Substantial Changes to the Research Paper - Essay Sample

Structure of the Research paper

The research paper needs to be extensively rewritten, so as to provide a logical flow, enabling the reader to see what was done and why. Repetition of research paper parts should be removed; there should be only one literature review section, and only one statement of aims, objectives, research questions and hypotheses. There should be only one chapter of methodology, and this should include a description and justification of all the empirical work of the research paper.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Linking and cross-referencing between parts of the research paper must be improved, so that the reader can see how it all fits together. There should be explicit statements of how each part of the research paper relate to the stated objectives.

The initial descriptions of the subject area refers to various models (see comments below) but little, if anything is made of them in analysis. If they aren't to be used, then they should be removed, or more properly, put within the context of the overall analysis. Models such as Porter's competitive forces model is fine for the purpose it serves in this study, but his value-chain model, although cited in the glossary, is not used and would be appropriate for a process-based understanding of information systems within quality assurance. It is necessary to have a look at other models related to systems and to quality in order to identify any that could be of use. However this should be limited to a number of models that could contribute to the overall analysis and not to provide some interesting diagrams and descriptions.

Quality assurance needs to be attached more closely to official standards, not just assumptions or beliefs about quality measures. International standards can be a framework for this alongside their associated measures that have emerged in through their application (there is journal literature regarding this). A clearer and more categorical analysis would be possible if the empirical findings can be assessed according to tangible criteria and not managers' vague expectations of quality (although those expectations are relevant to the other side of the analysis which is organisational behaviour).

Redundant Material

A considerable amount of material, including appendices, glossary items, methods, conceptual discussion, and conclusions, do not seem to bear direct relation to the research paper work, and seem to have been included for completeness. This is confusing for the reader. Material, which does not have a direct bearing on the research paper work, should be removed. Each part of the analysis and conclusions should relate to the data gathered in this research paper. The relation between objectives and hypotheses should be more clearly and logically set out.

Improved Explanation and Justification

The research paper needs to explain much more clearly, why each method was chosen, what other alternatives were considered and why the alternatives were not chosen. Greater justification of what was done is required in all parts of the research paper.

There should be an explanation of how the literature review was carried out, with a justification of the claim that it was 'exhaustive'.

There should be greater use of formal criteria and of models - which are mentioned but not really applied - to give greater clarity and precision as to what the analysis is trying to achieve and how it is achieving it. The reliance on subjective personal opinion needs to be justified, and if possible augmented by more objective analyses.

The original contribution to research is NOT made clear. The stated original contribution is not really original. It should be clarified that this is an incremental contribution, showing how generally understood ideas about the IS/QA relation are applicable in the context of the Middle East, and of Saudi Arabia in particular. The student might like to consider a paper on a study of the applicability of knowledge management concepts as an analogy:

Dulayami, S. and Robinson, L. (2015) The individual and the collective: factors affecting knowledge sharing in Saudi Arabian companies, Journal of Documentation, 71(1), 198-209.

It should be stated explicitly that the study is carried out in Saudi Arabia, as this has a bearing on the significance and originality of the results.

More explanation should be given of all the sampling process in the various studies, including a better description of, and justification for, random sampling; also, of how the case study company was chosen, and how this related to the so-called 'control' organisations.

An explanation should be given of how the 100% response rate in the main survey was achieved. - page - 231/232

Other Points

Some of the numerical data (eg around page 221) contains serious errors. All numerical data should be checked. - pages - 254, 253

Many of the literature references seem rather old. There should be an updating of the literature background throughout. - across the paper

Specific Issues

Glossary

1. Punctuation short-cuts reduce clarity and should be amended - Across the paper
2. Definitions need to be checked for accuracy and clarity, eg. OLAP, Three-dimensional, Viral marketing, Wireless communications media.- page 87
3. Do not include definitions in the glossary that are not included in the body of the research paperIntroductory content. - Paper has no glossary
4. Information Systems is a term that is only used within the research paper in the context of Information Technology. A definition of Systems, Information Systems and the relationship to Information Technology is necessary. Reference in section - Page 3
5. systems being "inexpensive" needs justification, particularly since later sections of the research paper state the contrary. - page 95
6. The ResearchObjectives in section 1.3.2 are reasonable, but need an additional one to link user needs and acceptability which is a key element of the study - page 7
7. The list of Research Questions could be shortened by removing the initial three since they are general questions and do not need to be questions regarding this specific study beyond standard definitions of quality, quality assurance and forms of it- page 8- initial 3 removed
8. Section 1.5 starts with an unsupported assumption that needs justification although this would be hard since it is probably not the case - page 9
9. Section 2.6.7 needs literature to support the Introduction - page 24/25
10. Section 2.7 appears as little more than standard text-book content. Further academic support is needed for statements and also removal of implication that quality is separate from HR, Finance etc. - page 30/31
11. Section 2.7.1 similarly needs support - page 31
12. Section 2.7.4, 1st para, "Associates" is not in the bibliography and should be added page - 35 added to bibliography and later replaced according to instruction on old reference material

Literature Review (Quality)

1. The chapter starts well with objective statements and alternative perspectives but ends less objectively. Some incisive comments are made concerning received wisdom regarding quality and the need to achieve balance in understanding the role of quality and the potential role of information systems. These positive components need to inform analysis in later chapters. Page - 80
2. The literature review, until p43 is simply statements and not indicative of the significance of themes raised in the literature. The relevance of thematic topics within the literature needs to be more closely related to the subject of the research paper.
3. p45 - Hill has a different date in the bibliography to that in the in-text citation. - page - 51>283

Literature Review IS

1. There is no definition of system or information system despite some cited texts identifying broader definitions, eg. Laudon and Laudon. Although 'system' appears in a fuller sense appears in places, eg. P81, consistency needs to be checked in the use of the term. - page -3
2. Care needed with descriptions, eg. P75 "Main quality system" is actually just a reference to applications, not systems. - page - 79
3. Information Technology for the sake of Information Technology appears as a theme without reference to the benefits of systems. Links need to be made between IT and IS, as noted earlier. Currently Information Systems are assumed to be just ad hoc web or interne actions. -page - 42
4. The analysis of advantages/disadvantages of Information Systems is based on rather dated sources (2001-2003) and similar with web sources. These need updating. Page - 91

Research Methods

1. General justification of method is necessary with a particular focus on the points below:
2. Were other empirical data collection methods considered? Why were other methods eliminated? Statements regarding selection of methods and tools need clarification and elaboration. - page - 121
3. The description of sample selection needs to be more precise. For example, p108-110 and 114 how was sample chosen for main survey. Currently types of organisation are listed, but not stratification of organisational type or staff role. The statement on p114 about Chambers ofCommerce etc. is not enough and should have appeared earlier. - page - 123
4. Note that some explanation in chapter 3 (p103 and thereabouts), but completely to be restructured. (3.1.3) - page - 110
5. Greater clarity is needed about how a pilot study was conducted, including justification of selection of pilot respondents, based on number and stratification. - page - 129
6. Section 3.1.2 includes an inadequate literature search strategy. In view of the fact that other literature reviews are included in the research paper, a composite strategy regarding sources of metadata used and key terms, is necessary unless a justification can be provided for the apparent multiple studies. - page - 109
7. Further explanation is needed as to how 500 respondents were selected from 674 for the subsequent study? - page - 123
8. Case study' is possibly used as synonym for multi-institute study and needs clarification regarding distinctions, - page 136
9. On p104 there is reference for a second time to a 360 degree study but no explanation as to what a study described in that way constitutes. How is it different from a 270 degree study, or other proportion? How do the methods enable a 360 degree study? It is difficult to justify describing any study as all-encompassing, so avoiding that term would be a good idea. Page - 28/29
10. The description of statistical tests is confused and needs categorisation by test type and function. On p109 there is a reasonable explanation for use of the tests, but this relates to a different part of the study. Tabulation of test title, type and function would clarify this. - page 116/117
11. The statement regarding selection of Mibco on p123 is insufficient. Justification for use of this organisation needs clarification. Page 136

Result findings

1. p173 - the figures do not indicate that all staff are conscious of the Quality Assurance Systems since the mean values could be skewed, unless you have additional data that is not included in the current text, eg. questionnaire total. - page - 192
2. p177, section 4.4.4 - "internet within the internal organisation" - do you mean, "intranet"? If so, this needs correcting; if not then the current text needs clarification. On the same points, where are the data that apparently analysed? They don't appear in existing tables. What is the "consensus"? There doesn't seem to be one. All variables need checking to ensure that values in the text have a source that appears in one or more tables. - page 197