Purpose - This article offers a critique of the sociologic al model of professionalisation known as the ‘professional proj ect’ put forward by Magali Larson, and which has become the prevailing paradigm for accounting historians. Design/methodology/approach - The article challenges the use of the concepts of monopoly, social closure, collective so cial mobility and the quest for status as applied to the history of accou ntancy. The arguments are made on theoretical and empirical grounds. Findings – The use of the concept of monopoly is not justifie d in the case of accounting societies or firms. The only monopoly the accountants required was the exclusive right to the titles, for example, CA in Britain and CPA in the US. The early accountants were right to argue that the credentials were merely to distinguish themselves i n the market place from untrained accountants. The validity of the con cept of social closure via artificial barriers to entry is questioned and evidence is provided that the elite accountants have always recruited heavily from classes lower in the social hierarchy than themselves. The concept o f the collective social mobility project is found wanting on a priori and empirical grounds; accountants behaved no differently to other busines s classes and have probably not enhanced their social status since the formation of their societies. Originality/value – The article offers in the case of accountancy one of the few critiques of the accepted model of professi onalisation and suggests the weak explanatory power of the sociolog ical paradigms commonly used by accounting historians.
