Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorReichborn-Kjennerud, Kristineng
dc.contributor.authorJohnsen, Ågeeng
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-23T10:09:30Z
dc.date.available2013-04-23T10:09:30Z
dc.date.issued2011eng
dc.PublishedEvaluation 17(3): 217-231eng
dc.identifier.issn1356-3890
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1956/6535
dc.description.abstractThis article uses a case study to analyse two main dilemmas that performance auditors face when auditing complex interventions in governance. The first dilemma, concerning the performance auditors’ roles as improvement agents and independent controllers, is that the improvement agenda often implies interacting closely with the auditees whereas controlling requires independence. The second dilemma pertains to the auditors’ choice of pre-planned audit criteria which limit what evidence the auditors can document. This choice affects the auditors’ role of holding a government to account. It also affects the type of information divulged to stakeholders concerning the social intervention that is evaluated.en_US
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationseng
dc.titleAuditors' understanding of evidence: A performance audit of an urban development programmeeng
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersion
dc.rights.holderCopyright the authors 2011en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011410523
dc.identifier.cristin804316
dc.source.journalEvaluation
dc.source.4017
dc.source.143
dc.source.pagenumber217-231
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Statsvitenskap og organisasjonsteori: 240::Offentlig og privat administrasjon: 242nob


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record