sweeney, 2007).

G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920 917

Moroever, auditing standards privilege the habitus of the audit field. For example, ISA 315 Understanding the entity andits environment and assessing the risks of material misstatement (APB, 2004b, para. 16) requires that a discussion of audit riskby the audit team ‘provides an opportunity for more experienced engagement team members, including the engagementpartner, to share their insights based on their knowledge of the entity’. Such routines inculcate the habitus, recreating asystem of ‘durable dispositions’ which generate and structure practices and representations. Similar examples of processesof experiential judgements are found with regard to audit evidence (APB, 2004c) and materiality (APB, 2004d).

Gray (1991, p. 139) writes that such judgements run ‘right the way through the audit. It begins when the firm decides toaccept an appointment as auditor and continues through the analytical review, the assessment of audit risk, the determinationof levels of materiality. . .and culminates in the conclusions of whether or not the financial statements do show a TFV’.Subsequent research, summarized by Rich et al. (1997) has examined the judgement processes in the audit environment andestablished clear links between judgement and experience of the audit field. Rich et al. (1997, p. 105) cite numerous studieswhich find that auditor judgement is shaped by specific prior experiences of the audit process, of client misstatement andpersuasion and of the client or industry (see, for example, Salterio, 1996; Carpenter et al., 1994; and, more recently, Kaplanet al., 2008). Carpenter et al. (1994, p. 355) argue, for example, that firm culture is ‘amplified’ by the experience of audit firmmembers. This practical experience in which the auditor is embedded creates knowledge that differs from and is deeperthan generic audit/accounting knowledge.

In terms of Bourdieu’s ‘practical theory’ of habitus, (1977, p. 79) such auditors are ‘native virtuosos’ who have a ‘feel for thegame’. Drawing on tennis and boxing analogies employed by Bourdieu (1988, p. 19), these native virtuosos have a profoundknowledge of the object of the game inculcated by practice, they have the ‘practical flexibility’ to know when and how theyshould run to the net or into open space. More importantly, as well as knowing what to do and what not to do, they knowwhat they can get away with: their sense of the game is in essence defined by their relationships with other stakeholders inthe game and what those others will tolerate.

King (2000, p. 419) argues that, for Bourdieu ‘these players do not have a priori principles to their play—only beginnersneed to do that’. The habitus defies abstract principles or rules but is created by ‘the sense of honor, a disposition inculcatedin earlier years of life and constantly reinforced by calls to order from the group’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 14–5). An ‘unspoken,seemingly automatic coercion’ (Eliasoph and Lichterman, 1999, p. 229) creates the habitus and is in turn created by it.

4. Conclusion

Hopwood (2000, p. 763) remarks that the:

institutional and social aspects of financial accounting are still relatively unexplored. Compared with our insights intothe economic theory of income calculation and the economic determinants and consequences of modes of corporatefinancial reporting, our knowledge of how forms of financial accounting emerge from, sustain and modify widerinstitutional and social structures is modest.

Where prior literature focuses on the grammar and language of the TFV, this paper adds to our understanding of theemergence of forms of financial reporting, suggesting that the work of Bourdieu has the potential to add significantly to ourunderstanding of the accounting and audit field. The paper argues that the meaning of concepts in accounting and auditing,such as TFV, emanate from the practice of the field. The TFV and, potentially, other ambiguous concepts happen in a habituswhich is inculcated, structured, durable and transposable in the practice of professional accounting.

Exploring the habitus of the field – what Wacquant (2003, p. 18) terms a ‘carnal sociology’ – the paper extends theliterature on the TFV from one which traditionally attempts to give the TFV a definition to a much broader perspective whichsuggests that the meaning of TFV is found in ‘a system of durable and transposable dispositions’ (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 782). If,as Arden (1997, para. 2) points out, legal interpretations of the TFV are drawn from the ‘practices and views of accountants’,it is from this undergrowth of practice that concepts such as the TFV emerge and are rendered felicitous (or infelicitous).

Drawing on the work of Bourdieu, the paper has highlighted how the profession manages to sustain the collective beliefin its legitimacy over the supply of audited information. To cement its status, a ritual of exchange is set up to demonstratethe legitimacy of the profession: this comes in the form of the audit report. The TFV is the central part of this ritual, and assuch it has a dominant role in the production of the cultural good. By declaring the TFV, the auditor effectively reinforces thestatus quo and the constitution of hierarchy and inequity that exists in the audit field as ‘a function of a series of historicalstruggles over the ownership of accounting principles and practice’ (Macintosh and Shearer, 2000, p. 622). As one critic ofThe Third Policeman points out (Asbee, 1991, p. 23), ‘we name things, and people, in order to ‘know’ and thus exert controlover them’.

Moreover, the conceptualisation of the TFV in terms of Bourdieu’s habitus also has implications for the characterisationof the accounting field more generally. Similar to O’Brien’s The Third Policeman, the habitus of accounting creates a worldwhich is both particular and peculiar to its protagonists: as Shea (1992, p. 125) writes about The Third Policeman:

the means of knowing – grounded in reasonable arrangements such as contiguity, precedence, and sequence – becomenumbed of routine. The problem is not that things fall apart; the problem is rather that things stand too firmly, limitingand enclosing’.

918 G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

Similarly, the habitus of accounting is a limited and enclosed world. In a historical context, Walker (2004) suggests thatthe process of professionalisation was an act of closure, protecting the accounting profession. The conceptualisation of theTFV privileges practice, reinforcing the habitus and, in turn, creating new forms of closure in accounting.

In practical terms, the nature of Bourdieu’s habitus renders current trends towards accounting harmonisation – Bourdieu’s‘unification’ – more problematic as the habitus of accounting and audit is not necessarily replicable in differing jurisdictions.Albeit from a different perspective, the present paper supports Shapiro’s (1997, p. 182) conclusion that ‘national differencesin economic, political, legal, cultural, and other social norms could make it difficult if not impossible to achieve comprehen-sive and “generally accepted” international financial reporting objectives’. The amplification of habitus that this representsundermines harmonisation efforts in accounting and audit.

Furthermore, the implications of such circles of closure extend beyond accounting and audit itself to the wider publicinterest. Concepts refined in the practices and procedures of the accounting habitus defy definition in a more public space.The ‘symbolic violence’ of phrases such as the TFV and GAAP renders them increasingly remote from their everyday meanings,the meanings by which they are understood outside the habitus. Whilst the power to pronounce whether a set of financialstatements presents a TFV is cherished and controlled by the auditor, the increasing distance between such meanings andthose shared by the reader of the financial statements renders the process of accounting less meaning-full to its audience.The power to define the TFV therefore becomes increasingly important inside the accounting habitus and increasinglyinaccessible outside it.

The paper explores this context further in the audit context by arguing that ‘culture interpenetrates social structure’(Eliasoph and Lichterman, 1999, p. 229). Like those who spend most of their ‘natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rockyroadsteads’ and become ‘half people and half bicycles’ in O’Brien’s The Third Policeman, in Bourdieu’s terms, through suchrituals, accounting and auditing – and accountants and auditors – ‘become what they are.’ Bourdieu argues (1991, p. 121)that the act of institution in accounting has a twofold effect. The person who has the qualification starts to believe in its use,‘becomes what they are’. The person who fails is doomed to ‘a life of nothingness’. The TFV comes from and is (re)createdby the accounting habitus. In this way, the accountant and the TFV as a symbolic, linguistic construct are inextricably andintractably linked.

Conceptual and linguistic creations such as the TFV and its ‘equivalent’ in the US, ‘present fairly, in all material respects’(APB, 2004a, para.18), are not just a language or a set of words – not just a logos – but they are part of an ethos, a habituswhich is inculcated, structured, durable and transposable. Like Flann O’Brien’s Third Policeman, they are part of a psyche thatrecycles accountant and accounting, auditor and auditing, narrator and narration, such that ‘the gross and net result of it is’that accountants get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of accounting: they become what they are. . . andwhat they are not.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of David Cooper and two anonymous referees as well asthose of David Carter, Eamonn Walsh, Rachel Baskerville, Michael Keenan, Trevor Hopper, Kerry Jacobs, Vincent O’Connell,Margaret Ó hÓgartaigh, Pauline Willis and participants at the IAFA Annual Conference 2005, AFAANZ 2007, APIRA 2007 andthe University of Auckland Research Seminar Series.

References

Abbott A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.Aisbitt S, Nobes CW. True and fair view requirement in recent national implementations. Accounting and Business Research 2001;31(2):83–90.Amark K. Open cartels and social closures: professional; strategies in Sweden, 1860–1950. In: Burrage M, Torstendahl R, editors. Professions in theory and

history: rethinking the study of the professions. London: Sage; 1990. p. 94–104.Auditing Practices Board (APB), International Standard on Auditing 315. Understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risks of material

misstatement. London: APB; 2004.Auditing Practices Board (APB), International Standard on Auditing 320. Audit materiality. London: APB; 2004.Auditing Practices Board (APB), International Standard on Auditing 500. Audit evidence. London: APB; 2004.Auditing Practices Board (APB), International Standard on Auditing 700. The auditor’s report on financial statements. London: APB; 2004.Arden J. True and fair view: a European perspective. European Accounting Review 1997;6(4):675–9.Armstrong P. Changing management control strategies: the role of competition between accountancy and other organisational professions. Accounting,

Organizations and Society 1985;10(2):129–49.Asbee S. Flann O’ Brien. Boston: Twayne; 1991.Austin JL.Urmson JO, Sbisa M, editors. How to do things with words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1980.Barthes R. Mythologies. London: Granada; 1973.Benke R, Rhode J. Intent to turnover among higher level employees in large CPA firms. Advances in Accounting; 1984;1:157–74.Bourdieu P. Outline of a theory of practice, R. Nice (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977.Bourdieu P. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste, R. Nice (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984.Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, editor. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood; 1986. p.

241–58.Bourdieu P. Vive la crise!: for heterodoxy in social science. Theory and Society 1988;17(5):773–87.Bourdieu P. Langage et pouvoir symbolique (Paris: Seuil, 1991). Language and symbolic power, in JB Thompson (ed.), G. Raymond and M. Adamson (trans).

Cambridge: Polity Press; 1991.Bourdieu P, Wacquant L. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.Burawoy M. 2004 American sociological association presidential address: for public sociology. British Journal of Sociology 2005;56(2):259–94.

G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920 919

Burchell S, Clubb C, Hopwood AG. Accounting in its social context: towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom. Accounting, Organizations andSociety 1985;10(4):381–413.

Carpenter BW, Dirsmith MW, Gupta PP. Materiality judgements and audit firm culture: social–behavioral and political perspectives. Accounting, Organiza-tions and Society 1994;19(4/5):355–81.

Chastney JG. True and fair view: history, meaning and impact of fourth directive. Research Committee Occasional Paper No. 6. London: ICAEW; 1975.Cooper C. Critical accounting in Scotland. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2002;13(4):451–62.Cooper DJ, Everett J, Neu D. Financial scandals, accounting change and the role of accounting academics: a perspective from North America. European

Accounting Review 2005;14(2):373–82.Crossley N. On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio-analysis of publics. The Sociological Review 2004;52(1):88–112.Dillard JF, Rigsby JT, Goodman C. The making and remaking of organization context: duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing and

Accountability Journal 2004;17(4):506–42.Eliasoph N, Lichterman P. “We begin with our favourite theory”: reconstructing the extended case method. Sociological Theory 1999;17(2):228–34.Evens T. Bourdieu and the logic of practice: is all iving Indian-giving or is ‘generalized materialism’ not enough. Sociological Theory 1999;17(1):3–31.Everett J. The politics of comprehensive auditing in fields of high outcome and cause uncertainty. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2002;14(1/2):401–62.Everett J. Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2004;15(8):1061–84.Fearnley S, Hines T. The regulatory framework of financial reporting and auditing in the United Kingdom: the present position and impending changes. The

International Journal of Accounting 2003;38:215–33.Fogarty TJ. Organization socialization in accounting firms: a theoretical framework and agenda for future research. Accounting, Organizations and Society

1992;17(2):129–49.Garnham N, Williams R. Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: an introduction. Media, Culture and Society 1980;2(3):209–23.Giddens A. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.Giddens A. The consequence of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1990.Goddard A. Budgetary practices and accountability habitus: a grounded theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2004;17(4):543–77.Gray R. Evidence and statistical sampling. In: Sherer M, Turley S, editors. Current Issues in Auditing. London: Harper & Row; 1991.Grice P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989.Guinn RE, Bhamornsiri S, Blanthorne C. Promotion to partner in big firms: truths and trends. The CPA Journal 2004;74(4):54–6.Habermas J. On Systematically Distorted Communication. Inquiry 1970a;13(3):205–18.Habermas J. Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence. Inquiry 1970b;13(4):360–75.Hopper K. Flann O’Brien: a portrait of the artist as a young post-modernist. Cork: Cork University Press; 1995.Hopwood AG. Ambiguity, knowledge and territorial claims: some observations on the doctrine of substance over form. British Accounting Review

1990;22(1):79–87.Hopwood AG. Understanding financial accounting practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2000;25(8):763–6.Houghton KA. True and fair view: an empirical study of connotative meaning. Accounting, Organisations and Society 1987;12(2):143–52.Houghton KA. The measurement of meaning in accounting: a critical analysis of the principal evidence. Accounting, Organisations and Society

1988;13(3):263–80.International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, Terms of Reference London, IAASB; 2006.Jacobs K. Class reproduction in professional recruitment: examining the accounting profession. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2003;14(5):569–96.Jenkins R. Pierre Bourdieu and the reproduction of determinism. Sociology 1982;16(2):270–81.Jenkins R. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge; 1993.Jenkins JG, Deis DR, Bedard JC, Curtis MB. Accounting firm culture and governance: a research synthesis. Behavioral Research in Accounting 2008;20(1):45–74.Kauppi N. Bourdieu’s political sociology and the politics of European integration. Theory and Society 2003;32(5/6):775–89.King A. Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a ‘practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory 2000;18(3):417–33.Lehman G. Perspectives on language, accountability and critical accounting: an interpretative perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting

2006;17(6):755–79.Levi-Strauss C. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson. New York: Basic Books; 1963.Loft A. Towards a critical understanding of accounting: the case of cost accounting in the UK, 1914–1925. Accounting, Organizations and Society

1986;11(3):137–69.Low C, Koh K, Chye H. Concepts associated with the ‘true and fair view’. Accounting and Business Research 1997;27(3):194–204.Lyas C. Accounting and language. In: Mumford MJ, Peasnell KV, editors. Philosophical perspectives on accounting: essays in honour of Edward Stamp.

London: Routledge; 1993.MacDonald KM. Professional formation: the case of scottish accountants. British Journal of Sociology 1985;35(2):174–89.Macintosh NB, Shearer T. The accounting profession today: a poststructuralist critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2000;11:607–26.McGarry C, Sweeney B. Clan type controls over audit quality - audit seniors’ perspectives. The Irish Accounting Review 2007;14(2):37–59.Miller P. On the interrelations between accounting and the state. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1990;15(5):315–38.Nobes CW. The true and fair view requirement: impact on and of the fourth directive. Accounting and Business Research 1993;24(4):35–48.O’Brien F. The third policeman. London: McGibbon & Kee; 1967.Oakes LS, Townley B, Cooper DJ. Business planning as pedagogy: language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly

1998;43(2):257–92.Parker RH. Importing and exporting accounting: the British experience. In: Hopwood AG, editor. International Pressures for Accounting Change. London:

Prentice Hall in association with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; 1989.Ponemon LA, Gabhart DRL. Ethical Reasoning in Accounting and Auditing. Vancouver, BC: CGA Canada Research Foundation; 1993.Puxty AG, Willmott HC, Cooper DJ, Lowe T. Modes of regulation in advanced capitalism: locating accounting in four countries. Accounting, Organizations

and Society 1987;12(3):273–91.Rich JS, Solomon I, Trotman KT. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: a decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 1997;16:86–126.Robson K. On the arenas of accounting change: the process of translation. Accounting Organizations and Society 1991;16(5/6):547–71.Rutherford BA. The true and fair view doctrine: a search for explication. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 1985;12(4):483–94.Salterio S. The effects of precedents and client position on auditors’ financial accounting policy judgment. Accounting, Organizations and Society

1996;21(5):467–86.Saussure F. Cours de linguistique generale (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1967). Course in general linguistics, W. Baskin (trans). Glasgow: Collins; 1967.Scapens RW, Macintosh NB. Structure and agency in management accounting research: a response to Boland’s interpretive act. Accounting, Organizations

and Society 1996;21(7/8):675–90.Schatzki T. Overdue analysis of Bourideu’s theory of practice. Inquiry 1987;30(1/2):113–35.Schatzki T. Practices and actions: a Wittgensteinian critique of bourdieu and giddens. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1997;27(3):283–308.Schipper K. Accounting research and the potential use of international accounting standards for cross-border security listings. British Accounting Review

2000;32(2):243–56.Schmitter P, Streeck W. Community, Market, State and Associations? In: Streeck W, Schmitter P, editors. Private Interest Government. London: Sage; 1985.Scott WR. Institutions and organizations. In: Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage; 1995.Scott WR, Backman EV. Institutional theory and the medical care sector. In: Mick SM, editor. Innovations in health care delivery: insights for organisation

theory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. p. 20–52.

920 G. Hamilton, C. Ó hÓgartaigh / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (2009) 910–920

Securities and Exchange Commission. Concept release on allowing U.S. issuers to prepare financial statements in accordance with international financialreporting standards (Corrected) (Release Nos. 33-8831; 34-56217; IC-27924; File No. S7-20-07; 2007, August 7.

Shapiro BP. Objectivity, relativism, and truth in external financial reporting: what’s really at stake in the disputes. Accounting, Organizations and Society1997;22(2):165–85.

Shapiro BP. Toward a normative model of rational argumentation for critical accounting discussions. Accounting, Organizations and Society1998;23(7):641–63.

Shea TF. Flann O’Brien’s exorbitant novels. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses; 1992.Stewart IC. The explication of the true and fair view doctrine: a comment. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 1988;15(1):115–23.Swartz DL. Drawing inspiration from Bourdieu’s sociology of symbolic power. Theory and Society 2003;32(4):519–28.Taylor C. To follow a rule . . .. In: Calhoun C, LiPuma E, Postone M, editors. Bourdieu: critical perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1993.Thompson JB. Editor’s introduction. In: Bourdieu P, editor. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1991.Wacquant L. Une expérience de sociologie charnelle. Solidarités 2003;29:18–20.Wacquant L. Body and soul. Oxford University Press; 2004.Walker SP. The genesis of professional organisation in English accountancy. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2004;29(2):127–56.Walker SP, Shackleton K. A ring fence for the profession: advancing the closure of British accountancy 1957–1970. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability

Journal 1998;11(1):34–56.Walton PJ. The true and fair view: a shifting concept. Occasional Research Paper No. 7. London: ACCA; 1991.Walton PJ. Introduction: the true and fair view in British accounting. European Accounting Review 1993;2(1):49–58.Webb J, Schirato T, Danaher G. Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage; 2002.Willmott H. Organising the profession: a theoretical and historical examination of the development of the major accountancy bodies in the UK. Accounting,

Organisations and Society 1986;11(6):55–81.Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell; 1974.