Response Paper

ResponsePaper

ResponsePaper

Question6q1mb

Inorder to develop the material for this research, I drew from theworks of Surjandari, Dhini, Wibisana, and ImpolaLumbantobing (2015).Surjandari et al. (2015) explained that the purpose of their researchwas to develop data that would be easier to search due to anoverabundance of material. The problem they noted was one thatcreated issues with data mining, and especially those conductingtraditional research methods. Therefore, Surjandari et al. (2015)suggested that one way in which to resolve this issue and producebetter results was to incorporate specific technology resources toanalyze similarities with other words.&nbspThey proposed thatthis research could be successfully accomplished through creating keywords as a result of quantitative methods. Surjandari et al. (2015)explained that co-word analysis is one of the most useful tools todrawing out the resources for content similarity. Through their usageof technology, they demonstrated how interrelationship amongco-occurrence frequency of word/phrase pairs could exist.&nbspWhatsuccesses and challenges did you experience?One area consideredto be a success for this paper drew from the works of Anagnostopoulosand Bason (2015). Their research highlighted how the concept ofmapping could be used to discover themes and sub themes, whileco-words were pointed out as noted in the research by Surjandari etal. (2015). I incorporated both techniques to identify my topics,then expound on them when there was not sufficient data for theresearch. Some of the challenges for this paper occurred during thecollection of the data. I found myself looking at documents that wereeither irrelevant or not close enough to the main topic of theresearch. This issue created countlesshours of wasted time evaluating research unrelated to the intendedtopic.&nbsp

Response

Itis true that research centers must identify their main themes ofresearch and their subject relationships. The rapid increase ofscientific publications has generated several data issues.Traditional methods are unable to distinguish the major subject andits linkages during data mining. However,it is true that using the co-word analysis helps one to discover therelationship amongst research themes regarding the co-occurrencefrequency of different pairs of phrases or words. Co-word analysisrefers to a bibliometric method applied in the creation of ascientific atlas and allied issues. Muñoz-Leiva,María, Juan, and Antonio (2012) define the strategy as adata mining technique that locates themes in several documents. Thestrategy mines words, standardize vocabulary, and builds matrix usingword co-occurrences. Therefore, using co-word analysis can identifythe trend in the development of research them and determine theprospective research plans. Although the works of Cobo et al.(2012) and Surjandari et al. (2015) help readers to use mapping andco-word analysis to discover themes and sub-themes respectively,one may find it hard to gather the collect information. It is truethat some people look at irrelevant documents that are far from theirmain research topics, hence, resulting in time wastage. Therefore, itis important to be keen when performing theme and sub-theme mapping.At the same time, using quantitative methods to introduce key wordsprovides better research.

Question6q2nw

Whatquestions do you have regarding the structure and development of theliterature review?Iknow that within the literature review we are required to includeorganization theories. Are these theories essentially the hypothesisbeing inside the paper itself? Is historical information is neededand do references aimed at this information need to be within thelast five years? The structure itself is very perplexing. I have andunderstanding of how the introduction speaks about what the study isgoing to cover, but how is the remaining of the review organized? Icould actually use some clarification as to the order in whichdifferent parts of the dissertation should appear. For example, somestudies that I have explored while doing the literature review drafthad the research questions and findings in the abstract. Some studieshad research questions in the literature review and again in thediscussion and/or conclusion. Is there a standard that outlines whenvarious components of the research should appear or does it solelydepend on the topic being discussed? As I have struggled with thesequestions, I have searched various sites that might offer assistance.Here is an easy read on tips in preparing to write a literaturereview

Response

Itis true that some literature reviews include organizational theories.However, it is advisable to use updated references that fall withinthe last five years. The general literature review follows aparticular structure. The first part of a literature review is theintroduction section (Rozas and Klein, 2010). The introductionsection explains the reason for writing that review and theimportance of the topic. Chatha and Butt (2015) maintain that thesection discusses the scope of the study or the aspects of thatsubject. It also identifies the criteria utilized for the literatureselection, such as the data range or the types of sources applied.The second part of any literature review is the body paragraphs.Maier (2013) and Rozas and Klein (2010) agree that the paragraphsinclude the historical background, methodologies, previous studies onthe relevant topic, conventional vs. alternative standpoints, majorquestion being solicited, and the general conclusions being drawn.The third section of any literature review is the conclusion part.This section includes the literature’s major agreements andvariances, areas or gaps requiring additional research, and one’soverall viewpoint on the theme under study (Pautasso, 2013).

References

Chatha,K.A &amp Butt, I. (2015). Themes of Study in Manufacturing StrategyLiterature. InternationalJournal of Operations &amp Production Management,35(4): 604 – 698

Cobo,M., Herrera, A.L., Viedma, E.H., &amp Herrera, F., 2012. SciMAT: ANew Science Mapping Analysis Software Tool. AmericanSociety for Information Science and Technology,63(8): 1600-1630.

Maier,H. R. (2013). WhatConstitutes a Good Literature Review and why does its Quality Matter?EnvironModel Softw,43:3–4.

Muñoz-Leiva,F., María, I., Juan, S., &amp Antonio,&nbspG. (2012). AnApplication of Co-Word Analysis and Bibliometric Maps for Detectingthe Most Highlighting Themes in the Consumer Behaviour Research froma Longitudinal Perspective. Quality and Quantity,46(4):1077-1095.

Pautasso,M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoSComput Biol,9(7): 1-9.

Rozas,L.W. &amp Klein, W.C. (2010). The Value and Purpose of theTraditional Qualitative Literature Review. Journalof Evidence-Based Social Work,7(5), 382-399.

Surjandari,I., Dhini, A., Nurman, W., Esther, W., &amp Impola, L. (2010).University Research Theme Mapping: A Co-word Analysis of ScientificPublications. IndustrialEngineering,6(3):