2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-006-9044-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences

Abstract: Audit, quality procedure,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
172
0
13

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(186 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
172
0
13
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the analyses reveal to a reasonable degree the existence of participative stances, further validation using other datasets is required. In addition, an audit procedure can be organised to validate the results of the present analysis (Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, & Oost, 2008). Both issues specifically relate to the 'Ghost' and 'Lurker', as their participation is very low, making it difficult to gather substantial data for an accurate description.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the analyses reveal to a reasonable degree the existence of participative stances, further validation using other datasets is required. In addition, an audit procedure can be organised to validate the results of the present analysis (Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, & Oost, 2008). Both issues specifically relate to the 'Ghost' and 'Lurker', as their participation is very low, making it difficult to gather substantial data for an accurate description.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During this process, saturation was achieved using a constant comparison method through Phases 1 to 3, where the revision of codes and the need for replication of categories from newly obtained data was essential [20]. A summary audit trail [21] was examined and approved by PC, who acted as the auditor for the process. The audit trail is available from the corresponding author.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A check (verification) was carried out by an independent researcher not involved in the current project, who independently reconstructed the displays. Only very small differences between the two researchers were found, which were discussed and changed in accordance with both researchers' opinions (comparable to an audit trail, see Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, & Oost, 2008). The displays of the two cases were then assembled in a metamatrix which enabled the systematic comparison of the two cases on each of the 12 quality criteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%