Course unit title

Current Issue of Auditing Research

Course unit code

-

Type of course unit (compulsory, optional)

Optional

Level of course unit (according to

EQF: first cycle Bachelor, second cycle Master)

-

Year of study when the course unit is delivered

(if applicable)

2021/2022

Semester/trimester when the course unit is delivered

-

Number of ECTS credits allocated

4,8 ECTS

Name of lecturer(s)
  1. Dr Sc. Damai Nasution, S.E., M.Si., CA.
  2. Dr. Devi Sulistyo Kalanjati, SE., M.Acc., M.Sc., Ak., CPA.
  3. Novrys Suhardianto, S.E., M.Si., PhD., CA.

Learning outcomes of the course unit
  1. Able to discover or develop new scientific theories/conceptions/ideas, contributing to the development and practice of science and/or technology that pay attention to and apply the value of the humanities in their areas of expertise, by producing scientific research based on scientific methodology, logical thinking, critical, systematic, and creative. 
  2. Able to develop knowledge and technology in the field of accounting or professional practice through research, to produce creative, original, and tested work (Academics, Researchers). 
  3. Able to manage, lead, and develop research and development that is beneficial to the benefit of mankind, and able to gain national and international recognition (Academics, Researchers). 
  4. Able to solve problems and provide health in the field of accounting through inter, multi, and transdisciplinary (Consultant) approaches. 
  5. Able to master the concepts, theories, methods, and / or philosophy of the field of accounting which includes, among others, financial accounting, management accounting, behavioral accounting, auditing, capital market accounting, through research (academics, researchers, consultants).

Mode of delivery (face-to-face, distance learning)

Face-to-face and distance learning

Prerequisites and co-requisites (if applicable)

-

Course content
  1. Research methods in auditing research
  2. Review of Archival Research in Auditing
  3. Review of experimental research in auditing and audit quality
  4. Big N Audit firms
  5. Audit fees
  6. Industry Specialization
  7. Audit Report and Report Lag
  8. Audit Rotation and Change
  9. Auditor Judgment 1
  10. Auditor Judgment 2
  11. Qualitative Research
  12. Audit Committee
  13. Research Proposal

Recommended or required

reading and other learning resources/tools
  1. Bloomfield, R., M.W. Nelson, and E. Soltes. 2016. Gathering data for archival, field, survey, and experimental accounting research.Journal of Accounting Research, 54(May): 341-395.
  2. Dyckman, T.R.and S.A. Zeff. 2014.Some methodological deficiencies in empirical research articles in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 28 (September): 695-712.
  3. Gow, I.D., D.F. Larcker, and P.C. Reiss. 2016. Causal inference in accounting research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(May): 477-523.
  4. DeFond, M. and Zhang, J.A. (2014). A Review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275-326.
  5. Donovan, J., R. Frankel, J. Lee, X. Martin, and H. Seo. 2014. Issues raised by studying DeFond and Zhang: What should audit researchers do? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3): 327-338.
  6. Lennox, C.S. and Wu, X. (2019). A review of the archival literature on audit partners. Accounting Horizons, 32(2), 1-35.
  7. Knechel, W. R., G. V. Krishnan, M. B. Pevzner, L. Shefchik, and Velury, U. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 32(1), 385–421.
  8. Simnett, R. and Trotman K.T. (2018). Twenty-Five-Year Overview of Experimental Auditing Research: Trends and Links to Audit Quality. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(2), 55-76.
  9. Hrazdil, K., Simunic, D.A., Suqanyangyuan, N. (2020). Are the big 4 audit firms homogeneous? Further evidence from audit pricing. International Journal of Auditing, 24, 347-365.
  10. Francis, J.R. and Yu, M.D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5),1521-1552.
  11. Lawrence, A., Minutti-meza, M. and Zhang, P. (2011). Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Differences in Audit-Quality Proxies Be Attributed to Client Characteristics? The Accounting Review, 86(1), 259-286.
  12. Blankley, A.I., Hurtt, D.N., and MacGregor, J.E. (2012). Abnormal audit fees and restatements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 31(1), 79-96.
  13. Barua, A., Lennox, C. and Raghunandan, A. (2020). Are audit fees discounted in initial year audit engagements? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 69(2/3), 1-19.
  14. Hribar,P.,T.Kravet,andR.Wilson.2014.A new measure of accounting quality. Review of Accounting Studies, 19(1):506-538.
  15. Minutti-Meza, M. (2013). Does auditor industry specialization improve audit quality? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(4), 779–817.
  16. Gaver, J. and Utke, S. (2019). Audit quality and specialist tenure. The Accounting Review, 94(3), 113-147.
  17. Audousset-Coulier S., Jeny-Cazavan, A., Jiang L. 2016. The validity of auditor industry specialization measures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(1): 139-161
  18. Carson,E.,N.L.F argher,M.A. Geiger, C.S.Lennox,K. Raghunandan, and M.Willekens. 2013. Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement1): 353-384.
  19. Habib, A., Bhuiyan, Md.U., Huang, J.H. and Miah, M.S. (2019). Determinants of audit report lag: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Auditing, 23(1), 20-44.
  20. Habib, A. and Huang, J.H. (2019). Abnormally long audit report lags and future stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 15(4), 61-635.
  21. Lennox, C.S., Wu, X. and Zhang, T. (2014). Does mandatory rotation of audit partners improve audit quality? The Accounting Review, 89(5),1775-1803.
  22. Cameran, M., Francis, J.RMarra, A. and.,  Pettinicchio, A. (2015). Are There Adverse Consequences of Mandatory Auditor Rotation? Evidence from the Italian Experience. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(10), 1-24.
  23. Haislip,J., L. Myers, S. Scholz, and T. Seidel. 2017. The consequences of audit-related earnings revisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25 (2): 567-604.
  24. Nelson, M. and Tan, H.T. (2005). Judgment and decision-making research in auditing: a task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(Supplement), 41-71.
  25. Harding, N. and Trotman, K. T. (2017). The effect of partner communications of fraud likelihood and skeptical orientation on auditors’ professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(2), 111-131.
  26. Bhattacharjee, S. and Brown, J.O. (2018). The impact of management alumni affiliation and persuasion tactics on auditors’ internal control judgments. The Accounting Review, 93(2), 97-115.
  27. Bhaskar, S.L., Hopkins, P.E. and Schroeder, J.H. (2019). An investigation of auditors’ judgments when companies release earnings before audit completion. Journal of Accounting Research, 57(2), 355-390.
  28. Beattie, V., Fearnley, S. and Brandt, R. (2000). Behind the audit report: a descriptive study of discussions and negotiations between auditors and directors. International Journal of Auditing, 4(2), 177-202. 
  29. Dodgson, M.K., Agoglia, C.P., Bennett, G.B., and Cohen, J.R. (2020). Managing the auditor-client relationship through partner rotations: Experiences of audit firm partners. The Accounting Review, 95(2), 89-111.
  30. He, X., Pittman, J.A. and Rui, O.M. (2017). Do social ties between external auditors and audit committee members affect audit quality? The Accounting Review, 92(5), 61-87.
  31. Brazel, J.F. and Schmidt, J.J. (2018). Do Auditors and Audit Committees Lower Fraud Risk by Constraining Inconsistencies between Financial and Nonfinancial Measures? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 38(1), 103-122.
  32.  Beck,M.J.,andE.G.Mauldin.2014. Who’s really in charge? Audit committee versus CFO power and audit fees. The Accounting Review, (November):2057-2085.

Planned learning activities and teaching methods
  1. Lecture, discussion, and assignment (Face-to-face)
  2. E-learning

Language of instruction

Indonesia

Assessment methods and criteria

Midterm exam (30%)

Final exam (40%)

Critical and systematic review (30%)