In the last decade, organizations have re-engineered their business processes and started using standard software solutions. Integration of structured data in relational databases has improved documentation of business transactions and increased data quality. But almost 90% of the information cannot be integrated in relational data bases. This amount of ‘unstructured’ information is exploding within the Enterprise 2.0. The use of social media tools to enhance collaboration, creates corporate blogs, wikis, forums, and other types of unstructured information. Structured and unstructured information are records, meant and used as evidence for policies, decisions, products, actions and transactions. Most stakeholders are making increasing demands for the trustworthiness of records for accountability reasons. In this age of evolving social media use, organizational chains, inter-organizational data warehouses and cloud computing, it is crucial for the Enterprise 2.0. that its policies, decisions, products, actions and transactions can be reliably reconstructed in context. Digital Archiving is a necessity for the Enterprise 2.0.: the reconstruction of the past depends on records and their meta data. Blogs, wikis, forums, etc., used for collaboration within the business processes of the organization, need to be documented for reconstruction in the future. Digital Archiving is a combination of three mechanisms: enterprise records management, organizational memory and records auditing. These mechanisms ensure that a digitized organization as the Enterprise 2.0. has a documented understanding of its past. In that way, it improves organizational accountability.
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
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.
