DISCUSSION OF Whose Power Prevails in Disclosure Practices?
批判性分析了一项关于审计披露实践的实证研究，指出其内容分析方法虽有优势，但结论可能受限于特定年份（1992年），且总体和详细分析均不支持原假设。
Abstract The article presents a critical analysis of an empirical work of a researcher related to disclosure practices in auditing. Content analysis is the primary research method used in a previous research. The primary strength of content analysis is that it provides a structure for analysis in situations just like that faced by the researcher: when quantitative data are not readily available and typical means of producing them are thought to be difficult to apply or insufficiently reliable. While controlled experimentation could be used to address the type of research questions of interest, design of such an experiment could present substantial difficulties. For example, replicating within an experimental context, the pressure auditors face to balance client expectations and professional standards may be very difficult. The authors opine that neither the aggregate nor the detailed analyses are consistent with the hypothesis as proposed by the researcher. Focusing on the specifics of the detailed analysis, one observes that many of the conclusions reached in the paper seem to be idiosyncratic to the year 1992, which is employed as a reference point.