Fraud Brainstorming Sessions and Interviews in a Remote World Versus Face-to-Face
Disciplines
Accounting
Abstract (300 words maximum)
This research project focuses on the effects of the remote environment on financial statement auditors’ fraud-related brainstorming and interview sessions. Its purpose is to analyze whether fraud brainstorming sessions and fraud-related interviews are perceived to be as efficient and effective in the remote environment as they were in the face-to-face environment.
Interviews with 19 auditors from various accounting firms reveal that auditors’ fraud brainstorming sessions were not largely impacted by the remote environment and remain just as efficient and effective as in the face-to-face environment. This was achieved by auditors heightening their processes and adjusting their risk assessments in response to the volatile state of many companies.
By contrast, the interviews reveal that remote fraud-related interview sessions were less effective, but as efficient, as face-to-face interviews. Remote interviews were hampered by auditors’ inability to read nonverbal cues in the remote environment. However, even with this concern about nonverbal cues, the majority of firms do not require their clients to appear on video when performing fraud-related interview sessions remotely. Efficiency remained the same because, on average, scheduling seemed similar between the face-to-face and remote environments.
Beyond auditors’ fraud-related procedures, the interviews also indicate that the remote environment has affected company cultures, the mental states of individuals, and the training of younger auditing staff.
Academic department under which the project should be listed
CCOB - Accounting
Primary Investigator (PI) Name
Dr. Dana Hermanson
Fraud Brainstorming Sessions and Interviews in a Remote World Versus Face-to-Face
This research project focuses on the effects of the remote environment on financial statement auditors’ fraud-related brainstorming and interview sessions. Its purpose is to analyze whether fraud brainstorming sessions and fraud-related interviews are perceived to be as efficient and effective in the remote environment as they were in the face-to-face environment.
Interviews with 19 auditors from various accounting firms reveal that auditors’ fraud brainstorming sessions were not largely impacted by the remote environment and remain just as efficient and effective as in the face-to-face environment. This was achieved by auditors heightening their processes and adjusting their risk assessments in response to the volatile state of many companies.
By contrast, the interviews reveal that remote fraud-related interview sessions were less effective, but as efficient, as face-to-face interviews. Remote interviews were hampered by auditors’ inability to read nonverbal cues in the remote environment. However, even with this concern about nonverbal cues, the majority of firms do not require their clients to appear on video when performing fraud-related interview sessions remotely. Efficiency remained the same because, on average, scheduling seemed similar between the face-to-face and remote environments.
Beyond auditors’ fraud-related procedures, the interviews also indicate that the remote environment has affected company cultures, the mental states of individuals, and the training of younger auditing staff.