Mulheres artificiais contra a corrupção: em busca de legitimidade no Tribunal de Contas da União
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158530Palavras-chave:
Sistemas de Inteligência Artificial, Processos de Auditoria, Teorização, CorrupçãoResumo
Este estudo descreve a busca pela legitimidade de quatro artefatos de tecnologia da informação para auxiliar auditores na vigilância contra fraude e corrupção no Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU). ALICE, ADELE, MONICA e SOFIA são sistemas de Inteligência Artificial (IA) propostos para auxiliar os processos de auditoria no setor público. Um questionário online foi utilizado para reunir as respostas de 60 auditores de todo o Brasil, com entrevistas semiestruturadas com o Diretor de Dados, três desenvolvedores de TI e cinco gerentes de auditoria do TCU selecionados por amostragem intencional (purposive sampling). A pesquisa demonstra que o uso dos sistemas baseados em IA é baixo entre os auditores do TCU devido a um limitado benefício percebido. Embora alguns respondentes reconheçam as vantagens dos sistemas baseados em IA, o seu uso é adiado por uma fraca teorização e difusão em relação ao significado e ao uso desses sistemas dentro da organização; os auditores mostraram uma prioridade no uso dos métodos tradicionais de auditoria em detrimento da inovação digital, restringindo o potencial de controle do uso dos artefatos tecnológicos contra a corrupção.
Downloads
Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.
Referências
Banks, M. (2007). Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action
and Institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106.
Bierstaker, J. L., Burnaby, P., & Thibodeau, J. (2001). The impact of information technology on the audit process:
an assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(3): 159-
164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900110385489.
Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2011). Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country
assessment. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2): 215-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejpoleco.2010.07.001.
Borge, M. (1999). The role of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in combating corruption. Transparency International. Paper presented at the workshop Public Sector Financial Transparency and Accountability: The Emerging Global Architecture and Case Studies. 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference. Durban, October 1999. Retrieved from: http://9iacc.org/papers/day4/ws2/dnld/d4ws2_mborge.pdf.
Braun, R. L., & Davis, H. E. (2003). Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(9): 725-731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310500488.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D.
Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research
designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. 57-71. Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Carmo, P. N., Souza, B. F., Reis, M. V., & Vieira, J. C. (2018). Aprendizado de Máquina em Ações de Controle no
Tribunal de Contas do Estado do Maranhão. In: VII Jornada de Informática do Maranhão, 2018, São Luiz.
JIM 2018.
Chen, H., Chung, W., Xu, J. J., Wang, G., Qin, Y., & Chau, M. (2004). Crime data mining: A general framework
and some examples. Computer, 37(4): 50-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.1297301.
Christianson, M. K., (2016). Mapping the terrain: The use of video-based research in top-tier organizational
journals. Organizational Research Methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116663636.
Currie, W. (2009). Contextualizing the IT artifact: towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional
theory. Information Technology & People. 22(1):63-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840910937508.
Davenport, T. H., & J. Kirby. (2016). Just how smart are smart machines? MIT Sloan Management Review
(Spring). Retrieved from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/just-how-smart-are-smart-machines [Accessed
in Sept, 21, 2019].
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2013). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research.
DOI :https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.2307/2095101.
Digiampietri, L. A., Roman, N. T., Meira, L. A. A., Filho, J. J., Ferreira, C. D., Kondo, A. A., Constantino, E.
R., Rezende, R. C., Brandão, B. C., Ribeiro, H., Carolino, P. K., Lanna, A., Wainer, J., & Goldenstein, S.
(2008). Uses of artificial intelligence in the Brazilian customs fraud detection system. Proceedings of the 9th
Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 289:181-187. Retrieved from: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/220268016_Uses_of_artificial_intelligence_in_the_Brazilian_customs_
fraud_detection_system.
Dye, K. M. (2007). Corruption and fraud detection by Supreme Audit Institutions. Performance Accountability
and Combating Corruption, Washington, DC: World Bank. 303-322. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/PerformanceAccountabilityandCombatingCorruption.pdf [Accessed in
Sept, 21, 2019].
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research, 3rd edition. London, SAGE
Publications.
Empson, L. (2017). Elite interviewing in professional organizations. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5
(1), 58-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jox010.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet research, 15(2): 195-219. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114: 254–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019.
Gepp, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., O’Neill, T. J., & Smith, T. (2018). Big data techniques in auditing research and
practice: Current trends and future opportunities. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40: 102–115. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2017.05.003.
Goto, M. (2018). The emergence of disruptive technology and retheorization of professional logic: A case study of
Big 4 accounting firms in Japan on AI audit. 34th EGOS Colloquium. Tallinn, Estonia.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the
old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations
in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80. https://doi.
org/10.5465/3069285
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159744.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and
organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/194
16520.2011.590299.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital Innovation and transformation: An
institutional perspective. Information and Organization. 28(1):52-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2018.02.004.
IBA, Global Employment Institute. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace.
Retrieved from: https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=c06aa1a3-d355-4866-beda-
9a3a8779ba6e [Accessed in Dez, 20, 2018].
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online
synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and
Well-being, 9:1, 24152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152.
Jans, M., Alles, M., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2013). The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and
areas of application. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(1): 1-20. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.06.015.
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245):
255–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415.
Kayrak, M. (2008). Evolving challenges for supreme audit institutions in struggling with corruption. Journal of
Financial Crime, 15(1): 60–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790810841707.
Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence: How Automation is Changing
Auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting. 14(1): 115–122. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/
jeta-51730.
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, 439-455. Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In: The Sage Handbook of Organization
Studies, 215-254
Liguori, M., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Some like it non-financial… Politicians’ and managers’ views on
the importance of performance information. Public Management Review, 14(7): 903-922. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2011.650054.
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation.
Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078111.
Mahzan, N., & Lymer, A. (2014). Examining the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: Cases
of generalized audit software use by internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(4): 327-349. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0877.
Melo, M. A., Pereira, C., & Figueiredo, C. M. (2009). Political and Institutional Checks on Corruption. Comparative
Political Studies, 42(9): 1217–1244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331732.
Mena, S., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theorization as institutional work: The dynamics of roles and practices. Human
Relations, 69(8), 1669–1708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715622556.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American
Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 [Accessed in
Dec, 18, 2018].
Mikhaylov, S. J., Esteve, M., & Campion, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: opportunities and
challenges of cross-sector collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 20170357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0357.
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research:
An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research, 16: 231-254. DOI: https://doi.
org./10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.001.
Muggleton, S. (2014). Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence. AI Communications, 27(1):
3-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/AIC-130579.
Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics:
An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton's health care reform initiative. Organization
Science, 21(4): 823-841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0490.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1):
145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258610.
OECD .(2017). Auditing for more robust internal control and risk management systems, in Brazil's Federal
Court of Accounts: Insight and Foresight for Better Governance. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1787/9789264279254-7-en.
Othman, R., Aris, N. A., Mardziyah, A., Zainan, N., & Amin, N. (2015). Fraud Detection and Prevention Methods
in the Malaysian Public Sector: Accountants’ and Internal Auditors’ Perceptions. Procedia Economics and
Finance. 28: 59-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01082-5.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE
Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016689486.
Perols, J. L., Bowen, R. M., Zimmermann, C., & Samba, B. (2016). Finding needles in a haystack: Using data
analytics to improve fraud prediction. The Accounting Review, 92(2): 221-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/
accr-51562.
Ralha, C. G., & Silva, C. V. S. (2012). A multi-agent data mining system for cartel detection in Brazilian government
procurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(14): 11642-11656. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2012.04.037.
Ramirez, J. A. O., & Perez, J. A. C. (2016). Impact of Supreme Audit Institutions on the Phenomenon of Corruption:
An International Empirical Analysis. Journal of Public Governance and Policy: Latin American Review,
2(3):34-59. Retrieved from:http://www.revistascientificas.udg.mx/index.php/JPGPA/article/view/6072.
Rapley, T. (2014). Sampling strategies in qualitative research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis,
Sage, London, 49-63.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., González-Díaz, B., Braci, E., Carrington, E., Hathaway, J., Jeppesen, K. K., &
Steccolini, I. (2019). Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: An
institutional analysis. The British Accounting Review, 100842. Article in Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bar.2019.100842.
Roulston, K. (2014). Analysing interviews. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 297-312.
Salovaara, I. (2012). Beth Simone Noveck: Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government
Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. 2009.
MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 28(52): 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/
mediekultur.v28i52.5731.
Silva, W. V. (2016). The pillars of the data analysis strategy and consumption of information at the TCU. Federal
Court of Accounts Journal, 48(137): 13-17. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/
revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018).
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven
Institutional Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 877–904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2010.0013.
Sousa, W. G., Melo, E. R. P., Bermejo, P. H. D. S., Farias, R. A. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2019). How and where
is artificial intelligence in the public sector going? A literature review and research agenda. Government
Information Quarterly, 101392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004.
Sperb, P. (2017, August, 25). Watson, a inteligência artificial a serviço da PF gaúcha. Veja online. Retrieved from
https://veja.abril.com.br/blog/rio-grande-do-sul/watson-a-inteligencia-artificial-a-servico-da-pf-gaucha/
[Accessed in Dec, 18, 2018].
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22(4): 487–511. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00993595.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy Management
Review, 20(3): 571-560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
Tara, I. G., Gherai, D. S., Laurentiu, D. R. O. J., & Matica, D. E. (2016). The Social Role of the Supreme Audit
Institutions to Reduce Corruption in the European Union-Empirical Study. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie
Sociala, 52: 217-240. Retriveded from: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=521495 [Accessed
in September, 21, 2019].
Taurion, C. (2016). Technological innovations in government auditing. Federal Court of Accounts Journal,
48(137): 7-12. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-
2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018].
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The
diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. [Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:22-
39. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/131.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: S. Clegg, C. Hardy and
W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. 175-190. London: SAGE.
Valle-Cruz, D., & Sandoval-Almazan, R. (2018). Towards an understanding of artificial intelligence in government.
Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Governance in
the Data Age - Dgo’18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209397.
Williams, T. (1995). The use of audit software in fraud detection. Journal of Financial Crime, 2, (4): 305 - 310.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025655.
Wongpinunwatana, N., Ferguson, C., & Bowen, P. (2000). An experimental investigation of the effects of artificial
intelligence systems on the training of novice auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(6): 306-318. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02686900010344511.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World.
Organization Science, 23(5): 1398-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771.
Zerbino, P., Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2018). Process-Mining-enabled audit of Information
Systems: methodology and an application. Expert Systems with Applications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.05.030.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action
and Institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106.
Bierstaker, J. L., Burnaby, P., & Thibodeau, J. (2001). The impact of information technology on the audit process:
an assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(3): 159-
164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900110385489.
Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2011). Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country
assessment. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2): 215-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejpoleco.2010.07.001.
Borge, M. (1999). The role of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in combating corruption. Transparency International. Paper presented at the workshop Public Sector Financial Transparency and Accountability: The Emerging Global Architecture and Case Studies. 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference. Durban, October 1999. Retrieved from: http://9iacc.org/papers/day4/ws2/dnld/d4ws2_mborge.pdf.
Braun, R. L., & Davis, H. E. (2003). Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(9): 725-731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310500488.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D.
Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research
designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. 57-71. Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Carmo, P. N., Souza, B. F., Reis, M. V., & Vieira, J. C. (2018). Aprendizado de Máquina em Ações de Controle no
Tribunal de Contas do Estado do Maranhão. In: VII Jornada de Informática do Maranhão, 2018, São Luiz.
JIM 2018.
Chen, H., Chung, W., Xu, J. J., Wang, G., Qin, Y., & Chau, M. (2004). Crime data mining: A general framework
and some examples. Computer, 37(4): 50-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.1297301.
Christianson, M. K., (2016). Mapping the terrain: The use of video-based research in top-tier organizational
journals. Organizational Research Methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116663636.
Currie, W. (2009). Contextualizing the IT artifact: towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional
theory. Information Technology & People. 22(1):63-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840910937508.
Davenport, T. H., & J. Kirby. (2016). Just how smart are smart machines? MIT Sloan Management Review
(Spring). Retrieved from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/just-how-smart-are-smart-machines [Accessed
in Sept, 21, 2019].
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2013). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research.
DOI :https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.2307/2095101.
Digiampietri, L. A., Roman, N. T., Meira, L. A. A., Filho, J. J., Ferreira, C. D., Kondo, A. A., Constantino, E.
R., Rezende, R. C., Brandão, B. C., Ribeiro, H., Carolino, P. K., Lanna, A., Wainer, J., & Goldenstein, S.
(2008). Uses of artificial intelligence in the Brazilian customs fraud detection system. Proceedings of the 9th
Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 289:181-187. Retrieved from: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/220268016_Uses_of_artificial_intelligence_in_the_Brazilian_customs_
fraud_detection_system.
Dye, K. M. (2007). Corruption and fraud detection by Supreme Audit Institutions. Performance Accountability
and Combating Corruption, Washington, DC: World Bank. 303-322. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/PerformanceAccountabilityandCombatingCorruption.pdf [Accessed in
Sept, 21, 2019].
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research, 3rd edition. London, SAGE
Publications.
Empson, L. (2017). Elite interviewing in professional organizations. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5
(1), 58-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jox010.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet research, 15(2): 195-219. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114: 254–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019.
Gepp, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., O’Neill, T. J., & Smith, T. (2018). Big data techniques in auditing research and
practice: Current trends and future opportunities. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40: 102–115. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2017.05.003.
Goto, M. (2018). The emergence of disruptive technology and retheorization of professional logic: A case study of
Big 4 accounting firms in Japan on AI audit. 34th EGOS Colloquium. Tallinn, Estonia.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the
old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations
in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80. https://doi.
org/10.5465/3069285
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159744.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and
organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/194
16520.2011.590299.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital Innovation and transformation: An
institutional perspective. Information and Organization. 28(1):52-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2018.02.004.
IBA, Global Employment Institute. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace.
Retrieved from: https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=c06aa1a3-d355-4866-beda-
9a3a8779ba6e [Accessed in Dez, 20, 2018].
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online
synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and
Well-being, 9:1, 24152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152.
Jans, M., Alles, M., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2013). The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and
areas of application. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(1): 1-20. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.06.015.
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245):
255–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415.
Kayrak, M. (2008). Evolving challenges for supreme audit institutions in struggling with corruption. Journal of
Financial Crime, 15(1): 60–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790810841707.
Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence: How Automation is Changing
Auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting. 14(1): 115–122. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/
jeta-51730.
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, 439-455. Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In: The Sage Handbook of Organization
Studies, 215-254
Liguori, M., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Some like it non-financial… Politicians’ and managers’ views on
the importance of performance information. Public Management Review, 14(7): 903-922. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2011.650054.
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation.
Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078111.
Mahzan, N., & Lymer, A. (2014). Examining the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: Cases
of generalized audit software use by internal auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(4): 327-349. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0877.
Melo, M. A., Pereira, C., & Figueiredo, C. M. (2009). Political and Institutional Checks on Corruption. Comparative
Political Studies, 42(9): 1217–1244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331732.
Mena, S., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Theorization as institutional work: The dynamics of roles and practices. Human
Relations, 69(8), 1669–1708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715622556.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American
Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 [Accessed in
Dec, 18, 2018].
Mikhaylov, S. J., Esteve, M., & Campion, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: opportunities and
challenges of cross-sector collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 20170357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0357.
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research:
An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research, 16: 231-254. DOI: https://doi.
org./10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.001.
Muggleton, S. (2014). Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence. AI Communications, 27(1):
3-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/AIC-130579.
Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics:
An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton's health care reform initiative. Organization
Science, 21(4): 823-841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0490.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1):
145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258610.
OECD .(2017). Auditing for more robust internal control and risk management systems, in Brazil's Federal
Court of Accounts: Insight and Foresight for Better Governance. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1787/9789264279254-7-en.
Othman, R., Aris, N. A., Mardziyah, A., Zainan, N., & Amin, N. (2015). Fraud Detection and Prevention Methods
in the Malaysian Public Sector: Accountants’ and Internal Auditors’ Perceptions. Procedia Economics and
Finance. 28: 59-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01082-5.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE
Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016689486.
Perols, J. L., Bowen, R. M., Zimmermann, C., & Samba, B. (2016). Finding needles in a haystack: Using data
analytics to improve fraud prediction. The Accounting Review, 92(2): 221-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/
accr-51562.
Ralha, C. G., & Silva, C. V. S. (2012). A multi-agent data mining system for cartel detection in Brazilian government
procurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(14): 11642-11656. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2012.04.037.
Ramirez, J. A. O., & Perez, J. A. C. (2016). Impact of Supreme Audit Institutions on the Phenomenon of Corruption:
An International Empirical Analysis. Journal of Public Governance and Policy: Latin American Review,
2(3):34-59. Retrieved from:http://www.revistascientificas.udg.mx/index.php/JPGPA/article/view/6072.
Rapley, T. (2014). Sampling strategies in qualitative research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis,
Sage, London, 49-63.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., González-Díaz, B., Braci, E., Carrington, E., Hathaway, J., Jeppesen, K. K., &
Steccolini, I. (2019). Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: An
institutional analysis. The British Accounting Review, 100842. Article in Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bar.2019.100842.
Roulston, K. (2014). Analysing interviews. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 297-312.
Salovaara, I. (2012). Beth Simone Noveck: Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government
Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. 2009.
MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 28(52): 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/
mediekultur.v28i52.5731.
Silva, W. V. (2016). The pillars of the data analysis strategy and consumption of information at the TCU. Federal
Court of Accounts Journal, 48(137): 13-17. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/
revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018).
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven
Institutional Change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 877–904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2010.0013.
Sousa, W. G., Melo, E. R. P., Bermejo, P. H. D. S., Farias, R. A. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2019). How and where
is artificial intelligence in the public sector going? A literature review and research agenda. Government
Information Quarterly, 101392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004.
Sperb, P. (2017, August, 25). Watson, a inteligência artificial a serviço da PF gaúcha. Veja online. Retrieved from
https://veja.abril.com.br/blog/rio-grande-do-sul/watson-a-inteligencia-artificial-a-servico-da-pf-gaucha/
[Accessed in Dec, 18, 2018].
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22(4): 487–511. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00993595.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy Management
Review, 20(3): 571-560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
Tara, I. G., Gherai, D. S., Laurentiu, D. R. O. J., & Matica, D. E. (2016). The Social Role of the Supreme Audit
Institutions to Reduce Corruption in the European Union-Empirical Study. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie
Sociala, 52: 217-240. Retriveded from: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=521495 [Accessed
in September, 21, 2019].
Taurion, C. (2016). Technological innovations in government auditing. Federal Court of Accounts Journal,
48(137): 7-12. Retrieved from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/de/biblioteca-digital/revista-do-tcu-n-137-sep-dec-
2016-federal-court-of-accounts-journal.htm [Accessed in Dec, 15, 2018].
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The
diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. [Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:22-
39. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/131.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: S. Clegg, C. Hardy and
W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. 175-190. London: SAGE.
Valle-Cruz, D., & Sandoval-Almazan, R. (2018). Towards an understanding of artificial intelligence in government.
Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research Governance in
the Data Age - Dgo’18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209397.
Williams, T. (1995). The use of audit software in fraud detection. Journal of Financial Crime, 2, (4): 305 - 310.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025655.
Wongpinunwatana, N., Ferguson, C., & Bowen, P. (2000). An experimental investigation of the effects of artificial
intelligence systems on the training of novice auditors. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(6): 306-318. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02686900010344511.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World.
Organization Science, 23(5): 1398-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771.
Zerbino, P., Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2018). Process-Mining-enabled audit of Information
Systems: methodology and an application. Expert Systems with Applications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.05.030.
Downloads
Publicado
2019-11-28
Edição
Seção
Fraudes e Corrupção: o que Contabilidade e Organizações têm a dizer?
Licença
A RCO adota a política de Acesso Livre (Libre Open Access), sob o acordo padrão Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). O acordo prevê que:
- A submissão de texto autoriza sua publicação e implica compromisso de que o mesmo material não esteja sendo submetido a outro periódico. O original é considerado definitivo;
- Autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attributionque permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
- Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com necessário reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista;
- Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre);
- A revista não paga direitos autorais aos autores dos textos publicados;
- O detentor dos direitos autorais da revista, exceto os já acordados no acordo de Libre Open Access (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), é o Departamento de Contabilidade da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo.
Não são cobradas taxas de submissão ou de publicação.
São aceitos até 4 autores por artigo. Casos excepcionais devidamente justificados poderão ser analisados pelo Comitê Executivo da RCO. São considerados casos excepcionais: projetos multi-institucionais; manuscritos resultantes da colaboração de grupos de pesquisa; ou que envolvam grandes equipes para coleta de evidências, construção de dados primários e experimentos comparados.
É recomendada a ordem de autoria por contribuição, de cada um dos indivíduos listados como autores, especialmente no desenho e planejamento do projeto de pesquisa, na obtenção ou análise e interpretação de dados e redação. Os autores devem declarar as efetivas contribuições de cada autor, preenchendo a carta ao editor, logo no início da submissão, responsabilizando-se pelas informações dadas.
É permitida a troca de autores durante todo o processo de avaliação e, antes da publicação do manuscrito. Os autores devem indicar a composição e ordem final de autoria no documento assinado por todos os envolvidos no aceite para publicação. Caso a composição e ordem de autoria seja diferente da informada anteriormente no sistema, todos autores anteriormente listados deverão se manifestar favoráveis.
No caso de identificação de autoria sem mérito ou contribuição (ghost, guest or gift authorship), a RCO segue o procedimento recomendado pela COPE.
Como Citar
Neves, F. R., da Silva, P. B., & Carvalho, H. L. M. de. (2019). Mulheres artificiais contra a corrupção: em busca de legitimidade no Tribunal de Contas da União. Revista De Contabilidade E Organizações, 13, 31-50. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158530
