Abstract. Assumptions serve as the basis from which we reason and therefore pervasively influence the nature of our understanding of any substantive area. Auditing is no exception. Yet, the core assumptions that underlie auditing thought have largely been left unexamined.The purpose of this paper is to examine the core ontological assumptions, (assumptions as to the primitive elements of what constitutes reality), and epistemological assumptions, (assumptions as to how knowledge is attained), that underlie contemporary auditing thought. It is concluded: 1) that auditing is characterized by an overwhelming domination of a functionalist paradigm, which views reality as concrete and objective (rather than uncertain and subjective) and which emphasizes a regularized, patterned existence (rather than one characterized by intrinsic tension and contradiction); and 2) that this paradigm ultimately influences and constrains our understanding of auditing. Altemative paradigms are used to examine the concepts of audit evidence and auditor consensus to dramatize the effects of making altemative assumptions of reality. Implications for practitioners and for researchers are also explored.Resume. Les hypotheses servent de fondement a nos raisonnements et par consequent, influencent l'essence de notre comprehension de tout domaine. La verification n'est pas une exception et les hypotheses essentielles qui sous-tendent la pensee en verification, n'ont pas vraiment ete examinees. L'objectif de cet article est d'examiner les hypotheses essentielles ontologiques (hypotheses concemant les elements primitifs de ce qui consdtue la realite) et les hypotheses epistemologiques (hypotheses relatives au comment de I'atteinte de la connaissance) qui sous-tendent la pensee contemporaine en verification. On y conclut: 1) que la verification est caracterisee par une domination ecrasante d'un paradigme fonctionnel qui voit la realite comme etant concrete et objective (plutot qu'incertaine et subjective) et qui met l'emphase sur une existence regularisee et modelee (plutot qu'une existence caracterisee par la contradiction et une tension intrinseque) ; et 2) que ce paradigme influence et contraint ultimement notre comprehension de la verification. Des paradigmes alternatifs * Portions of this paper vi-ere presented at the Price Waterhouse Auditing Research Symposium, August, 1982. We wish to thank Arthur Bettauer, William Felix, Jr., Anthony Hopwood, Henry Jaenicke, James Loebbecke and Henry Mintzberg for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive guidance.

This paper provides readers with:1)An update on an institutional change that will focus the attention of worldwide accounting and financial reporting standard setters on the convergence of international and national standards, and2)An analysis of in-process issues in the international accounting arena that will be critical to the success / failure of this convergence effort.