Reflections on Individual Assignment 1 This document provides examples of student critiques prepared for individual assignment 1. I have selected examples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory critiques supplemented by some comments. Hopefully this will assist in preparing for the second individual assignment and the final exam. 1. Literature review (objectives and motives) Satisfactory critique Critique: Jones and Solomon (2010) do not explicitly mention the aim of their research, but rather refer to the nature of the research. This is not seen as a weak point as the authors make use of grounded theory in their study. The authors do however identify their motivation of conducting this research quite well by stating: “However, to our knowledge, there has been little research (...)” (pp. 21). Furthermore, the authors link their motives to prior research by stating that there has been a lack of interview-based work in prior research (Ball et al, 2000; Deegan et al, 2006; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005). I do see this link as a strong point in contrast to the objective of this article. The objective of this article is not clearly formulated. The authors mention: “We address the fundamental question on (...)” (p.21). However, immediately afterwards they state: “In addition, we shed light on several important questions such as (...)” (p.21). These additions are not related to previously identified questions by the authors but to the themes that derived from the interviews in this study. Therefore, in my opinion this cannot be seen as an explicit objective of the article and the authors could have stated this sentence in a different context regarding the themes derived which relates to the fundamental question being addressed. Comments: The student provides several arguments explaining why he/she believes the authors clearly described their objectives/aims and linked them to prior research in the area. Unsatisfactory critique Critique: Nowadays it becomes more important for companies to have this kind of [SER] report. This report is about the long-term economic, environmental and social performance of the everyday activities of the company. It will help companies to measure the impact it caused or go through, so when it is necessary they can change the way they act. With the climate change and the increasing sustainability, companies will be more focused on this side of reporting. Still, it is not mandatory to have SER. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides some guidelines for SER so companies has some guidance when implementing this report. The first question here is if SER should be standardized, which means that it should be mandatory for each company. And second, do companies have to audit their SER by third parties? Not only are companies being forced to compose a SER, there are a lot of benefits to audit their reports. By improving transparency, the company shows to outsides that is it serious about addressing these kinds of promises on ground of social and environmental performance. Also it will help to mitigate the reputational risk of reporting, by having inaccurate data. This is because the audit will help the company to report relevant and reliable information. Comments: In discussing the motives and objectives of the paper, the student fails to provide any critique/opinion regarding whether the motives are strong and well linked into prior literature. The student solely provides an overview of the topic discussed in the paper. Critique: Some prior research has shown that this is a very arguable subject. Ball et al. (2000) have questioned, by using content analysis to evaluate the assurance statements of 72 corporate environmental reports, that there is not always independence and quality of SERA. They found out that half of this sample was not independent and there was more focus on the environmental management system rather than the quality of the report itself. Which basically means that when the reports are being audited it does not

Critique: The authors go to great effort in explaining the theoretical concept of accountability. The explanation of the definition of accountability is, in my opinion, rather vague. The researchers cite many other researchers without arguing why they value the opinions of these researchers. The citations, without clear arguments, come across as ‘expressions of faith’. For example the citation of Rorty “…all that matters for liberal politics is the widely shared conviction that… we shall call “true”

or “good” whatever is the outcome of free discussion…” seems like an expression of faith. Just referring to the work of Rorty and other researchers, without providing arguments for their beliefs, makes the article laborious to read. This forces the reader to do an in-depth theoretical study on his own. Thus in my view, the article would have been more convincing if more arguments were provided. Comments: The student clearly identifies why he/she believes the discussion of prior literature regarding accountability causes confusion in the paper. 2. Methodology and method Satisfactory critique Critique: Jones and Solomon (2010) used an interview based research method that overall fits the study, although I believe its execution had its shortcomings. By defining rigorousness as applying the appropriate tool to meet the stated objectives of the investigation (Ryan 2005), Jones and Solomon (2010) achieved to take two important aspects of SERA in to account. First, an interview-based methodology has been considered the most appropriate mean for researching ethical and social responsibility dimensions of accounting and finance (Parker and Roffey 1997). In contemporary business most ethical and social dimensions of SER are not mandatory, meaning there is no clear quantitative benchmark when assessing a companies performance and reporting on these areas. Therefore an interview seems the appropriate way of retrieving as much information as possible. Second, Edgley et al. (2010) believe that interviews are the best way of capturing the current status of SERA, given its quickly changing and maturing nature. SERA keeps developing as a topic of discussion. Where the actual reporting according to these developments lags the up to date knowledge of assurors and CSR representatives. Comments: The student provides a clear discussion, based on prior research, on why he/she believes the research method adopted in suitable for the study undertaken. Critique: Second, the theoretical saturation and the process towards it, is described vaguely. Caelli et al. (2003) argue that ‘evidence of saturation must be given in the presentation of the data and discussed via the forms in which it was recognized during the

necessarily means that the quality and independency is guaranteed. Comments: The student refers to prior literature, but fails to discuss whether the motives of the paper being criticised are well linked to prior studies in the area. He/she solely provides an overview of the findings of one of the papers discussed by the authors in the literature review.

Unsatisfactory critique Critique: The authors conducted interviews until they felt that no new issues were arising. This is not how you should research in my opinion. You need to take a sample that is a good reflection of the population. This has to be conducted before you start your research. When you are doing research you cannot stop when you think you have enough information. You will get a false reflection of reality. Comments: In reflecting on the research method adopted in the study, the student argues that interviewing until ‘theoretical saturation’ is arrived at is not an appropriate research approach. The student however fails to provide an in-depth discussion of why this method is not considered appropriate. Since he/she questions the suitability of the method, references should be made to the qualitative research methods material discussed in the first week.

Critique: This research method is well conducted within such a complex or sensitive industry. As mentioned in the paper the authors make use of a postal survey at first to identify the potential interviewees and the region of salmon production. This survey was also

analysis. Bowen (2008) adds that researchers should explicitly described the steps they take to ensure theoretical saturation and provide a clear description of the saturation process in their reports. Comments: In discussing how the authors of the paper approached the selection of their interviewees, the student clearly argues, based on prior research, why he/she does not believe sufficient evidence has been presented which convinces the reader about the appropriateness of the adopted approach.

Critique: Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact. Therefore, the interview method is appropriate in this research. The authors also mention this quite well in their article: “Interview methodology has been considered (...)” (p.22). One minor critique in this section is that it was unclear to what extent the authors coded the data. The authors could have elaborated more on this part by giving a detailed outline of the process. Another minor critique point was the fact that the authors did not sent a draft of the narratives to the interviewees for comments. In this way follow up meetings could have emerged to discuss and clarify certain aspects of the findings in order to prevent misinterpretation from the side of the researcher. Comments: The student presents his/her knowledge on the grounded theory method adopted and despite being positive about the method presents several minor critique points, which are supplemented by a short explanation.

used to set the protocols of the interview, which leads to a more reliable and effective measurement. Postal surveys are in general a greatly underutilized research technique. These surveys offer respondents time to consider questions and the opportunity to examine stimulus material refer to other material and they can consult with other household members if required. Comments: The student is positive about the adopted research method, but fails to clarify why the adopted postal survey is perceived as being suitable for the study being criticised. He/she solely provides a summary of the adopted method, without elaborating on why the method is considered suitable and provides no evidence (references) of the under-utilisation of this method in academic research. Critique: Further, it can be stated that the interview method was used and they also build the subsequent interviews on previous work/interviews as these were accumulated. This method is constantly subjected to any potential adjustments which will lead to improvement of the interviews that will finally results in qualitative output. The authors use the combination of arena approach and grounding theory which add great value to this study and which is a unique way to conduct these kinds of studies. Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data and systematically gathered and analyzed. Theory evolves during actual research, and it does this through continuous interplay between analysis and data collection (Grounded Theory methodology, Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin; 2008). With this approach they do not use any hypothesis but only themes and modifies as the research progress. Comments: The student is positive about the research method/theory approach adopted in the study, but solely provides a summary and no in-depth discussion of why it is unique and suitable for the study being criticised. Unsatisfactory critique Critique: The authors use the combination of arena approach and grounding theory which add great value to this study and which is a unique way to conduct these kinds of studies. Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data and systematically gathered and analyzed. Theory evolves during actual research, and it does this through continuous interplay between analysis

3. Theory Satisfactory critique Critique: As the authors made use of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) I did not expect a prior theoretical framework to be exhaustively outlined in this section. In this type of study, data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, and then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to

emerge. As the researchers decided to not impose an initial framework upon the research, they could have made a statement about this earlier on in the introduction of the paper for clarity. Or even better, the researchers could have titled their article: Social and environmental report assurance: A grounded theory study. Comments: By having outlined the grounded theory approach in a previous answer, the student argues that the authors should have included a statement on the adoption of this approach earlier in the paper to provide clarity to the reader. 4. Findings/conclusion Satisfactory critique Critique: A positive point to mention about the findings section is that it is very well-structured. First, there is a brief introduction given where the themes that derived from the data are summed up. Afterwards, this section is divided in six sections where each section represents one theme which made the findings very clear and comprehensible for the reader. Furthermore, the authors structured each sub-section, or better said each theme. They first start off with a few sentences that introduce the theme and outlining some relevant information. Afterwards they provide us with some narration regarding the interviews, which enhanced the reliability. Lastly, the authors came up with a collection of explanations. Comments: The student complements the clear structure of the findings and provides evidence of this clarity. Critique: Furthermore it is worth mentioning that the researchers made use of constant comparison which is critical to research credibility because it is only by constant comparison of theoretical constructs with the data, across multiple sites and situations, that systematic biases and distortions can be detected in the analysis. Also having parts of the interviewees’ points of view mentioned, gives this article a more convincing perspective on the reality and makes it even more reliable. Comments: The student provides a clear discussion of why the comparison of findings and theoretical constructs in the paper increased the credibility and reliability of the research.

and data collection (Grounded Theory methodology, Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin; 2008). With this approach they do not use any hypothesis but only themes and modifies as the research progress. Comments: The student does provide a good concise overview of the grounded theory method, but fails to discuss why he/she believes this is of great value, unique and appropriate for the study being criticised.

Unsatisfactory critique Critique: Furthermore the authors compare companies of different market sizes. Companies with a smaller market size are less likely to make a report, because the preparation is very costly in the sense of time and money. Besides, the social impact of the company will be less severe. Comments: In discussing the findings, the student does not mention whether findings are trustworthy and credible, but presents his/her opinion of the sample selection (methodological issue). Furthermore, the student argue that the ‘social impact of companies with a smaller market size is less severe’, this statement however needs further explanation/support.

Critique: The authors try to give the reader insight in the data they analyzed by stating some of the most important quotations per theme. However, the conclusion Jones & Solomon draw regarding the first theme is wrongly described. Even though it is a small mistake, it leads to some confusion. Furthermore, most of the themes are very extensively discussed with quotations, except the theme impediments to SERA. This lack of transparency could possibly lead to some form of suspicion. Overall, the conclusions drawn regarding the themes are well linked with the main research question and are justified and coherent. Comments: The student argues that the conclusion of the authors is wrongly described, but fails to provide evidence in the form a quotation with supportive arguments. Additionally, the student argues that the

themes were well linked (contrast with the wrongly described first theme) to the main research question and justified coherently, but fails to explain why. Critique: I found the papers’ results to be the most interesting part of the research. As this part shows quiet some incongruences with prior literature. The fundamental assumption that external assurance is needed for SER to be creditable (AccountAbility 2003; Adams and Evans 2004; Ball et al. 2000; O’Dwyer and Owen 2005) doesn’t hold up. Additionally, except the independence of the auditor, none of the reasons why managers were reluctant to adopt external SERA had been mentioned in earlier studies. This I find very unusual, as SERA’s disadvantages seem evident. At the end, the company is the one that bears the cost for SERA. Furthermore, the process from retrieving the raw interview data to the presented results is unclear. In the second chapter a lot of information and quotations are given on the views of certain CSR representatives on different topics, but afterwards only the managerial preferences on external SERA are quantitatively summarized. Nevertheless, qualitative finding are presented on the other topics. I believe a more detailed description should clarify the indistinctness in regard to the interpretation of the results. Comments: The student provides a clear discussion of why he believes that findings are interesting due to inconsistencies with prior research. Additionally, the student provides a more negative critique regarding the quantitative summary of findings. Although the student provides a short explanation of this critique point, he/she should have elaborated on how a more detailed discussion would have resulted in ‘clarifying the indistinctness’.