IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v6y1990i2p287-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The continuing evolution of auditing science: Megatrends and research opportunities for the 1990s

Author

Listed:
  • LAWRENCE A. TOMASSINI

Abstract

. During the past 15 years, the field of auditing has evolved as a scientific discipline. This paper discusses the continuing evolution of auditing science by identifying current megatrends in the auditing environment. These megatrends include (1) the expanding scope of attestation and related audit services, (2) new competition and mergers between accounting firms, (3) changing information technology, and (4) an emerging global market for audits. Research opportunities for the 1990s that relate to such trends are illustrated to stimulate additional progress in the field. Finally, implications for interdisciplinary research and education and training future auditors are discussed. Résumé. Depuis 15 ans, le domaine de la vérification a gagné le rang de discipline scientifique. L'auteur traite de l'évolution incessante de la science de la vérification et détermine les mégatendances actuelles dans le secteur. On retrouve parmi ces mégatendances 1) l'élargissement de la portée de l'attestation et des services de vérification connexes, 2) la concurrence inédite que se livrent les cabinets comptables et les fusions dont ils font l'objet, 3) l'évolution de la technologie de l'information et 4) un marché global en émergence pour les services de vérification. L'auteur décrit les avenues de recherche qu'offrent ces tendances pour les années 1990, en vue de stimuler les progrès dans le domaine. Enfin, il traite des conséquences en matière de recherche interdisciplinaire et de formation théorique et pratique des futurs vérificateurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence A. Tomassini, 1990. "The continuing evolution of auditing science: Megatrends and research opportunities for the 1990s," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 287-294, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:6:y:1990:i:2:p:287-294
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1990.tb00759.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1990.tb00759.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1990.tb00759.x?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. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    2. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    3. Simunic, Da, 1984. "Auditing, Consulting, And Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 679-702.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    2. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    3. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    4. Chahine, Salim & Filatotchev, Igor, 2011. "The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 155-172.
    5. A. Rashad Abdel†Khalik, 1990. "The jointness of audit fees and demand for MAS: A self†selection analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 295-322, March.
    6. Yi-Fang Yang & Lee-Wen Yang & Min-Ning Lee, 2015. "Service Quality, Size, And Performance Of Audit Firms: Consideration Of Market Segments And Business Strategies," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(4), pages 51-66.
    7. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre & Ken Pratt & Joanna Stevenson, 2001. "The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 243-274.
    8. Sang Cheol Lee & Jaewan Park & Mooweon Rhee & Yunkeun Lee, 2018. "Moderating Effects of Agency Problems and Monitoring Systems on the Relationship between Executive Stock Option and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    9. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    10. Sorin Romulus Berinde & Adrian GroÅŸanu, 2013. "Particularities Concerning The Beneficiaries Of Audit Services Provided By The Big 4 Companies: Evidence From Romania," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(15), pages 1-14.
    11. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max, 2012. "Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 156-168.
    12. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.
    13. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard & Michael L. Ettredge, 2004. "The Effect of Competitive Bidding on Engagement Planning and Pricing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 25-53, March.
    14. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H., 2011. "Audit fees around dismissals and resignations: Additional evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 65-81.
    15. Siddiqui, Javed & Zaman, Mahbub & Khan, Arifur, 2013. "Do Big-Four affiliates earn audit fee premiums in emerging markets?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 332-342.
    16. Andrew Ferguson & Donald Stokes, 2002. "Brand Name Audit Pricing, Industry Specialization, and Leadership Premiums post†Big 8 and Big 6 Mergers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 77-110, March.
    17. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H. & Sun, Yuan, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Audit Fees: Evidence of Countervailing Relations," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 18-49.
    18. M. Ezzamel & D. Gwilliam & K. Holland, 1996. "Some Empirical Evidence from Publicly Quoted UK Companies on the Relationship Between the Pricing of Audit and Non-audit Services," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 3-16.
    19. Muhammad Nurul Houqe, 2017. "IFRS Adoption and Audit Fees-Evidence from New Zealand," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 16(1), pages 75-100, June.
    20. Yahn-Shir Chen & Joseph Hsu & Mei-Ting Huang & Ping-Sen Yang, 2013. "Quality, Size and Performance of Audit Firms," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 7(5), pages 89-105.

    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:6:y:1990:i:2:p:287-294. 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.