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

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

!1

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/tr

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

!2

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.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

!3