【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 fic industry relevant research (itself a bit short sighted) much accounting research has been a little too esoteric and removed from the problems of the industry to be so regarded. Consequently, it is little wonder that the practitioner munity became increasingly disenchanted with academe and while this was mainly evident in the United States, this research approach spread to other parts of the world, including Europe and Australasia. Initially supported by some large business interests, this new research movement was promoted and driven by ideologues of large, well endowed conservative US business schools with the lesser schools following like well trained sheep. This ―hierarchy‖ was reinforced by the capture of academic accounting journal editorial policies – the gatekeepers to accounting knowledge. An unfortunate legacy of this was that new accounting academics in these leading US schools, although well versed in neoclassical economic theories and sophisticated mathematical analytical techniques, could not teach much accounting beyond introductory courses! Fortunately, there has also been a growing disenchantment with this approach in many accounting schools with the result that there has been an increase in interest in addressing issues in which accounting was seen to be intricately involved or where it was felt it should be involved. There is at last evidence – the GFC – that the market cannot solve all economic let alone other societal problems the ideologues claimed. There has been a growing awareness of the importance of accounting in an increasingly wide sphere of human activities – recognition of alternative approaches to accounting, which acknowledge more than simply the purely technical economic considerations. That is, recognising the social and human aspects of accounting practice. Unfortunately, although these accounting academics are concerned with the practical realities of the ―everyday accountant‖, the nonacademic arms of the discipline have often viewed this work as being equally removed from everyday practice – but this is changing! The professional bodies Intuitively it would seem that a professional body should exist to serve the interests of its members and this is probably what accounting professional bodies would claim is PAR 21,2 174 their paramount concern. In fact, they have generally done this well. Where there is a single accounting body – for example, in countries such as New Zealand and Thailand – it has been easier to observe how they operate. In Australia, the two (traditional) main accounting bodies have worked hard to protect the interests of their members through the setting up of research bodies designed to determine standards of best practice with which their members could not only ply, but with which they were seen to be plying. Until recently the bodies have sought to undertake their 4 responsibilities through a regime of selfregulation and pliance with relevant laws. However, in Australia the State has taken over this responsibility. The previous right of the professional bodies for selfregulation has been removed. There are many reasons for this but they probably include the inability