Using data collected from 21 interviews with audit committee members (ACMs) of Canadian reporting issuers, this study examines the ways in which ACMs understand and enact the additional responsibilities placed on them by regulators in the post–Sarbanes-Oxley Act era. Adopting a social constructivist approach to knowledge and expertise, the study shows that despite the financial literacy requirements for ACMs, financial expertise is far from being uniformly understood by ACMs. Indeed, ACMs perceive expertise in many different ways, which leads them to engage in a wide variety of practices to fulfill their responsibilities on audit committees (ACs). The analysis of the data makes it possible to identify three oversight styles—observing, inspecting, and storytelling—that illustrate the differences in how ACMs understand their role, prepare for AC meetings, invest time in this preparation, and develop lines of questioning. These findings provide empirical insights into both the substantive and symbolic roles of ACs and illustrate the role of knowledge and ignorance in shaping ACMs' understanding of their oversight role. This study also raises questions about the soundness of having ACs oversee multiple different processes. By highlighting that ACMs do not comprehend and enact their role uniformly, this study reveals the important nuances in ACMs' oversight approaches.

中文翻译：

---

董事会中的知识与无知：审计委员会成员监督风格的研究

本研究利用对加拿大报告发行人审计委员会成员 (ACM) 的 21 次访谈收集的数据，探讨了在后萨班斯-奥克斯利法案时代，ACM 理解和履行监管机构赋予他们的额外责任的方式。该研究采用社会建构主义的知识和专业知识方法，表明尽管 ACM 提出了金融素养要求，但 ACM 远未统一理解金融专业知识。事实上，ACM 以多种不同的方式看待专业知识，这导致他们采取各种各样的做法来履行审计委员会 (AC) 的职责。通过对数据的分析，可以确定三种监督风格——观察、检查和讲故事——这说明了 ACM 在理解自己的角色、准备 AC 会议、在准备过程中投入时间以及制定提问方式方面的差异。这些发现为 AC 的实质性和象征性作用提供了实证见解，并说明了知识和无知在塑造 ACM 对其监督作用的理解中的作用。这项研究还提出了关于让审计委员会监督多个不同流程的合理性的问题。通过强调 ACM 并未统一理解和发挥其作用，本研究揭示了 ACM 监督方法中的重要细微差别。