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.
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.
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.
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.
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 studentsPlace Your Order