The Australian accounting environment is dominated by two competing brands – Chartered Accountant (CA) and Certified Practising Accountant (CPA) – which signal that the profession has been unable to achieve full unification. Focussed on 1969, this dual theory-informed, in-depth study examines the first of four unsuccessful attempts to merge the two professional accounting associations from which the two brands originate: The Australian Society of Accountants (the Society) and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (the Institute). Primary data from public archives and oral history interviews, combined with secondary sources, are drawn upon to explain the failure of this proposed merger and to consider its legacy. The complementary theoretical perspectives of “boundary-work” and “institutional work” are applied. Amidst other challenges, corporate collapses during the 1960s precipitated a legitimacy crisis for the profession and raised the prospect of there being sufficient commonality of purpose to enable a merger. While there was overwhelming support from Society members, the merger proposal was defeated by a comprehensive “no” vote from Institute members. This pattern of voting was repeated in three subsequent merger attempts, leading to the persistence of the curious binary structure of the Australian accounting profession and associated ongoing differences and tensions.

在澳大利亚的会计环境中，有两个相互竞争的品牌-特许会计师（CA）和注册执业会计师（CPA）-这表明该行业无法实现完全统一。这项针对双重理论的深入研究侧重于1969年，研究了合并两个品牌的两个专业会计协会的四个失败尝试中的第一个：澳大利亚会计师公会（The Society）和英国特许会计师协会（The Institute of Chartered Accountants）在澳大利亚（研究所）。利用来自公共档案馆和口述历史访谈的主要数据，再加上次要来源，来解释这项拟议合并的失败并考虑其遗留问题。运用了“边界工作”和“机构工作”的互补理论观点。在其他挑战中，1960年代公司倒闭引发了该行业的合法性危机，并提高了实现合并的目的的充分共性的前景。尽管协会成员获得了压倒性的支持，但合并提案却遭到协会成员的全面否决投票否决。在随后的三次合并尝试中都重复了这种投票方式，从而导致澳大利亚会计界好奇的二元结构的持续存在以及相关的持续分歧和紧张关系。合并提案因协会成员的全面否决而被否决。在随后的三次合并尝试中都重复了这种投票方式，导致澳大利亚会计界好奇的二元结构的持续存在以及相关的持续分歧和紧张关系。合并提案因协会成员的全面否决而被否决。在随后的三次合并尝试中都重复了这种投票方式，从而导致澳大利亚会计界好奇的二元结构的持续存在以及相关的持续分歧和紧张关系。