Lecture in PhD Programme Life Science Education Research UMCU. Course Methods of Life Science Education Research. Utrecht, The Netherlands. abstract Audit trail procedures are applied as a way to check the validity of qualitative research designs, qualitative analyses, and the claims that are made. Audit trail procedures can be conducted based on the three criteria of visibility, comprehensibility, and acceptability (Akkerman et al., 2008). During an audit trail procedure, all documents and materials resulting from the data gathering and the data analysis are assessed by an auditor. In this presentation, we presented a summative audit trail procedure (Agricola, Prins, Van der Schaaf & Van Tartwijk, 2021), whereas in a second study we used a formative one (Agricola, Van der Schaaf, Prins & Van Tartwijk, 2022). For both studies, two different auditors were chosen. For the study presented in Agricola et al. (2021) the auditor was one of the PhD supervisors, while in that presented Agricola et al. (2022) was a junior researcher not involved in the project. The first auditor had a high level of expertise in the study’s topic and methodology. As a result, he was able to provide a professional and critical assessment report. Although the second auditor might be considered to be more objective than the first, as she was not involved in the project, more meetings were needed to explain the aim of the study and the aim of the audit trail procedure. There are many ideas about the criteria that qualitative studies should meet (De Kleijn en Van Leeuwen, 2018). I argue that procedures of checking for interrater agreement and understanding, the triangulation, and audit trail procedures can increase the internal validity of qualitative studies. Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & van Tartwijk, J. (2021). Supervisor and Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision in Higher Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 877-897. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115 Agricola, B. T., van der Schaaf, M. F., Prins, F. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2022). The development of research supervisors’ pedagogical content knowledge in a lesson study project. Educational Action Research. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1832551 de Kleijn, R. A. M., & Van Leeuwen, A. (2018). Reflections and review on the audit procedure: Guidelines for more transparency. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918763214 Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2008). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2), 257-274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9044-4
DOCUMENT
Wanneer een kwaliteitsmanagementsysteem net is opgezet, is het zinvol om een interne audit te beperken tot het onderzoeken of datgene wat is beschreven ook in de praktijk zo wordt uitgevoerd. Naarmate een interne audit vaker wordt gehanteerd, dient het doel te verschuiven van non-conformiteit naar sturing. Pas dan kan de auditor nagaan of doelstellingen van processen en management daadwerkelijk worden behaald en ontstaan zinvolle verbeteracties. Wanneer men bij interne audits blijft steken in het toetsen van non-conformiteiten, bestaat het risico dat het kwaliteitsmanagementsysteem niet verder wordt ontwikkeld en verbeterd. Uit de resultaten van een pilot onderzoek in het Medisch Centrum Alkmaar blijkt dat een combinatie van verschillende procedures voor auditing aanbeveling verdient. Aldus worden resultaten verkregen op meerdere management niveaus en op meer terreinen dan alleen het werkproces als zodanig. Discrepanties tussen de praktijksituatie en de beschreven procedures komen snel aan het licht, evenals opties voor verbetering van de efficiëntie van processen en procedures. De informatie is een belangrijke impuls voor verbetering van werkprocessen en biedt tevens aanknopingspunten voor verbetering van belangrijke thema’s en speerpunten in de organisatie.
DOCUMENT
The current standard in accounting practice is the double-entry approach. Basis of the double-entry approach is that every financial event brings two equal and offsetting entries. Since these financial events are not automatically confirmed by both parties, the accounting quality can be improved. The blockchain mechanism possibly offers a different take on accounting. Based on an experimentation approach, data was collected to compare the double-entry method with the blockchain-based triple-entry method. The results show that the main difference concerns determining the completeness of the financial statement items. In the situation of double-entry accounting, segregation of duties is applied to do so. In the blockchain situation, the underlying mechanism of the blockchain already ensures this.
DOCUMENT
