Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between nonaudit services (NAS) and out-of-period adjustments (OOPAs). Over the years, the number of OOPAs has risen while the number of restatements has decreased. This could indicate an improvement in financial reporting quality. It could also indicate the use of a type of stealth restatement for opportunistic purposes. These less prominent restatements are more likely to go undetected and could perpetuate opportunistic disclosure and mitigate the likelihood of unfavorable market reactions.

The authors use a two-stage multivariate regression analysis to examine the relationship between NAS and the reporting of an OOPA. The authors use prior research on NAS to guide the model development. The authors perform several robustness checks including different types of NAS and different characteristics of OOPAs.

The results indicate that NAS has a significantly negative association with the existence of OOPAs. The core findings suggest that NAS does not impair auditor independence. Rather, greater amounts of NAS may contribute to knowledge spillover, which leads to higher financial reporting and audit quality. The results are robust to several additional tests.

The results raise interesting implications for regulators, executives, auditors, investors and future research. The authors provide insight into the relationship between NAS and auditor independence.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, prior research has not considered the effect of NAS on OOPAs. The authors contribute to the literature by providing evidence that OOPAs, a form of stealth restatements, is an important consideration in audit quality research.

In this study, I employ an autoethnographic approach to critically examine the concept of privilege within academia. I investigate how systemic privilege in traditional academic settings contributes to disparities in support, resources and recognition for individuals like myself who follow nontraditional academic paths or work in less established fields within traditional academic structures.

My nontraditional academic background, combined with my involvement in a nontraditional field, became a lens through which I observed and experienced the often-unspoken privileges within academia. I use autoethnography to reveal how systemic privilege within academia creates barriers for nontraditional scholars and those working in fields that deviate from established academic norms. With this approach, I invite readers to connect emotionally and intellectually with my narrative.

I illuminate the unique challenges faced by individuals who enter academia through nontraditional routes. Drawing on my personal journey and years of observation, I highlight how systemic privilege creates barriers that foster exclusion for those who deviate from the traditional academic mold. I reveal the significant hurdles nontraditional academics encounter in adapting to academic norms and expectations. These challenges contribute to feelings of marginalization and alienation, complicating the journey toward achieving success and recognition. Ultimately, my study underscores the urgent need for a more inclusive and equitable academic environment that values diverse forms of expertise and experience.

The insights gained from this research can inform policy changes at both institutional and regulatory levels, promoting more inclusive environments for academics with diverse backgrounds and career trajectories.

This research highlights the privilege dynamics and systemic barriers encountered by nontraditional academics and those in nontraditional disciplines, an underexplored area in the existing literature.