Undertaking a Structured Literature Review by Armitages and Keeble-Allen - Essay Example

Undertaking a structured Literature Review or Structuring a Literature Review, Tales from the Field Article Critique Introduction Armitage’s and Keeble-Allen’s (2008) article “Undertaking a structured Literature Review or Structuring a Literature Review, Tales from the Field”, highlights the difficulties experienced by graduate and masters students as they apply the Structured Literature Review (SLR). The two researchers claim that the Rapid Structured Literature Review (RSLR) is a better alternative for students when handling research projects. The alternative is suitable especially when it comes to handling small scale research projects. About the Authors Dr Diane Keeble-Ramsay is a lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, a qualified psychologist with great experience in the subjects of employee wellbeing and progressive education Anglia Ruskin University (2011). Dr Andrew Armitage is also a senior lecturer in the same university as noted by Lord Ashcroft International Business (2012). The study conducted by the two researchers relies on a number of credible secondary sources for the literature review. The primary data on the other hand was gathered from the field with a sample of four master students. The methodology applied by the researchers is credible in that it abides by established methods of research. In particular, the researchers relied on unstructured interviews to gather primary data from the sample during their supervisory sessions. Critique of the Evidence Used During research, it is normally in order to use a in some cases, especially if the population under study is extremely high or when associated costs of conducting the study are extremely high (Patton 2002). While the researchers used a small sample in conducting their study, it is beyond doubt that the evidence used was adequate and accurate. The data from the unstructured interviews with master students was adequate and is representative of what other students encounter while conducting their studies at the undergraduate and master levels. The study also –provides evidence based on 18 secondary sources that are recent (from 1995 to-date), credible and authored by authoritative sources. From the literature review conducted by the two researchers, the process of conducting a scientific study is highlighted. The need for a systematic methodology when conducting a study is underscored by the researchers. Yet again, the application and credibility of qualitative research methods is briefly highlighted by the researchers. Armitage’s and Keeble-Allen’s (2008) appreciate the use of realist synthesis, narrative synthesis and meta-ethnography during research studies in recent times. The researchers also highlight the differences between the traditional and SLR approaches to literature review citing more advantages with respect to the latter. They, however, note that SLR is contentious in practice and in consideration of social policy. The arguments used by the researchers are logical as they build upon one another in a systematic manner. Different points of view are considered in making judgements and conclusions in line with international research standards. Both the positive and negative sides of the SLR are considered in light of professional reviews are presented in the article without any glaring bias. It is, therefore, noted from the literature review that care is taken to avoid any form of bias during the study. Counter-arguments are considered in respect of SLR as noted above. While the study highlights the methodology used by the two authors in conducting the study, much detail is not presented. Furthermore, how the data was analysed remains a mystery to the audience in as much as qualitative data was used. One other question that comes to the fore is in regard to the ethical considerations applied during the study. The researchers do not state the ethical considerations that they applied or how they overcame ethical issues that may have arisen during the study in as much as participant privacy seems to have been respected. The currency of any study impacts its practicability with the passage of time. The study conducted by Armitage’s and Keeble-Allen’s was done in 2008 and is well within the limit of time to be considered current. As such, the conclusions and findings of the study remain practical and credible today as they were when initially published about four years ago. While the study is conducted based on scientific methods, the sample size of four is quite small and could impact on the universality of the research. One assumption that applies to the study conducted by the two authors is that the difficulties faced by four students apply to most students under similar conditions. The universality of the conclusions or findings comes to question especially considering that the small sample size used. Furthermore, the researchers fail to state which method(s) they used in selecting their sample. Yet again, the researchers fail to state exactly where their sample is drawn from. This should never have been the case taking it into consideration that there exist inherent differences in learning institutions and disparities may be caused by difference in geographic locations. A larger sample size would best have been used, the sample being drawn from different universities across the country or continent. If this was done, the results of the study would apply universally to a greater extent. Conclusion Armitage’s and Keeble-Allen’s (2008) article in relation to SLR and RSLR is unbiased, credible, authoritative and up-to-date. The two authors are senior lecturers from a reputable learning institution which assures the authoritativeness of the study. The study which was aimed at establishing the unsuitability of the structured literature review at the master and undergraduate levels proves its point logically using both primary and secondary data. The study rightly suggests a better alternative to the method in the name of Rapid Structured Literature Review (RSLR) while insisting that SLR remains practical for small scale projects at the undergraduate and master levels. According to the researchers, RSLR, although more directive compared to its counterparts, is richer and more fulfilling to students at these levels. It may be stated with all confidence that the objective of the study was achieved given that the SLR approach was evaluated and a better alternative postulated. In general, the study was a success and the findings may be applied in overcoming the shortcomings of the SLR approach. Reference Anglia Ruskin University (2011) Dr Diane Keeble-Ramsay http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/faculties/aibs/staff_profiles/all_staff/keebleramsay.html [Accessed 29 January, 2012] Armitage A. and Keeble-Allen D. (2008) “Undertaking a structured Literature Review or Structuring a Literature Review, Tales from the Field”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol 6 No. 2, pp 103-114. Lord Ashcroft International Business School (2012) Dr Andrew Armitage, http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/faculties/aibs/staff_profiles/all_staff/andrew_armitage.html [Accessed 29 January, 2012] Patton M.  (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edition), Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications. Read More