IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v37y2020i1p245-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†

Author

Listed:
  • Emily E. Griffith

Abstract

Auditors frequently use valuation specialists to help them evaluate fair values, but researchers and regulators know little about how auditors use these specialists. Based on interviews with 28 auditors and 14 valuation specialists, I develop a theoretical framework informed by expert systems and professional competition theories. The interviews suggest that institutional pressures in the fair value environment unevenly impact auditors and specialists, causing tension between auditors' needs for ontological security and jurisdictional claims. This tension leads to one‐sided competition between auditors and specialists and incomplete acceptance of specialists' work. Auditors' competitive behaviors coupled with this incomplete acceptance result in a tendency to make specialists' work conform to auditors' views. Collectively, these findings suggest that auditors use specialists as an institutional mechanism to create comfort, but not insight. This study links expert systems and professional competition theories, and it provides critical insight into some assumptions underlying tenets of each theory. It also informs researchers, regulators, and practitioners interested in understanding and addressing problems related to the use of specialists. Auditeurs, spécialistes et champ de compétence professionnelle dans les audits des justes valeurs Les auditeurs ont fréquemment recours à l'aide de spécialistes en évaluation pour déterminer les justes valeurs, mais les chercheurs et les autorités de réglementation en savent peu quant à l'usage que font les auditeurs de ces services. À partir d'entrevues menées auprès de 28 auditeurs et de 14 spécialistes en évaluation, l'auteure élabore un cadre de référence théorique s'appuyant sur les théories des systèmes experts et de la concurrence professionnelle. Les renseignements tirés de ces entrevues semblent indiquer que les pressions institutionnelles, dans le contexte des justes valeurs, s'exercent de manière inégale sur les auditeurs et les spécialistes, ce qui crée une tension entre les besoins qu'ont les auditeurs de sécurité ontologique et de protection de leur champ de compétence professionnelle. Cette tension donne lieu à une concurrence unidirectionnelle entre auditeurs et spécialistes et à une acceptation fragmentaire du travail des spécialistes. Les comportements concurrentiels des auditeurs associés à cette acceptation fragmentaire engendre une tendance à faire en sorte que le travail des spécialistes s'aligne sur le point de vue des auditeurs. Dans leur ensemble, ces observations donnent à penser que les auditeurs envisagent le recours aux spécialistes comme un mécanisme institutionnel destiné à rassurer, mais non à approfondir. L'étude établit un lien entre les théories des systèmes experts et de la concurrence professionnelle et fournit des informations essentielles sur certaines hypothèses sous‐jacentes aux principes sur lesquels repose chacune de ces théories. Elle informe également les chercheurs, les autorités de réglementation et les professionnels en exercice soucieux de comprendre et de résoudre les problèmes liés au recours aux services de spécialistes.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily E. Griffith, 2020. "Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 245-276, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:245-276
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12506
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12506?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, David J. & Robson, Keith, 2006. "Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 415-444.
    2. Pentland, Brian T., 1993. "Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(7-8), pages 605-620.
    3. Mary Barth, 2006. "Including estimates of the future in today's financial statements," BIS Working Papers 208, Bank for International Settlements.
    4. Yves Gendron & Laura F. Spira, 2009. "What Went Wrong? The Downfall of Arthur Andersen and the Construction of Controllability Boundaries Surrounding Financial Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 987-1027, December.
    5. J. Gregory Jenkins & Eric M. Negangard & Mitchell J. Oler, 2018. "Getting Comfortable on Audits: Understanding Firms’ Usage of Forensic Specialists," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 1766-1797, December.
    6. Richard Clune & Dana R. Hermanson & James G. Tompkins & Zhongxia (Shelly) Ye, 2014. "The Nominating Committee Process: A Qualitative Examination of Board Independence and Formalization," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 748-786, September.
    7. Covaleski, Mark A. & Dirsmith, Mark W. & Rittenberg, Larry, 2003. "Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 323-355, May.
    8. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jean C. Bedard & Christine E. Earley, 2015. "Learning the “Craft†of Auditing: A Dynamic View of Auditors' On†the†Job Learning," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 864-896, September.
    9. Robson, Keith & Humphrey, Christopher & Khalifa, Rihab & Jones, Julian, 2007. "Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies and the audit field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 409-438.
    10. Smith-Lacroix, Jean-Hubert & Durocher, Sylvain & Gendron, Yves, 2012. "The erosion of jurisdiction: Auditing in a market value accounting regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 36-53.
    11. Power, Michael, 1997. "Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and environmental audit," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 123-146, February.
    12. George P. Huber & Danial J. Power, 1985. "Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 171-180, April.
    13. Sylvain Durocher & Yves Gendron, 2014. "Epistemic commitment and cognitive disunity toward fair-value accounting," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 630-655, December.
    14. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous, 2015. "Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 833-863, September.
    15. Gendron, Yves & Bedard, Jean, 2006. "On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-239, April.
    16. Englund, Hans & Gerdin, Jonas & Burns, John, 2011. "25 Years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 494-513.
    17. Michael Power, 2010. "Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 197-210.
    18. Suddaby, Roy & Gendron, Yves & Lam, Helen, 2009. "The organizational context of professionalism in accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 409-427, April.
    19. Power, Michael, 1996. "Making things auditable," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 289-315.
    20. Hux, Candice T., 2017. "Use of specialists on audit engagements: A research synthesis and directions for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 23-51.
    21. Yves Gendron, 2009. "Discussion of "The Audit Committee Oversight Process": Advocating Openness in Accounting Research," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 123-134, March.
    22. Mats Alvesson, 1993. "Organizations As Rhetoric: Knowledge‐Intensive Firms And The Struggle With Ambiguity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 997-1015, November.
    23. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin P. Commerford & Sean A. Dennis & Jennifer R. Joe & Jenny W. Ulla, 2022. "Man Versus Machine: Complex Estimates and Auditor Reliance on Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 171-201, March.
    2. Esraa Esam Alharasis & Hossam Haddad & Maha Shehadeh & Ahmad Saleem Tarawneh, 2022. "Abnormal Monitoring Costs Charged for Auditing Fair Value Model: Evidence from Jordanian Finance Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Esraa Esam Alharasis & Ahmad Saleem Tarawneh & Maha Shehadeh & Hossam Haddad & Ahmad Marei & Elina F. Hasan, 2022. "Reimbursement Costs of Auditing Financial Assets Measured by Fair Value Model in Jordanian Financial Firms’ Annual Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Nicolás Gambetta & Laura Sierra García & María Antonia García Benau & Josefina Novejarque Civera, 2022. "The informative value of Key Audit Matters in the audit report," Documentos de Investigación 129, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beau, Pauline & Jerman, Lambert, 2022. "Bonding forged in “auditing hell”: The emotional qualities of Big Four auditors," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    2. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Gendron, Yves, 2021. "Networks of interpretation: An ethnography of the quest for IFRS consistency in a global accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Bertrand Malsch & Yves Gendron, 2013. "Re-Theorizing Change: Institutional Experimentation and the Struggle for Domination in the Field of Public Accounting," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 870-899, July.
    4. Huikku, Jari & Mouritsen, Jan & Silvola, Hanna, 2017. "Relative reliability and the recognisable firm: Calculating goodwill impairment value," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 68-83.
    5. Suddaby, Roy & Saxton, Gregory D. & Gunz, Sally, 2015. "Twittering change: The institutional work of domain change in accounting expertise," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 52-68.
    6. Dermarkar, Simon & Hazgui, Mouna, 2022. "How auditors legitimize commercialism: A micro-discursive analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Anderson-Gough, Fiona & Edgley, Carla & Robson, Keith & Sharma, Nina, 2022. "Organizational responses to multiple logics: Diversity, identity and the professional service firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    8. Smith-Lacroix, Jean-Hubert & Durocher, Sylvain & Gendron, Yves, 2012. "The erosion of jurisdiction: Auditing in a market value accounting regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 36-53.
    9. Williams, James W., 2013. "Regulatory technologies, risky subjects, and financial boundaries: Governing ‘fraud’ in the financial markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 544-558.
    10. Christensen, Mark & Skærbæk, Peter, 2010. "Consultancy outputs and the purification of accounting technologies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 524-545, July.
    11. Claire France Picard & Sylvain Durocher & Yves Gendron, 2013. "From Meticulous Professionals To Superheroes Of The Business World: A Historical Portrait Of A Cultural Change In The Field Of Accountancy," Post-Print hal-00993019, HAL.
    12. O'Dwyer, Brendan & Owen, David & Unerman, Jeffrey, 2011. "Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-52, January.
    13. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    14. Namrata Malhotra & Timothy Morris, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Professional Service Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 895-922, September.
    15. Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan & Maroun, Warren, 2023. "How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    16. Hayoun, Shaul, 2019. "How fair value is both market-based and entity-specific: The irreducibility of value constellations to market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-82.
    17. Wally Smieliauskas & Kathryn Bewley & Ulfert Gronewold & Ulrich Menzefricke, 2018. "Misleading Forecasts in Accounting Estimates: A Form of Ethical Blindness in Accounting Standards?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 437-457, October.
    18. Jeff Everett & Constance Friesen & Dean Neu & Abu Shiraz Rahaman, 2018. "We Have Never Been Secular: Religious Identities, Duties, and Ethics in Audit Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1121-1142, December.
    19. Cerbone, Dannielle & Maroun, Warren, 2020. "Materiality in an integrated reporting setting: Insights using an institutional logics framework," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    20. Daoust, Laurence, 2020. "Playing the Big Four recruitment game: The tension between illusio and reflexivity," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:coacre:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:245-276. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.