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 in 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 relation 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 are concerned.
He further argues that academicians and practitioners have directed very little attention to examining cases where the implementation of IC related practices have failed or been abandoned. Instead, overall research and literature have primarily focused on “ 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 for 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).
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.