The New Generation of Auditors Meeting Praxis: Dual Learning’s Role in Audit Students’ Professional Development

References

• Agevall, L. (1994). Beslutsfattandets rutinisering. Lund: Lunds universitet, Lund Political Studies 84.
   Google Scholar
• Agevall, L., & Jonnergård, K. (2007). Management by documents: A risk of de-professionalizing? In I. C. Aili, L-E. Nilsson, L. G. Svensson, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), In tension between organization and profession. professionals in Nordic public service (pp. 33–55). Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agevall, L., & Jonnergård, K. (2012). Från förtroende för revisorsrollen till förtroende för revisionsstandarder? [From trust in auditor's role to trust in audit standards]. In I. C. Björngren Cuadra, & O. Fransson (Eds.), Tillit och förtroende ständiga utmaningar för professioner [Constant challanges of trust and confidence in professions] (pp. 131–158). Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.
   Google Scholar
• Agevall, L., & Jonnergård, K. (forthcoming). Erfarna revisorer berättar. [Auditors and management by documents]. Växjö: Revisorer och dokumentstyrning.
   Google Scholar
• Aili, C., & Nilsson, L.-E. (2015). Dual learning: A challenge for higher education in the new landscape of governance. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(4), 277–292. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2015.1068367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldvinsdottir, G., & Johansson, I.-L. (2006). Förtroende som illusion: skärpt reglering av revision? [Trust as an illusion: Tighter regulation of audit ]. In I. I-L. Johansson, S. Jönsson, & R. Solli (Eds.), Värdet av förtroende [The value of trust] (pp. 245–268). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (3), 261–275. doi: 10.1080/0729436042000235391
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics – politics – democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury-Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009). The phenomenological focus group: An oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 663–671. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brante, T. (1988). Sociological approaches to professions. Acta Sociologica, 31(2), 119–142. doi: 10.1177/000169938803100202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broberg, P. (2013). The auditor at work: A study of auditor practice in Big 4 audit firms (Doctoral dissertation). School of Economics and Management, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Bowrin, A. R. (1998). Review and synthesis of audit structure literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 40–71.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (Eds). (1998). Standardisering. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus förlag AB.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, M. A., & Smith, M. (1994). Capturing the groups effect in focus groups: A special concern in analysis. Qualitative Heatlh Research, 4, 123–127. doi: 10.1177/104973239400400108
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, B. W., Dirsmith, M. W., & Gupta, P. P. (1994). Materiality judgments and audit firm culture: Social-behavioral and political perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(4), 355–380. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(94)90002-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrington, T., & Catasús, B. (2007). Auditing stories about discomfort: Becoming comfortable with comfort theory. European Accounting Review, 16(1), 35–58. doi: 10.1080/09638180701265846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Côté-Arsenault, D., & Morrison-Beedy, D. (1999). Practical advice for planning and conducting focus groups. Nursing Research, 48(5), 280–283. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199909000-00009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. doi: 10.1177/0539018406069584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H., & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Eklöv, G. (2001). Auditability as interface: Negotiation and signification of intangibles. Stockholm: Stockholm University, School of Business.
   Google Scholar
• Elias, P., & Purcell, K. (2004). Is mass higher education working? Evidence from the labour market experiences of recent graduates. National Institute Economic Review, 190, 60–74. doi: 10.1177/002795010419000107
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2010). Reconnecting professional occupations with professional organizations: risks and opportunities. In J. Evetts, & L. Svensson (Eds.), Sociology of professions. Continental and Algo-SaxonTraditions (pp. 123–144). Göteborg: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. Oxford: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Financial Reporting Council. (2006). Promoting audit quality (Discussion paper). Financial Reporting Council, November 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H.-G. (1997). Truth and method. New York, NY: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• German Academic Exchange Service. (2015). “Dual Learning” Combining Practice-Orientated and Theoretical Learning in Higher Education. Summary of workshop discussions/proceedings from European expert seminar organised by the Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) on Monday, 20th April 2015 in Brussels. Retrieved from http://bruessel.daad.de/medien/bruessel/veranstaltungen_2015/summary_expert_seminar_on_dual_learning_20april2015.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbins, M. (1984). Propositions about the psychology of professional judgment in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 103–125. doi: 10.2307/2490703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og kunnskap [Profession and knowledge]. In I. A. Molander, & L-I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier [Studies of the profession] (pp. 71–86). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Heggen, K. (2008). Profesjon og identitet [Profession and identity]. In I. A. Molander, & L-I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier [Studies of the profession] (pp. 321-332). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637. doi: 10.1177/0891241604266988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey, C., & Moizer, P. (1990). From techniques to ideologies: An alternative perspective on the audit function. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1(3), 217–238. doi: 10.1016/1045-2354(90)03021-7
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales. (2006). Audit quality fundamentals: Principle-based auditing standards. London: Audit and Assurance Faculty.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, L. (2011). Academic quality and internships: Students’ account on the value of theory in practice. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 1, 4–21.
   Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R. (2007). The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4), 383–408. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosmala, K. (2005). Insights from Ricoer’s hermeneutics on best practice in professional service firms: On perpetual myth creation? Quality Sociology Review, 1(1), 31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kosmala MacLullich, K. (2001). Dynamics between judgment and structure in formative years in audit practice: Insight from hermeneutics. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.
   Google Scholar
• Kosmala MacLullich, K. (2003). The emperor’s ‘new’ clothes? New audit regimes: Insights from Foucault’s technologies of the self. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(8), 791–811. doi: 10.1016/S1045-2354(02)00206-X
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, R. K. (2007). Constituent participation and the IASB's international financial reporting interpretations committee. Accounting in Europe, 4(2), 207–254. doi: 10.1080/17449480701727981
   Google Scholar
• Levay, C., & Waks, C. (2009). Professions and the pursuit of transparency in healthcare: Two cases of soft autonomy. Organization Studies, 30(5), 509–527. doi: 10.1177/0170840609104396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liljegren, A., & Parding, K. (2010). Ändrad styrning av välfärdsprofessioner–exemplet evidensbasering i socialt arbete [Changed control of welfare professions - An example of evidence-based social work]. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 17(3–4), 270–288.
   Google Scholar
• Lindseth, A., & Norberg, A. (2004). A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18(2), 145–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00258.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclullich, K. K. (2001). The impact of non-audit services and audit process standardisation on independent audit judgement and fraud recognition (Doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526. doi: 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton, J. (2011). Slutet för den professionella revisorn? [The end of the professional auditor]. Balans, 3, 26–27.
   Google Scholar
• Mennicken, A. (2005). Sociology of accounting. In J. Beckert & M. Zafirovski (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of economic sociology (pp. 1–5). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mennicken, A. (2008). Connecting worlds: The translation of international auditing standards into post-Soviet audit practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 384–414. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molander, B. (1993). Kunskap i handling [Knowledge in action]. Göteborg: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00564.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ödman, P.-J. (2007). Tolkning, förståelse, vetande: Hermeneutik i teori och praktik [Interpretation, understanding, knowledge: Hermeneutics in theory and practice]. Stockholm: Norstedts Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Öhman, P. (2006). Perspecktiv på revision: Tankemönster, förväntningsgap och dilemman (Doctoral thesis) [Perspective on Audit: Patterns of thought, expectation gap and dilemmas]. Mid Sweden University, Mittuniversitetet.
   Google Scholar
• Öhman, P., Häckner, E., Jansson, A. M., & Tschudi, F. (2006). Swedish auditors’ view of auditing: Doing things right versus doing the right things. European Accounting Review, 5(1), 89–114. doi: 10.1080/09638180500510475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T. (1993). Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7/8), 605–620. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)90045-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. (1997). The audit society rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. K. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00047-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Transparensens former [Forms of transparency]. In I. C. Levay, & C. Waks (Eds.), Strävan efter transparens [Strive after transparency] (pp. 19–50). Stockholm: SNS. Förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, M., & Umans, T. (2014). Experiences of well-being among female doctoral students in Sweden. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeby, J.-C. (2008). Profesjon og utdanning [Profession and education]. In I. A. Molander, & L-I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier [Studies of the profession] (pp. 87–102). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., Fiedler, B., Brown, B., & Kestel, J. (2001). Structure versus judgement in the audit process: A test of Kinney’s classification. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(1/2), 40–49. doi: 10.1108/02686900110363645
   Google Scholar
• Turley, S., & Cooper, M. (1991). Auditing in the United Kingdom: A study of development in the audit methodologies of large accounting firms. London: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Umans, T., Broberg, P., Schmidt, M., Nilsson, S., & Olsson, E. (2016). Feeling well by being together: Study of Swedish auditors. Work, 54(1), 79–86. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162270
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van der Veer, B. (2006, October). Keynote speech on audit regulation and implementation of the statutory audit directive. FEE Conference on Audit Regulation, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798–805. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14, 516–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537. doi: 10.1177/104973201129119299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar