- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Arguably, quality assurance is more complicated in qualitative studies than in quantitative studies. Several procedures for quality assurance are available, among which the audit procedure as proposed by Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, and Oost. In this article, we reflect on this procedure based on our own experiences as well as based on a review of studies in which the audit procedure was employed. More specifically, we discuss (1) the choice for an auditor and the relationship between auditee and auditor and (2) the function of the audit. We propose that future auditees (a) explicitly report on the auditee–auditor relationship, (b) explicitly report on the function of their audit, and (c) have their audit trail documents available for review. With this methodological position paper, we aim to contribute to the current call to make social science studies and their conclusions more transparent and thereby to enhance the quality of qualitative studies.
In this methodological position paper, our goal was to provide new insights into the audit procedure and to offer recommendations to increase its value. Based on our experience with the audit procedure and a review of studies in which the audit procedure was applied, we addressed two issues that might need more attention in future studies: the choice for and role of the auditor and the formative and/or summative function of the audit. With this article, we hope to contribute to the current call to enhance the quality of studies in social science by making their conclusions more transparent. Our suggestions help achieve this goal because (a) researchers are encouraged to consider the quality of their work in the process of data gathering and data analyses, (b) journal reviewers can use the audit documents as part of their review of qualitative papers, and (c) readers can request the audit documents and judge for themselves whether they agree with the auditor’s judgment and the auditee’s decisions.