Understanding cultural differences between researchers and decisionmakers. Addressing ethical, legal, or social implications ELSI of a research report.
The few initial articles that had been reviewed before the key themes emerged were re-reviewed to specifically identify key themes. A third reviewer read all of the articles deemed relevant by the two primary reviewers and resolved any disagreements about the relevance of a given article. In addition, to address the goal of understanding the technical aspects of developing an SOW, a standard text entitled Delivering Project Excellence with the Statement of Work by Michael G.
Martin 2 was read by one reviewer, who provided the other two reviewers with a written summary. This book describes the development of a successful statement of work from a management perspective.
Information gathered from this text provided a foundation for thinking about statements of work. Other books from project management, 3 — 7 risk analysis, 8 business, 9 government contracting, 10 — 13 and qualitative analysis, 14 — 16 were used for background information, and written summaries of the relevant information were shared with all reviewers.
In reviewing the literature, we concluded that the major themes were conceptually similar to those uncovered in the informant interview, although they were perhaps articulated a bit differently.
Indeed, we were able to regroup the 11 themes above into the three areas covered by the informant interview: Thus, for simplicity of exposition, we focus here on specific insights proposed in the literature linked to each of the three themes.
The differences between researchers and decisionmakers are manifest in multiple fundamental ways, ranging from the way they choose to craft questions as researchable bites vs. Decisionmakers have frequent, absolute deadlines; if a report is not available for a meeting at which a decision is made, it is useless.
Assuming that researchers and policymakers articulate key questions in researchable form, and bridge misunderstandings during project development, cultural differences may still sabotage the final product. Lomas points out that researchers and decisionmakers tend to connect more frequently at the end of a research project, when trying to generate a final product. Different professional cultures generate different visions of the end product. Sorian and Baugh's survey of State government decisionmakers revealed that aides to decisionmakers may read longer evidence reports, but decisionmakers often need shorter, simpler end products than researchers envision.
The literature supports the notion of approaching cultural differences through active education and integration. Many studies advocated communication between researchers and decisionmakers as early as possible, even during the proposal stage. Looking Beyond Health is that researchers should ask about the policy implications of the questions they are considering, if they are not explicitly told.
In addition to concerns raised in the Step 1 interviews, the literature provided additional insight into strategic concerns. As a measure of what resources such work might require, a study of applied research organizations in Canada revealed that on average, 14 percent of organizational budget went to knowledge transfer. One strategic determinant of a successful technical report is clear definition of roles and responsibilities.
As described by Ross et al. A related issue is the importance of establishing the operational definition of non-normativity. Typically, EPC reports are intended to inform, not direct, policy.
Sorian and Baugh's survey of State government decisionmakers revealed that decisionmakers want to see potential implications of various decisions within evidence reports, but not researcher opinion.
Two crucial resource issues are accounting for project costs when the true costs are not known until work begins, and adjusting funding to account for changes in project scope, as when new issues become apparent.
One issue raised in the literature is the critical importance of the due diligence phase. It is customary to pay contractors during the due diligence phase. A contracting concept relevant to the production of policy reports is that of the relational contract. Relational contract theory suggests that current Federal contracting practices overemphasize fixed-pricing and bottom line price competition.
The SOO formally requires parties to work together to define the contractual requirements. Third, the partner or knowledge broker would conduct an initial competition. The next stage is to use the internet, and this is where the difficulties begin. It can be helpful to structure your internet research as if it were conducted on paper.
The easiest way is to scan the work, using the abstract and introduction as guides. This helps to eliminate the non-relevant work and also some of the lower quality research. If it sets off alarm bells, there may be something wrong, and the paper is probably of a low quality. But be very careful not to fall into the trap of rejecting research just because it conflicts with your hypothesis. Failure to do this will completely invalidate the literature review and potentially undermine the research project.
Any research that may be relevant should be moved to the shortlist folder. The next stage is to critically evaluate the paper and decide if the research is sufficient quality. Think about it this way: A smaller number of quality sources is far preferable than a long but irrelevant list.
Check into the credentials of any source which you rely on heavily for the literature review. The reputation of the University or organization is a factor, as is the experience of the researcher. If their name keeps cropping up, and they have written many papers, the source is probably OK. Good research should have been replicated by other independent researchers, with similar results, showing that the information is fairly safe to use.
If the process is proving to be difficult and in some fields like medicine and environmental research, there is a lot of poor science do not be afraid to ask a supervisor for advice. They should know some trustworthy sources to look at. It may be a little extra work for them, but there will be even more work if they have to tear apart a review because it is built on shaky evidence.
Conducting a good literature review takes patience and is a matter of practice. Take solace that even the best scientists can fall into the trap of using poor evidence.
If your research program is well constructed, a less-than-perfect literature review will not affect the results. Check out our quiz-page with tests about:. Martyn Shuttleworth Sep 16, What is a Literature Review?. Retrieved Sep 13, from Explorable. The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4. You can use it freely with some kind of link , and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations with clear attribution.
How to Write an Introduction. Want the full version to study at home, take to school or just scribble on? Whether you are an academic novice, or you simply want to brush up your skills, this book will take your academic writing skills to the next level. Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.
A literature review is a “critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature.
literature review As part of the planning process you should have done a LITERATURE REVIEW, which is a survey of important articles, books and other sources pertaining to your research topic. Now, for the second main section of your research report you need to write a summary of the main studies and research related to your topic.
Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. Literature review as a research method T Methods for Software Engineering Varvana Myllärniemi, [email protected] 1. Overview of this lecture • Literature review as a research methodology in software engineering • Conducting the literature review Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2),
Integrative literature review reviews, critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are eroticlesbian.ml your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option. Sources for the literature and examples. Your literature review should integrate a wide range of sources such as: eroticlesbian.mloks remain as the most important source to find models and theories related to the research .