article review

Flavia Stoian EDU-RES June 12, 2014 !!

Quantitative Research Methods Assignment B

Article Review Measurement of intellectual capital components through activity reports of companies

Authors: Sebahattin Yldz, Cebrail Meydanb, Mehmet Gnerc

!!!

The Abstract

The Abstract of the article is very succinct and direct, summarizing the purpose, the

method and the findings in a few sentences, making it very approachable and comprehensible.

There are no discrepancies between the information comprised in the abstract and the rest of the

paper, however, the simplicity of the formulation sets a dry tone for the rest of the paper.

!The Introduction

The introduction refers to the previous studies that marked the beginning of research for

this specific topic, assessing the relevance of the article in the context of a long lasting

controversial debate concerning the disclosure of Intellectual Capital (IC). Concise and objective,

the introduction defines the purpose and the aim of the research, narrowing down the previously

mentioned global context to Turkey, the place where the research took place. Also, the

introduction helps the reader to accommodate key concepts regarding IC, important for the

banking environment as being the subject of the study.

The research has well defined hypothesis but that does not add much to the originality of

the paper as the conclusions are rather intuitive and they just add up to the general known line of

entrepreneurial behavior concerning the disclosure of IC. The study is based on collaborative

data with three banks from Turkey belonging to 3 different sectors - private, public and

!1QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

participation) and it aims to measure and compare the importance that these three subjects grant

to IC in their reporting forms.

The Literature Review

The authors provide a comprehensive and appropriate long list of literature review which

was used to set the paradigm that supports the endeavor of the study.

The Methods Section

The data is very clearly described. i cannot help to think that the source of the information

is rather scarce and that simplified by a lot the easiness of approaching the data. The methods

are clearly outlined and could be replicated easily. On the other hand, the authors provide with

no justification for such a small sample of data, neither for the method chosen to disseminate the

information but the framework of data usage is supported by various scientific reference.

Theres no motivation concerning the limitations of the population and the sample of the

study which is a bit striking, taking in account the space where the study took place: in Turkey

there are 49 banks as of May 2013: 3 public deposit, 11 private deposit, 16 foreign deposit, 4

public investment, 5 private investment, 4 foreign investment, 4 participation banks and 2 banks

under the supervision of the TMSF. 1

The target population was defined in terms of elements (the banks), the sampling unit (what

kind of banks, public, private and participation), the time of reference (2007-2011) and the

geographical boundaries (Turkey). The authors used judgmental sampling and I consider the

downsides of this specific type of sampling being emphasized by the minimum sample size they

have selected.

There is a great possibility that the study should contain sampling errors due to the fact that

there cannot be any comparison drawn between the similar results obtained after studying the

financial results of the banks, therefore, specific observations can be easily mistaken with patterns

of behavior. On the other hand, the process of data acquisition is not disclosed.

The only method used for this research is content analysis. I consider - for the purpose of

the research, aiming for information concerning very volatile and confidential insights of the

entities regarding IC - that it would have been appropriate to use qualitative research tools,

moreover as the sample was very narrow, which limits their weaknesses.


http://www.tbb.org.tr/tr1

The authors not only that they did not use polyvalent methods but they chose just one, the

most objective but also the least insightful and relevant: content analysis. No questionnaires were

hurt during this research.

First of all, there is no mentioning about the reliability of the information provided to the

researcher. Are the three banks making continuous efforts into identifying and evaluating their IC

structure? Do they implement bylaws or policies to disclose IC elements? Are they biased towards

a specific element of IC and if so, why?

Secondly, there is no information about the form of the information? Are the banks

presenting an IC statement and what is the procedure of presenting and reporting that to the

users of financial statements?

The involvement of the researchers was kept to bare minimum, if any at all, leaving their

conclusions objective and unaffected by biases, making this study a true bearer of the positivism

flag which - taking into account the subject at stake here - in my opinion plateaued out the

purpose of the research.

The Results Section

The results are very clearly explained, laid out neatly in tables, for each bank separately.

The results are reasonable, well behaved and predictable as the alphabet. No dissonance between

this stage and any other.

The Discussion Section

The article lacks a discussion section, the authors presenting their conclusions, stating that

their hypothesis was verified, and that is that the banks tend to disclose more of their IC over

time and that most of the IC revealed belongs to the customer capital. The most prone bank to

reveal its IC elements is the privately held one.

The findings are not compared with anything else and the results are the ones expected and

justified by the results found in the study.


article review

Documents