The contents of the National Audit Office of Finland performance audits, 2001–2016

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a qualitative, computationally assisted examination of prominent content patterns in the 2001–2016 National Audit Office of Finland (NAOF) performance audit reports and foremost changes in these patterns. Design/methodology/approach Without ex ante researcher decisions on which content elements are important, the authors use computational content analysis of topic modelling for detecting content patterns and their changes in the performance audit reports. Findings In the content patterns, professional effectiveness auditing stands out, whereas efficiency auditing is more weakly present. Other content patterns correspond to the NAOF institutional position and its audit mandate, the institutional characteristics of Finland’s public sector, and independent NAOF decisions in orienting its work. The authors can discern both ascendant, ascendant and stabler content patterns. Research limitations/implications As the paper emphasises textual analysis, examining from where changes in the content patterns derive is secondary. Implications for both more intensive and extensive future research are drawn. Practical implications The authors argue that together with other approaches the approach has potential in monitoring Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) performance auditing in the level of its contents. Social implications Knowing how an SAI orients its performance auditing has potential to support SAI monitoring by stakeholders – Parliament, the government, the citizens and others. Originality/value This is a comprehensive examination of the content patterns of the performance audit reports of an SAI since the 2001 introduction of its present institutional position.

Performance auditing in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research avenues

“…Following extant reviews (e.g., Anessi-Pessina et al, 2016), we classified the methodological approached into three main categories: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. The majority of papers (n = 109) were qualitative, comprised 71 empirical case or field studies (e.g., Everett, 2003;Free et al, 2013;Gendron et al, 2007;Parker et al, 2019;Parker et al, 2021;Radcliffe, 1999), 22 descriptive reflections and essays (e.g., Barrett, 2011Barrett, , 2012, 12 content or document analyses (e.g., Ahonen & Koljonen, 2020), and four selective reviews of literature-based commentaries (e.g., Bawole & Ibrahim, 2016;Bonollo, 2019;Kells, 2011).…”

Balancing between accountability and autonomy: the impact and relevance of public steering mechanisms within higher education

“…The results of this study can be extended to cover other contexts that are structurally similar with the system-level coordination of Finnish universities, that is, especially those countries that are applying a mixture of performance-based funding and performance contracts in university funding and hold a strong regulative position of the degree-awarding rights of the universities (cf. Ahonen and Koljonen, 2020). In Europe, this means not just the most obvious cases, such as the other Nordic countries (Pinheiro et al, 2019), but also several other countries (see, e.g.…”

Assessment of Audit Activities in the Public Administration with a Focus on the Types of Audits : Practice in the Public Sector of the V4 Countries

“…The auditees are thus more cooperative, responsible and open to requests and recommendations the auditors make (Parker et al, 2021). if the stakeholders, namely the government, parliament, government authorities, citizens and others have an understanding of how an SAi focuses its performance audits, they will be willing to support its activities (Ahonen & Koljonen, 2020;Jeppesen, 2017). From a theoretical perspective, it is envisaged that an SAi, as an independent body, will be able to provide feedback to support improvements in public administration (Nemec et al, 2016).…”