Defusing the bomb: The use of symbolism, planning and rule setting in nurse-led therapy

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean-David Holyoake
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessalegn Getie Mihret ◽  
Monika Kansal ◽  
Mohammad Badrul Muttakin ◽  
Tarek Rana

Purpose This study aims to examine the setting of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 701 on disclosing key audit matters (KAMs) to explore the role of standard setting in maintaining or reconstituting the relationship of the auditing profession with preparers and users of financial reports. Design/methodology/approach This study draws on concepts from the sociology of the professions literature and the regulatory space metaphor. Data comprises comment letters and other documents pertaining to the setting of ISA 701. Findings The study shows that the KAM reporting requirement is part of the ongoing re-calibration of the regulatory arrangements governing auditing, which started in the early 2000s. This study interprets standard setting as a site for negotiating the relationships between linked ecologies in the audit regulatory space, namely, the auditing profession, preparers of financial statements and users of audited reports. This study identifies three processes involved in setting ISA 701, namely, reconstitution of the rules governing auditors’ reports as a link between the three ecologies, preserving boundaries between the auditing profession and preparers and negotiation aimed at balancing competing interests of the interrelated ecologies. Originality/value The study offers insights into the role of regulatory rule setting as a central medium through which the adaptive relationship of the profession with its environment is negotiated.


2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 1034-1046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrijn M. Brenning ◽  
Inge Antrop ◽  
Stijn Petegem ◽  
Bart Soenens ◽  
Jan Meulenaere ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 249-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farouk A. H. Al-Watban ◽  
Bernard L. Andres
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Weiss ◽  
Simon Dalferth

In this article, we argue that the premature abolishment of the allegedly anachronistic concepts of internal versus external security is of doubtful heuristic value for the study of security practices. The two domains may gradually converge from the perspective of problems, but do so much less in terms of political practices. We show that security policy is pursued according to different systems of rules. It follows distinct institutional logics. We undertake a systematic comparison of policy-making in the European Union’s Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). It is structured along the distinction between making and implementing an agreement as indicative stages of the policy-making process. First, rule-setting asks how decisions are made in the two domains: with or without the inclusion of external actors. Second, we explore whether the implementation of political decisions involves management or enforcement mechanisms. The empirical results are unambiguous: the political actors follow different systems of rules in the two domains. There are still ‘ideal-typical’ differences in a Weberian sense. This implies that internal and external security may be closely linked, like the opposite sides of the same coin, but must be separated for the purpose of analytical clarity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document