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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Financial accountability & management 2021-05, Vol.37 (2), p.142-162
Hauptverfasser: Parker, Lee D., Schmitz, Jana, Jacobs, Kerry
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 &amp; management, 2021-05, Vol.37 (2), p.142-162</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</rights><rights>2021 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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