Thomas A. Lee UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

A SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE FOUNDERS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY

Abstract. This paper examines the social relations of the founders of the first institutions of modern public accountancy in Scotland. The study uses archival data to construct social networks prior to 1854. Individual founders in the networks are identified as potentially significant sources of influence in the foundation events.

The paper reports the social network analysis in several parts. First, relations between the founders of The Institute of Accountants in Edinburgh (IAE), renamed The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh (SAK), are networked. Second, a similar analysis is made of the foundation of The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow (IAAG). Third, social links between individual founders of the IAE/SAE and IAAG are identified.

The research results are generally consistent with prior .studies but reveal significant matters not identified by other researchers. The social network analysis of the IAE/SAE founders confirms the existence of a cohesive and elite community and the presence of an elite within an elite. There is evidence of strong links to lawyers and landowners, as well as significant links to the insurance industry.

Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges the financial support of the Culverhouse Endowment (University of Alabama) and the Scottish Committee on Accounting History (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland); data collection by Melanie Thorius, Suzanne Hepburn, and William Jackson; advice from Professor Stephen walker (University of Edinburgh), Dr. John Bolland (Institute of Social Science Research, University of Alabama), and Professor Steven Borgatti (Boston College); archival assistance at the Scottish Record Office, the Special Collections Department (University of Edinburgh), the National Library of Scotland, the Edinburgh Central Library, and the Mitchell Library (Glasgow); and Dorothy Hogg (ICAS librarian) and Isobel Webber (ICAS Research Department). Two anonymous reviewers gave helpful comments. To these individuals and organizations, participants at the 1999 annual conference of the Academy of Accounting Historians, and students and staff of the Department of Accountancy of the University of Dundee, the author expresses thanks with the traditional absolution.

The IAAG network analysis demonstrates the Glasgow community to be elite but more cohesive than its Edinburgh counterpart. The IAAG founders had more significant links to merchants and farmers than to lawyers and were a social group distinctly different from that of the IAE/SAE. Nevertheless, relations existed between individual founders in the two communities that have the potential to explain why the foundations took place at about the same point in time.

The study involves the first use of social network analysis in an accounting history project. This methodology has been used extensively over several decades in sociology and social history. The major longterm contribution of the paper therefore can be argued to be the introduction of social network analysis to accounting historians.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to examine various social relations between individuals directly or indirectly involved in the founding of the IAE/SAE in 18531854 and the IAAG in 18531855. Much has been written about the Scottish founders and the foundation events [e.g.; Brown, 1905; Stewart, 1977; Macdonald, 1984; Briston and Kedslie, 1986; Walker, 1988b, 1995; Kedslie, 1990a, b; Shackleton, 1995; Lee, 19961. However, little has been reported about the personal and business relations that existed between the founders. Such relations are signals of potential influence within the foundation communities and offer means of identifying potentially major players in the foundation events.

The paper reports detailed archival searches and analyses of individual relations that indicate wellestablished social structures of potential communication and influence within the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations. By means of these structures, it is possible to identify those Edinburgh and Glasgow accountants with the greatest access to their colleagues in their foundation communities and, therefore, with the most potential to influence foundation events. Although personal attributes of the founding accountants are reported, they are used only to provide an interpretable context for analysis and a means of statistically validating the more fundamental aspects of the social structures that were the foundation communities.
The study reports that, respectively, there were 75 Edinburgh men and 51 Glasgow men directly or indirectly involved in the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations. Each group constitutes an identifiable community based on individual relations or ties that evolved over a number of decades in school, at university, in training and practice, and as a function of the geographic proximity of business and domestic addresses. In addition, there were connections between the founders through family, marriage, and friendship ties. In combination, these relations form social networks for further analysis of potential influence by individual founders.

The independent variables (personal attributes) that best explain variations in the degree of potential influence of the IAE/SAE founders are practice type; land, legal, and insurance connections; and geographic origins. More specifically, the mostconnected members of the Edinburgh founding group were those founders born and raised in Edinburgh with the most links to landowners, lawyers, and insurance companies. Other attributes, such as paternal occupation, age, professional experience, and marital status, did not explain variations in relations in the foundation network. The most significant attribute to explain network influence in the IAE/SAE community is insurance connections.

Most of the IAE/SAE findings are consistent with prior research of a broader nature. Studies such as Brown [19051, Stewart [1977], Macdonald [19841, Walker [1988b], Kedslie [1990a, bl, and Walker [1995] emphasized the strong relations in Edinburgh in 1853 between accountants and lawyers; lawyers and landowners; and accountants, lawyers, and insurance companies. Most researchers in this area believe Londonbased political and economic threats to courtrelated work to be the main reason for the institutionalization of Edinburgh accountants in 1853 and 1854. This professional service depended on close relations between accountants and lawyers and focused on property ownership (including land). In addition, Edinburgh in the first half of the 19th century was a major location for insurance companies. With the protection of property owners as their major objective, lawyers and accountants typically managed these companies. What is surprising in this study is the dominance of insurance connections over other variables available to explain the social structure of the IAE/SAE foundation community. Also of interest are a number of founders who were well connected within the Edinburgh foundation community, as well as to landowners, lawyers, and insurance companies apparently uninvolved in the foundation events.

Total network differences for the IAAG founders are best explained by a combination of parental occupation, legal connections, and marital status. Differences within subgroups of the Glasgow community are related to factors such as age, practice type and experience, and marital status. Overall, the most persistent explanation of differences in IAAG ties is marital status. Explanations of differences in the IAE/SAE community generally do not apply to the IAAG group. On the other hand, a comparison of the personal attributes of the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders reveals differences noted by previous researchers [e.g.; Stewart, 1977; Macdonald, 1984]. In particular, the Glasgow founders were socially more connected to commerce than to law.

A social network analysis of IAE/SAE and IAAG founders who were socially connected by 1853 reveals potential for the separate foundation debates, decisions, and actions to have been known within each community. For this reason, it is unsurprising that the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations took place at approximately the same time.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, a brief review is made of previous research to provide theoretical bases for using archival data to look for explanations of differences in the social relations of both the IAE/SAE and IAAG communities. The main expectations of the study are stated, prior to explanations of the archival sources and the research methodology applied to the databases constructed from the archives. Data collection procedures are outlined. The founders are designated in terms of defined subgroups applicable to each of the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations, and the personal characteristics of the two groups of founders are explained and compared. The social network analyses are described, first in relation to IAE/SAE founders, then to IAAG founders, and finally with respect to linked founders from the two communities. The data analyses incorporate linear regression models in which the degree of influence of the founders is the dependent variable and personal attributes are the independent variables. These models are used to explain individual network differences. The implications of the main findings are discussed, as are statements of study limitations and a need for further research.

PRIOR RESEARCH OF THE IAE/SAE AND IAAG FOUNDATIONS

Brown [1905] is the earliest commentator on the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations. He identified the main foundation events and provided brief biographical details of the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders and other early public accountants in Scotland. However, he did not attempt explanatory analyses of the foundations. Brown’s brief biographical notes on early accountants were the basis for more detailed biographical research by Stewart [1977] of all Scottish chartered accountants between 1853 and 1879 Stewart’s biographies were used in Macdonald [19841 to describe and contrast the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations.

Stewart [1977] made several claims about the Scottish foundations in 1853 In relation to the IAE/SAE, he stated the existence in 19th century Edinburgh of strong connections between landowners and the legal profession, as well as between lawyers and accountants. He related these connections to the IAE/SAE foundation as a threat to the monopoly of courtrelated services by Scottish accountants. Stewart’s biographical material identified some of these connections and revealed that several of the IAE/SAE founders were legally trained. He also argued that Glasgow accountants were socially different from their Edinburgh counterparts. He cited several reasons for this conclusion (e.g., close links to merchants and stockbrokers rather than to lawyers and a general lack of association with leading Glasgow schools and its main university).

Other researchers have come to similar conclusions about the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders. Macdonald [1984], for example, examined the foundations through the theoretical lenses of collective social mobility and market control. He cited early Scottish chartered accountancy as an example of both constructs, and relied on Stewart’s [1977] biographical data to demonstrate his arguments. In particular, Macdonald described the IAE/SAE as the creation of an elite club in which the link between lawyers and accountants was crucial to its success. He also agreed with Stewart regarding the commercial and stockbroker backgrovinds of the IAAG founders.

Walker [1988b] stated that Edinburgh accountants in the first half of the 19th century were classed as an adjunct to the legal profession and accepted as such by the leading professional bodies of law. Kedslie [1990a, bl contrasted the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders’ practice preferences and social origins. She reported that the Edinburgh founders had strong connections to other professions, particularly law, while the IAAG founders were linked to mercantile activity, including stockbrokers. She also argued that both communities were involved in courtrelated and insurance services.

Lee [1996] outlined the IAE/SAE foundation events and identified each of the founders. He classified these accountants as either active or inactive in the foundation, dependent on their attendance at known foundation meetings. From this classification, Lee identified an inner cabinet of active and inactive men, elected to the IAE/SAE Councils of 1853 and 1854, and an outer cabinet of active founders. The Lee classification offered an initial focus on potentially influential founders. With one exception, the cabinet members were elected to SAE committees in 1854. Lee concluded that this pattern suggests the existence of an elite within an elite in the IAE/SAE. Fiftyfour of the 75 Edinburgh founders did not belong to the designated cabinets.

RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS

Research outlined in the previous section permits several general expectations to be stated prior to the social network analyses. The archival data are quantifiable, reasonably objective, and useful for empirical testing. The study therefore offers explanations as well as descriptions of the IAE/SAE and IAAG networks.

The first expectation is that the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders were members of cohesive elite groups within their professional communities. For example, the IAE/SAE founding group did not contain 57 Edinburgh accountants publicly listed in 1853, while 99 Glasgow public accountants were not involved in the IAAG foundation in 1853 In addition, previous research on the IAE/SAE founders indicated an uppermiddleclass grouping of men with landowning and/or legal or other professional origins. In relation to the IAAG founders, prior studies have suggested their strong presence in mercantile affairs, including several business leaders of Glasgow [see also Maclehose, 1886]. It is therefore expected that identifiable networks for each foundation community identify the cohesive elite nature of the IAE/SAE and IAAG groups.

A second expectation relates to the composition of the foundation communities. First, the formation of the IAE/SAE involved 22 individuals employed as insurance company managers rather than public accountants. They were introduced to the foundation at the creation of the IAE in 1853 However, ten of the group resigned from the IAE shortly before it received its royal charter as the SAE in 1854. Second, the IAAG foundation consisted initially of two groups. In 1853, 15 experienced Glasgow accountants (requisitionees) were petitioned by 27 lessexperienced accountants (requisitionists) to form a professional body. According to Kedslie [1990b], the senior accountants were primarily engaged as stockbrokers while their junior colleagues provided public accountancy services. All of these factors suggest that the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundation communities contained accountants who were not in public practice but were important to the credibility of the foundations. It is therefore expected that these individuals were well connected within and outside the foundation communities.
The third expectation relates to founder characteristics that gave credibility to the IAE/SAE and IAAG as reputable institutions of public accountancy. In the case of the IAE/SAE, previous research suggested that social connections to landowners and lawyers were persistent and important characteristics of the founders. In the case of the IAAG, on the other hand, the equivalent connections were to leading merchants, stockbrokers, and other participants in commerce and trade rather than to lawyers and landowners. Thus, in the case of the IAE/SAE foundation, it is expected that the potential influence of individual founders is positively associated with the number of pre1853 links they had to landowners and lawyers. In the case of IAAG founders, on the other hand, it is expected that this relation will hold true with respect to mercantile and similar links.

A fourth expectation extends the previous argument to associations with the insurance industry. Previous research demonstrated strong corporate managerial and governance links between Edinburgh accountants and insurance companies in the first half of the 19th century. Glasgow accountants, on the other hand, were typically involved in insurance agency [Kedslie, 1990a]. It is therefore expected that, in the case of the IAE/SAE foundation, the potential influence of the individual founders is positively associated with the number of pre1853 insurance connections. In the case of IAAG founders, this relation is not expected to hold true.

The overall model prescribed above suggests that the most influential IAE/SAE and IAAG founders were significantly connected to social groups important within their respective business communities. Other models based on factors such as parental occupation, age, practice experience, and marital status are not consistent with any prior research or argument.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

Of specific interest in this study are the social ties between IAE/SAE and IAAG founders that constitute social network structures. These ties are described by means of archival material gathered from various sources. These include census enumerator books; baptism, birth, marriage, and death certificates; school and university matriculation lists; university graduation books; postal and trade directories; membership records of professional bodies; histories of professional, commercial, and charitable organizations; and published biographies and obituaries. Most of the data are original, but some are secondary. Where possible, secondary data were audited for accuracy by reference to original data sources.

The concept of individual ties forming a defined social network, such as the founders of the IAE/SAE or the IAAG, is a significant one for social historians. The research focus moves from individual attributes [e.g.; as in Macdonald, 1984; Kedslie, 1990a, b] to a network of ties that define potential communication, influence, and resource transfers [Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Wasserman and Faust, 1994J. A tie between two individuals is a unit of measurement to assist in explaining human behavior within a defined community. A collection of measured ties forms a social network that empowers and constrains human action [Wasserman and Faust, 1994J.

The focus of this study is the identifiable relations between individuals in the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundation communities. As Emirbayer and Goodwin [19941 argued, analyses of networks constructed from measurable ties between individuals look at overall structure rather than specific content because social systems rest on defined social relations and not on the cognition of humans. Social relations are independent of personal attributes and can be measured at individual or group levels. Emirbayer and Goodwin [1994J also argued that network analysis has the potential to identify the cohesion necessary to provide collective identity in a group or community. Thus, social network analysis is not a theory of sociology; rather, it is a paradigm or perspective on social behavior. The analysis can objectively reveal social structure ‘without necessarily requiring subjective insights into individual beliefs, values, and normative commitments.

There is a basic principle of measurement within a defined social network. It states that the greater the number of ties associated with an individual, the greater is his/her potential to communicate, influence, or transfer resources with or to other individuals in the network [Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Wasserman and Faust, 1994]. Ties are channels for communication or resource transmission and, once formed and identified, are analyzed to reveal those individuals in the structure with the greatest potential influence, as well as to derive measures of prestige. A social network can be conceptualized graphically, with nodes signifying individuals and lines connecting nodes representing defined ties. Networks can be decomposed into connected blocks based on the structural equivalence of individuals.

The primary aim of social network analysis in the current study is to comprehend 19th century public accountancy in Scotland as a cohesive elite structure of social relations. This is in contrast to the conventional approach of categorized attributes independent of these relations.

Social network analysis has been used by sociologists and social historians since the early 1950s.2 It is typically thought of as a graphbased methodology in which ties between individuals in a network are visually presented in an optimal manner that helps to identify key individuals with large numbers of directed or undirected ties signifying network activity; subgroups of individuals with common ties to one another as well as to others (i.e., cliques of defined minimum size and a requirement for at least one related pair of individuals); isolated individuals with few or no ties; individuals who act as bridges between one network and another; and subgroups (blocks) comprising individuals with structurally equivalent ties that are not necessarily linked to one another (e.g., individuals who went to the same school or university but at different times). Directional ties indicate individuals of greatest prestige in the network because of the ties directed to them. Ties can also be valued if such data are available (e.g., a dollar amount of resources).
For many years, the use of social network analysis was limited to relatively simple manual sociograms. The reason for this was the computational restriction on researchers attempting to find an optimal set of relations from even a small number of ties. However, with advances in computer processing and programming, it is now possible to calculate speedily measures that accurately describe relations in a network. The computer program used in this study is UCINET [Borgatti et al., 1992]. It produces matrices constructed from a spreadsheet that records specific ties

‘See, for example, Bearman [1993] in which the prediction of kinship in the English Civil War is not based on the traditional attributes of status and land ownership but, instead, on the structural equivalence of occupational and religious affiliations.
Social network analysis is fully explained in Wasserman and Faust [ 1994]. An earlier explanatory text is Rogers and Kincaid [1981].

between individuals. Matrices are symmetrical for purposes of calculating network measures.

Many types of measure of influence are possible in social network analysis [Wasserman and Faust, 1994]. Degree centrality is the main measure used in the current study as it is relevant and simplest to comprehend.’ In its most fundamental form, a centrality measure describes the number of ties in the foundation network associated with each founder. The more ties there are to a founder, the more potential influence he has in the network. The degree centrality of a founder is normalized to a percentage by dividing his ties by the maximum possible number of ties in the network. This percentage measure, which describes the proportion of other founders in the network to which the specific founder is linked, is reported in this study’s appendices and tables. The higher the percentage, the more central or potentially influential the founder is presumed to be in the network.

The centrality of the foundation networks is also reported in the appendices. This measure is the dispersion between the most and leastrelated founders in a network. Group degree centrality is a percentage datum with the numerator being the sum of the differences between the actual ties and the maximum possible ties for each founder, and the denominator being a similar measure assuming one completely dominant founder. The measure ranges from 100% (if one founder potentially dominates all others) to 0% (if all founders have identical ties and equal potential influence).

Social network analysis computes and reports network cliques. By definition in this study, a clique is a group of at least three founders with mutual links. No other founder in the network can be added to a defined clique once all mutual relations are exhausted. Mutual relations therefore define cliques, and the founders can be members of more than one clique. In fact, founders can be members of numerous cliques and thereby link subgroups in the network without the use of direct ties. The size of a clique is specified for purposes of analysis depending on the

‘Other measures of centrality are described in Wasserman and Faust [ 1994] and Borgatti et al. [1992], “Closeness” measures how close an individual is to each of the other individuals in the network. “Betwecnness” is a measure of how many times other individuals in the network have to go through a specific individual in order to communicate. “Eigenvector” is a measure of the total number of ways an individual can relate to all other individuals in the network. Each of these measures was computed in this study, but the results are identical to those using the simpler degree centrality and clique measures.

size of the network. In this study, clique size is set at a minimum of five founders.

Empirical explanations of differences between centrality measures are presented by means of multivariate models of linear regression. In each linear model, the degree centrality scores of the relevant founders define the dependent variable. Selected founder attributes (based on theoretical arguments regarding expectations) are the independent variables. The constant term is set at zero, and the robustness of the regression is tested by means of a form of bootstrapping involving 1,000 random regression calculations for each independent variable. The percentage of random regression coefficients larger (assuming a positive relation) or smaller (assuming a negative relation) than the actual coefficient is reported.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were gathered for 75 IAE/SAE founders listed in Appendix 1 and 51 IAAG founders listed in Appendix 2. The data are of two types. The first type concerns the ties between founders prior to the foundation events in 1853 These are structured on a career time line for each founder; i.e., beginning with school relations, followed by university ties, and completed by training and employment or partnership links. In addition, data were collected on social ties such as family, marriage, close friendships, and nonbusiness relations (e.g., in charitable organizations). Finally, business and home addresses in 1853 were identified to determine those founders living within reasonable proximity of one another. In order to qualify as proximate, individuals had to be living or working in the same or an adjacent street, a conventional approach in this type of research.
The second type of data concerns the personal attributes of the founders. These include age and practice experience by 1853; geographical origins and paternal occupation; marital status in 1853; practice type; legal, insurance, and bank connections;’ and membership in the Institute of Actuaries [Davidson, 1956] (in
4The minimum number is three. Five appears to be a reasonable size given the overall network of 75 individuals.

‘Insurance and banking connections are defined in terms of directorships, appointments as auditor, or management of the insurance company. Insurance agencies are not included as these were common features of public accountancy in Scotland in the 19th century and do not relate to the overall management or governance of an insurance company.

the case of IAE/SAE founders) and the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association [Glasgow Stock Exchange Association, 1927] (in the case of IAAG founders).

The bibliography identifies the various sources accessed to obtain data on relations and personal attributes. Baptismal, birth, marriage, and death certificates were analyzed, but certain founder names such as W. Smith and J. Watson were impossible to match with any degree of accuracy. Census enumerator books were examined. However, occasionally a founder and/or his family members were absent on the day of the count. Information about leading Edinburgh schools was available from primary and secondary sources. These schools included George Heriot’s Hospital [Bedford, 1872; Gunn, 1901]; the Royal High School [Trotter, 1911]; the Edinburgh Academy [Edinburgh Academy, 1914]; and the Edinburgh Institution [Young, 1933]. No records were found for comparable Glasgow schools. University of Edinburgh [University of Edinburgh, various dates; University of Edinburgh, 1858] and University of Glasgow [Kirkpatrick, 1889; Addison, 1898, 1913] matriculation lists and graduation books were searched. So, too, were graduation books of the University of Aberdeen [Johnston, 1906] and matriculation lists of the University of St. Andrews [Anderson, 1905]. However, identifying the correct founder in school and university records (e.g., J. Mackenzie or W. Smith) was again occasionally difficult or impossible.

Postal and trade directories of Edinburgh and Glasgow were used for identifying practice firms and addresses, and business and other appointments [e.g., the New Edinburgh Almanack, various]. Membership records were examined of significant Edinburgh and Glasgow business, professional, and social organizations to which the founders and their relations and friends belonged. These include the Dialectic Society [Dickson, 1887]; the Edinburgh Academical Club [Edinburgh Academy, 1914]; Edinburgh and Glasgow City Councils [Tweed, 1883; Constable and Constable, 1932]; the Faculty of Actuaries [Davidson, 1956]; the Faculty of Advocates [Grant, 1944; Walker, 1988a]; the Glasgow Atheneutn [Lauder, 1897]; the Merchants Company of Edinburgh [Heron, 19031; the Paul and Mackersey Club in Edinburgh [records held by ICAS]; the Royal Company of Archers [Paul, 1875; Hay, 1951]; the Royal Society of Edinburgh [Royal Society of Edinburgh, undated]; the Solicitors of the Supreme Court [Barclay, 1984]; the Society of Writers to the Signet [Society of Writers to the Signet, 1936]; and the Speculative Society

[Watson, 1905; Guild, 1968]. Various church histories (e.g.; the Church of the Canongate [Wright, 1956], St. George’s Church [MacLagan, 1876], and St. Steven’s Church [Sands, 1927]) provided useful data, as did histories of leading Scottish banks [Anderson, 1910; Munro, 1928; Rait, 1930; McCulloch and Stirling, 1936; Reid, 1938; Malcolm, 1945, 1950; Munn, 1988; Saville, 1996]. Obituaries and major texts [e.g.; Douglas, 1882; Eddington and Pike, 1904; Maclehose, 1886] that include researched data relating to the founders were used as additions to original data.

THE IAE/SAE FOUNDERS

Lee [1996] has described the IAE/SAE foundation. His analysis began with an initial set of 15 men involved with the first meeting and revealed a growing number of accountants attending each subsequent meeting. The original 15 accountants were established public accounting practitioners in Edinburgh and represented nine partnerships. For purposes of the current study, the sequencing of the foundation is defined at each stage as including closely connected individuals to the known participants. This permits inclusion of partners and senior employees who did not attend specific meetings but who undoubtedly ‘would have been aware of them. This definition has the advantage of not restricting each subset of the foundation group at each point of time to those actually attending a meeting. In Table 1, therefore, the 75 founders are identified in relation to specific stages in the IAE/SAE foundation. These are the bases for the social network analysis measures in Appendix 1.

There are a number of factors to consider in Table 1. First, with respect to the structure of the paper, the items marked relate to the social network analysis in Appendix 1 and the regression models in Table 5. Second, the initial foundation group predominantly comprised public accountants. It is approximately twice the size conventionally recorded by researchers such as Kedslie [1990a]. Phis is due to expanding the group to include partners and significant employees of the initial invitees. Third, the initial planning group contains the most prominent Edinburgh public accountancy firms in 1853, as well as courtbased accountants closely connected to the work of public accountants (e.g., the accountant and assistant accountant of the Court of Session). Fourth, the second group of participants contains 18 insurance company managers who were IAE members.

Other movements in the IAE/SAE foundation numbers in Table 1 are relatively small and relate to either young accountants joining the IAE after its formation, resignations prior to the SAK royalcharter petition, or the Lord Advocate’s recommendations. In total, 64% of the 75 founders can be classified as public accountants. Ten of the 12 resignations from the IAE/SAE were insurance managers. This means that 16 of the 61 founding SAE members were not public accountants in terms of their main professional service focus.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IAE/SAE FOUNDERS

Prior to analyzing the social network of the IAE/SAE founders, it is appropriate to examine their personal attributes that are the basis for the independent variables used in the regression analyses. Several attributes are completely identified (i.e.; birthplace, age, practice type, insurance and bank links, business and private addresses, and membership in the Institute of Actuaries). Other attributes are identified as much as the available archives permit (i.e.; father’s occupation, school and university attendance, practice experience by 1853, legal links, and marital status in 1853). Thus, there are missing data in the analyses.

Three attributes (i.e.; school, university, and address) are the basis for determining ties between founders (e.g., founders in the same school or university class). They are therefore not used as independent variables in the regressions. To do so would result in specific attributes being part of both sides of the linear equation, thereby creating spurious correlation. Schooling was determined in a majority of cases. These involve the two most prestigious Edinburgh schools of the time (37 founders attended Edinburgh Academy and/or the Royal High School of Edinburgh, suggesting they were typically from uppermiddleclass families) [see also Walker, 1988b]. Eightyone percent of the founders attended the University of Edinburgh to take arts or law classes. A small number attended the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrews. Although many founders attended university for several years, only G.A. Jamieson received a degree (University of Aberdeen). Founders’ addresses were almost totally located in Edinburgh’s most prestigious residential and business area, the New Town. Seventytwo of the 75 founders had either a business or domestic address in this small area. The full range of attributes other than those used for ties is disclosed in Table 2.

There is evidence in Table 2 of a bias to uppermiddleclass background. Seventy percent of the founders had fathers who were landowners and/or lawyers (26) or other professionals (26). This is consistent with previous research [e.g., Kedslie, 1990a]. The number of links to lawyers is separately disclosed; 75% had at least one connection to a lawyer through family, marriage, or employment ties. These data exceed previous calculations. For example, Kedslie f 1990a] stated 18% of the 61 SAE charter petitioners had lawyer fathers (23% in this study).

Table 2 reports the birthplace of more than twothirds of the founders was Edinburgh or its surrounding region, suggesting a reasonably cohesive geographical group. The founders were well established and experienced in practice. The average age in 1853 was approximately 44 years, and the equivalent experience datum was approximately 16 years. The predominant practice type was public accountancy [consistent with Kedslie, 1990a, b], with a sizeable minority of 24% in insurance management [again consistent with Kedslie, 1990a, b; Macdonald, 1984]. The insurance

“Other comparisons are difficult to make as previous writers either covered Scottish chartered accountants from 1853 to 1879 [e.g.; Stewart, 1977; Macdonald, 1984; Briston and Kedslie, 19861 or segments of the foundation groups [Kedslie, 1990a, b]. Nevertheless, each of these studies suggests an understatement compared to the current study.

links are magnified by related data; i.e., 73% of the founders had at least one actuarial, directoral, or managerial link to insurance companies, and 28% were members of the Londonbased Institute of Actuaries by 1853. Twentyfive percent of the group had observable managerial or governance relations with banks. Most of these links took the form of executive or nonexecutive appointments with leading institutions. Approximately six of every ten founders were married by 1853 In total, 20% of the group died unmarried, consistent with Walker’s [ 1988b] review of the SAE membership to 1914.

MEASURES OF DEGREE CENTRALITY FOR THE IAE/SAE FOUNDERS

To determine the social network of the IAE/SAE foundation community in 1853, it is necessary to identify social ties between individual founders. This is completed in five distinct stages, each approximating a period in a founder’s time line. The first stage is school attendance, followed by classes at the University of Edinburgh. The third stage concerns apprenticeship, employment, and partnership associations. The fourth stage involves social relations, including family, marriage, and close friendships. The last covers geographic proximity’ in terms of addresses in the same or adjacent streets in the New Town. In each stage, extreme care was taken to match dates for individuals. In no case is a tie weighted to proxy for actual communication (e.g., as in a partnership or close friendship). In addition, in no case is a tie labeled as directed to one individual from another. Weight and direction of ties are impossible or exceedingly difficult to determine in most cases.

Identified ties were recorded in a spreadsheet database. The networks constructed from these data focus solely on links between one individual and another. Multiple relations are recorded as a single tie, resulting in a symmetrical matrix with cell values of either one (there is a tie) or zero (there is no tie). This approach avoids the problem of subjective weighting, although it can be argued to understate the influence of founders with multiple relations. However, social network researchers argue that multiple relations do not magnify the link between two individuals [Rogers and Kincaid, 1981].

Degree centrality and clique measures are reported in Appendix 1. As previously stated, degree centrality is measured as a percentage of the maximum ties available to each accountant in the founder group, and cliques are measured with a minimum number set according to the network size (i.e., five). Mean degree centrality is also reported in Appendix 1, as are the mean number of cliques per individual and the group centrality score. For example, in the initial founding group, J. Maitland is connected to 43% of the other 28 founders in the group and is a member of six cliques of five or more individuals. The group has a centrality score of 32%, suggesting no particular dominance in it. Degree centrality and clique measures are reported in Appendix 1 for the initial planning group (29 members), the expanded group at the IAE foundation (68), the SAE royalcharter petition group (61), and the total group in the foundation (75).

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES OF THE IAE/SAE SOCIAL NETWORK

Combining measures of degree centrality and clique membership for each founder as a proxy for potential influence, the ten most connected founders in each group are ranked in Table 3 in descending order of connection.

TABLE 3 MostConnected IAE/SAE Founders

Initial Group IAE Group Petition Group Total Group
K. Mackenzie K. Mackenzie K. Mackenzie K. Mackenzie
T.G. Dickson C. Pearson T.G. Dickson C.Pearson
C. Pearson T.G. Dickson C. Pearson T.G. Dickson
H.G. Watson R. Balfour J. Maitland H.G. Watson
J.A. Brown JJ. Dickson H.G.Watson JJ. Dickson
A. Home H.G. Watson JJ. Dickson A. Home
A. Borthwick J. Maitland R. Balfour J. Maitland
JJ. Dickson J. Mackenzie A. Borthwick A. Borthwick
J. Brown A. Home A. Home R. Balfour
J. Maitland A. Borthwick W. Wood W. Wood

The initial planning group’s individual degree centrality scores range from 64%, reflecting connections to nearly twothirds of the group, to four percent, linked to one twentyfifth of the group. Equivalent percentage ranges for the IAE, petition, and total groups are, respectively, 52 to 6%, 52 to 0%, and 49 to 3%These ranges suggest that, despite UCINET determining the 75 founders were directly or indirectly tied to one another in a single block (i.e., this was a closely networked group), there is sufficient variation within the group to support Lee’s [ 1996 J argument of an elite within an elite. For example, disclosures in Table 3 and Appendix 1 suggest T.G. Dickson, C. Pearson, and K. Mackenzie had ties to a considerable proportion of each group in which they were networked.

More generally, and based on the four rankings in Table 3, the ten most potentially influential individuals are, in descending order of connection: K. Mackenzie, C. Pearson, T.G. Dickson, H.G. Watson, J.J. Dickson, A. Home, J. Maitland, A. Borthwick, R. Balfour, and W. Wood. The remaining three founders in Table 3 are J. Brown, J.A. Brown, and J. Mackenzie. Of these 13 men, five (A. Borthwick, J. Brown, A. Home, K. Mackenzie, and H.G.Watson) were elected to the 1853 IAE Nominating Committee of 17 and the first IAE Council of 11. With respect to Lee’s [1996] analysis of most active founders, only A. Borthwick,.}. Brown, J.J. Dickson, K. Mackenzie, and W. Wood in Table 3 are classed as active.
These results suggest that the IAE/SAE foundation and its initial management were not based solely on factors such as the magnitude of individual network ties or the level of organizational involvement. For example, two of the mostconnected IAE/SAE members, R. Balfour and J. Maitland, were never involved in the management of the institution. One other, J. Mackenzie, resigned as an IAE member prior to the SAE royalcharter petition. However, J.J. Dickson, T.G. Dickson, C. Pearson, and W. Wood eventually became SAE Council members, with Wood serving as SAE treasurer between 1879 and 1892 and T.G. Dickson (18891892) and Pearson (18761879) elected to its presidency.

An additional means of determining the potential influence of individual IAE/SAE founders is network cliques. For example, in the total founder group in Appendix 1, the mostconnected founders, K. Mackenzie, C. Pearson, and T.G. Dickson, are, respectively, members of 67, 60, and 56 of the 169 cliques of five or more founders. In other words, each of these men are members of more than onethird of the largest cliques in the network, thus taking their potential influence beyond the direct, oneononc relations measured by degree centrality data. Even apparently uninvolved founders are members of a large number of fiveman cliques. R. Balfour and J. Maitland are, respectively, members of 49 and 42 cliques and joint members of 17.
These data reflect the intricate nature of a social network such as the IAE/SAE foundation and reinforce earlier data about the group’s interconnectedness and elite nature. The data for the 75 founders were analyzed by the UCINET program to identify clusters or blocks of founders with ties that denote structural equivalence and, thus, to test Lee’s [ 1996] suggestion of an elite within an elite. To illustrate, if founders A, B, and C each have ties to founders D and E, they are defined by UCINET as structurally equivalent and forming a cluster.

Using a search method that divides the total network into a defined number of partitions, the aim is to identify founders with identical relationships that form a cluster. An optimal solution to the partitioning starts from a random partition by the program and proceeds through multiple iterations of the data until a fit is achieved. In addition to clustering the founders, the program provides a correlation coefficient Rsquared of the partitioned network compared to an ideal structure constructed from mean measures of the data. In this case, the fit is 0.854 when the network is divided into 12 clusters.

Table 4 emphasizes the complexity of the IAE/SAE network. Clusters 1, 5, 8, and 9 have a majority of founders with ties greater than the group mean in Appendix 1. This involves 24 of the founders. Cluster 1, however, has no active founder as defined by Lee [1996], and clusters 5, 8, and 9 contain an aggregate of six such men. In contrast, clusters 2, 6, 7, 10, and 12 contain no founders ‘with network ties above the group mean but have a total of five active founders, again as defined in Lee [1996]. Similar contrasts can be seen with the Nominating Committee and the first IAE Council. For example, cluster 1 has no active founder but has four men on the Nominating Committee and two on the Council. By contrast, despite a 50% proportion of wellconnected founders, cluster 3 has no Nominating Committee or Council members. Cluster 4 has a minority of wellconnected accountants and three individuals on each of the Nominating Committee and the first Council.

The overall pattern in Table 4 is therefore difficult to interpret. Wellconnected and structurally equivalent founders were not necessarily active in the foundation or involved in the initial IAE/SAE management. For example, cluster 3 contains one of the mostconnected founders, J. Maitland, who was the Accountant of Court; R. Christie and J. Watson, both insurance company managers who withdrew from IAE membership; and C. Douglas, J. Howden, D. Marshall, and A.M. Paterson, who were among the youngest members of the Edinburgh public accountancy community in 1853 None of these men was active in the foundation or the initial management of the IAE/SAE. However, W. Wood, one of the mostconnected and active founders, completes the cluster. By contrast, in cluster 4, despite a relatively few members with significant connections within the foundation group, there were a number of older and wellrespected Edinburgh public accountants who gave the IAE/SAE leadership and credibility (i.e.; CM. Barstow, J. Brown, T.R. Chaplin, and D.R. Souter). Cluster 11 has a mix of founders—J.M. Liddell and P. Morrison, both with relatively few connections and no foundation activity; W. Moncreiff and A.W. Robertson, well connected, active, and involved in insti
SA perfect fit gives an Rsquared of 1.00. The robustness of the statistic was tested by running the data through the program several times to ensure consistent results based on different random seed starts.

tutional management at each stage of the foundation; and W. Myrtle, one of the Lord Advocate’s petitioners.

What this part of the analysis suggests is that, IAE/SAE foundation activity and later management were determined by factors in addition to potential influence within the network (e.g.; by age and practice experience, professional reputation, and practice type). Nevertheless, structurally equivalent founders did reach the highest positions in the IAE/SAE (e.g.; D. Lindsay and H.G. Watson from cluster 1; CM. Barstow, J. Brown, and D.R. Souter from cluster 4; A. Home and T. Mansfield from cluster 5; A. Borthwick and T. Scott from cluster 8; K. Mackenzie and R.E. Scott from cluster 9; and W. Moncreiff and A.W. Robertson from cluster 11). In other words, the initial IAE and SAE Councils included five pairs and one trio of structurally equivalent founders from six separate clusters. This suggests a reasonable degree of interconnection in the institutional leadership of 1853 and 1854.

FINDING EXPLANATIONS FOR THE IAE/SAE NETWORK

Generalized comments on the foundation and the founders of the IAE/SAE are appropriate at this point. First, the social network analysis indicates that the number of ties and cliques (and the structural equivalence of ties in the network) are not good predictors of activity in the foundation or its subsequent institutional management. However, certain individuals may have had an invisible role in facilitating the foundation. For example, R. Balfour, an insurance company manager, became a SAE member but never participated directly pre or postfoundation. J. Maitland was also an inactive SAE member but in the strategically significant position of Accountant of Court. J. Mackenzie, manager of the Scottish Widows Fund, resigned from the IAE, did not participate directly in its foundation, and became Treasurer of the Bank of Scotland a decade later. A study that focuses on this social network feature is Padgett and Ansell [1993]. They demonstrated the hidden domination and influence of the Medici family in 15th century Florence. The Medicis “invisibly” arranged strategic marriages, business affairs, and financial funding through their deliberately constructed network of direct and indirect connections with other families. Given the nature of the IAE/SAE network, founders such as Balfour, Maitland, and Mackenzie may have served a similar role in the foundation.

Second, following on from the previous point, several of the mostconnected founders appear to have been useful to the IAE/SAE foundation as much for their social or business connections as their public accountancy reputations. For example, R. Balfour was the Edinburgh manager of a Glasgow insurance company and, by 1853, had numerous family connections to advocates and Writers to the Signet, and a lifetime connection to K. Mackenzie, the first IAE/SAE secretary. A. Borthwick’s father was the first manager of the National Bank of Scotland and worked closely with several of the managers of large insurance companies. T.G. Dickson had numerous family connections to Writers to the Signet, and his father was the senior partner of one of Edinburgh’s leading law firms. J. Maitland not only had strong legal and landowning connections, but was the first Accountant of the Court of Session at the time of the IAE/SAE foundation, a position of considerable relevance to the Edinburgh founding accountants, who believed their courtrelated services were under attack from Parliament [Walker, 19951.

W. Moncreiff was well connected to the legal profession. His father was an advocate, judge, and landowner, and his brother was Lord Advocate for Scotland at the time of the IAE/SAE foundation, a position of considerable importance to the SAE royal charter and also the troubling bankruptcy and insolvency legislation of the time. j. Mackenzie came from a distinguished family of landowners and lawyers, and his brother was married to the daughter of the Solicitor General of Scotland during the foundation period. K. Mackenzie belonged to one of Scotland’s most distinguished families of lawyers and landowners, and his family was linked through marriage to T. Mansfield, later to become the second SAE president. C. Pearson’s father and grandfather were senior executives in the Scottish Board of Excise and had numerous legal connections. He was partner to j. Brown, the first IAE/SAE president, who was arguably the senior public accountant in Edinburgh in 1853 One of Pearson’s sons became Solicitor General and Lord Advocate of Scotland during the early history of the SAE. A.W. Robertson’s father and grandfather were Writers to the Signet and his uncle was a Scottish judge. H.G. Watson’s brother was president of the Royal Society of Painters, and Watson himself was secretary to the Royal Company of Archers in 1853. Eleven other founders were Company members at that time.

In other words, many of the IAE/SAE founders came from leading families in the uppermiddleclass of Edinburgh. They not only had strong professional reputations and connections, but were also members of organizations involving royalty and nobility in their membership and management. This undoubtedly provided valuable social connections in addition to professional credibility. The most obvious direct connections were to the landowning community, the legal profession, and the insurance industry. These are matters investigated in the later empirical analysis of Table 5. Indirect connections, however, are much more difficult to analyze. In this study, they are attributed to board and individual memberships of organizations involving individuals from the highest social classes. These memberships involve boards of directors of major banks, such as the Bank of Scotland [Saville, 1996]; significant clubs and institutions, such as the Speculative Society at the University of Edinburgh [Watson, 1905] and the Royal Society of Edinburgh [Royal Society of Edinburgh, undated]; and the Queen’s Bodyguard in Scotland, the Royal Company of Archers [Paul, 1875; Hay, 1951].

Having analyzed IAE/SAE degree centrality and clique measures, it is appropriate to determine explanations for their considerable variation. For this purpose, the Borgatti et al. [1992] UCINET program permits linear regression models to be tested with variables generated by it. These are reported in Table 5.

Table 5 describes four regression models. Each equates a dependent variable (degree centrality for each founder) with two, four, or five independent variables (i.e.; practice type; number of landowner, legal, and insurance company links; and birthplace, each as described in Table 2). For purposes of this analysis, actual measurements are used with the dependent variable (as per column 7 of Appendix 1) and the three independent variables concerning links. With practice type, however, a coding frame is adopted (i.e.; public accountancy’ set at three, insurance management at two, and legal and banking positions at one). For birthplace, a coding frame is also used, with Edinburgh set at three, Lothians at two, and other regions at one. In order to provide validity to the regression calculations, a rule of thumb of one independent variable for approximately every 15 observations is used in each model. The robustness of the regression results is automatically tested in the UCINET program by 1,000 random regression calculations for each independent variable. The results of this bootstrapping are reported in the last five columns of Table 5 (i.e., as a percentage of the 1,000 random tests). With respect to the four variations of the IAE/SAE foundation group in Table 5,9 the results reveal a consistent pattern. The high er the degree centrality score, the larger the number of landowner, legal, and insurance links and the more likely the founder was

such as parental occupation, age in 1853, practice type, practice experience, membership in the Institute of Actuaries, bank connections, and marital status in 1853 have little or no explanatory power with respect to variations in degree centrality.

a public accountant originating from Edinburgh. Typically, the mostconnected founders, at whatever stage of the IAE/SAE foundation, were Edinburghborn public accountants, the most connected to landowners and the legal profession, and the most involved with the management and governance of the insurance industry. The statistically weakest part of the models concerns practice type as an explanation of variations in degree centrality in the petitioning group. The overall result, however, reinforces the impression of cohesiveness in the IAE/SAE foundation group. The strongest explanation for potential influence variation relates to insurance connections. The mostconnected founders in the group had the greatest association with the insurance industry. In addition, each variation of model provides reasonably strong and statistically robust results.

THE IAAG FOUNDERS

The 51 IAAG founders are listed in Appendix 2. There were 27 requisitionists (lessexperienced practitioners) and 15 requisitionees (moreexperienced practitioners) in October 1854, and nine other members admitted during 1854. Following two withdrawals, this resulted in 49 signatories to the royalcharter petition of October 1854. The IAAG foundation involved 22 meetings until the receipt of the royal charter in 1855. Individual involvement in the foundation was bimodal as in the IAE/SAE foundation. There were five accountants (approximately 10% of the group) who attended more than 60% of the 22 meetings (W. Mackenzie, 22 meetings; J. McClelland, 20; P. White, 19; A. McEwan, 18; and W. Anderson, 14). All five men were requisitionees and officers or members of the first governing IAAG Committee. A further four founders played a less active part in the process (T.G. Buchanan, eight meetings; A. Cuthbertson, D. Dreghorn, and J.W. Guild, seven each). Buchanan, Cuthbertson, and Dreghorn were requisitionees and members of the first governing IAAG Committee. Guild was the son of a Solicitor of the Supreme Court in Edinburgh, a requisitionist, and a member of the first IAAG Bankruptcy Committee. He became an IAAG Council member in 1856 and was IAAG president in 18731874 and 18781881. The remaining founders played little or no explicit part in the foundation. In fact, 17 of the 51 men (33%) attended no recorded meeting in the foundation process.

The personal attributes of the IAAG founders are described in Table 6. They are similar in nature to those of the IAE/SAE founders and are contrasted where relevant with the Edinburgh data reported in Table 2.

A large proportion (55%) of the IAAG founders were born outside the city of Glasgow and its surrounding region. This is unsurprising given the quadrupling of Glasgow’s population by immigration in the first half of the 19th century [Strang, 1862]. However, it does suggest that a significant number of Glasgow founders did not have the same childhood, education, and training contacts of founders who originated in the city. This finding is different from the IAE/SAE situation where approximately six of every ten founders were born in Edinburgh, thus having an opportunity to build a closer community at an earlier stage in their lives.

Second, paternal occupation also provides a clear distinction between the IAAG and IAE/SAE founders. Approximately one in every ten IAAG founders was the son of a landowning and/or lawyer father, compared to approximately four of every ten IAE/SAE founders. By contrast, 49% of IAAG founders had banker, merchant, manufacturer, or farmer fathers, compared to 18% of the IAE/SAE founders.

Third, the age of Glasgow founders in 1853 reveals further differences in the two communities. The majority of IAAG founders were aged between 20 and 39, whereas the majority of IAE/SAE founders were between 40 and 59 The mean ages of the respective groups are 39 and 44 years. This suggests that the Edinburgh founders were members of a more mature and established community, which is also reflected in the contrast of practice experience by 1853. Sixtythree percent of IAAG founders had less than ten years of practice experience, compared to 65% of IAE/SAE founders with between ten and 29 years of experience. The mean experience for the two groups in 1853 is nine and 16 years, respectively.

Fourth, 53% of Glasgow founders had practices in which stockbroking or a combination of accountancy and stockbroking and other commercial activities were the main services provided. This contrasts with a significant proportion of the Edinburgh founders (32%) involved in insurance management, court appointments, or banking. These findings are supported by a contrast of memberships in nonaccounting bodies. Fiftyone percent of IAAG founders were members of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association in 1853, and 28% of the IAE/SAE founders were members of the Institute of Actuaries in the same year.

Fifth, the large majority of IAAG founders (67%) had no observable connections to the legal profession, compared to 25% of the TAE/SAE founders. Similarly with respect to insurance connections (excluding agencies), 88% of IAAG founders had no man ager, director, or audit connection to insurance companies, whereas 73% of IAE/SAE founders had at least one connection. Only in the case of banking connections is there some similarity between the two foundation groups with 96% of the IAAG founders and 75% of the IAE/SAE founders having no links to banking management or governance.

Overall, this analysis of the personal attributes of the IAAG founders discloses interesting features and points of contrast with those of the IAE/SAE founders. It suggests that, consistent with a variety of previous studies [e.g.; Brown, 1905; Stewart, 1977; Macdonald, 1984; Kedslie, 1990b], the IAAG and IAE/SAE founders were members of distinguishable public accountancy communities.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK OF IAAG FOUNDERS

The social network of IAAG founders is described by two sets of relational measures. The first set comprises degree centrality scores derived from the observed social ties between each of the Glasgow founders by 1853. The second set describes cliques of founders with clique size set at a minimum of five founders. Degree centrality and clique measurements are computed and presented as for the IAE/SAE foundation. Individual and mean degree centrality measures are reported in Appendix 2 for the requisitionist, requisitionee, and total foundation groups. Because of the small size of the subgroups, individual and mean clique memberships are reported for the total group only.

With respect to the requisitionist group of 27 individuals, the group centrality score of 25% indicates no particularly dominant requisitionist. C. Cairns, C. Cunningham, J. Fleming, and W.G. McLean are the mostconnected accountants within the group, tied to at least 11 of the 26 other members. A. McNicholl, on the other hand, is connected to no other requisitionist. Nine of the 27 requisitionists are linked to approximately onethird of their colleagues.

For the smaller requisitionee group of 15 individuals, there is greater cohesion compared to the requisitionist group. The degree centrality index of 25% indicates no domination by any individual. However, the mean score of 64% signals close connections within the group. A. Black and P. White are connected to 12 of their 14 colleagues, and 11 of the 15 individuals are linked to at least half of the group. A. Cuthbcrtson and D. Dreghorn, who are the leastconnected members, became initial TAAG Committee members.

The mean degree centrality score for the total foundation group is 29% On average, each IAAG founder was connected to approximately 15 of the other 50 founders. The group centrality score is 28%, suggesting no particularly dominant founder existed in the total group.

Of additional interest in Appendix 2 is how the potential influence of the requisitionists and requisitionees changed when they are considered as part of the total group of founders. In terms of degree centrality scores, and in the case of the requisitionists, the predominant feature is of little or no change. Twentyfive of the 27 requisitionists fall into this category, and only C. Gairdner and H. Kerr demonstrate a significant increase in influence as part of the total group. Respectively, they were partners of P. White (the first IAAG treasurer) and W. Anderson (an initial IAAG Committee member), two of the mostconnected founders. In the case of the requisitionees, the tendency is for individual influence to drop significantly within the total group. Fourteen of the 15 in this subgroup can be classified in this manner, and only J. McClelland’s influence increases within the larger group, thus providing a possible reason why he became the first IAAG president.

What these analyses reveal is that, the requisitionists and requisitionees were two relatively distinct groups of public accountants in Glasgow. Most of the founders have proportionally fewer connections within the total founding community than in their requisition stibset. In order to explore this issue further, Table 7 reports the mostconnected members of each of the three groups analyzed. To provide a reasonable proxy for potential influence within the IAAG foundation, the degree centrality and clique scores for the total group in Appendix 2 are combined. For the subgroups, influence is measured by degree centrality alone.

TABLE 7 The Most Influential IAAG Founders
Requisitionists Requisitionees Total Group

C. Cunningham A. Black W. Anderson
J. Fleming P. White P. White
W.G. McLean W. Anderson W. Auld
J. McGcorge T.G. Buchanan A. Black
J.L. McKirdy J.C. Foulds C. Cunningham
W. Cowan R. Aitken W.G. McLean
D.E. Outram W. Auld A. McEwan
G. Wink A. McEwan R. Aitken
W. Mackenzie

None of the mostconnected requisitionists became an initial IAAG officer or Committee member, even though C. Cunningham and W. McLean were two of the most influential men in the total group. Cunningham was the 45yearold son of a leading Glasgow merchant and a founding member of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association. He was never involved in IAAG affairs and died in 1861. McLean was a 49yearold Glasgow town councilor and magistrate and became an IAAG Council member in 1872.

Six of the nine mostconnected requisitionees are also among the mostconnected men in the total group, who also became initial IAAG officers and Committee members. W. Auld and A. Black had no later involvement in the IAAG, and J.C. Foulds became an IAAG Council member in 1858. Each of these men was a stockbroker and significantly involved in the management of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association. By contrast, J. McClelland, the first IAAG president, was regarded as the leading Glasgow accountant of his time [Maclehose, 1886]. A. Cuthbertson and D. Dreghorn were elected to the first IAAG Committee with relatively small connections within the requisitionee and total foundation groups. Cuthbertson was one of Glasgow’s leading merchantaccountants in 1853 He was the youngest son of William Cuthbertson, the “founder of public accountancy” in Glasgow [Stewart, 1977], and a partner with his brother in a leading firm of merchants that also provided public accountancy services. Dreghorn was a wellknown member of the Glasgow business community and an active town councilor and magistrate of the city [Tweed, 1983].

What the previous analysis clarifies is that, the Glasgow founders comprised an elite group of two sets of individuals. The requisitionists were relatively younger and less experienced than the requisitionees. Although they were less networked than the requisitionees, they contained a number of members who were well connected within the context of the total group, thus providing a potential to bridge the two subgroups. Nevertheless, not even these individuals became part of the original management of the IAAG. On the other hand, several requisitionees did join the initial IAAG Committee despite relatively fewer connections in the requisitionee and total groups.

The elite nature of the IAAG foundation is further clarified by examining some of the original officers and committee members not previously mentioned. All were requisitionees. R. Aitken, son of the Glasgow agent for the Bank of Scotland, was one of the founders of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association in 1844,

active in its management and governance, a former partner of T.G. Buchanan, and a partner in 1853 of W. Mackenzie, the first IAAG secretary. W. Anderson was ‘well connected to the legal profession, a leading bankruptcy practitioner, trained by J. McClelland, and a partner of H. Kerr (one of the mostconnected requisitionists). T.G. Buchanan was linked to Glasgow merchant houses and banks (e.g., the Union Bank and the West of Scotland Bank) and was first vicechairman of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association. A. McEwan, a former apprentice of J. McClelland, was a partner with W. Auld (one of the mostconnected requisitionists), the first secretary of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association, and connected to the legal profession and insurance industry. W. Mackenzie was the son of a landowner and lawyer, trained with and then became a partner of J. McClelland, and married the daughter of the SheriffSubstitute of Renfrewshire. P. White was one of the founders of the Glasgow Stock Exchange Association, active in its management, and a partner of C. Gairdner (one of the mostconnected requisitionists).

Table 8 provides a concluding statement about the elite structure of the IAAG foundation community. Using a tabu search routine, a cluster analysis of the total founder group provides further evidence of its interconnectedness. The search split the group into 12 clusters of founders with identical relationships. The routine was executed several times to ensure consistent results. As seen in Table 8, seven of these clusters contain relative isolates who did not necessarily lack connections within the group as a whole (i.e.; A. Cuthbertson, D. Cuthbertson, W. Jamieson, M. Mitchell, A. McNicholl, R. Scobie, and J. Watson). The five remaining clusters contain 26 of the 27 requisitionists, 12 of the 15 requisitionees, and eight of the nine most active founders, all of whom became initial IAAG officers or Committee members. These clusters strongly evince the cohesiveness of the IAAG foundation group.

EXPLAINING THE IAAG COHESION

In order to explain differences in the ties between IAAG founders, linear regression models were constructed for four founder sets (requisitionists, requisitionees, officers and Committee members, and the total foundation group). The models are reported in Table 9 The degree centrality scores reported in Appendix 2 represent the dependent variable indicative of differences in ties in each model. The independent variables are as stated in Table 6 (parental occupation, age in 1853, practice type and experience, legal connections, and marital status in 1853). These characteristics include factors significant in the IAE/SAE study (practice type and legal connections). Others have been emphasized in earlier research of the Glasgow founders; i.e., parental occupation (a proxy for connections to the commercial community) and practice experience (representing the 1853 requisition division between experienced and lessexperienced accountants). With two exceptions, the independent variables are based on actual measurements and dealt with as for the IAE/SAE founders. The exceptions are parental occupation (1 = landowner and/or lawyer, 2 = other professionals, 3 = merchants, etc.) and marital status (1 = married, 0 = unmarried). In order to protect the validity of the regression calculations, a conventional rule of thumb of one independent variable for approximately every 15 founderobservations is adopted in each model. As with the IAE/SAE founders, the robustness of each model is tested in the UCINET program by a form of bootstrapping. The results are reported in Table 9 as a percentage of 1,000 random regression calculations.

The data in Table 9 represent the best explanatory models for each of the four IAAG groups within the inevitable constraint of the data collected. Use of other independent variables provided significantly weaker explanatory models. For the requisitionists, those founders with the largest number of ties are the oldest in the subgroup and have the greatest amount of public accountancy experience. An explanation of this finding suggests that social connections are a function of age and experience. For the requisitionees, on the other hand, those with the greatest number of ties are those who practiced either exclusively as stockbrokers or in combination with public accountancy services. For the initialofficer and Committeemember group, marital status is the only significant explanation of tie differences; i.e., the mostconnected founders in the group were married. For the total group, tie variations are explainable in part by a combination of three independent variables. Those founders with the greatest number of network ties had fathers connected to the commercial, manufacturing, or farming communities. They were married and most connected to the legal profession.

These results suggest that, for the IAAG foundation and unlike the IAE/SAE foundation, there is no particularly consistent explanation of variations in network ties. There are statistically significant results to suggest married IAAG founders from a commercial background with legal connections had the highest degree centrality scores. These findings are consistent with prior expectations with respect to mercantile and related connections. However, the maritalstatus and legalconnection variables suggest other factors at play not evident in prior studies. It is also clear that factors significant in the IAE/SAE foundation (birthplace, practice type, and insurance connections) are not significant in the case of the IAAG.

COMPARING THE IAE/SAE AND IAAG NETWORKS

Table 10 compares the interconnectedness of the IAE/SAE founders with those of the IAAG group:

The greater cohesion of the IAAG group compared to its IAE/SAE equivalent is evident in the above data. Differences are significant at p<0.05 using the chisquared test of association. Eighty percent of the IAE/SAE founders were connected to less than onethird of their colleagues. The equivalent IAAG datum is 58%. Similarly, whereas only 8% of the IAE/SAE group were connected to 40% or more of their fellow founders, 28% of the Glasgow founders fell into this category. The respective mean centrality scores of 21% and 29% reinforce this observation. However, both groups have a low 28% group centrality score, suggesting no particularly dominant individual existed in either group. In addition, there are 169 IAE/SAE cliques of five or more founders, compared to 52 IAAG cliques, with a mean size of six individuals in both cases. Finally, the 12 IAE/SAE cluster memberships ranged from four to ten members, whereas the 12 IAAG cluster memberships ranged from one to nine individuals. Most of this evidence supports the notion that a more cohesive group than its IAE/SAE counterpart initiated the IAAG foundation. A search of the IAE/SAE and IAAG archival databases reveals a data set that both connects the two foundation groups and describes school, university, training, and business ties involving one or more individuals from each foundation community. These connections provide evidence of potential communication between the two communities. In other words, in addition to individual nonfoundation links to either city, there was a social network of IAAG and IAE/SAE founders by 1853. This network was a bridge between the two groups and had the potential for information flows about their respective intentions and activities. Appendix 3 reports the degree centrality scores and cliques for the 30 founders linking the two foundation communities in this way. The data in Appendix 3 reveal ties between the founding communities that involved some of the mostconnected founders in each group. J.M. Baillie, for example, was well connected to Edinburgh landowners and lawyers and was a partner of W. Moncreiff, brother of the Lord Advocate for Scotland. R. Balfour was Edinburgh secretary of the City of Glasgow Assurance Company and one of the mostconnected IAE/SAE accountants to the legal profession. As previously stated, J. Maitland was the Accountant of Court. Other IAE/SAE founders who also had potentially great influence are J. Brown and T. Mansfield, the first two presidents of the SAE. In the IAAG group, D. Cuthbertson was one of Glasgow's bestknown accountants, with strong boardofdirectors links to the insurance industry in Edinburgh. His younger brother, A. Cuthbertson, was active in the IAAG foundation and an initial IAAG Committee member, as was A. McEwan, the brother of a lawyer and the first IAAG auditor. J.W. Guild, whose father was a Solicitor to the Supreme Court in Edinburgh, trained as a lawyer there and moved to Glasgow in 1848 as a bankruptcy specialist. The above brief analysis suggests there were social network ties between leading IAAG and IAE/SAE founders. This introduces the potential for debates, decisions, and actions of the two foundation communities to be known to each other. A linear regression model supports this conclusion. The dependent variable is the degree centrality scores of the bridging founders named in Appendix 3 The most significant independent variables are practice type and degree centrality scores in the individual foundations. The results suggest that the interconnected founders with the highest degree centrality scores are those in practice as public accountants, with the highest centrality scores in their individual foundation network (R2 0.33; P value 6.58; p value 0.00). This is consistent with the proposition of a potential bridging influence by founders in the two communities. In other words, those public accountants with the highest bridging connections were those with the highest connections within their own foundation community. CONTRIBUTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS This study contributes in a number of ways to the early history of institutionalized public accountancy in Scotland. First, it demonstrates that the social networks of the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders evolved gradually over several decades through a combination of school, university, practice, business, social, and address ties. By 1853, both networks were established and mature. The social network analysis of the IAE/SAE foundation demonstrates that the 75 founders were a single social group or block with no isolates. All Edinburgh founders were connected directly or indirectly to each other, with a range of degree centrality scores from three to 49%. In the case of the IAAG foundation, the situation is almost identical with only one isolate in that community and degree centrality scores for the other 50 founders ranging from four to 56%. The network analyses reveal that the IAAG founders were more closely networked than their IAE/SAE counterparts. These findings portray both groups of founders as cohesive communities, with a small minority of each group acting as a bridge between the IAE/SAE and the IAAG. In general terms, the personal attributes of the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders suggest that most individuals had at least middleclass origins. More specifically, the personal attributes and social ties of the IAE/SAE founders provide evidence that they were a predominantly uppermiddleclass community within Edinburgh. On the other hand, the personal attributes and social ties of the IAAG founders are socially consistent with the mercantile and farming nature of Glasgow and its surrounding regions in the middle of the 19th century. In combination, and in the context of other accountants in both cities, these findings suggest that the IAE/SAE and IAAG founders were cohesive and elite communities by 1853. The range of degree centrality measures for the 75 IAE/SAE founders confirms Lee's [1996] tentative conclusion of the existence of an elite within an elite in the IAE/SAE. The Edinburgh founders with the highest scores were predominantly public accountants with Edinburgh origins and the largest number of ties to landowners, lawyers, and insurance companies. A similar superelite cannot be detected in the IAAG foundation. It involved two subsets of founders differentiated by age and experience rather than by network ties and social connections. Thus, although the evidence for both foundation groups is consistent with the expectation of overall cohesiveness and elitism, the IAE/SAE founders were different from their IAAG counterparts in terms of predominant social class and inner elitism. In both the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations, there appear to be two sets of individuals at work in the process. The first set contains founders most concerned to institutionalize their profession of public accountancy. They are typically to be found in the initiating groups of founders. The second set comprises individuals invited by members of the first set to be involved in the foundations. In the case of the IAE/SAE, the invitees were mainly insurance managers who were well connected within and outside the IAE/SAE network. Because they were not primarily public accountants, they were termed honorary members of the IAE in 1853. However, by the time of the SAE royal charter, most of the honorary members chose to leave the IAE. It can therefore be concluded that the brief association of the IAE with wellconnected insurance managers provided credibility to the foundation at a critical stage of its early history. By contrast, the IAAG foundation did not involve the temporary or honorary membership of leading practitioners in areas outside public accountancy. However, the foundation started with one set of junior practitioners petitioning a more senior set to join with them in institutionalizing public accountancy in Glasgow. The invitees were typically well connected within the overall group and predominantly involved in stockbroking rather than public accountancy. However, unlike their Edinburgh insurance counterparts, these men were involved in the foundation and became IAAG members and its initial officers. Unlike the IAE/SAE foundation and the involvement of insurance managers, the conclusion here must be that these senior providers of predominantly nonpublic accountancy services were necessary to the longterm credibility of the IAAG. These findings are consistent with the second expectation of the study that both foundations involved individuals who would not ordinarily be described as public accountants. The various regression analyses of the social network data confirm the prior expectation that the mostconnected Edinburgh founders were most associated with landowners, lawyers, and insurance companies. By contrast, the Glasgow founders were most connected to merchants, manufacturers, and farmers, only moderately to lawyers, and rarely to insurance management and governance. These findings are also consistent with a prior expectation. However, in the case of the IAAG founders, marital status appears to be strongly related to variations in the network connections of the founders (the mostconnected men were married by 1853). There is no obvious explanation for this unexpected result. Although most of the founders with the greatest number of ties and clique memberships were the most involved in their respective foundations, there were a number of founders who established different patterns. For example, R. Balfour, T.G. Dickson, J. Maitland, and C. Pearson are four of the mostconnected founders in the IAE/SAE network; yet, they did not openly participate in the foundation or its subsequent management. Similarly, in the case of the IAAG, J. Gourlay, J. Fleming, J.C. Foulds, and H. Kerr were well connected but relatively uninvolved. This suggests that certain IAE/SAE and IAAG founders with potentially influential positions in their respective communities had either little incentive to participate explicitly in the foundation events or preferred to be involved in a less public way. This emphasizes the value of social network analysis and is consistent with analyses in other social history areas [e.g.; Bearman, 1993; Padgett and Ansell, 1993] In other words, network analysis helps to identify those individuals with strong ties in a network that did not need to be visibly active to exercise influence. Alternatively, as in this study, there are others with relatively fewer ties that appeared to compensate by being very involved (e.g., T. Martin and G. Meldrum of the IAE/SAE and J.W. Guild of the IAAG). Overall, the institutionalization of Edinburgh and Glasgow public accountants in 1853 was based on strongly networked groups of typically experienced public accountants who, generally speaking, were well entrenched in the upper strata of their respective local societies. The study reveals the considerable insights to be gained from examining a social situation in terms of the relations and attributes of the participants rather than the latter alone. The major contribution of the study, therefore, is to bring social network analysis to accounting history research and, in so doing, to provide a better understanding of the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations and their founders. The limitations of the study are equally clear. First, the analysis is based on the relations discovered in accessible archives. There may well be more evidence undiscovered. The results of the study are therefore conservatively stated. Second, the study does not attempt to measure the actual influence of the individual founders. It allows generalizations to be made about possible behavior but not about actual activity. The latter would require a different type of archival research that may not be possible Lee: Founders of Public Accountancy 41 because of lack of evidence. That attempts should be made to do such research is not in doubt. Likewise unquestioned is the need to examine more specifically the lives and roles of individual founders to discover more about their involvement, or lack thereof, in the IAE/SAE and IAAG foundations. In particular, the specific roles of the most connected but least active founders are worthy of future research. REFERENCES Primary Sources Generally Used Census Enumerator Books for Scotland (various) (Edinburgh: Scottish Record Office). IndexJuridicus: The Scottish Law List and Legal Directory, Edinburgh, annual. New Edinburgh Almanack (various) (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). Post Office Directories (various) Edinburgh and Glasgow. Royal High School of Edinburgh, various matriculation and library records (Edinburgh: Edinburgh City Chambers). Scott, H. (1925), Fasti Ecclesiae: The Succession of Ministers in the Church of Scotland From the Reformation (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). Statutory' Register of Births, Marriages andDeathsfor Scotland(various) (Edinburgh: Scottish Record Office). The Accountant(various) (London: Gee & Co.). The Accountant's Magazine (various) (Edinburgh: Blackwood & Co). Primary Sources Specifically Cited Addison, W. I. (1898), A Roll of Graduates of the University of Glasgow: 1727 to L897 (Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons). Addison, W. I. (1913), The Matriculation Albums of the University of Glasgow From J728 to 1858 (Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons). Anderson, J. L. (1910), The Story of the Commercial Bank of Scotland Litnited During Its Hundred Years From 1810 to 1910 (Edinburgh: Commercial Bank of Scotland). Anderson, J. M. (1905), The Matriculation Roll of the University of St. Andrews: 17471897(Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons). Barclay, J. B. (1984), TheS.S.C Story: 17841984(Edinburgh: Edina Press). Bearman, P. S. (1993), Relations into Rhetorics: Local Elite Social Structure in Norfolk, England, 1540i'640'(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press). Bedford, F. W. (1872), History of George Heriots Hospital (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute). Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., and Freeman, L. C. (1992), UCINET TV Version 1.00 (Columbia, SC: Analytic Technologies). Briston, R. J. and Kedslie, M. J. M. (1986), "Professional Formation: The Case of Scottish Accountants—Some Corrections and Further Thoughts," British Journal ofSociolof>y,\o\. 37, No. 1: 122130.
Brown, R. (1905), History of AccountingandAccountants(Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C.
Jack). Davidson, A. R. (1956), The Histoty of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland 1856
/i>5<5XEdinburgh: Faculty of Actuaries). Dickson, W. K. (1887), History of the Dialectic Society (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). Douglas, W. S. (1882), Modern Athenians: A Series of Original Portraits of Memorable Edinburgh Citizens (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black). Eddington, A. and Pike, W.T. (1904), Edinburgh and the Lothians: Contemporary Biographies (Edinburgh: W. T. Pike & Co.). Edinburgh Academy (1914), lite Edinburgh Academy Register: A Record of All Those Who Have Entered the School Since Its Foundation in 1824 (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). Emirbayer, M. and Goodwin, G. (1994), "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 6: 14111454. Glasgow Stock Exchange Association (1927), Glasgow Stock Exchange Association Records: 18441926i (Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie & Co.). Grant, F. J. (1944), Hie Faculty of Advocates 15321943 (Edinburgh: J. Skinner & Co.). Guild, I. R. (1968), History of the Speculative Society (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). Gunn, C. B. (1901), George He?iot's Hospital(Edinburgh: E. & S. Livingstone). Hay, 1. (1951), The Royal Company of Archers 16761951 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons). Heron, A. (1903), The Rise and Progress of the Company of Merchants of the City of Edinburgh 16811902 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Johnston, C.W. (1906), Roll of Graduates of the University of Aberdeen 18601900 (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press). Kcdslic, M.J.M. (1990a), Firm Foundations: The Development of Professional Accounting in Scotland (Hull: Hull University Press). Kedslie, M.J.M. (1990b), "Mutual SelfInterestA Unifying Force: The Dominance of Societal Closure Over Social Background in the Karly Professional Accounting Bodies," Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2:120. Kirkpatrick, J. (1889), Graduates of the University of Edinburgh From 1859 to 1888(Edinburgh: James Thin). Lauder, J. (1897), The Glasgow Atheneum: A Sketch of Fifty Years' Work 18471897 (Glasgow: Saint Mungo Press). Lee, T. A. (1996), "Identifying the Founding Fathers of Public Accountancy: The Formation of the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh," Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 6, No. 3: 315335. Macdonald, K. M. (1984), "Professional Formation: The Case of Scottish Accountants," British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 2: 174189MacLagan, D. (1876), A History ofSt George's Church 18141843 andofSt George s Free Church 1843/873 (Edinburgh: T. Nelson & Sons). Maclchose, J. (1886), Memoirs and Portraits of O?je Hundred Glasgow Men Who Have Died During the Last Thirty Years, and in '/heir Lives Did Much to Make Glasgow What It is Now (Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons). Malcolm, C.A. (1945), The Bank of Scotland 16951945(Edinburgh: R.& R. Clark). Malcolm, C.A. (1950), Tlie History of the British Linen Bank (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). McCullochJ.H. and Stirling, K.J. (1936), A Review of theEdinburgh Savings Bank: Its Century of Service 18361936 (Edinburgh: H. &.). Pillans & Wilson). Munn, C.W. (1988), Clydesdale Bank: Tlie First One Hundred & Fifty Years (Glasgow: Collins). Munro, N. (1928), The History of the Royal Bank of Scotland 17271927 (Edinburgh: Royal Bank of Scotland). Padgett, J.F. and Ansell, C.K. (1993), "Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 14001434," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, No. 6: 12591319. Paul, J. B. (1875), The History of the Royal Company of Archers (Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons). Rait, R.S. (1930), The History of the Union Bank ofScotland (Glasgow: John Smith). Reid, J. M. (1938), The History of the Clydesdale Bank 18381938 (Glasgow: Blackie & Son). Rogers, E. M. and Kincaid, D. L. (1981), Communication Networks: Toivarda New Paradigm for Research (New York: The Free Press). Royal Society of Edinburgh (undated). Index of Fellows of Royal Society of Edinburgh (Edinburgh: Royal Society of Edinburgh). Sands, Lord (1927), The Story of St Stephen's Church 18281928 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons). Saville, R. (1996), Bank of Scotland: A History, 16951995 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Shackleton, J. K. (1995), "Scottish Chartered Accountants: Internal and External Political Relations, 18531916," Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2: 1846. Society of Writers to the Signet (1936), Histoty of The Society of Writers to His Majesty's Signet (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). Stewart, J.C. (1977), Pioneers of a Profession (Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland). Strang, J. (1862), Report of the Vital, Social, and Economic Statistics of Glasgoivfor 1861 (Glasgow: James MacNab). Tweed, J. (1883), Biographical Sketches of the Honorable the Lord Provosts of Glasgow (Glasgow: John Tweed). Trotter, J. J. (1911), The Royal High School, Edinburgh (Edinburgh: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons). University of Edinburgh (various dates), Edinburgh University Matriculation Roll: Arts, Law, Divinity, Vol. II (17751810), Vol. Ill (18111829), and Vol. IV (1830 1858) (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh). University of Edinburgh (1858), A Catalogue of the Graduates in the Faculties of Arts, Divinity and Law at the University of Edinburgh Since Its Foundation (Edinburgh: Neill). Walker, S. P. (1988a), The Faculty of Advocates 18001986: A Biographical Directory of Members (Edinburgh: Advocates Library). Walker, S. P. (1988b), The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh 18541914: A Study of Recruitment in a New Profession (New York: Garland Publishing). Walker, S. P. (1995), "The Genesis of Professionalization in Scotland: A Contextual Analysis," Accounting, Organizations and'Society, Vol. 20, No. 4: 285312. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Watson, W. (1905), A History of the Speculative Society 17641904 (Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable). Wright, R.S. (1956), The Kirk in the Canongate (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). Young, J.R.S. (1933), Edinburgh Institution 18321932 (Edinburgh: George Waterston).