Crisis is a term whose usage is not limited to a particular discipline but rather cuts across various disciplines, and therefore has multiple representations. It has also been treated synonymously with other terms such as stress, panic, catastrophe, disaster, violence and emergency. Those adhering to the medical connotation, regard it as a "turning point" between a fortunate and an unfortunate change in the state of an
organism.
The term crisis was found to have originated from the Greek word 'krisis ' which also
means critique or criticism in modern usage (Brunkhorst, 1 993). The modern relationship of crisis to criticism has been explained as follows:
Although criticism can make people aware of a crisis, and a crisis can provoke criticism or turn criticism itself into crisis, the crisis decides other questions than those of criticisms. Whereas the crisis concerns whether a form of social life is to be or not to be, the critique is concerned only with the validity of arguments; whether they are 'true or false ' , 'accurate or inaccurate' (Brunkhorst, 1 993, p. 1 27).
The above distinction is, however, commonly ignored and 'crisis' is often used for critical and polemical writings, e.g., Nietzsche and Foucault, conceive argumentation and criticism as war, a struggle for existence and power (Brunkhorst, 1 993). Kosellek ( 1 988) in his study of critique and crisis points out that the polarisation of all concepts is given meaning and inner cohesion by the critical function and that criticism is inherent in all dualism. S ampson ( 1 962) in his study of the reform of Britain from a Victorian society to a modern society, identifies three phases in the change: first a period of scathing · criticism and satire, then a period of development of new ideologies for social and
political change, and finally the introduction and implementation of change.
Essential features of the term crisis can be discerned by a review of a few definitions of the concept:
No circumstance, however unusual, is a crisis unless it is so defined by human beings. The individual involved must be aware of the danger
which is present or he must believe that danger is present (La Pierre, Collective Behaviour, cited in Hetzler, 1 940, p. 1 59).
A stage in any given interactional process where a person or a group is involved in a problem which has proved insoluble by whatever habits, customs or routine practices have been depended upon, and attention is suddenly focused upon the impasse (Elliot, 1 948, p. 6 1 7).
In every crisis those concerned are confronted with Hamlet' s question: to be or not to be .... Crises occur when conflicting experiences accumulate and can in the end no longer be integrated, as occurs with the "anomalies" suffered by Kuhn's "normal scientist" (Brunkhorst, 1 993, p . 1 29).
A crisis is a threat, a challenge, a strain on the attention, a call to new action. Yet it need not always be acute or extreme ... whether the behaviour is organising or disorganising depends upon the point of view; that which is disorganising from the standpoint of traditional norms may have the germs of a new type of organisation, a new definition of the situation which in turn may be accepted and become a part of the culture (Thomas, 1 909, p. 1 8).
The above definitions have emphasised different elements of any crisis. They are the need for the admission of a crisis, the failure of the normal problem solving mechanism in a situation, the existence of anomalies between what is expected and actual experiences which cannot be reconciled, the usual causal reason of a crisis and the development of a new system.
From a philosophical perspective, Macintyre ( 1 980) states that an important sign of a crisis is when the accustomed ways for relating 'seems and is ' begin to breakdown. This happens when one discovers a problem about the rational justification of inferences from premises and about the behaviour of other people to conclusions about their thoughts, feelings and attitudes. He concludes that "to be unable to render oneself intelligible is to risk being taken to be mad" (p. 56).
Kuhn ( 1 970) identifies a crisis in scientific paradigms to be characterised by a period of pronounced professional insecurity, which "is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should" (p. 68). This period, Kuhn ( 1970) states, will be characterised by criticisms which would contribute to the
formalisation of rules underlying a framework, followed by the proliferation of versions of a theory.
The substantiative definitions and philosophical perspectives have been expanded into procedural definitions consisting of elements that occur in any crisis. Wiener and Kahn ( 1 962) enumerate 1 2 generic dimensions of a crisis. The dimensions are: ( 1 ) crisis is often a turning point in an unfolding sequence of events and actions; (2) crisis is a situation in which the requirement for action is high among participants; (3) crisis threatens the goals and objectives of those involved; (4) crisis is followed by an important outcome whose consequences shape the future of the participants; (5) crisis produces uncertainties in assessing a situation and in formulating alternatives for dealing with it; (6) crisis consists of a convergence of events that results in a new set of circumstances; (7) crisis reduces control over events and their effects; (8) crisis heightens urgency, which often produces stress and anxiety among participants; (9) crisis is a circumstance in which information available to participants is unusually inadequate; ( 1 0) crisis increases the time pressure for those involved; ( 1 1 ) crisis is marked by changes in the relations of participants; ( 1 2) crisis raises tension among participants. Another element of a crisis that has been identified is a situation that is unanticipated or unexpected (Herman, 1965).
Herman ( 1 965) studying the effects of crisis on organisational behaviour highlighted a number of common consequences which limit the viability of organisations. The consequences include (a) withdrawal behaviour by members of an organisation or institution, (b) intensification of any conflicts existing prior to the crisis, (c) a reduction in the number of communication channels used for the collection and distribution of information, and (d) a tendency towards contraction of authority in an organisation and institution.
B ased on the above discussion, the rest of the chapter is focused on examining the literature and recent developments in the accounting profession, to identify if the profession is in a state of crisis. Following from the view that crisis is frequently concealed in criticism, the next section summarises the various lines of criticism directed
at the profession. In the last section the summary of criticism as well as other developments are examined to see if they reflect the following features of a crisis (Figure 3. 1 ) :
1 . A recognition o f the existence o f a crisis b y the profession. This is a feature highlighted by Wiener and Kahn ( 1 962) and Hetzler ( 1 940). The recognition contributes to other behavioral changes in the profession.
2. Evidence of anomalies in the claims of the profession. Anomalies indicate lack of commitment to claims, and contributes to confusion (Kuhn, 1 970).
3. Evidence of a re-examination of the relationship of major participants involved in this case, client-professional relationship, state-profession relationship, and professional body member relationship. The re-examination is usually an indication of lack of trust as a consequence of long term tension in the relationship.
4. Formalisation of the rules underlying a relationship. Formalisation of rules usually occurs when accepted procedures come under attack and is an attempt to limit the nature of acceptable solutions.
5 . Proliferation of theories concerning the nature and direction of the profession. Proliferation of theories is usually a result of professional insecurity (Kuhn, 1 970), and an indication of the failure of routine practices to solving problems (Elliot, 1 948).
6. Indications of a paralysis in the decision making process. Paralysis usually occurs due to lack of information, reduced control over events and their effects and increased tension among participants. The normal reaction is to postpone decision on problems, hoping the problem will go away.
Figure 3.1: Framework for the Study of a Crisis :•:· :· ,., .. :· ···'··