How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?

Historically professional logic has shaped accountancy, increasingly it has been shaped also by commercial logic. This study moves beyond these distinctions for a better and more nuanced analyses of how actors (Big 4 auditors) navigate conflicting logics in their everyday practice. The study follow...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Karin Barac, Elizabeth Gammie, Bryan Howieson, Marianne Van Staden
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences 2019-12-01
Series:Professions and Professionalism
Online Access:https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2916
id doaj-60e383ae347843bea150e65ffaf78813
record_format Article
spelling doaj-60e383ae347843bea150e65ffaf788132020-11-25T02:21:22ZengOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesProfessions and Professionalism1893-10492019-12-019310.7577/pp.2916How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?Karin Barac0Elizabeth Gammie1Bryan Howieson2Marianne Van Staden3University of PretoriaRobert Gordon UniversityThe University of AdelaideUniversity of South Africa Historically professional logic has shaped accountancy, increasingly it has been shaped also by commercial logic. This study moves beyond these distinctions for a better and more nuanced analyses of how actors (Big 4 auditors) navigate conflicting logics in their everyday practice. The study follows a qualitative approach and is based on views of multiple role players in the audit process of complex companies in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The study examines auditors’ decision-making involving experts, rotating partners/firms and meeting regulatory inspection requirements. The study adds to the emerging debate around logic multiplicity at the institutional ‘coalface’ by showing that auditors use balancing mechanisms (segmenting, assimilating, bridging and demarcating) to navigate and make sense of coexisting (professional, commercial and accountability) logics. Views of non-auditor role players, mostly overlooked in by institutional research at micro-levels, challenge the institutionalisation of connected logics and question the influence on audit quality. https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2916
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Karin Barac
Elizabeth Gammie
Bryan Howieson
Marianne Van Staden
spellingShingle Karin Barac
Elizabeth Gammie
Bryan Howieson
Marianne Van Staden
How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
Professions and Professionalism
author_facet Karin Barac
Elizabeth Gammie
Bryan Howieson
Marianne Van Staden
author_sort Karin Barac
title How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
title_short How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
title_full How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
title_fullStr How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
title_full_unstemmed How do Auditors Navigate Conflicting Logics in Everyday Practice?
title_sort how do auditors navigate conflicting logics in everyday practice?
publisher Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
series Professions and Professionalism
issn 1893-1049
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Historically professional logic has shaped accountancy, increasingly it has been shaped also by commercial logic. This study moves beyond these distinctions for a better and more nuanced analyses of how actors (Big 4 auditors) navigate conflicting logics in their everyday practice. The study follows a qualitative approach and is based on views of multiple role players in the audit process of complex companies in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The study examines auditors’ decision-making involving experts, rotating partners/firms and meeting regulatory inspection requirements. The study adds to the emerging debate around logic multiplicity at the institutional ‘coalface’ by showing that auditors use balancing mechanisms (segmenting, assimilating, bridging and demarcating) to navigate and make sense of coexisting (professional, commercial and accountability) logics. Views of non-auditor role players, mostly overlooked in by institutional research at micro-levels, challenge the institutionalisation of connected logics and question the influence on audit quality.
url https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2916
work_keys_str_mv AT karinbarac howdoauditorsnavigateconflictinglogicsineverydaypractice
AT elizabethgammie howdoauditorsnavigateconflictinglogicsineverydaypractice
AT bryanhowieson howdoauditorsnavigateconflictinglogicsineverydaypractice
AT mariannevanstaden howdoauditorsnavigateconflictinglogicsineverydaypractice
_version_ 1724866775182475264