The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review the contribution made by auditing research over the last three decades to understandings of audit practice and to consider the implications for the future development of the discipline. Design/methodology/approach: The approach takes the form of a literature review. Findings: The paper challenges the extent of one's knowledge of audit practice, highlighting a variety of concerns with dominant research approaches/traditions and pin‐pointing a range of research questions and approaches which offer potentially rewarding insights of the audit practice arena. Practical implications: The paper emphasises the scope for auditing researchers and practitioners to think differently about audit practice and to work collectively in pursuing advances in auditing knowledge and educational processes more generally. Originality/value: The paper illustrates just how vibrant contemporary auditing research agendas can be when the focus is directly on understanding the practice of audit and the work of associated regulatory institutions. It argues that the development of the auditing research discipline has been hindered by desired attachments to so‐called notions of “scientific rigour” and a reluctance across significant parts of the discipline to undertake (or even acknowledge) research of a more “qualitative” or “critical” dimension.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Auditing
Munoko, I., Brown-Liburd, H. L., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04407-1 · Cited by 621
The Case of Sustainability Assurance: Constructing a New Assurance Service *
O’Dwyer, B. (2011) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01108.x · Cited by 321
Qualitative Research in Auditing: A Methodological Roadmap
Power, M. K., & Gendron, Y. (2015) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-10423 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Humphrey, C.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2008-02-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 170-203
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137658892
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 44.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570810854392
- The paper
- Humphrey, C. (2008). Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854392
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.