| The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study is to describe empirically the selected organizational characteristics that significantly influence the perceived role and responsibilities of internal auditing in higher education. Selected factors associated with internal auditing in higher education were categorized into three impact areas. The identification of impact areas was based mainly on concepts set forth in the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing published by the Institute of Internal Auditors (1978), available literature, and personal experiences.; The three impact areas were defined as; (a) audit funding levels, (b) selected audit attributes, and (c) training. These areas, as hypothesized, were examined to determined their impact on the role and responsibilities of internal auditing in higher education as perceived by chief internal auditors within the Association of College and University Auditors. During the last ten years, the auditing environment has been confronted with a broad range of issues and concerns. It becomes apparent, upon close examination, that there is one pervasive issue that is the source or basis of much of the controversy. The issue is "What is auditing?" and who makes that determination? At present there is a lack of authoritative agreement concerning (a) the exact nature of auditing, (b) the proper objective of auditing, (c) the potential scope of auditing, and (d) the appropriate roles and relationships of the parties that participate in auditing. Many authorities have for years recognized the need for auditing research of a broad theoretical nature. This study presents a general framework for accommodating that need.; The methodology was to devise a mechanism for evaluating three internal auditing impact areas and to test them for perceived differences among public, private, and regional institutions in higher education.; The study revealed that private institutions have larger operating budgets than public institutions and tend to have larger audit staffs. Public institutions tend to spend more money in support of audits merely because there are more public institutions. However, private institutions spend more proportionately than public institutions. On the other hand there were many regional similarities between public and private institutions.; This study also revealed that there were significant differences of the perceived importance of the null hypotheses when controlled by public, private and regional groups, yet there was agreement among auditors in the aggregate or when viewed as a group.; With regard to training, the study revealed that private institutions value training higher than public institutions, however, public institutions actually provide more training than private institutions. Finally, the study concluded with a look at the future and some of the implications for those involved in internal auditing in higher education. |
