Global ends, local means: Cross-national homogeneity in professional service firms

Abstract

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/50987/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. Global ends, local means: Making it to partner in professional service firms

Money, honour and duty: Global professional service firms in comparative perspective

“…By not taking cognizance of how even very similar types of organization can behave very differently in different national contexts (Maurice et al, 1980), PSF research can therefore be accused of universalizing a particular. Even the limited cross-national comparative work in this area has largely restricted itself to Western contexts (see, for example, Boussebaa et al 2012;Muzio 2014, 2016;Muzio and Faulconbridge 2013;Smets et al 2012;Spence et al 2015). There is virtually no research exploring how PSFs operate in Asia.…”

“…Cultural capital itself takes a variety of forms and is a key aspect of how actors position themselves within fields (Bourdieu 1986). Professional and University credentials, for example, constitute institutionalized cultural capital although it has been shown that even in Western contexts there is variation in the value placed upon degrees from specific educational institutions, with French Big 4 firms being much more elitist than their Spanish, British or Canadian counterparts (Spence et al 2015). It is unclear to what extent educational credentials are more or less valued by Big 4 firms in Asia, although wider literature on the educational systems in Japan and…”

Annexing new audit spaces: challenges and adaptations

“…While Spence et al (2015) convincingly demonstrate that economic drivers within the audit field are more hegemonic than is sometimes presupposed, they also note that "it may be well be the case that complexity … reign(s) during times of institutional change" (p. 3). The intersection of auditing and other domains (e.g., professional sport, travel, government, and the environment) do introduce unfamiliar norms, expectations and the 'rules of the game', which make jockeying for dominant positioning, even for the highly powerful and influential PSFs, complex and challenging.…”

“…[ INSERT TABLE 4] In line with Spence et al (2015), we expect accounting elites to pursue new opportunities where they believe sufficient opportunities for economic capital accumulation and/or enhancing reputation and thus symbolic capital are on offer. Consequently, Big-4…”

“…public duty, ethical conduct, technical competence). However, as , and Spence et al (2015) evidence through a series of in-depth interviews with Big-4 PSF partners, there is a clear privileging of commercial priorities within the field and concern with what Gouldner (1979, p. 22) calls the "latent function" of cultural capital, whereby those possessing it seek to increase their "income and social control". 3 In Bourdieusian terms, audit professionals may be characterised as "cultural intermediaries" (Negus, 2002), being involved in the production and circulation of symbolic materials (e.g., audit reports and opinions) that fulfil an ever-expanding demand for assurance and verification, thus positioning auditors with the power to "exert, from their position within cultural institutions, a certain amount of cultural authority as shapers of opinion" (Andon et al, 2014, p. 78).…”