Evidence and Argument: Another Look at Audit Fundamentals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditionally, accounts of fundamental audit theory have been based on a “common sense" epistemological framework, incorporating a correspondence theory of truth and a “naïve empirical" approach to discovery and demonstration. Although these accounts generally fail to link this theory convincingly to audit practice, most writers on technical audit processes have assumed (usually implicitly) that no practical problems arise as a result of this. This disengagement between epistemological grounding and day-to-day practice is mirrored in some current writing, which takes its inspiration from the sociology of knowledge. This writing, also, fails to (and indeed cannot) engage in a discourse with practitioners on fundamental theory since it conceives the practitioner’s rationality as constructed, and, therefore, contingent. This paper attempts to set out an approach to fundamental theory, aimed at avoiding the errors of the early theorists; preserving the insights gained from the sociology of knowledge, without coming to grief on its self-referential difficulties; and suggesting a route towards reconciling practice with conceptual basics.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)247-267
Number of pages20
JournalCritical Perspectives On Accounting
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2001

Fingerprint

audit
sociology of knowledge
evidence
disengagement
grief
rationality
writer
Audit
discourse
Sociology of knowledge

Cite this

Evidence and Argument: Another Look at Audit Fundamentals. / Arthur, Alexander James.

In: Critical Perspectives On Accounting, Vol. 12, No. 3, 06.2001, p. 247-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d1e48868227f4d629e310318707ae9d0,
title = "Evidence and Argument: Another Look at Audit Fundamentals",
abstract = "Traditionally, accounts of fundamental audit theory have been based on a “common sense{"} epistemological framework, incorporating a correspondence theory of truth and a “na{\"i}ve empirical{"} approach to discovery and demonstration. Although these accounts generally fail to link this theory convincingly to audit practice, most writers on technical audit processes have assumed (usually implicitly) that no practical problems arise as a result of this. This disengagement between epistemological grounding and day-to-day practice is mirrored in some current writing, which takes its inspiration from the sociology of knowledge. This writing, also, fails to (and indeed cannot) engage in a discourse with practitioners on fundamental theory since it conceives the practitioner’s rationality as constructed, and, therefore, contingent. This paper attempts to set out an approach to fundamental theory, aimed at avoiding the errors of the early theorists; preserving the insights gained from the sociology of knowledge, without coming to grief on its self-referential difficulties; and suggesting a route towards reconciling practice with conceptual basics.",
author = "Arthur, {Alexander James}",
year = "2001",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1006/cpac.2000.0414",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "247--267",
journal = "Critical Perspectives On Accounting",
issn = "1045-2354",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence and Argument: Another Look at Audit Fundamentals

AU - Arthur, Alexander James

PY - 2001/6

Y1 - 2001/6

N2 - Traditionally, accounts of fundamental audit theory have been based on a “common sense" epistemological framework, incorporating a correspondence theory of truth and a “naïve empirical" approach to discovery and demonstration. Although these accounts generally fail to link this theory convincingly to audit practice, most writers on technical audit processes have assumed (usually implicitly) that no practical problems arise as a result of this. This disengagement between epistemological grounding and day-to-day practice is mirrored in some current writing, which takes its inspiration from the sociology of knowledge. This writing, also, fails to (and indeed cannot) engage in a discourse with practitioners on fundamental theory since it conceives the practitioner’s rationality as constructed, and, therefore, contingent. This paper attempts to set out an approach to fundamental theory, aimed at avoiding the errors of the early theorists; preserving the insights gained from the sociology of knowledge, without coming to grief on its self-referential difficulties; and suggesting a route towards reconciling practice with conceptual basics.

AB - Traditionally, accounts of fundamental audit theory have been based on a “common sense" epistemological framework, incorporating a correspondence theory of truth and a “naïve empirical" approach to discovery and demonstration. Although these accounts generally fail to link this theory convincingly to audit practice, most writers on technical audit processes have assumed (usually implicitly) that no practical problems arise as a result of this. This disengagement between epistemological grounding and day-to-day practice is mirrored in some current writing, which takes its inspiration from the sociology of knowledge. This writing, also, fails to (and indeed cannot) engage in a discourse with practitioners on fundamental theory since it conceives the practitioner’s rationality as constructed, and, therefore, contingent. This paper attempts to set out an approach to fundamental theory, aimed at avoiding the errors of the early theorists; preserving the insights gained from the sociology of knowledge, without coming to grief on its self-referential difficulties; and suggesting a route towards reconciling practice with conceptual basics.

U2 - 10.1006/cpac.2000.0414

DO - 10.1006/cpac.2000.0414

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 247

EP - 267

JO - Critical Perspectives On Accounting

JF - Critical Perspectives On Accounting

SN - 1045-2354

IS - 3

ER -