Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 129-142. Pergamon Press Ltd, 1980. Printed in Great Britain. INTERSUBJECTIVITY - THE CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCOUNTING* SHAHID L. ANSARI and JOHN J. McDONOUGH Graduate School of M anagement, University of California, Los Angeles Abstract 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 ohiectiviry. 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. A new idea is a light that illuminates presences which simply had no form for us before the light felI on them. Susanne Langer The public accounting profession in the U.S.A. is currently under attack from many different quarters and on many different counts. Questions have been raised and criticisms have been levelled at the conventions governing financial reporting, the standards and policy setting machinery, the quality of audits and the process by which the profession governs itself.’ These criticisms are aimed at the very foundations of professional performance and raise some difficult and perplex- ing questions regarding the role of accounting in organizations and society. What jeopardizes the basic regulative role of the profession is the implicitly and explicitly stated belief of its critics that the profession is primarily to blame for this loss of public confidence. Prescriptions range from the esoteric to the pragmatic. The great majority of remedies, however, leave little doubt that the *We wish to acknowledge the help that our colleagues and UCLA Conference participants gave us on this paper. In particular, Jan Oliver’s insightful comments have improved the ideas and the presentation. Lauren Newton and Anthony Tinker made several useful suggestions which have been incorporated. Many of the ideas here originate from our prior collaboration with Sam Culbert. ‘These and other criticisms have been documented in several different publications recently. They reflect both criticisms from within and outside the ranks of the profession. For a detailed discussion see U.S. Congress (1976), $loff (1972, 1976), University of Pennsylvania (1976), AICPA (1977) and Abraham (1978). 129