Representation of the Drivers and Outcomes of the Development of Dialogism in the Auditing Profession: A Systematic Input Cycle and Matrix Outputs

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to represent the drivers and outcomes of the development of dialogism in the auditing profession based on a systematic cycle of inputs and matrix outputs and to explain the causal relationships among its influential dimensions.

Methodology: This study was applied in terms of purpose and exploratory in nature, employing a mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, grounded theory was used to identify the contexts underlying the development of dialogism in the auditing profession. Data were collected through in-depth and semi-structured interviews with 15 auditing experts. After reaching theoretical saturation, the interviews were analyzed through open, axial, and selective coding procedures. Subsequently, a two-round Delphi analysis was conducted to assess the reliability of the identified dimensions using mean and agreement coefficient criteria. In the quantitative phase, 28 independent auditors with more than five years of professional experience were selected through purposive sampling. A systematic representation analysis and pairwise comparison matrix were then employed to determine the internal relationships and direct and indirect effects among the core dimensions.

Findings: The qualitative findings revealed 317 initial open codes, 30 conceptual themes, 6 core dimensions, and 3 structural categories. The core dimensions included perceptual, cognitive, supervisory, occupational, social, and identity capabilities. The Delphi analysis confirmed the adequacy and reliability of all identified dimensions based on acceptable mean and agreement coefficient thresholds. The systematic representation analysis demonstrated that “supervisory capabilities” and “social capabilities” functioned as the primary systemic drivers of dialogism development in auditing. These dimensions stimulated “cognitive capabilities” as a secondary driver, which subsequently enhanced “perceptual capabilities” and “occupational capabilities.” The findings further indicated that this process ultimately contributed to the development of “identity capabilities” and strengthened auditors’ communicative capacities with stakeholders.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that the development of dialogism in the auditing profession requires the simultaneous strengthening of supervisory, social, and cognitive dimensions so that auditors can move beyond their traditional control-oriented roles and become more interactive and responsive actors toward stakeholders. Furthermore, dialogism enhances professional identity, transparency, and public trust, thereby providing a foundation for transforming the philosophy of the auditing profession and improving the quality of professional communication in capital markets.