AUDIT JUDGMENT IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A STRATEGIC EVALUATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNAL AUDIT, RISK MANAGEMENT AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Öz

This study examines the effects of artificial intelligence applications on auditor judgment, professional skepticism and corporate governance within internal audit processes. AI-supported audit tools hold potential for expanding audit scope and identifying high-risk areas more rapidly; however, they also introduce new areas of concern such as model risk, data quality, algorithmic bias, explainability and justifiability problems and accountability gaps. The internal audit function should therefore be approached not merely as a structure that evaluates control activities but as a strategic assurance mechanism capable of questioning technology-driven decision processes. The study adopts a structured and thematic literature review approach conducted through Google Scholar. The search was based on the keyword groups "AI in Internal Audit and Risk Management", "Artificial Intelligence and Audit Judgment", "Automation Bias in Auditing", and "Professional Judgment in Auditing". The literature was classified under the themes of audit automation, automation bias, algorithm aversion, explainability, human-in-the-loop, audit of AI and AI governance. The review indicates that artificial intelligence may support audit quality, yet it may also generate governance risks such as weakened professional skepticism, excessive reliance on algorithmic recommendations and ambiguity in accountability boundaries. The original contribution of this study lies in presenting a conceptual evaluation framework that brings together automation bias, explainability, human-in-the-loop and AI governance under the axis of preserving auditor judgment. The study does not contain empirical data and the findings should be interpreted at the conceptual level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Audit Judgment
• Internal Audit
• Risk Management
• Corporate Governance

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support was received from any institution or organization for this study.

Etik Beyan

This study is a review article based on a systematic literature review. No human participants, surveys, interviews, experimental applications, or any data collection methods requiring ethics committee approval were used within the scope of the research. Therefore, ethics committee approval is not required. The study complies with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics.

Teşekkür

There is no acknowledgement statement.

YAPAY ZEKÂ ÇAĞINDA DENETİM YARGISI: İÇ DENETİM, RİSK YÖNETİMİ VE KURUMSAL YÖNETİŞİM PERSPEKTİFİNDEN STRATEJİK BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ (YZ) uygulamalarının iç denetim süreçlerinde denetçi yargısı, mesleki şüphecilik ve kurumsal yönetişim üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. YZ destekli denetim araçları, denetim kapsamını genişletme ve riskli alanları daha hızlı belirleme potansiyeli taşımakla birlikte; model riski, veri kalitesi, algoritmik önyargılar, açıklanabilirlik ve gerekçelendirilebilirlik ve hesap verebilirlik boşluğu gibi yeni tartışma alanlarını da gündeme getirmektedir. İç denetim fonksiyonunun salt kontrol faaliyetlerini değerlendiren bir yapı olarak değil, teknolojik karar süreçlerini de sorgulayabilen stratejik bir güvence mekanizması olarak ele alınması gerekmektedir. Çalışmada Google Scholar üzerinden yürütülen yapılandırılmış ve tematik bir literatür taraması yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Tarama sürecinde “AI in Internal Audit and Risk Management”, “Artificial Intelligence and Audit Judgment”, “Automation Bias in Auditing” ve “Professional Judgment in Auditing” anahtar kelime grupları kullanılmıştır. Literatür; denetim otomasyonu, otomasyon yanlılığı, algoritmadan kaçınma, açıklanabilirlik, döngüde insan yaklaşımı, YZ’nin denetlenmesi ve YZ yönetişimi temaları altında sınıflandırılmıştır. Değerlendirme sonucunda YZ’nin denetim kalitesini destekleyebileceği; ancak mesleki şüpheciliğin zayıflaması, algoritmik önerilere aşırı güven ve sorumluluk alanlarının belirsizleşmesi gibi yönetişim riskleri doğurabileceği görülmektedir. Çalışmanın özgün katkısı, otomasyon yanlılığı, açıklanabilirlik, döngüde insan ve YZ yönetişimi kavramlarını denetçi yargısının korunması ekseninde bir araya getiren kavramsal bir değerlendirme çerçevesi sunmasıdır. Çalışma ampirik veri içermemekte olup bulgular kavramsal düzeyde değerlendirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zeka
• Denetim Yargısı
• İç Denetim
• Risk Yönetimi
• Kurumsal Yönetişim

Destekleyen Kurum

Destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, sistematik literatür taramasına dayalı bir inceleme makalesi niteliğindedir. Araştırma kapsamında insan katılımcılar, anket, mülakat, deneysel uygulama veya etik kurul izni gerektiren herhangi bir veri toplama yöntemi kullanılmamıştır. Bu nedenle etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir. Çalışmada bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği kurallarına uyulmuştur.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür beyanı bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

1. Alsaif, M., Phan, D. H. T., Kend, M., & Alharbi, M. (2025). Emerging technologies in external audit and how they are challenging auditors’ judgements and decision-making processes. Accounting & Finance, 65(4), 3347–3360, https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.70043
2. Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human–AI interactions in public sector decision making: “automation bias” and “selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153-169, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
3. Ashraf, M. (2025). Does automation improve financial reporting? Evidence from internal controls. Review of Accounting Studies, 30(1), 436-479.
4. Campbell, C. A., Ramamoorti, S., & Calderon, T. G. (2023). Automation bias and the "Goldilocks effect" in auditing blockchain. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 20(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/JETA-2022-062
5. Campos, S., Papadatos, H., Roger, F., Touzet, C., Quarks, O., & Murray, M. (2025). A frontier AI risk management framework: Bridging the gap between current AI practices and established risk management. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06656.
6. Commerford, B. P., Dennis, S. A., Joe, J. R., & Ulla, J. W. (2022). Man versus machine: Complex estimates and auditor reliance on artificial intelligence. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(1), 171–201.
7. Dambe, S., Gochhait, S., & Ray, S. (2023, November). The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing cybersecurity and internal audit. In 2023 3rd International Conference on Advancement in Electronics & Communication Engineering (AECE) (pp. 88-93). IEEE.
8. Fedyk, A., Hodson, J., Khimich, N., & Fedyk, T. (2022). Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process? Review of Accounting Studies, 27(3), 938-985, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09697-x

9. Geiger, R. S., Tandon, U., Gakhokidze, A., Song, L., & Irani, L. (2024). Making algorithms public: Reimagining auditing from matters of fact to matters of concern. International Journal of Communication, 18, 634–655.
10. Goto, M. (2022). Accepting the future as ever-changing: Professionals’ sensemaking about artificial intelligence. Journal of Professions and Organization, 9(1), 77–99, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joab022
11. Groves, L., Metcalf, J., Kennedy, A., Vecchione, B., & Strait, A. (2024, June). Auditing work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime. In proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1107-1120, https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658959.
12. Hilliard, A., Gulley, A., Koshiyama, A., & Kazim, E. (2025). Bias audit laws: how effective are they at preventing bias in automated employment decision tools? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 39(3), 327-343, https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2024.2403053 International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2018). ISA 200: Overall objectives of the independent auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with international standards on auditing.
13. Ivakhnenkov, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence application in auditing. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Ekonomichni nauky, 8(1), 54–60, 10.18523/2519-4739.2023.8.1.54-60
14. Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115–122, doi: 10.2308/jeta-51730
15. Kokina, J., Blanchette, S., Davenport, T. H., & Pachamanova, D. (2025). Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in auditing: Evidence from the field. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 56, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100734
16. Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., & Kubicek, B. (2023). Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1118723, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118723
17. Lacmanovic, S., & Skare, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence bias auditing–current approaches, challenges and lessons from practice. Review of Accounting and Finance, 24(3), 375-400, doi: 10.1108/RAF-01-2025-0006
18. Law, K. K., & Shen, M. (2025). How does artificial intelligence shape audit firms? Management Science, 71(5), 3641–3666, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.04040
19. Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). Auditing the AI auditors: A framework for evaluating fairness and bias in high stakes AI predictive models. American Psychologist, 78(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000972
20. Lehner, O. M., Ittonen, K., Silvola, H., Ström, E., & Wührleitner, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence based decision-making in accounting and auditing: Ethical challenges and normative thinking. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(9), 109-135, https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2020-4934
21. Murikah, W., Nthenge, J. K., & Musyoka, F. M. (2024). Bias and ethics of AI systems applied in auditing-A systematic review. Scientific African, 25, e02281, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02281
22. Peters, C. (2026). Automated audit tasks and auditor effectiveness. Working Paper, Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
23. Pike, B. J., Curtis, M. B., & Chui, L. (2026). Mitigating auditor bias through elaboration. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 37(1), 171–183, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.70009.
24. Samiolo, R., Spence, C., & Toh, D. (2024). Auditor judgment in the fourth industrial revolution. Contemporary Accounting Research, 41(1), 498–528, doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12901
25. Schuett, J. (2025). Three lines of defense against risks from AI. AI & Society,40(2), 493-507, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01811-0.
26. Shivram, V. (2024). Auditing with AI: A theoretical framework for applying machine learning across the internal audit lifecycle. Edpacs, 69(1), 22-40, doi: 10.1080/07366981.2024.2312025
27. Sofyani, H., Rohman, W. M., Oktavia, K. D., & Efsari, A. N. (2025). Big data analytics-based audit system quality and public sector audit performance: Audit judgment as mediator. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 15(1), 165–182, doi: 10.22219/jrak.v15i1.36375
28. Syam, M. A., Djaddang, S., Hasnawati, Roziq, M., & Harnovinsah. (2025). The digital transformation of auditing: Navigating the challenges and opportunities. Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews, 8(2), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1992.08.02.662
29. Şencan, E., & Tektaş, B. (2026). Türkiye bankacılık sektöründe dijital dönüşüm ve yenilikçi finansal uygulamalar. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 11(2), 931–958. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1789153
30. Tiron-Tudor, A., & Deliu, D. (2022). Reflections on the human-algorithm complex duality perspectives in the auditing process. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 19(3), 255-285, doi: 10.1108/QRAM-04-2021-0059. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
31. Vakıflı, I. (2025). Bütüncül çerçevede yapay zeka: Dünyadan ve Türkiye'den örnekler. Journal of Behavior at Work, 10(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.1688911
32. Yıldız, M., & Gümüş, E. (2025). Türkiye'de BT denetimi: Mevcut durum analizi. Management and Political Sciences Review, 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.57082/mpsr.1578056