Quality & Quantity

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 257–274 | Cite as

Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences

  • Sanne AkkermanEmail author
  • Wilfried Admiraal
  • Mieke Brekelmans
  • Heinze Oost


A growing body of studies involves complex research processes facing many interpretations and iterations during the analyses. Complex research generally has an explorative in-depth qualitative nature. Because these studies rely less on standardized procedures of data gathering and analysis, it is often not clear how quality was insured or assured. However, one can not easily find techniques that are suitable for such complex research processes to assess the quality of the study. In this paper, we discuss and present a suitable validation procedure. We first discuss how ‘diagnosing’ quality involves three generic criteria. Next, we present findings of previous research in possible procedures to assure the quality of research in social sciences. We introduce the audit procedure designed by Halpern [(1983) Auditing Naturalistic Inquiries: The Development and Application of a Model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University] we found an appropriate starting point for a suitable procedure for quality judgment. Subsequently, we will present a redesign of the original procedure, with according guidelines for the researcher (the auditee) and for the evaluator of the quality of the study (the auditor). With that design, we aim to enable researchers to bring forward their explorative qualitative studies as stronger and more equally valuable to studies that can rely on standardized procedures.


Audit quality procedure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Driessen C.M.M. (2003). Analyzing Textbook Tasks and the Professional Development of Foreign Language Teachers. Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Funke J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex systems. In: Sternberg R., Frensch P. (eds). Complex Solving – Principles and Mechanisms. Hillsdale, Lawrence Associates, pp. 185–222Google Scholar
  3. Funder D.C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review 102:652–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guba E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29:75–91Google Scholar
  5. Halpern E.S. (1983). Auditing Naturalistic Inquiries: The Development and Application of a Model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  6. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, SageGoogle Scholar
  7. Middleton H. (2002). Complex problem solving in a workplace setting. International Journal of Educational Research 37(1):67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller, D. L. (1997). One Strategy for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Research: Operationalizing the External Audit. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  9. Rodgers B.L., Cowles K.V. (1993). The qualitative research audit trail: a complex collection of documentation. Research in Nursing and Health 16:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sale J.E.M., Brazil K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity 38:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schwandt T.A., Halpern E.S. (1988). Linking Auditing and Metaevaluation: Enhancing Quality in Applied Research. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage Publications IncGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanne Akkerman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wilfried Admiraal
    • 2
  • Mieke Brekelmans
    • 1
  • Heinze Oost
    • 1
  1. 1.IVLOS Institute of EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Graduate School for Teaching and LearningUnversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations