Critical Analysis Of Method Of Inquiry Of Two Papers

Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF METHOD OF INQUIRY OF TWO PAPERS
Critical analysis of the method of inquiry of two papers
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF METHOD OF INQUIRY OF TWO PAPERS
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Ontological view for both papers:..............................................................................................3
Axiological view for both papers:..............................................................................................4
Methodology used for both papers:............................................................................................5
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................7
References list:...........................................................................................................................8

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF METHOD OF INQUIRY OF TWO PAPERS
Introduction:
In this section, it is required to identify whether the method used to gather the
evidence in both the research papers is positivist epistemology or interpretivist eptomology
Paper 1 that is article titled “Real effects of reporting key audit matters on auditors'
judgment and choice of action” is considered to be a positivist article as the author has
adopted the experimental approach for analyzing the influence of the judgment of auditors on
the accounting estimate. The accounting estimate of audit is evaluated due to the disclosure
of key audit matter and the literature has identified that accounting estimates of audit are
prone to error. The current study has tried to assess the influence of the information which the
auditor themselves provide and this real effect of the reporting requirement of key audit
matter on the estimates of accounting. The research questions in this paper evaluates the
impact of sceptical judgement of auditor’s due to the disclosure of key audit matters.
Experimental and case study approach to research has been adopted but it failed to gather
adequate evidence about the role of key audit matter in the negotiating adjustment process
between the client and auditor (Asbahr & Ruhnke, 2019). Findings of the article is based on
the observable evidences.
Paper 2 is considered to be interpretivist epistemology as the elements of the study is
interpreted by the researcher or author. The article titled” Social networks, corruption and
institutions of accounting, auditing and accountability” has been analyzed qualitatively. That
is qualitative methodology is adopted by the researcher explored how the institutions
accountability functioning is compromised and the perpetuation of corrupt activities by social
networks. Semi structured interviews were designed to collect the qualitative data where
different institutions of accountability participated in the research. The role played by a social
network is understood in a better way on the institutional accountability functions because of
empirical contribution and the primary evidence gathered. The accounting literature lacks the