Case study Analysis

Question: Case study Analysis

Answer: 

1. a. It is of crucial importance to have a clear focus and a well-formulated review question because; the narrow and more specific the focus will be, the more accurate will be the findings (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Keeping a large focus, would make it difficult for one individual to pursue the topic in a limited time frame, and those results in inadequate analysis and research. Having a specific well-formulated research question helps the researcher to exactly unearth the information which he intends to do by conducting a research in the first place. 
1. b. A broad focus results in unclear research objectives and can misguide the subsequent stages of the research. Having a broad focus lets the researcher not concentrate on a specific aspect, which eventually does not serve the purpose of the researcher (Creswel, 2013). Also, broad focuses make it impossible for a single researcher to actively analyze all the published work as that goes beyond the scope of the assignment. On the other hand, if the focus is very narrow, then chances are that enough information will not be available, as the number of studies conducted on such a narrow topic is very minimal. 
1. c. It was important for Emmannuel to edit his review question, as the first review question had a very broad focus and that resulted in a huge bulk of published work, which was not possible for Emmannuel to analyze. Therefore with a changed and more specific focus, Emmannuel changed the review question and that helped him obtain adequate relevant work on the topic. He focused on the specific understanding of the role of investigations / enquiries and wanted to understand how they inhibit or facilitate the organizational change post a major industrial accident. Previously, Emmannuel was looking for disaster accidents which also included natural disasters, which are of different nature from organizational industrial accidents. Hence, changing of the review question helped Emmannuel to gain focus and become more relevant with his main intention. 
2. a. The key advantages of being systematic in approach are – it helps in following a logical flow in the work, i.e., systematic approach helps in a thorough and chronologically based analysis of things and through this any miss – out or overlooking is reduced to the maximum (Choy, 2014). Systematic approach also helps in managing time effectively, and hence, work is done in a calm and timely fashion. 
    Systematic review on the other hand, leads to overdependence on what the published literature focuses and often lets the reader forget about her/ his own ideas. Systematic approach also requires a self-discipline, and this becomes a tough task for researchers whose nature is not similar.  
2. b. Being critical in one’s approach helps in an in depth analysis of the work that the researcher has set out to do (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorensen, 2009). Reading carefully what the experts have opined and trying to find the gaps between different researches, how they have approached the topic, whether they have answered the main research question and coupled with one’s own creative approach of problem solving gives rise to the most efficient and exhaustive answer to the problem. Bring critical is similar to team brainstorming of options and adding one’s own opinion to it to get the most valuable outcome. 
    Being overly critical again has its downfall. If it is done in great detail, then the final work would cease to be a value-added task and remain only a detailed post-publishing critique (Babbie & Rubin, 2010). Hence, balance should be present when being critical in one’s approach. 
2. c. Emmanuel effectively remained systematic as well as critical in his approach. He had initially systematically approached the literature, and hence he did detailed research on what was already available based on which he wrote the findings. However, when he critiqued the literature, he found inconsistencies, contradictory studies, weaknesses, gaps in the research which he presented along with his own ideas about how to approach the research problem. This created a work, which was not only thorough in its approach, but a right amalgamation of both systematic and critical, and had its own ideas and strategies mentioned which came from Emmannuel. The discussion segment which Emmannuel added post Findings, helped the study become balanced – as it touched both the historical published documents and presented new creative ideas of Emmanual. 
3. The deepwater horizon explosion of the drilling rig, occurred in 2010, and set explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit or the MODU. This resulted in sinking of the submersible and 11 workers were dead with 17 being gravely injured. This explosion also resulted in a significant oil spill (Zeller, 2010). This is a typical industrial accident and was thoroughly investigated into. The classification of this incident falls in the purview of Emmannuel’s dissertation’s topic – of analyzing the role of investigations / public enquiries on facilitating or hindering the organization change and learning after major industrial accidents. 
    The Deepwater Rig explosion was a major industrial accident leading to loss in all quarters. Investigations were carried out on it and identified a host of risk areas which were not taken care by the company and issues. Hence, the systematic literature review which Emmannuel conducted for his research paper can be applied as the topics are relevant. He can use the findings of the paper, and to understand the manner in which earlier industrial accidents resulted in learning and change of an organization. He can look into the case of Deep Water Horizon, and conduct a primary research – both quantitative on the employees and qualitative on the top management officials of the company and derive primary data. Thus he can then aim to collate his findings with the secondary research (literature review) findings and come to the conclusion of the case study and present his final discussion. This is how, Emmannuel can use his findings and literature review critique and apply it on his new case study venture. 

Bibliography

Ary, D., Jacobs, C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2009). Introduction to Research in Education. Cengage Learning: UK.
Babbie, E., & Rubin, A. (2010). Research methods for social work. USA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Choy, T. (2014). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Research Methodology: Comparison and Complimentary between Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 19 (4), 99-104.
Creswel, W. (2013). Research Design. US: Social Science.
Zeller, T. (2010). Estimates Suggest Spill is Biggest in US History. NYC: New York Times.

 

Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now

We have some amazing discount offers running for the students

Place Your Order

 

Get Quality Assignment Without Paying Upfront

Hire World's #1 Assignment Help Company

Place Your Order