Internal audit quality: a polysemous notion?
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to characterize how those who perform (internal auditors) mandate (audit committee (AC) members) use (AC members and external auditors) and normalize (the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) internal audit work, respectively make sense of the notion of "internal audit quality" (IAQ) Design/methodology/approach This study is predicated on the meta analysis of extant literature on IAQ, 56 interviews with internal auditors and AC members of public or para public sector organizations in Canada, and archival documents published by the IIA, analyzed in the light of framing theory. Findings Four interpretative schemes (or frames) emerge from the analysis, called "manager," "eminence grise," "professional" and "watchdog." They respectively correspond to internal auditors' AC members' the IIA's and external auditors' viewpoints and suggest radically different perspectives on how IAQ should be defined and controlled (via input, throughput, output or professional controls) Research limitations/implications Empirically, the authors focus on rare research data. Theoretically, the authors delineate four previously undocumented competing frames of IAQ. Practical implications Practically, the various governance actors involved in assessing IAQ can learn from the study that they should confront their views to better coordinate their quality control efforts. Originality/value Highlighting the contrast between these frames is important because, so far, extant literature has predominantly focussed on only one perspective on IAQ, that of external auditors. The authors suggest that IAQ is more polysemous and complex than previously acknowledged, which justifies the qualitative and interpretive approach.