Can’t see the wood for the trees, can’t see the trees for the numbers? Accounting education, sustainability and the Public Interest

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 797-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Gray ◽  
David Collison
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Toward an Integrated Vision of Undergraduate Liberal and Accounting Education in the Public Interest: The Holistic Development of Persons and Institutions

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian P. Shapiro ◽  
Michael Naughton
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Life Experiences ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
Institutional Setting ◽  
Good Definition ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

ABSTRACT This paper puts forward a vision that integrates liberal and accounting education to engage students with the idea of vocation and pursuit of the common good through their chosen field of accounting. We adopt a common good definition of the public interest that seeks to advance not only the good of institutions and communities (mutual interests) but also the good of individuals (private interests). This approach engages students to critically reflect on how their life experiences, personal commitments, and future professional work can relate to one another. We first discuss disciplinary fragmentation in higher education and its implications for integrating liberal and accounting education. Next, we describe general learning objectives and concepts that support the integration of liberal learning and accounting education with a public interest orientation. We then apply the approach to critique accounting practices that arguably harm the public interest. The concluding section provides a summary and describes how accounting educators may adapt and scale an approach that fits their institutional setting.

Mindsets as an Enhancement of 21st Century Accounting Education

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Mintchik ◽  
Sridhar Ramamoorti ◽  
Audrey A. Gramling
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
Optimal Learning ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Accounting Graduates ◽  
Pedagogical Approaches

To provide optimal learning and career outcomes for accounting graduates, we propose complementing competency-based frameworks of accounting education with the cultivation of relevant mindsets. Building on insights from research in cognitive psychology, organizational leadership, and education, we define a mindset as a combination of cognitive filters and processes through which professionals interpret their professional environments and execute their professional responsibilities. We review the professional and academic literature and identify five key mindsets relevant for accounting graduates. Given the overarching obligation of accountants to protect the public trust, we treat the "public interest mindset" (focus on "we" vs. "I," integrity, and professionalism) as foundational in the accounting profession. The four other key mindsets include: 1) growth; 2) professional skepticism; 3) analytical/digital; and 4) global. In addition to providing a definition and discussion of the relevance of each mindset to accounting, we suggest potential pedagogical approaches for integrating these mindsets into 21st-century accounting education.

Importance of Ethics and Education to Understand the Audit Mission

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Melinda Timea Fülöp ◽  
George Silviu Cordoș ◽  
Nicolae Măgdaș
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
International Accounting ◽  
Technical Competence ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Education Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Expectation Gap

The chapter brings forward the discussion of how the level of accounting and audit knowledge has an impact on how stakeholders understand the audit mission, the auditor's responsibilities, and the message conveyed by the audit report, even when considering the new and extended reports. The preliminary results of this analysis indicate that audit education influences the audit expectation gap (the reasonableness gap), and if measures would be taken to upsurge the stakeholder's levels of education in auditing and accounting, combined with new and revised standards, the audit expectation gap can be reduced. In this sense, the International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB) is an independent standard-setting body that serves the public interest by establishing standards in the field of professional accounting education that prescribe technical competence and professional skills, values, ethics, and attitudes.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the International Monitoring Group Consultation, Strengthening the Governance and Oversight of the International Audit-Related Standard-Setting Boards in the Public Interest

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Dickins ◽  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Christine Nolder ◽  
Pamela B. Roush
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
International Accounting ◽  
International Ethics ◽  
The Public ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Monitoring Group ◽  
International Audit

SUMMARY On November 9, 2017, the Monitoring Group (MG) overseeing international auditing standards issued a request for comment on its consultation paper (CP), Strengthening the Governance and Oversight of the International Audit-Related Standard-Setting Boards in the Public Interest. The CP presents a broad array of proposals to reform and restructure the three current auditing standard-setting groups it oversees (International Accounting and Assurance Standards Board [IAASB], International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants [IESBA], and International Accounting Education Standards Board [IAESB]). The CP suggests combining the three boards into a single board, and solicited public comment on the following areas: (1) key areas of overall concern, (2) guiding principles, (3) options for reform of the standard-setting boards, (4) options for the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), (5) role of the monitoring group, (6) administration, including Standard-Setting Board staff, (7) process considerations, and (8) funding. The comment period ended on February 9, 2018. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions for respondents posed by the MG. Data Availability: The concept release, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD586.pdf

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document