IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/v28y2015i8p1234-1262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blurred roles and elusive boundaries

Author

Listed:
  • Mouna Hazgui
  • Yves Gendron

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to extend research on contemporary forms of oversight surrounding professional work in an era characterized by increased skepticism regarding professional claims and the rise of independent regulatory authorities. The authors investigate the interplay between key actors as well as the shifting role boundaries in a distinct regulatory space, following the introduction of a new public oversight framework. Design/methodology/approach - – The analysis draws on the notions of regulatory space and boundary work to better understand the development of independent audit oversight in France. The authors adopted an interpretive approach to conduct a longitudinal case study based on 33 interviews and documentary data produced from 2003 to 2012. Findings - – The study provides a narrative of the boundary work carried out by the French audit profession as it tried to reinvent its role in the new regulatory order. In the case, boundary work engendered a hybrid regulatory pattern, named “co-regulation,” reflecting both the logic of independent regulation and the logic of self-regulation. The main consequence of this is that zones of mutual involvement were constructed – thereby suggesting that to become a reality, independent oversight of professional work needs to accept some operational dependence from professionals. Originality/value - – The study illustrates the elusiveness of boundaries surrounding actors’ role within contemporary forms of professional regulation. More generally, hybrid development suggests that professions are proactive and, to some extent, successful when it comes to developing alliances and manipulating changes within their regulatory space.

Suggested Citation

  • Mouna Hazgui & Yves Gendron, 2015. "Blurred roles and elusive boundaries," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(8), pages 1234-1262, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:28:y:2015:i:8:p:1234-1262
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2014-1890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2014-1890/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/AAAJ-12-2014-1890/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/AAAJ-12-2014-1890?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Janni Grouleff Nielsen & Rainer Lueg & Dennis van Liempd, 2019. "Managing Multiple Logics: The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Social Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Ege, Matthew & Knechel, W. Robert & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2020. "A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Mihret, Dessalegn Getie & Alshareef, Mohammed Naif & Bazhair, Ayman, 2017. "Accounting professionalization and the state: The case of Saudi Arabia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 29-47.
    5. Justin Logie & Warren Maroun, 2021. "Evaluating Audit Quality Using the Results of Inspection Processes Performed by an Independent Regulator," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 128-149, June.
    6. Löhlein, Lukas & Müßig, Anke, 2020. "At the boundaries of institutional theorizing: Individual entrepreneurship in episodes of regulatory change," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Golyagina, Alena & Valuckas, Danielius, 2020. "Boundary-work in management accounting: The case of hybrid professionalism," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    8. Lassou, Philippe J.C. & Hopper, Trevor & Ntim, Collins, 2021. "How the colonial legacy frames state audit institutions in Benin that fail to curb corruption," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Annisette, Marcia, 2017. "Discourse of the professions: The making, normalizing and taming of Ontario's “foreign-trained accountant”," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 37-61.
    10. Carlin Dowling & W. Robert Knechel & Robyn Moroney, 2018. "Public Oversight of Audit Firms: The Slippery Slope of Enforcing Regulation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 353-380, September.
    11. Knudsen, Dan-Richard, 2020. "Elusive boundaries, power relations, and knowledge production: A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).

    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:aaajpp:v:28:y:2015:i:8:p:1234-1262. 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.