Navigating knowledge and ignorance in the boardroom: A study of audit committee members' oversight styles

IF 3.2 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Oriane Couchoux
{"title":"Navigating knowledge and ignorance in the boardroom: A study of audit committee members' oversight styles","authors":"Oriane Couchoux","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.12890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Using data collected from 21 interviews with audit committee members (ACMs) of Canadian reporting issuers, this study examines the ways in which ACMs understand and enact the additional responsibilities placed on them by regulators in the post–Sarbanes-Oxley Act era. Adopting a social constructivist approach to knowledge and expertise, the study shows that despite the financial literacy requirements for ACMs, financial expertise is far from being uniformly understood by ACMs. Indeed, ACMs perceive expertise in many different ways, which leads them to engage in a wide variety of practices to fulfill their responsibilities on audit committees (ACs). The analysis of the data makes it possible to identify three oversight styles—<i>observing</i>, <i>inspecting</i>, and <i>storytelling</i>—that illustrate the differences in how ACMs understand their role, prepare for AC meetings, invest time in this preparation, and develop lines of questioning. These findings provide empirical insights into both the substantive and symbolic roles of ACs and illustrate the role of knowledge and ignorance in shaping ACMs' understanding of their oversight role. This study also raises questions about the soundness of having ACs oversee multiple different processes. By highlighting that ACMs do not comprehend and enact their role uniformly, this study reveals the important nuances in ACMs' oversight approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.12890","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1911-3846.12890","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using data collected from 21 interviews with audit committee members (ACMs) of Canadian reporting issuers, this study examines the ways in which ACMs understand and enact the additional responsibilities placed on them by regulators in the post–Sarbanes-Oxley Act era. Adopting a social constructivist approach to knowledge and expertise, the study shows that despite the financial literacy requirements for ACMs, financial expertise is far from being uniformly understood by ACMs. Indeed, ACMs perceive expertise in many different ways, which leads them to engage in a wide variety of practices to fulfill their responsibilities on audit committees (ACs). The analysis of the data makes it possible to identify three oversight styles—observing, inspecting, and storytelling—that illustrate the differences in how ACMs understand their role, prepare for AC meetings, invest time in this preparation, and develop lines of questioning. These findings provide empirical insights into both the substantive and symbolic roles of ACs and illustrate the role of knowledge and ignorance in shaping ACMs' understanding of their oversight role. This study also raises questions about the soundness of having ACs oversee multiple different processes. By highlighting that ACMs do not comprehend and enact their role uniformly, this study reveals the important nuances in ACMs' oversight approaches.

在董事会中驾驭知识和无知:审计委员会成员监督风格的研究
本研究利用对加拿大报告发行人的审计委员会成员(ACMs)进行的 21 次访谈收集的数据,探讨了 ACMs 如何理解并履行监管机构在后萨班斯-奥克斯利法案时代赋予他们的额外责任。本研究采用社会建构主义方法研究知识和专业知识,结果表明,尽管对加拿大注册会计师提出了财务知识要求,但加拿大注册会计师对财务专业知识的理解远非一致。事实上,ACMs 对专业知识的理解有很多不同的方式,这导致他们在履行审计委员会(ACs)职责时会采取各种各样的做法。通过对数据的分析,我们发现了三种监督方式--观察、检查和讲故事--它们说明了审计委员会成员在理解自身角色、准备审计委员会会议、投入时间进行准备以及制定提问思路方面的差异。这些发现提供了对审计委员会的实质性和象征性作用的经验性见解,并说明了知识和无知在影响审计委员会对其监督作用的理解方面所起的作用。本研究还提出了由行政协调委员会监督多个不同程序的合理性问题。本研究通过强调行政协调专员对其角色的理解和执行并不一致,揭示了行政协调专员监督方法中的重要细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) is the premiere research journal of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, which publishes leading- edge research that contributes to our understanding of all aspects of accounting"s role within organizations, markets or society. Canadian based, increasingly global in scope, CAR seeks to reflect the geographical and intellectual diversity in accounting research. To accomplish this, CAR will continue to publish in its traditional areas of excellence, while seeking to more fully represent other research streams in its pages, so as to continue and expand its tradition of excellence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信