加强审计师的思维方式:培养专业怀疑精神的框架

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Accounting Literature Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122
Martin Kelly, P. Larres
{"title":"加强审计师的思维方式:培养专业怀疑精神的框架","authors":"Martin Kelly, P. Larres","doi":"10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeFollowing recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.FindingsAuditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.","PeriodicalId":45666,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Literature","volume":"142 39","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing the auditor's mindset: a framework for nurturing professional skepticism\",\"authors\":\"Martin Kelly, P. Larres\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeFollowing recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.FindingsAuditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"volume\":\"142 39\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近备受瞩目的审计失败事件之后,审计师在进行专业判断时没有表现出足够的怀疑态度,这引起了人们的关注。特别是,客户对财务报告中假设估值的假设和估计没有受到挑战。本文试图通过推进一个决策框架来解决这个问题,该框架旨在引导审计师超越监管简化主义思维,增强对形成可靠审计意见的专业判断的认知过程的理解。设计/方法论/方法借鉴Bernard Lonergan的规范哲学和神学教义,作者的决策框架体现了反思性思维和意识数据,以突出探究在理解、判断和决策的动态过程中所起的核心作用。这种调查引发了对假设性估值固有的管理偏见的挑战。通过lonergian的视角进行审计,审计师可以通过提供一套认知工具来加强对培养专业怀疑必不可少的调查,从而反思他们的客观决策方法。原创性/价值本文通过发展一些被忽视的关于专业怀疑和审计判断所必需的认知过程的论述,为文献做出了贡献。作者展示了Lonerganian的自我占有如何增强了与客观判断和决策相关的递归认知活动的意识。这种觉醒的意识不仅有可能改变审计师质疑证据以做出明智判断和决策的方式,而且有可能使质疑行为正常化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Enhancing the auditor's mindset: a framework for nurturing professional skepticism
PurposeFollowing recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.FindingsAuditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The objective of the Journal is to publish papers that make a fundamental and substantial contribution to the understanding of accounting phenomena. To this end, the Journal intends to publish papers that (1) synthesize an area of research in a concise and rigorous manner to assist academics and others to gain knowledge and appreciation of diverse research areas or (2) present high quality, multi-method, original research on a broad range of topics relevant to accounting, auditing and taxation. Topical coverage is broad and inclusive covering virtually all aspects of accounting. Consistent with the historical mission of the Journal, it is expected that the lead article of each issue will be a synthesis article on an important research topic. Other manuscripts to be included in a given issue will be a mix of synthesis and original research papers. In addition to traditional research topics and methods, we actively solicit manuscripts of the including, but not limited to, the following: • meta-analyses • field studies • critiques of papers published in other journals • emerging developments in accounting theory • commentaries on current issues • innovative experimental research with strong grounding in cognitive, social or anthropological sciences • creative archival analyses using non-standard methodologies or data sources with strong grounding in various social sciences • book reviews • "idea" papers that don''t fit into other established categories.
期刊最新文献
Ontological basis of the creative accounting phenomenon as a financial misstatement The valuation and determinants of franking account balances Unveiling the hidden symphony: board dynamics and carbon emission disclosure – a meta-analysis study in the realm of developed markets Trade-based money laundering: a systematic literature review Theories underlying environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: a systematic review of accounting studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1