The theory of auditing
For many years, the study and practice of auditing centred on the pure
mechanics of conducting an audit, concentrating on how to perform an
audit. However, as it became more of an established profession and, more
recently, accepted as an academic discipline, more attention was focused
on the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the practice. Thus,
questions were explicitly raised about why certain procedures were carried
out.
The first coherent attempt came from American academics, Mautz and
Sharaf, who in 1961 published The philosophy of auditing. This was an
important development as it helped gain some measure of academic
acceptance for auditing. Mautz and Sharaf drew from established fields
of study such as philosophy, the sciences and law in producing a theory
which helped to explain much of the accepted practice in auditing. Their
theory also helped to highlight areas of practice that did not stand up to
critical review, notwithstanding that such areas were generally accepted.
In the UK more than 10 years later, a Scottish academic, Professor Tom
Lee, built on and adapted the work of Mautz and Sharaf to produce his
own ‘theory’ in Company auditing. This book was refined and polished into
a third edition (last published in 1986). Sadly, Lee’s later book – Corporate
audit theory (1993) – is aimed at the US market and much of the easy
accessibility of the earlier versions has been lost.
Another Scot, Professor David Flint, has written Philosophy and principles
of auditing, building on Mautz and Sharaf and on Lee. The accounting
establishment has shown little interest in, or enthusiasm for, pursuing
theoretical lines of enquiry. This is in contrast to the financial reporting
field where over the years millions of dollars have been invested in
seeking what some have called the holy grail of accounting – a conceptual
framework – which currently takes the form of the Framework for the
preparation and presentation of financial statements published by the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Similar statements
have been issued by national standard-setters, such as the Statement
of principles by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) of the UK and
the Conceptual framework for financial reporting and the presentation of
financial statements by the Accounting Standards Council in Singapore. It
is interesting to debate why the effort has been made to formulate theories
about accounting but not about auditing, the process which renders
accounting statements valuable; however, that is beyond the range of our
studies at present.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment