Adwa Nahdah Syahmay, M. Nur A. Birton

Subjektivitas Versus Objektivitas Pertimbangan Profesional Auditor

Introduction

Subjektivitas versus objektivitas pertimbangan profesional auditor. Studi ini meneliti pertimbangan profesional auditor, mengungkap interaksi subjektivitas dan objektivitas di tahapan audit. Membagi penilaian dari sangat subjektif hingga sangat objektif.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to reveal professional judgment of the auditor in the stages of conducting an audit in determining subjectivity and objectivity.Design/method/approach: This study uses Peter L. Berger and Luckman's phenomenological approach, which argues that social constructions contain both subjective and objective aspects of reality. Data collection methods included interviews and documentation, and the data was analyzed using IPA to analyze areas of subjectivity and objectivity.Results/findings: The results of this study show that the stages of conducting an audit are inseparable from professional judgment of the auditor, which can be subjective and objective. Subjective and objective in the audit process are reduced to highly subjective, subjective, objective, and highly objective.Theoretical contribution: This study helps to provide an overview of areas or aspects of subjective and objective professional judgment of the auditor in the stages of conducting an audit to produce reflections on the reality of the social world.Practical contribution: This study can contribute to the formation of critical thinking in the audit implementation stage to sharpen the auditor's skepticism towards evidence.Limitations: Limitations in discussing details related to Peter L. Berger and Luckman's dialectic, and limitations of informants who did not meet 50% of the number of auditors based on their experience due to time conflicts during implementation.

Review

This study tackles a critical and often debated subject within the auditing profession: the inherent tension between subjectivity and objectivity in an auditor's professional judgment. By aiming to reveal these dimensions across various stages of an audit, the research addresses a core aspect of audit quality and reliability. The topic's relevance is undeniable, as understanding how auditors balance their individual interpretations with objective evidence is fundamental to enhancing the trustworthiness and integrity of financial reporting. The paper's focus on dissecting this intricate balance promises valuable contributions to both academic discourse and practical auditing. The methodology employed in this research is particularly well-suited for its qualitative objectives, drawing upon Peter L. Berger and Luckman's phenomenological approach, which acknowledges the dual subjective and objective nature of social reality. Utilizing interviews and documentation for data collection, followed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), allows for an in-depth exploration of auditors' lived experiences and decision-making processes. The key findings reveal that auditor professional judgment, throughout the audit process, is an inseparable amalgamation of subjective and objective elements. Significantly, the study further refines this understanding by categorizing these judgments along a spectrum from "highly subjective" to "highly objective," providing a nuanced framework for analyzing the complexity of audit decisions. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in its ability to map out the subjective and objective areas within auditor professional judgment, offering a valuable reflection on the social realities influencing audit outcomes. Practically, the insights gained can be instrumental in cultivating critical thinking and sharpening skepticism among auditors during the implementation stage, thereby potentially enhancing the robustness of audit evidence. While the paper makes important strides, it also acknowledges limitations, specifically a less exhaustive discussion of Berger and Luckman's dialectic and challenges in securing a fully representative sample of experienced auditors due to time conflicts. These identified limitations offer clear pathways for future research to further refine and broaden the scope of this insightful exploration.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.