IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v17y2018i3p427-452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters

Author

Listed:
  • Kris Hoang
  • Steven E. Salterio
  • Jim Sylph

Abstract

Auditing researchers have published over 24,000 academic articles (Google Scholar September 2016) since 1970. Auditing standard setters and regulators frequently describe an inability to engage with and utilize this research to make evidence‐informed standard setting and regulatory decisions. For society to benefit from the large investment in audit research, the knowledge needs to systematically and effectively transferred to auditing policymakers. We draw on the knowledge transfer literature to identify barriers to transferring academic knowledge and discuss how these concepts apply to audit standard setting. We then examine a paradigmatic example of academic knowledge transfer to policymaking: evidence‐based medicine. Based on this analysis, we propose a tentative strategy to address the barriers to transferring audit research knowledge to policymaking and sketch out potential avenues for research. We conclude with an illustrative example of how to implement a knowledge transfer strategy that is effective in systematically transferring knowledge in other policymaking settings to the context of a specific audit standard‐setting project: group audits. Résumé Obstacles à la transmission des fruits de la recherche en audit aux normalisateurs Depuis 1970, les chercheurs dans le domaine de l'audit ont publié plus de 24 000 articles universitaires (Google Scholar, septembre 2016). Les organismes de normalisation et les autorités de réglementation en audit déplorent fréquemment l'impossibilité dans laquelle ils se trouvent de donner suite à ces recherches et de les utiliser dans la prise de décisions fondées sur les faits dans leur travail de normalisation et de réglementation. Pour que la société puisse bénéficier des sommes importantes qui sont investies dans la recherche en audit, les connaissances doivent être transmises de manière systématique et efficace aux décideurs en audit. Les auteurs puisent dans la documentation relative à la transmission des connaissances pour cerner les obstacles à la transmission des connaissances universitaires et traiter du mode d'application de ces connaissances à la normalisation en audit. Ils se penchent ensuite sur un exemple paradigmatique de transmission de connaissances universitaires aux décideurs : celui de la médecine factuelle (fondée sur les données). Leur analyse les amène à proposer une stratégie expérimentale en vue d’éliminer les obstacles à la transmission aux décideurs des connaissances issues de la recherche en audit et à esquisser des pistes de recherche possibles. Ils concluent par un exemple visant à illustrer comment mettre en œuvre une stratégie efficace propre à assurer la transmission systématique des connaissances dans d'autres cadres décisionnels, dans le contexte d'un projet particulier de normalisation en audit : celui des audits de groupes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kris Hoang & Steven E. Salterio & Jim Sylph, 2018. "Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 427-452, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:427-452
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3838.12181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3838.12181?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. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    2. Christian Leuz, 2018. "Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 582-608, July.
    3. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    4. Udo Zander & Bruce Kogut, 1995. "Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 76-92, February.
    5. Kelly, Michael & Morgan, Antony & Ellis, Simon & Younger, Tricia & Huntley, Jane & Swann, Catherine, 2010. "Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1056-1062, September.
    6. Morris, Timothy & Empson, Laura, 1998. "Organisation and expertise: An exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting and consulting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 609-624.
    7. Szulanski, Gabriel, 2000. "The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 9-27, May.
    8. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    9. Humphrey, Christopher & Loft, Anne & Woods, Margaret, 2009. "The global audit profession and the international financial architecture: Understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 810-825, August.
    10. France Légaré & Antoine Boivin & Trudy van der Weijden & Christine Pakenham & Jako Burgers & Jean Légaré & Sylvie St-Jacques & Susie Gagnon, 2011. "Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 45-74, November.
    11. Alan Teixeira, 2014. "The International Accounting Standards Board and Evidence-Informed Standard-Setting," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 5-12, June.
    12. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    13. Goldenberg, Maya J., 2006. "On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2621-2632, June.
    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. Stephen A. Zeff, 2019. "A Personal View of the Evolution of the Accounting Professoriate," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 159-185, September.
    2. Salterio, Steven E. & Hoang, Kris & Luo, Yi, 2021. "Communication is a two-way street: Analyzing practices undertaken to systematically transfer audit research knowledge to policymakers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Koonce, Lisa & Mongold, Cassie & Quaid, Laura & White, Brian J., 2024. "Experimental research on standard-setting issues in financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    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. Deist, Maximilian K. & McDowell, William C. & Bouncken, Ricarda B., 2023. "Digital units and digital innovation: Balancing fluidity and stability for the Creation, Conversion, and Dissemination of sticky knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. W. Sofka, 2008. "Globalizing Domestic Absorptive Capacities," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 769-792, December.
    3. Ferlie, Ewan & Crilly, Tessa & Jashapara, Ashok & Peckham, Anna, 2012. "Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: A critical review of health sector and generic management literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(8), pages 1297-1304.
    4. Haradhan Kumar Mohajan, 2016. "Knowledge is an Essential Element at Present World," International Journal of Publication and Social Studies, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53.
    5. Josef Windsperger & Nina Gorovaia, 2011. "Knowledge attributes and the choice of knowledge transfer mechanism in networks: the case of franchising," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(4), pages 617-640, November.
    6. Anupam Agrawal & Suresh Muthulingam, 2015. "Does Organizational Forgetting Affect Vendor Quality Performance? An Empirical Investigation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 350-367, July.
    7. Christine Holmström Lind & Olivia H. Kang, 2017. "The Value-Adding Role of the Corporate Headquarters in Innovation Transfer Processes: The Issue of Headquarters Knowledge Situation," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 571-602, August.
    8. Nissen, Mark E., 2019. "Initiating a system for visualizing and measuring dynamic knowledge," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 169-181.
    9. Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2016. "Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 304-322, April.
    10. Wang Juanru & Yang Jin, 2015. "An Empirical Study of Employees’ Tacit Knowledge Sharing Behavior," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 264-278, June.
    11. Yoon, Haewon & Scopelliti, Irene & Morewedge, Carey K., 2021. "Decision making can be improved through observational learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 155-188.
    12. Ditillo, Angelo, 2004. "Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: the role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 401-421.
    13. Esterhuizen, D. & Schutte, C.S.L. & du Toit, A.S.A., 2012. "Knowledge creation processes as critical enablers for innovation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 354-364.
    14. Jeffrey Cummings, 2003. "Knowledge Sharing : A Review of the Literature," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 19060.
    15. Argote, Linda & Fahrenkopf, Erin, 2016. "Knowledge transfer in organizations: The roles of members, tasks, tools, and networks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 146-159.
    16. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    17. Salterio, Steven E. & Hoang, Kris & Luo, Yi, 2021. "Communication is a two-way street: Analyzing practices undertaken to systematically transfer audit research knowledge to policymakers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Haradhan Kumar Mohajan, 2017. "Knowledge is an Essential Element at Present World," International Journal of Publication and Social Studies, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53, June.
    19. Youngsoo Kim & Ramayya Krishnan & Linda Argote, 2012. "The Learning Curve of IT Knowledge Workers in a Computing Call Center," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 887-902, September.
    20. Ann Majchrzak & Lynne P. Cooper & Olivia E. Neece, 2004. "Knowledge Reuse for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 174-188, February.

    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:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:427-452. 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)1911-3838 .

    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.