Intersubjectivity — the challenge and opportunity for accounting

The purpose of this paper is to examine the origin, nature and intellectual character of the frameworks being used by the various critics of the public accounting profession. The paper looks at three major questions: (1) what are the frameworks critics are using to hold the profession accountable? (2) What does the response of the profession tell us about how it perceives the problem? (3) Where is the current mode of response likely to lead the profession? Our analysis identifies two different frameworks that underlie the criticism being directed at the profession. We label these the “rational scientist” and “humanist-philosopher” viewpoints. These frameworks differ in the way in which they approach intersubjective phenomena. The differences are especially sharp on the notion objectivity. The profession, thus, is caught between the crossfire of these views and is in the difficult position of responding to a set of critical standards for which there exists no consensual framework. Unfortunately, they seem to be moving more toward the “rational-scientist” position of objectivity which is likely to compound their difficulties.