This study draws on Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) social constructivism and on Van Leeuwen’s (2007) work on the discursive forms of legitimation to examine how individual auditors explain and justify the prevalence of commercialism in their audit firms and profession. The literature on commercialism in auditing addresses the question of how it has been institutionalized and legitimized at the macro-level of the accounting field (e.g., Cooper & Robson, 2006; Guo, 2016; Malsch & Gendron, 2013; Suddaby et al., 2007). However, this literature does not explore the micro-level processes through which auditors justify their own commercialism. Thus, it overlooks the central role that individual subjectivity and interpretation play in the maintenance and transmission of institutional logics (Bévort & Suddaby, 2016; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). In our view, this has prevented accounting scholars from developing a more meaningful conceptualization of the relationship between auditors’ commercialism and their professionalism, one that goes beyond the apparently clashing imperatives of these two logics. The findings of our study suggest that the positive values auditors attribute to the logic of commercialism blur the distinction between their commercial and their professional commitments, so that the notion of a fundamental conflict between their commercialism and their public interest mission comes to be seen as almost absurd. Overall, our analysis of the ways that professionalism and commercialism intertwine with each other in auditors’ daily lives suggests that the relationship between these two logics is much more complex than previously assumed.

本研究借鉴了 Berger 和 Luckmann（1966 年）的社会建构主义以及 Van Leeuwen（2007 年）关于合法化的论述形式的工作，以检验个别审计师如何解释和证明其审计公司和专业中商业主义的盛行。关于审计商业主义的文献解决了它如何在会计领域的宏观层面被制度化和合法化的问题（例如，Cooper & Robson, 2006; Guo, 2016; Malsch & Gendron, 2013; Suddaby et al., 2007）。然而，这些文献并没有探讨审计师证明自己的商业主义合理性的微观过程。因此，它忽略了个人主体性和解释在制度逻辑的维护和传播中所起的核心作用（Bévort & Suddaby，2016；Thornton & Ocasio，2008）。在我们看来，这阻碍了会计学者对审计师的商业主义和他们的专业性之间的关系进行更有意义的概念化，这种概念化超越了这两种逻辑显然相互冲突的必要性。我们的研究结果表明，审计师赋予商业主义逻辑的积极价值观模糊了他们的商业承诺和他们的专业承诺之间的区别，因此他们的商业主义和他们的公共利益使命之间存在根本冲突的概念几乎被视为荒诞。总体而言，我们对审计师日常生活中专业精神和商业精神相互交织的方式的分析表明，这两种逻辑之间的关系比以前假设的要复杂得多。这阻碍了会计学者对审计师的商业主义和他们的专业精神之间的关系进行更有意义的概念化，这一概念超越了这两种逻辑显然相互冲突的要求。我们的研究结果表明，审计师赋予商业主义逻辑的积极价值观模糊了他们的商业承诺和他们的专业承诺之间的区别，因此他们的商业主义和他们的公共利益使命之间存在根本冲突的概念几乎被视为荒诞。总体而言，我们对审计师日常生活中专业精神和商业精神相互交织的方式的分析表明，这两种逻辑之间的关系比以前假设的要复杂得多。这阻碍了会计学者对审计师的商业主义和他们的专业精神之间的关系进行更有意义的概念化，这一概念超越了这两种逻辑显然相互冲突的必要性。我们的研究结果表明，审计师赋予商业主义逻辑的积极价值观模糊了他们的商业承诺和他们的专业承诺之间的区别，因此他们的商业主义和他们的公共利益使命之间存在根本冲突的概念几乎被视为荒诞。总体而言，我们对审计师日常生活中专业精神和商业精神相互交织的方式的分析表明，这两种逻辑之间的关系比以前假设的要复杂得多。