ClaiMaker : weaving a semantic web of research papers

The usability of research papers on the Web would be enhanced by a system that explicitly modelled the rhetorical relations between claims in related papers. We describe ClaiMaker, a system for modelling readers’ interpretations of the core content of papers. ClaiMaker provides tools to build a Semantic Web representation of the claims in research papers using an ontology of relations. We demonstrate how the system can be used to make inter-document queries.

Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews:A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2007.

Author-itative interpretation in understanding accounting practice through case research

The way interviews are used in accounting research, and the way this research is written up, suggests that there is only one way to interpret these interviews. This invests the author(s) with great perceptive power and storytelling ability. What if different assumptions are used about how to interpret research, and how to present the ensuing findings? We give an illustration of what this might imply, using the notion of 'reflexivity'. The setting for our illustration concerns a series of interviews with management accountants on the dilemmas they face in their daily work. We apply Alvesson's ideas on how to use metaphors to open up the interpretation of interview accounts. The aim of the paper is to shed a different light on the way interviews can be used and interpreted in accounting research. We assert that allowing for reflexive accounts is likely to require substantially differently written research papers, in which the process of discovery is emphasized. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus? An investigation of the research-practice gap in management accounting

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to identify and gain insights into the significance of barriers contributing to the purported "gap" between academic management accounting research and practice. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on diffusion of innovations theory, this study collects and analyses data from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with 19 representatives of the four principal professional accounting bodies in Australia. Findings: Professional accounting bodies perceive the gap between academic research and practice in management accounting to be of limited concern to practitioners. The two most significant barriers to research utilisation by practitioners are identified as: difficulties in understanding academic research papers; and limited access to research findings. In acting as a conduit between the worlds of academia and practice, professional bodies have an important role to play by demonstrating the mutual value to both academics and practitioners resulting from a closer engagement between MA research and practice. Research limitations/implications: As one of the few empirically-based, theoretically informed investigations exploring the research-practice gap in management accounting, this study provides insights rather than "answers". Its findings therefore serve as a foundational basis for further empirical and theoretical enquiry. Originality/value: This study contributes to the conversation about the "research-practice gap" in management accounting by adopting a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyse and interpret empirical evidence obtained from Australian professional accounting bodies about management accounting practice. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.