IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/arjpps/v26y2013i1p75-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit firm rotation and audit quality: evidence from academic research

Author

Listed:
  • David S. Jenkins
  • Thomas E. Vermeer

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a succinct overview of academic research that has examined audit firm rotation both in the USA and in other countries. Design/methodology/approach - The authors outline the unresolved nature of academic research on audit firm rotation, review recent literature, discuss why academics have been unable to resolve this issue and offer suggestions for improving subsequent research in the area. Findings - Overall, the collective evidence is inconclusive at best; with earlier studies generally finding mixed results and more recent studies indicating that audit quality generally goes through two distinct phases during the auditor‐client relationship, the “auditor learning” and “auditor closeness” phases. Originality/value - Given the importance of the issue, this article provides an overview of academic research that has examined audit firm rotation, discusses why academics have been unable to resolve this issue, and provides suggestions on how academics and practitioners can work together to enhance the quality of future research.

Suggested Citation

  • David S. Jenkins & Thomas E. Vermeer, 2013. "Audit firm rotation and audit quality: evidence from academic research," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(1), pages 75-84, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:arjpps:v:26:y:2013:i:1:p:75-84
    DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-11-2012-0087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARJ-11-2012-0087/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARJ-11-2012-0087/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/ARJ-11-2012-0087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:arjpps:v:26:y:2013:i:1:p:75-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.