Artificial Ladies against corruption: searching for legitimacy at the Brazilian Supreme Audit Institution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158530Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence Systems, Auditing Processes, Institutional Theory, CorruptionAbstract
This study depicts the search for legitimacy by four information technology artifacts in helping auditors in the surveillance against fraud and corruption by the Brazilian Supreme Audit Institution (TCU). ALICE, ADELE, MONICA, and SOFIA are Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems proposed to aid auditing processes in the public sector. A web-based survey has been used to gather the responses from 60 auditors across Brazil and semi-structured interviews with the Chief Data Officer, three IT Developers and five TCU Audit Managers selected by purposive sampling. The research finds that the use of AI-based systems is low among auditors at the TCU due to the perceived limited benefit. While some respondents recognized the advantages of the AI-based systems, they are put off by the weak theorization and diffusion regarding the meaning and the use of AI-based systems within the organization; they showed a priority for using traditional auditing methods instead of digital innovation, restricting the potential of anticorruption control by technological artifacts.
Downloads
References
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
Published
Issue
Section
License
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.