Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective
In the context of contemporary public sector performance audit practice in Australia, this study provides significant insights into performance auditors’ and auditees’ apparent logics and attitudes to performance audits. Employing a documentary analysis and in‐depth semistructured interviews with se...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Financial accountability & management 2021-05, Vol.37 (2), p.142-162 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 162 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 142 |
container_title | Financial accountability & management |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Parker, Lee D. Schmitz, Jana Jacobs, Kerry |
description | In the context of contemporary public sector performance audit practice in Australia, this study provides significant insights into performance auditors’ and auditees’ apparent logics and attitudes to performance audits. Employing a documentary analysis and in‐depth semistructured interviews with senior audit leaders from all Australian Auditor‐General jurisdictions, performance auditors’ and auditees’ attitudes toward performance audits and their intentions, strategies, and responses were explored through the lens of institutional logics. Empirical evidence reveals that performance auditors’ logics have gradually moved toward greater stakeholder engagement with auditees, parliamentarians, and the media, while preserving their performance audit prerogatives. Auditees appear to become more receptive to performance auditors’ engagement strategies and consultation attempts if auditors maintain a collaborative attitude. Both parties occasionally apply bridging and buffering strategies in situations where their logics are not aligned with those of the other stakeholder group. This study discovered that competing logics held by performance auditors and auditees are in some respects drawn closer together, while differences nonetheless co‐exist, although often in an uneasy partnership. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/faam.12243 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2513492176</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A658758582</galeid><sourcerecordid>A658758582</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3683-1a5d633845bca51e80c6b59eb29be07d3f0240df1f66fc6b32b1a106afec7d963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MtK7TAUBuAgCm4vE58gIDgQqrk1bZ0VOV5AcaLjkKYrNdKd1iT18vantY5dkwTy_WHxI3RCyQWd59Jqvb2gjAm-gzZUyDIjgpS7aEOYLDIhmNhHBzG-kXkqxjfotZ5al4aAtW-xXu4AGHynO9iCT_jTpVc8Tk3vDI5gFjlCsEPYam9gTVzh2mPnY3JpSm7wusf90DkTFxrHOeU-4AjtWd1HOP49D9HLzb_n67vs4en2_rp-yAyXJc-ozlvJeSnyxuicQkmMbPIKGlY1QIqWW8IEaS21Utr5ibOGakqktmCKtpL8EJ2u_45heJ8gJvU2TGHeKSqWUy4qRotFna2q0z0o583gE3ylTk8xKlXLvCzyMi_ZDM9XaMIQYwCrxuC2OnwrStRSuVoqVz-Vz5iu-NP18P2HVDd1_bhm_gMpv4SC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2513492176</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Parker, Lee D. ; Schmitz, Jana ; Jacobs, Kerry</creator><creatorcontrib>Parker, Lee D. ; Schmitz, Jana ; Jacobs, Kerry</creatorcontrib><description>In the context of contemporary public sector performance audit practice in Australia, this study provides significant insights into performance auditors’ and auditees’ apparent logics and attitudes to performance audits. Employing a documentary analysis and in‐depth semistructured interviews with senior audit leaders from all Australian Auditor‐General jurisdictions, performance auditors’ and auditees’ attitudes toward performance audits and their intentions, strategies, and responses were explored through the lens of institutional logics. Empirical evidence reveals that performance auditors’ logics have gradually moved toward greater stakeholder engagement with auditees, parliamentarians, and the media, while preserving their performance audit prerogatives. Auditees appear to become more receptive to performance auditors’ engagement strategies and consultation attempts if auditors maintain a collaborative attitude. Both parties occasionally apply bridging and buffering strategies in situations where their logics are not aligned with those of the other stakeholder group. This study discovered that competing logics held by performance auditors and auditees are in some respects drawn closer together, while differences nonetheless co‐exist, although often in an uneasy partnership.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0267-4424</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0408</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/faam.12243</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Audit engagements ; Auditors ; Auditor‐General ; Audits ; Australia ; institutional logics ; performance auditing ; Public sector</subject><ispartof>Financial accountability & management, 2021-05, Vol.37 (2), p.142-162</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</rights><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3683-1a5d633845bca51e80c6b59eb29be07d3f0240df1f66fc6b32b1a106afec7d963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3683-1a5d633845bca51e80c6b59eb29be07d3f0240df1f66fc6b32b1a106afec7d963</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2335-6857 ; 0000-0003-4293-4920</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ffaam.12243$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ffaam.12243$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parker, Lee D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Jana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Kerry</creatorcontrib><title>Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective</title><title>Financial accountability & management</title><description>In the context of contemporary public sector performance audit practice in Australia, this study provides significant insights into performance auditors’ and auditees’ apparent logics and attitudes to performance audits. Employing a documentary analysis and in‐depth semistructured interviews with senior audit leaders from all Australian Auditor‐General jurisdictions, performance auditors’ and auditees’ attitudes toward performance audits and their intentions, strategies, and responses were explored through the lens of institutional logics. Empirical evidence reveals that performance auditors’ logics have gradually moved toward greater stakeholder engagement with auditees, parliamentarians, and the media, while preserving their performance audit prerogatives. Auditees appear to become more receptive to performance auditors’ engagement strategies and consultation attempts if auditors maintain a collaborative attitude. Both parties occasionally apply bridging and buffering strategies in situations where their logics are not aligned with those of the other stakeholder group. This study discovered that competing logics held by performance auditors and auditees are in some respects drawn closer together, while differences nonetheless co‐exist, although often in an uneasy partnership.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Audit engagements</subject><subject>Auditors</subject><subject>Auditor‐General</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>institutional logics</subject><subject>performance auditing</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><issn>0267-4424</issn><issn>1468-0408</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90MtK7TAUBuAgCm4vE58gIDgQqrk1bZ0VOV5AcaLjkKYrNdKd1iT18vantY5dkwTy_WHxI3RCyQWd59Jqvb2gjAm-gzZUyDIjgpS7aEOYLDIhmNhHBzG-kXkqxjfotZ5al4aAtW-xXu4AGHynO9iCT_jTpVc8Tk3vDI5gFjlCsEPYam9gTVzh2mPnY3JpSm7wusf90DkTFxrHOeU-4AjtWd1HOP49D9HLzb_n67vs4en2_rp-yAyXJc-ozlvJeSnyxuicQkmMbPIKGlY1QIqWW8IEaS21Utr5ibOGakqktmCKtpL8EJ2u_45heJ8gJvU2TGHeKSqWUy4qRotFna2q0z0o583gE3ylTk8xKlXLvCzyMi_ZDM9XaMIQYwCrxuC2OnwrStRSuVoqVz-Vz5iu-NP18P2HVDd1_bhm_gMpv4SC</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Parker, Lee D.</creator><creator>Schmitz, Jana</creator><creator>Jacobs, Kerry</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2335-6857</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4293-4920</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective</title><author>Parker, Lee D. ; Schmitz, Jana ; Jacobs, Kerry</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3683-1a5d633845bca51e80c6b59eb29be07d3f0240df1f66fc6b32b1a106afec7d963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Audit engagements</topic><topic>Auditors</topic><topic>Auditor‐General</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>institutional logics</topic><topic>performance auditing</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parker, Lee D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Jana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Kerry</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Financial accountability & management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parker, Lee D.</au><au>Schmitz, Jana</au><au>Jacobs, Kerry</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective</atitle><jtitle>Financial accountability & management</jtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>142</spage><epage>162</epage><pages>142-162</pages><issn>0267-4424</issn><eissn>1468-0408</eissn><abstract>In the context of contemporary public sector performance audit practice in Australia, this study provides significant insights into performance auditors’ and auditees’ apparent logics and attitudes to performance audits. Employing a documentary analysis and in‐depth semistructured interviews with senior audit leaders from all Australian Auditor‐General jurisdictions, performance auditors’ and auditees’ attitudes toward performance audits and their intentions, strategies, and responses were explored through the lens of institutional logics. Empirical evidence reveals that performance auditors’ logics have gradually moved toward greater stakeholder engagement with auditees, parliamentarians, and the media, while preserving their performance audit prerogatives. Auditees appear to become more receptive to performance auditors’ engagement strategies and consultation attempts if auditors maintain a collaborative attitude. Both parties occasionally apply bridging and buffering strategies in situations where their logics are not aligned with those of the other stakeholder group. This study discovered that competing logics held by performance auditors and auditees are in some respects drawn closer together, while differences nonetheless co‐exist, although often in an uneasy partnership.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/faam.12243</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2335-6857</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4293-4920</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0267-4424 |
ispartof | Financial accountability & management, 2021-05, Vol.37 (2), p.142-162 |
issn | 0267-4424 1468-0408 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2513492176 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Analysis Audit engagements Auditors Auditor‐General Audits Australia institutional logics performance auditing Public sector |
title | Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T07%3A22%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Auditor%20and%20auditee%20engagement%20with%20public%20sector%20performance%20audit:%20An%20institutional%20logics%20perspective&rft.jtitle=Financial%20accountability%20&%20management&rft.au=Parker,%20Lee%20D.&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=142&rft.epage=162&rft.pages=142-162&rft.issn=0267-4424&rft.eissn=1468-0408&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/faam.12243&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA658758582%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2513492176&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A658758582&rfr_iscdi=true |