بازتاب و بررسی در مورد روش حسابرسی: دستورالعمل برای شفافیت بیشتر Reflections and Review on the Audit Procedure: Guidelines for More Transparency

Introduction In scientific studies, researchers aim to develop knowledge or theories by formulating research questions or hypotheses and systematically collecting and analyzing data that are relevant to the research questions or hypotheses. Based on these analyses, conclusions are drawn in terms of answers to the research questions or in terms of confirming or rejecting hypotheses. Historically, within scientific studies, a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods is made (e.g., Neuenschwander, 2013). Even though the functionality of this distinction is disputed by some (e.g., Allwood, 2012; Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002), when comparing quantitative to qualitative studies, it is generally considered more difficult to ensure the validity of conclusions in qualitative studies given the lack of standardized strategies and procedures and the relatively large role of the researchers’ interpretation in drawing conclusions (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Chowdhury, 2015; Finlay, 2002; Weiner-Levy & Popper-Giveon, 2013). Several methods or strategies have been put forward to overcome this difficulty (e.g., Koch, 2006; Lietz, Langer, & Furman, 2006; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002; Shenton, 2004; Stige, Malterud, & Midtgarden, 2009), among which is the audit procedure set out by Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, and Oost (2008). This procedure is aimed at ensuring the quality, mainly of qualitative scientific research in terms of visibility (Are decisions explicated and communicated?), comprehensibility (Are these decisions substantiated?), and acceptability (Are the decisions acceptable according to the standards, values, and norms in the particular research domain?). The audit procedure offers researchers (the auditee) a comprehensive methodology to leave a trail of choices and decisions made, which can subsequently be checked by a second party (the auditor). As the audit procedure appeared to be the most specific and elaborate procedure for ensuring quality in qualitative studies, together with the second author of this article (who acted as auditor), I carried out the procedure as was set out by Akkerman et al. (2008; as auditee) while conducting a study in the domain of educational sciences (De Kleijn, Meijer, Brekelmans, & Pilot, 2015). While the audit process was rather time-consuming, indeed in our view it has substantially increased the quality and transparency of the study’s conclusions. The article is structured as follows: We (a) briefly summarize the audit procedure, (b) describe the two issues we encountered with the audit procedure and how other researchers dealt with them, (c) describe the setting of our own study and the choices we made concerning the audit procedure, and (d) provide additional guidelines for conducting and reporting on the audit procedure, based on our experiences. With this article, our goal is to provide new insights into the audit procedure and to offer recommendations to increase its value, which could expand our understanding and use of the audit procedure. We thereby aim to contribute to the debate about ensuring the validity of qualitative studies in the social sciences.