Critical Evaluation of Schapers (2014) Research on the Usefulness of Intellectual Capital Reporting - Essay Example

Critical Evaluation of Schaper’s (2014) Research on the Usefulness of Intellectual Capital Reporting Introduction Over the years, a considerable number of research studies have been conducted within the field of Intellectual Capital. Many of these research studies have provided invaluable insights that have helped to bridge the previously existing gaps in knowledge. Nevertheless, in order for the findings of a research study to be considered credible and eligible for publication, it must adhere to certain standards of scientific research. This report seeks to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a research study conducted by Stefan Schaper (2014) dubbed, “Contemplating the usefulness of Intellectual Capital reporting: Reasons behind the abandonment of IC disclosures” in order to establish whether its findings are eligible for publication. Firstly, this report will critically evaluate the background and motivation of this research and highlight some of the evident strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, it will assess the viability of the research design employed in this research. Thirdly, this report will critically evaluate the theoretical issues evident this research. Moreover, it will critically evaluate the results, implications and conclusions established through this study. Lastly, this report will provide recommendations to the author on how to improve the study for eventual publication. Background and Motivation In relations to the rationale provided regarding the motivation and significance of this research, the author has clearly stated that the study aims at generating valuable insights regarding the relevance and practicability of IC reporting practices. Essentially, the study seeks to establish the reasons why companies that were initially involved in the Danish project stopped employing ICS disclosures. A major strength of this study lies in the fact that, in order to justify the reasons why this study is important, the author has efficiently exposed problematic research areas of IC management and disclosure practices that require further investigation in order to establish whether they affect company’s decisions on the ICS disclosure practices. The author has clearly explained that the existing problem lies in the fact that although ICS disclosure practices provide significant benefits to companies and were initially considered as important, with time they have lost relevance in companies (Dumay & Garanina 2013). He notes that disclosures have been criticized for solely representing positive events and elements and as a result they are deficient as far as validity and reliability is concerned. He further argues that academicians and practitioners have directed very little attention towards examining cases where the implementation of IC related practices have failed or been abandoned. Instead overall research and literature have primarily focused on the “the good story” of measuring intangibles and IC (Gowthorpe 2009; Mouritsen, 2006). This in turn leaves considerable space for more critical examination, that this study intends to offer (Alcaniz et al., 2011). By exposing these problematic areas in existing research, the author has provided sufficient justification on why the research is necessary and important. However, in this section the author has failed to provide the specific desired outcomes of the study and its potential benefits for stakeholder audiences. In essence, he has not effectively demonstrated how this study will directly benefit relevant stakeholders and organizations in their various areas of practice (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2001). Research Design Issues A critical look at the various literature selected and reviewed by the author, it is evident that the author has provided a fairly summative theoretical background that traces the development of the concept of Intellectual Capital since its inception in the 1990’s, the development of IC models of reporting and their problematic areas. One of the key strengths of the background section is that it clearly outlines the contribution of landmark research studies that have over the years shaped the way in which the concept of Intellectual Capital is perceived and understood. This study also explores a wide range perspectives embedded in literature. For instance in the background section Schaper (2014) notes that, a study carried out by Bontis (2001) provided a complete overview of various model for measuring IC by measuring their strengths and weaknesses whereas a study conducted by Petty and Guthrie (2000) provided a panoramic view of the first years of research in IC. The author has demonstrated his scholarly prowess by exploring various relevant views in literature and linking them with the key issues in the study. He has integrated both past and current knowledge paradigms in literature on IC to form a strong argument about the gap in the existing literature. Nevertheless, one of the weaknesses evident in this study is that it is not critical enough. The author has drawn his arguments from too many literature sources such that it became difficult to effectively critique and highlight the limitations and contentious issues evident in some of these studies. As a result, we may argue that the background of this study is somewhat inconclusive since it does not take into account or effectively capture the limitations and contentious issues evident in previously conducted studies particularly as far as the issue of IC models is concerned. Additionally, the author has effectively identified both independent and dependent variables. The variables identified epitomize twofold perspective of analysis that are consistent with the nature of ICS (Mouritsen, Bukh & Marr 2004). The independent and dependent variables identified include the internal (management) and the external (reporting and communication) dimensions respectively. The author has also taken into account the role that companies’ size, ownership and sector of operation may play in regard to the decision to discontinue IC reporting. He has also taken into account the role that professional background or affiliation may play in influencing the perception of ICS. These variables reflect the IC models and findings established through the various literature reviewed. However, as demonstrated in a study conducted by Chiucchi (2013), the author has not taken into account variables such as the complexity and interactive design of IC systems and the predominant use of ambiguous or provocative non-financial indicators. Theoretical issues In order to effectively address the identified research objectives, the author triangulated three qualitative research methods namely; survey, in-depth interviews and qualitative content analysis based on thematic coding. In this context, integrating two methods (i.e survey and in-depth interviews) to collect data was suitable since they supplemented each other and helped to elicit more accurate and in-depth data than if the methods were used on their own (Borkan 2004). On one hand, the use of survey to collect data helped to generate precise numerical data that enabled the researchers to identify, isolate and measure variation and correlates of different research issues (Borkan 2004). However, one of the limitations of this method is that it generates non-specific and vague data (Muijs 2010). The researcher addressed this limitation by using in-depth semi-structured interviews to supplement the data collected through the use survey. The use of in-depth interviews enabled the researcher to provide in-depth understanding on particular research issues (Debasish & Das 2009). Nevertheless this method is subjective in nature thus it leaves room for biases. For instance, during the interview it is possible that the interviewer may unintentionally influence the responses of the interviewee. Characteristics of the interviewer such as sex, age, speech patterns, ethnic background and dressing among others may influence the responses of the interviewee. It is also possible that the interviewer may consciously or unconsciously distort or misinterpret the responses provided by the interviewee (Debasish & Das 2009). Due to these issues, the validity and reliability of the findings established through this study can be questionable. In addition to this, the qualitative nature of the methods used in this study may limit the generalizations of its findings in IC and other extra-financial reporting practices. Results, Implications and Conclusions The author of this study has provided a detailed and in-depth illustration of the results established following the data collection process. He has clearly outlined in-depth that a wide range of factors have over the years influenced company’s decision to abandon their work with IC statements. Some of these factors include; exogenous forces such as 9/11 and the global financial crisis, low perceived value or purpose of ICS and hostile behavior towards ICS among many other factors. Some of the findings established through this study are consistence with previously reviewed literature. For instance, similar to Roslender & Stevenson (2009), Storey & Barnett (2000) and Striukova et al. (2008) the author established that factors such as; different perspective of ICS among professional groups, companies’ size and sector influenced decisions to discontinue IC reporting. Conversely, there were also findings established through this study that conflicted with previously reviewed literature. For example, in contrast to what was demonstrated by Chiucchi, (2013), this study did not establish any evidence that companies’ use of ICS’s for longer period time provided opportunity to familiarize with ICS’s complexity and subsequently influence the decision to discontinue their use. Based on these findings the author came to a conclusion similar to Storey & Barnett’s (2000) case study findings regarding the failure of knowledge initiatives. In general, the author demonstrated that the implications of this study is that it shows what can go wrong in practice when companies work with ICS thus it generated initial insights for future research. Moreover, it provided practice-based evidence for future development of IC theory (Dumay & Garanina 2013). However, the author did not effectively demonstrate how this study will directly benefit relevant stakeholders and organizations in their various areas of practice (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2001). Additionally, the author takes into account the various limitations of this study. Some of the limitations identified include its methodological approach in term of respondent’s selection, the sample composition and subjectivity in the data analysis process. Nevertheless, the author does not demonstrate how these limitations were minimized or addressed in order to enhance the accuracy, validity and reliability of the findings established through this study. Conclusion and Recommendations Generally, this report has critically evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of a research study conducted by Schaper (2014). Based on the findings established, it is demonstrated that to a great extent this study adheres to the standards of scientific research. Nonetheless, it comprises of several weakness. In terms of its motivation, the author of this study has not effectively demonstrated how this study will directly benefit relevant stakeholders and organizations in their various areas of practice. Furthermore, this study has methodological limitations of in term of respondent’s selection, the sample composition and subjectivity in the data analysis process. In order to enhance the validity and eligibility of this study for publication, this report recommends the need for this study to employ a mixed method approach comprising of both qualitative and quantitative approach. Moreover, the study should incorporate a larger sample of participants (at least 100 participants) from diverse geographical location and fields in order to enhance the generalizability of its findings. References Alcaniz, L., Gomez-Bezares, F., & Roslender, R., 2011, Theoretical perspectives on intellectual capital: A backward look and a proposal for going forward. In Accounting Forum, vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 104-117. Bontis, N. 2001, “Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital”, International journal of management reviews, vol 3, no1, pp. 41-60. Borkan, J.M., 2004, “Mixed Methods Studies: A Foundation for Primary Care Research”, Annals of Family Medicine vol 2, no. 2, pp. 4-6. Chiucchi, M. S. , 2013, “Measuring and reporting Intellectual Capital: lessons learnt from some interventionist research projects” Journal of Intellectual Capital vol 14, no 3, pp. 4-4 Debasish, S. & Das, B., 2009, Business Communication, PHI Learning, New Delhi. Dumay, J., & Garanina, T., 2013, “Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the third stage”, Journal of Intellectual Capital vol 14, no 1, pp. 10-25. Gowthorpe, C., 2009, Wider still and wider? “A critical discussion of intellectual capital recognition, measurement and control in a boundary theoretical context”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol 20, no. 7, pp. 823-834 McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S., 2001, Research in education: A conceptual introduction, 5thEd, Longman, New York. Mouritsen, J. , 2004, “Measuring and intervening: how do we theorise intellectual capital management?”. Journal of Intellectual Capital vol 5, no. 2, pp. 257-267. Muijs, D., 2010, Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS, SAGE, London. Petty, R., & Guthrie, J., 2000, “Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol 1, no,2, pp. 155–176. Roslender, R., 2009, “The prospects for satisfactorily measuring and reporting intangibles: Time to embrace a new model of (ac) counting?”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, vol. 13 Iss 4 pp. 338 – 359 Schaper, S.,2014, Contemplating the usefulness of Intellectual Capital reporting: Reasons behind the abandonment of IC disclosures, viewed June 6 2014 Storey, J., & Barnett, E., 2000, “Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure”, Journal of knowledge management,vol 4, no. 2, pp.145-156 Striukova, L., Unerman, J., & Guthrie, J., 2008, “Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: evidence from UK companies”, The British Accounting Review, vol 40, no 4, 297-313. Read More