Auditing

Definition

A procedure whereby an independent third party systematically examines the evidence of adherence of some practice to a set of norms or standards for that practice and issues a professional opinion.

Distinctive Features

The concept and practice of auditing is manifest in several ways in the social sciences. First, in social programme evaluation, the general idea of auditing has informed the process of meta-evaluation – a third-party evaluator examines the quality of a completed evaluation against some set of standards for evaluation.

Also, a form of evaluation called programme and performance auditing is routinely performed at state and national levels. As defined by the Comptroller General of the United States (US GAO, 1994), a performance audit is ‘an objective and systematic examination of evidence . of the performance of a government organization, program, activity, or function in order to provide information to improve public accountability and facilitate decision-making’. A programme audit is a subcategory of performance auditing in which a key objective is to determine whether programme results or benefits established by the legislature or other authorizing bodies are being achieved. Evaluators of social programmes and performance auditors share a professional interest in establishing their independence and warranting the credibility of their judgements.

Second, an auditing procedure has been suggested as a means to verify the dependability and confirmability of claims made in a qualitative study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Schwandt and Halpern, 1988). A researcher is advised to maintain an audit trail of evidence documenting the data, processes and product (claims) of the inquiry. A third-party inquirer then examines that the audit trail can attest to the appropriateness, integrity and dependability of the inquiry process and also the extent to which claims made are reasonably grounded in the data.

Third, auditing has entered the scene of social science theory. At issue is the proliferation of audit practices in all spheres of human activity – management, education, social services, healthcare and so forth influenced largely by the ideology of New Public Management (NPM). NPM emphasizes a programmatic restructuring of organizational life and a rationality based on performance standards, accountability and monitoring. By being submitted to formal audit procedures the work of organizations is held to be more transparent and accountable.

Evaluation

Whether auditing and evaluation are (or ought to be) comfortable bedfellows can be [Page 14]debated. Some observers have argued that evaluation and performance auditing differ in the ways each conceives of and accomplishes the aim of assessing value. Some of the differences noted between the two practices include the following. First, auditors address normative questions (questions of what is, in light of what should be) while evaluators are more concerned with descriptive and impact questions. Second, auditors work more independently of the auditee than evaluators do with their clients. Third, auditors are more exclusively focused on management objectives, performance and controls than evaluators. Fourth, auditors work with techniques for generating evidence and analysing data that make it possible to provide quick feedback to auditees, while evaluations often (though not always) have a longer time frame. Fifth, although both auditors and evaluators base their judgements in evidence, not on impressions, and both rely on an extensive kit of tools and techniques for generating evidence, they often make use of those tools in different ways. Finally, auditors operate under statutory authority while evaluators work as fee-for-service consultants or as university-based researchers. Other observers have argued that the practices of auditing and evaluation, although they often exist independently of one another, are being blended together as a resource pool for decision makers and managers in both public and private organizations. In this circumstance, an amalgamated picture is emerging of professional objectives (for example, placing high value on independence; strict attention to documentation of evidence), purpose (for example, combining normative, descriptive and impact questions) and methodologies (for example, making use of a wide range of techniques).

...