@article{aras_williams_2022, title={Integrated Reporting and Integrated Thinking: Proposing a Reporting Model That Induces More Responsible Use of Corporate Power}, volume={14}, ISSN={["2071-1050"]}, DOI={10.3390/su14063277}, abstractNote={The obligations of corporations to members of society have been problematic since the corporate form came into existence. Under different rubrics, reporting firms’ socially responsible behavior has been extensively debated, and researched, for at least the past half century. The latest incarnation of corporate social reporting is labeled integrated reporting—the blending of the traditional financial report with a report on the firms’ achievements as socially responsible beings. In this paper, we provide a brief history of corporate social reporting to provide sufficient context for our discussion of a model of integrative reporting that provides for a better representation of just how socially responsible firms are. Progress so far in achieving meaningful integrated reporting that produces more socially responsible corporate citizens is disappointing. The structured narrative of financial performance still dominates the unstructured narrative about social performance. We argue this is partially attributable to two intellectual constraints limiting our ability to imagine systems that could produce better social outcomes from corporate behavior. One constraint is the dominance of “decision usefulness” as the purpose of accounting. The second intellectual constraint is the reluctance to seriously consider that the problem of corporate social responsibility (CSR) lies in the corporate form itself. Thus far, the integration of these reports to give equal status to financial and social performance is not close to achievement. We propose that a first step to developing an integrated report is to adopt a governmental reporting model for corporations. If the six capitals model proposed by IIRC is to be a movement toward more ethical corporate behavior, then the six capitals must be deemed as equally valuable ends and certainly not subservient to only financial ends. The current financial reporting model strongly mitigates against this happening. We argue that each of the capitals is analogous to what in governmental parlance is a “program” or “function,” which require the commitment of financial resources for accomplishment. Thus, a truly integrated report will disclose to all stakeholders what resources are committed to enhancing each of the six capitals as ends in themselves.}, number={6}, journal={SUSTAINABILITY}, author={Aras, Guler and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @article{williams_2022, title={The Decline of Substance over Form in Accounting: A Problematic Dichotomy}, ISSN={["2152-2820"]}, DOI={10.1515/ael-2021-0119}, abstractNote={Abstract
               This essay is a comment on the paper authored by Fischer, Ellman and Schocet (2021, The decline of substance over form in accounting. Accounting, economics, and law: A convivium. (2023)) who argue that the trend in financial reporting regulation involves de-emphasizing the important of economic substance relative to form in how auditors are to perceive their role. The danger foreseen by the authors is the further shrinking of the leeway for professional judgment, which is an important hallmark of a true professional. Agreeing the authors have raised a crucial issue for any group claiming professional status, I try to add to the discussion by pointing out that form and substance in the realm of financial reporting regulation are not antipodes but complementary parts of a process of continuous redefining of what economic substance is. Social reality is socially constructed and as such choices of form made by humans effectively shape substance. Given the capture of accounting by economics during the 1960s, accountants have lost an appreciation for the tentativeness of economic substance and now serve not as participants in shaping economic substance but as enforcers of an imaginary economic substance that derives from the assumptions and values in the ideology of neoclassical economics.}, journal={ACCOUNTING ECONOMICS AND LAW-A CONVIVIUM}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2022}, month={May} }
 @article{williams_2022, title={Unreliable Accounts: Governing behind a Veil}, ISSN={["2152-2820"]}, DOI={10.1515/ael-2021-0107}, abstractNote={Abstract
               This paper serves as a commentary to Professor Ramanna’s paper, “Unreliable Accounts: How Regulators Fabricate Conceptual Narratives to Diffuse Criticism.” The case analyzed by Professor Ramanna is the case of CON 8 in which the FASB changed the qualitative characteristics originally identified in CON2 to eliminate the concept of reliability from those qualities accounting data must possess before such data is decision useful. This commentary intends to add some historical depth to the particular case analyzed by Professor Ramanna to demonstrate that conceptual veiling has been a continuous process since the FASB’s original concepts statements that created a conceptual framework made up of two conflicting narratives, i.e. a mixing of the language of two metaphors for accounting. These two metaphors are “accountability” and “information.” The fateful error that has plagued the concepts statements with incoherence since the FASB began was the repurposing of accounting to that of “decision usefulness.” Decision usefulness as defined by FASB had to contain the property of prediction, explicitly predicting the timing, amount and uncertainty of cash flows. However, information is always “about something;” it is not a free-floating abstraction. Since knowledge about the future in economic affairs has eluded the ability of economists and likely always will, FASB is allegedly providing information about the future for which is has not any noteworthy expertise. CON 8 is just another stage of the growing incoherence of the concepts project. The norms of double entry accounting that developed over centuries and shaped accounting’s fundamental concepts served the purposes of accountability for which information to be information must be reliable. The entire edifice of science would collapse if scientific information were not reliable. Without reliability, the boundary between information and misinformation is blurred to the point of invisibility. Professor Ramanna’s analysis provides great insight into the absurdity standard setters now endorse that information does not have to reliable!}, journal={ACCOUNTING ECONOMICS AND LAW-A CONVIVIUM}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2022}, month={May} }
 @article{ravenscroft_williams_2021, title={Sustaining discreditable accounting research through ignorance: The mainstream elite's response to the 2008 financial crisis}, volume={95}, ISSN={["1873-6289"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.aos.2021.101280}, journal={ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY}, author={Ravenscroft, Sue and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2021}, month={Nov} }
 @article{williams_2019, title={Rethinking Financial Reporting: Standards, Norms and Institutions}, volume={9}, ISSN={["2152-2820"]}, DOI={10.1515/ael-2017-0062}, abstractNote={Abstract
               Professor Sunder’s book raises significant issues about the state of financial reporting, particularly his concern at the proliferation of complex rules for which there are only questionable justifications. In this review essay issue is taken not that there isn’t a problem with current financial reporting, but with the unexamined premise about the nature of that problem and the role that accounting and auditing play in the regulation of the modern, powerful corporation. It is argued that rules are the logical consequence of a competitive order and that resorting to norms as an alternative to rules or standards promises no better alternative unless there is a critical examination of who is to be the community to which norms apply. Thus, it is crucial to question the premise of decision usefulness as the underlying purpose of accounting vis-a-vis the publicly traded corporation. I argue that re-considering the historical norms of accounting that are based on the premise that holding corporations accountable, is crucial to really rethinking financial reporting.}, number={2}, journal={ACCOUNTING ECONOMICS AND LAW-A CONVIVIUM}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2019}, month={Jul} }
 @article{williams_2017, title={Jumping on the wrong bus: Reflections on a long, strange journey}, volume={49}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CPA.2017.10.004}, DOI={10.1016/J.CPA.2017.10.004}, abstractNote={This essay is a reflection on my academic career. The strangeness of my career journey is due to the coincidence of my birth: I was born into and grew up in a United States when the New Deal consensus was the prevailing framer of social, political and economic debates, but entered my Ph.D. studies in accounting at the moment that New Deal consensus was being quite forcibly replaced by one shaped by anti – New Deal intellectuals. The resulting Neoliberal revolution has profoundly reshaped American society and is proceeding to reshape others globally. The effect of neoliberalism in Western democracies has been the reshaping of political decision making via colonizing every aspect of economic, social and political life with the framing of market logic. Neoliberalism also profoundly changed the academic discipline of accounting from the one I believed I was entering (the wrong bus I got onto) into one that made me an outsider for my entire academic career. My work has been focused on various aspects of the bad consequences for accounting of that radical change. One of those consequences has been to remove imagination and intellectual playfulness (what little there was) to replace it with a stultifying, dogmatic, methodologically driven system designed mainly to produce politically correct academic reputations. Another consequence has been the stripping of what is essentially a moral discourse (it's accountability, stupid) of any ethical content in order to create an economically technical discourse (e.g., predicting cash flows) without any proven technical capabilities.}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2017}, month={Dec}, pages={76–85} }
 @article{bradford_earp_showalter_williams_2017, title={Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Stakeholder Concerns: Is There a Disconnect?}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1558-7975"]}, DOI={10.2308/acch-51639}, abstractNote={SYNOPSISThe number of companies reporting their corporate sustainability (CS) activities has significantly increased over the last decade. The result being a wide variability in the types of activities being reported and the ways the information is presented. An unanswered question is whether the information being reported by companies following the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) CS framework is of interest to arguably one of the primary stakeholder groups, customers. Our study seeks to fill this knowledge gap by comparing the content of CS reports to results from a large-scale consumer stakeholder survey. By performing factor analysis on stakeholder evaluation of the importance of CS activities, we find that consumers see different dimensions than those put forth by the GRI framework, thereby suggesting a disconnect between corporate sustainability reporting and stakeholder views and interests. Our results indicate that risk and compliance are dimensions of interest to customers, while the GRI economic dimension is not viewed as important. Additionally, a new dimension of social justice is the most important to consumer stakeholders. Furthermore, the study highlights particular activities within each factor that are most important to the consumer stakeholder group. This research has implications for preparers of sustainability reports and organizations, such as the GRI, that establish guidance for sustainability reporting.}, number={1}, journal={ACCOUNTING HORIZONS}, author={Bradford, Marianne and Earp, Julia B. and Showalter, D. Scott and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2017}, month={Mar}, pages={83–102} }
 @article{williams_ravenscroft_2015, title={Rethinking Decision Usefulness}, volume={32}, ISSN={["1911-3846"]}, DOI={10.1111/1911-3846.12083}, abstractNote={Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 32, Issue 2 p. 763-788 Original Article Rethinking Decision Usefulness† Paul F. Williams, Paul F. Williams North Carolina State University and University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorSue P. Ravenscroft, Sue P. Ravenscroft Iowa State UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Paul F. Williams, Paul F. Williams North Carolina State University and University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorSue P. Ravenscroft, Sue P. Ravenscroft Iowa State UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 March 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12083Citations: 48 †Accepted by Vaughan Radcliffe. The authors would like to also thank Barbara Merino. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume32, Issue2Summer 2015Pages 763-788 RelatedInformation}, number={2}, journal={CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH}, author={Williams, Paul F. and Ravenscroft, Sue P.}, year={2015}, pages={763-+} }
 @article{williams_2014, title={The Myth of Rigorous Accounting Research}, volume={28}, ISSN={["1558-7975"]}, DOI={10.2308/acch-50880}, abstractNote={SYNOPSISIn this brief paper, I provide an argument that the rigor that allegedly characterizes contemporary mainstream accounting research is a myth. Expanding on arguments provided by West (2003), Gillies (2004), and Williams (1989), I show that the numbers utilized extensively to construct the statistical models that are the central defining feature of rigorous accounting research are, in many cases, not adequate to the task. These numbers are operational numbers that cannot be construed as measures or quantities of any kind of stable property. Constructing elaborate calculative models using operational numbers leads to equations whose results are not clearly decipherable. The rigorous nature of certain preferred forms of accounting research is, thus, largely a matter of appearance and not a substantive quality of the research mode that we habitually label “rigorous.” Thus, the policy recommendations implied by the results of rigorous accounting research may be viewed with considerable skepticism.}, number={4}, journal={ACCOUNTING HORIZONS}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2014}, month={Dec}, pages={869–887} }
 @article{bayou_reinstein_williams_2011, title={To tell the truth: A discussion of issues concerning truth and ethics in accounting}, volume={36}, ISSN={["1873-6289"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.001}, abstractNote={Such major scandals as the savings and loan failures in the late 1980s and 1990s, the Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom and Tyco corporate scandals, Arthur Andersen’s demise, and the current crisis of the financial system have all been linked directly or indirectly to false, misleading, or untruthful accounting. Thus, in a pragmatic sense the question of the veracity of accounting or what it could mean for accounting to be true seems to exist. The assertion of a false or misleading financial report implies some belief that there could exist a true or not-misleading report. Accounting-standard setters have finessed this issue by agreeing that “decision usefulness,” not truth, is financial reporting’s ultimate objective. Over time they have gravitated to a coherence notion of truth to provide rationales for accounting policy. The result has been a serious conflict between the content of financial accounting and the auditing of that content. In this paper we describe this conflict and its consequences and, relying on John McCumber’s work, provide an argument about how accounting scholars and practitioners might begin to think more cogently about what a truthful type of corporate reporting might be. We suggest that accounting-standard setters have too narrowly construed what accounting’s role in democratic society is and how the contradictions of current standard-setting jeopardize the essential professional franchise of accountants, the audit function.}, number={2}, journal={ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY}, author={Bayou, Mohamed E. and Reinstein, Alan and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2011}, month={Feb}, pages={109–124} }
 @article{young_williams_2010, title={Sorting and comparing: Standard-setting and “ethical” categories}, volume={21}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.02.002}, DOI={10.1016/j.cpa.2010.02.002}, abstractNote={The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) describes its public interest function as "…developing standards that result in accounting for similar transactions and circumstances in a like manner and different transactions and circumstances…in a different manner (Facts about FASB)." This statement implies that rule-makers possess an expertise that makes analogizing transactions or circumstances to other transactions or circumstances unproblematic. In this paper we utilize two instances of standard-setting, SFAS 123R and SFAS 143, to demonstrate from FASB's analogic reasoning in these cases that similarity and dissimilarity are not so easily ascertained. A judgment about similarity invariably involves ignoring some perspectives of similarity that would lead to substantially different conclusions about the appropriate accounting. We also illustrate via the two examples the inherent value judgments that underlie the conclusions reached by FASB and how these value judgments raise questions about the ethics of the current standard-setting process.}, number={6}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Young, Joni J. and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2010}, month={Aug}, pages={509–521} }
 @misc{ravenscroft_williams_2009, title={Making imaginary worlds real: The case of expensing employee stock options}, volume={34}, ISSN={["1873-6289"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.aos.2008.12.001}, abstractNote={West [West, B. (2003). Professionalism and accounting rules. London: Routledge] and Chambers [Chambers, R. J. (1966). Accounting evaluation and economic behavior. Houston: Scholars Book Company] have provocatively argued that financial reporting has reached a state of near-total incoherence. In this paper, we argue that a source of this incoherence is the transformation of the US accounting academy into a sub-discipline of financial economics, a transformation in which accounting became a servant of the imaginary world of neoclassical economics. After noting the unusually prominent role of rules within the accounting profession, we describe the displacement of accounting's centuries-old root metaphor of accountability by the metaphor of information usefulness, and situate that displacement within neoliberalism, a broader political movement that arose after World War II. Finally, we use SFAS 123R, the recently issued stock option standard, as a case study of the incoherence that West and Chambers assert. Through various issues – such as reflexivity, theory paradox, and unexplained questions of responsibility – we demonstrate the logical inconsistencies involved in SFAS 123F. The incoherence of stock option reporting rules raises serious questions about the information metaphor as a foundation for either individual rules or the standard setting process. The Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) attempts to make the imaginary world of neoclassical economics real have resulted in rules which are not defensible.}, number={6-7}, journal={ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY}, author={Ravenscroft, Sue and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2009}, pages={770–786} }
 @article{williams_2009, title={Reshaping accounting research: Living in the world in which we live}, volume={33}, ISSN={0155-9982 1467-6303}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2009.01.001}, DOI={10.1016/j.accfor.2009.01.001}, abstractNote={This paper is derived from my participation as a faculty guest of the University of Wollongong's Faculty of Commerce 20th Annual Doctoral Consortium. Consistent with the theme of "paradigm, paradox, and paralysis?", I argue in this paper that accounting practice and scholarship suffer from paralysis created by the imposition of a neoclassical economic paradigm. Starting from the premise that accounting is foremost a practice, I argue that accounting cannot be limited by any one type of understanding. A human practice like accounting is simply to multi- faceted and complex to be sensibly "modeled" in any one particular way. The "flight from reality" (Shapiro, 2005), that occurred because of the empirical revolution in accounting, should be abandoned in favor of a more problem driven approach to accounting research and practice.}, number={4}, journal={Accounting Forum}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Williams, Paul F.}, year={2009}, month={Dec}, pages={274–279} }
 @article{thomas_williams_2009, title={Cash balance pension plans: A case of standard-setting inadequacy}, volume={20}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2007.09.003}, DOI={10.1016/j.cpa.2007.09.003}, abstractNote={Accounting for and ownership of U.S. private employee pensions has long been a controversial and politically contested terrain. The uniqueness in the U.S. of using employers as the principal provider of pensions makes the reporting of pensions more problematic since the corporate employers providing pensions are not strictly accountable to only the pensioners. Over the last quarter century there has been a marked swing in power toward management and away from employees making it possible for increasing numbers of U.S. companies to switch from conventional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans. This paper provides a “case” study of how accounting standard-setters framed the pension reporting problem vis-à-vis how they frame the “reporting problem” in general. Utilizing various sources of commentary about the phenomenon of cash-balance conversions, we triangulate on the pension problem to demonstrate how current FASB disclosure rules fail to satisfy the condition of neutrality and how those rules have facilitated the shifting of economic risk from shareholders to employees.}, number={2}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Thomas, Paula B. and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2009}, month={Mar}, pages={228–254} }
 @misc{williams_jenkins_ingraham_2006, title={The winnowing away of behavioral accounting research in the US: The process for anointing academic elites}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1873-6289"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.aos.2006.07.003}, abstractNote={This paper reports the results of a study of the most prolific publishers in the four recognized most prestigious journals in accounting for the period 1963 through 1999. The focus is on learning whether the widespread perception that behavioral accounting research (BAR) has diminished in significance as a prominent paradigm in the US accounting academy has any validity and to identify whether a new generation of US BAR researchers is emerging to join the academic elite. Based on the characteristics of persons who have appeared as authors five or more times during the study period, it seems that BAR is in recession in shaping the US academic agenda in accounting. The power of successful individuals to shape the academic agenda as evidenced by service on editorial boards of prominent journals is dominated by those individuals who are graduates of a set of elite schools utilizing a neoclassical economics based research paradigm. The power of this group seems to be growing in the US. In spite of the interest in BAR among accounting doctoral students and faculty, it is not a pursuit that now leads to academic status, which, in turn, diminishes its potential contribution towards the shaping of the accounting academic agenda.}, number={8}, journal={ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY}, author={Williams, Paul F. and Jenkins, J. Gregory and Ingraham, Laura}, year={2006}, month={Nov}, pages={783–818} }
 @article{ravenscroft_williams_2005, title={Rules, rogues, and risk assessors: Academic responses to Enron and other accounting scandals}, volume={14}, ISSN={0963-8180 1468-4497}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638180500124889}, DOI={10.1080/09638180500124889}, abstractNote={Abstract The recent accounting scandals in the USA and the resulting regulation of the US profession via the Sarbanes–Oxley Act have led to the resurrection of an old debate: principles vs. rules. We argue that such a debate is jejune and serves as little more than a diversion from discussing more substantive issues raised by events like Enron and Andersen. Accounting is not confronted by a choice of principles to the exclusion of rules or vice versa. Principles underlie any set of rules, and any implementation of principles will inevitably involve adopting some rules. We take issue with various analyses of the accounting scandals that rely too exclusively on the principles of neo-classical economics. We conclude by identifying four major obstacles impeding meaningful academic and educational treatment of the maladies of which Enron is merely a symptom.}, number={2}, journal={European Accounting Review}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Ravenscroft, Sue and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2005}, month={Jan}, pages={363–372} }
 @article{ravenscroft_williams_2004, title={Considering accounting education in the USA post-Enron}, volume={13}, ISSN={0963-9284 1468-4489}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000310760}, DOI={10.1080/0963928042000310760}, abstractNote={This paper is based on an address delivered by the lead author as Distinguished Visiting Speaker at the Annual Conference of the Special Interest Group in Accounting Education of the British Accounting Association in Bournemouth England held in May, 2003. The recent financial scandals, epitomized by Enron, raise the question of whether and how accounting educators should respond. It is proposed that accounting educators consider certain changes in the accounting curriculum. Specifically, five areas are identified that need serious rethinking about how they are taught to accounting students. These areas are: (1) corporations – their roles and responsibilities; (2) the status of investors; (3) auditing as a professional franchise; (4) purpose of accounting reports; and, (5) ethics. Currently, the accounting curriculum teaches these areas more as received wisdom or dogma than as problematic issues for accountants. A more critical examination of these areas is proposed so that students are educated, rather than indoctrinated.}, number={supplement 1}, journal={Accounting Education}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Ravenscroft, Sue and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2004}, month={Dec}, pages={7–23} }
 @article{reiter_williams_2004, title={The philosophy and rhetoric of auditor independence concepts}, volume={14}, ISSN={["2153-3326"]}, DOI={10.5840/beq200414329}, abstractNote={Abstract:This paper analyzes the rhetoric surrounding the profession’s presentations of auditor independence. We trace the evolution of the character of the auditor from Professional Man in the early years of the twentieth century to the more public and abstract figures of Judicial Man and Economic Man. The changing character of the auditor in the profession’s narratives of legitimation reflects changes in the role of auditing, in the economic environment, and in the values of American society. Economic man is a self-interested and shallow character who offered the auditing profession little protection against involvement in corporate scandals. In the wake of recent accounting scandals, the profession is calling for a return to the character of Professional Man to restore trust in audits and the financial markets.We also analyze the philosophical bases of the metaphors surrounding auditor independence. These metaphors, particularly the metaphor of independence as separation, create problems in conceptualizing independence concepts. How can you discuss appropriate relationships when your basic concept is one of separation, or no relationship? On the other hand, relational concepts of independence are also flawed if they are not based on a firm moral foundation. We suggest how the profession can act to rebuild its moral foundation through recognition of collective responsibility.}, number={3}, journal={BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY}, author={Reiter, SA and Williams, PF}, year={2004}, month={Jul}, pages={355–376} }
 @article{williams_2004, title={You reap what you sow: the ethical discourse of professional accounting}, volume={15}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2003.04.003}, DOI={10.1016/j.cpa.2003.04.003}, abstractNote={In this essay I argue that some of the responsibility for the recent accounting scandals (e.g., Enron, Andersen) lies with scholars and teachers of accounting. Utilizing the theory of shared professional responsibility developed by Larry May (1992), I argue that the accounting academy’s search for scientific respectability has had the consequence of destroying our ability as a discipline to have the shared values required to prevent Enron’s and Andersen’s from occurring. The ascendance of Positive Economic Science as the monolithic paradigm of accounting scholarship has deprived us of any coherent ethical discourses with which to make judgements about the “propriety” of professional behavior. Constructing such a discourse is now a primary responsibility of the academy.}, number={6-7}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Williams, Paul F}, year={2004}, month={Aug}, pages={995–1001} }
 @article{williams_2004, title={A reply to commentaries on Recovering accounting as a worthy endeavor}, volume={15}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00045-5}, DOI={10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00045-5}, abstractNote={The aim of this paper is to explore the developing professional identity of the Chartered Accountant Student. It explores professional training through analysing the narratives of students. This qualitative study shows how students begin to develop their sense of professional identity through membership of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) within the training organisations, rather than through the professional body. This novel approach to further understanding the professional development of the accounting trainee adds to current academic knowledge as the role of communities of practice, in this context, has not been previously explored. The views and perceptions of Chartered Accountant Students are also relevant to accounting professional bodies, training organisations and to those considering embarking on accounting training. In understanding this process those involved in training can facilitate and, therefore, potentially influence the process because understanding how trainees learn to be professional is central to how they will learn to contribute to professional life and to their future in society.}, number={4-5}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Williams, Paul F}, year={2004}, month={May}, pages={551–556} }
 @article{williams_2004, title={Recovering accounting as a worthy endeavor}, volume={15}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00041-8}, DOI={10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00041-8}, abstractNote={This brief essay is an assertion that the crisis in the academy (Demski, 2002), the crisis in accounting education [Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a Perilous Future, The American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL, 2000], and the crisis in practice epitomized by the Enron fiasco are interconnected. They are the result of the historical inter-connections of accounting practice, education and scholarship, and the questionable values that shaped their parallel developments. The essay goes on to suggest that these accounting problems are really problems with Professional accountants and that recovering accounting as a worthy endeavor requires that intellectually we dissociate it from those who currently claim it as their own.}, number={4-5}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Williams, Paul F}, year={2004}, month={May}, pages={513–517} }
 @article{schwartz_williams_williams_2005, title={US doctoral students’ familiarity with accounting journals: insights into the structure of the US academy}, volume={16}, ISSN={1045-2354}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00021-2}, DOI={10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00021-2}, abstractNote={The academic journal is the primary means through which a discipline defines its content and communicates that content among its members. In the last few years the number and diversity of accounting journals has grown quite substantially as the field of accounting takes on the low paradigm consensus characteristics of many other social sciences. This paper reports the results of a survey of doctoral students enrolled in US Ph.D. programs as to their familiarity with various journals reflecting the current intellectual diversity of the field. Results indicate that familiarity is generally low with anything other than the traditionally regarded "premier" journals, but it is lowest among those doctoral students enrolled in the most "elite" programs. The paper concludes with a discussion the implications of this lack of familiarity for doctoral education and for the progress accounting can make as an academic discipline.}, number={3}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Schwartz, Bill N. and Williams, Satina and Williams, Paul F.}, year={2005}, month={Apr}, pages={327–348} }
 @misc{reiter_williams_2002, title={The structure and progressivity of accounting research: the crisis in the academy revisited}, volume={27}, ISSN={["0361-3682"]}, DOI={10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00050-2}, abstractNote={Doubts were raised within the accounting research program in the United States in the late 1980s about its progress and future potential. In this paper, we develop criteria for "good" scientific conversation, which leads to progress (defined as innovation and relevance). The key to this process is critical evaluation of background assumptions. The structure of scientific conversation in accounting and economics, whose theories and practices accountants adopted, are examined. We conclude that structural barriers result in a lack of adequate transformative critique, which contributes to the lack of progress in the accounting research program.}, number={6}, journal={ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY}, author={Reiter, SA and Williams, PF}, year={2002}, month={Aug}, pages={575–607} }
 @misc{williams_2001, title={A review of Essays in accounting theory: a capstone}, volume={76}, number={4}, journal={Accounting Review}, author={Williams, P. F.}, year={2001}, pages={694–696} }
 @article{williams_2001, title={Who gets to speak and what must they say: A commentary on the Briloff Affair}, volume={12}, DOI={10.1006/cpac.2001.0467}, abstractNote={This paper provides an overview of the emergence of Critical Perspectives on Accounting and of some of its achievements. The journal was originally created to provide a forum to question some of the notions that were systematically taken for granted in accounting practice and research, to explore the ideological underpinnings of the discipline, and reveal its role in processes of domination and social reproduction. The aim was also to encourage community-building around other important issues such as critical accounting interventions and their potential, or ways to bring out more emancipatory perspectives on accounting. We review three streams with a critical approach to accounting that were developed in the journal over 25 years: promoting a radical reflexivity to challenge mainstream views on accounting, questioning the normative claims of the profession to reveal its role in social reproduction, and highlighting the role of accounting in major socio-political trends.}, number={2}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, author={Williams, P. F.}, year={2001}, pages={213–219} }
 @article{williams_2000, title={A social view of accounting ethics}, volume={6}, number={2000}, journal={Research on Accounting Ethics}, author={Williams, P. F.}, year={2000}, pages={259–272} }
 @article{williams_lee_2000, title={Accounting from the inside: Legitimizing the accounting academic elite}, volume={11}, number={1}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, author={Williams, P. F. and Lee, T.}, year={2000}, pages={111–121} }
 @article{williams_hillison_pacini_2000, title={Confidentiality of student records in the electronic frontier: Professors' and administrators' obligations}, volume={18}, DOI={10.1016/s0748-5751(01)00003-3}, abstractNote={The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was created to provide parents and students over the age of 18 with access to education records and to limit disclosure of those records without proper consent. Recent changes in information technology and amendments to the law itself have put FERPA in a state of flux and uncertainty. In this article we describe the rights of students and obligations of professors and administrators. We provide guidance for maintaining student information, especially in light of advances in information technology. A number of recommendations are made to help protect the rights of students as well as to minimize the likelihood of violations under the Act.}, number={2000}, journal={Journal of Accounting Education}, author={Williams, P. F. and Hillison, W. and Pacini, C.}, year={2000}, pages={301–313} }
 @article{williams_1998, title={Loosening the bonds: a comment on insider trading, market efficiency, business ethics and external regulation}, DOI={10.1006/cpac.1999.0376}, number={1998}, journal={Critical Perspectives on Accounting}, author={Williams, P.}, year={1998} }