Research Methodology and Research Design - Literature review Example

Literature Review Article Analysis Name Course Code Course Instructor Date The literature review section in Pang’s et al. (2014, p.98-100) can be critically analysed using Locke & Golden-Biddle’s (1997, p1023-1062) guide. The guide is used to establish how Pang’s et al. (2014, p.98-100) opted to use some rhetorical practices and present their literature. Additionally, the guide provides a framework to determine the gaps the author’s literature. Rhetoric practices Consistent with Locke & Golden-Biddle’s (1997, p1024) idea of rhetoric practices, Pang et al. (2014, p.98) starts off his review of literature by constructing three consensual positions among researchers to explain why people become more aware when information on a crisis is passed through the media. In their attempt to construct prevailing research stances, Pang et al. (2014, p.98) cited Siah et al. (2010) and Ho et al. (2011), who had argued that social media enables information on a crises to be spread further, as the Internet allows news to penetrate a wider audience exponentially. Next, they also argued that the social media are largely diffused, have a high penetration rate and content is easily spread. Lastly, they opined that the social media have low-entry barriers, making them accessible virtually to all internet users. These key stances contribute to the significance of social media in communication during a crisis. To explore the relationship between the social media and speedy communication during a crisis, Pang et al. (2014, p.100) considered reviewing articles based on their arguments, as well as originality. The issue of originality, therefore, is acknowledged by the author. For instance, while exploring how social media emerged as a tool for crisis escalation, the authors’ attempt to acknowledge originality of the sources they used is observed. They preferred to cite original peer-reviewed sources with no questionable originality. Pang’s et al. (2014, p.97) literature review preferred using reliable, valid, and original sources, such as studies that directly studied 2009 Iranian elections, Iran’s Twitter Revolution in 2011 and Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. In their view of originality, Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1029) explained that among the most significant indicators of originality is how a reviewer rates evidences based on their originality. In which case, reviews of literature that does not use original manuscripts could be termed as weak. In conducting a review of literature, it is also clear that Pang et al. (2014, P.98-100) handpicked related research articles to bring about what Locke & Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1030) terms as progressive coherence. In particular, Locke & Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1030) pointed to progressive coherence as a situation where a network of researchers who work in different domains or fields of research are linked by similar theoretical perspectives. For instance, in Pang’s et al. (2014, P.98-100) article, the research articles reviewed were selected from related works of researchers who shared similar perspectives. For instance, the authors cited several scholars with similar perspectives on how organisations manage new media crises. From the scholars cited, there was a clear indication that they agreed that social-mediated crisis communication model was particularly effective in communicating during a crisis. The trend prevailed among non-profit, profit organisations and public organisations. As a result, Pang’ et al. (2014, P.98-100), in their review of literature attempts to construct consensus among the investigated studies to show cumulative progress in the area of study. However, they failed to show the time or period that the researchers dedicated to exploring the domain of the study. Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1035) show the strength of literature reviewed to be anchored in three key rhetorical practices. The time dedicated to the domain, which may be indicated by use of terms like “researchers have ‘traditionally’” focused, or “Recently, it has been argued.” The second aspect consists of serialization of studies or a set of studies that put forward external factors studies and sense-making studies to bring about a feeling of progress in studying causes of a phenomenon, and the idea that a relationship exists among certain unique values, or novelties. Pang et al. (2014, p.99) further attempted to depict growth in cumulative knowledge regarding the relationship between the social media and the mainstream media in crisis management. An example of cumulative knowledge is where Pang et al. (2014, p.98) shows that a strand of studies agree that mainstream new outlets do not often adhere to the news that emerge through the social media platforms. They cite several studies, including one by Silver (2011), which studies the use of social media during the Occupy Wall Street protests, where it was established that although social media platforms consistently cover the entire events in the protests, the mainstream media did not cover the event. Afterwards, Pang et al. (2014, p.98) discusses how other scholars like George (2012, p. 179) agree with the idea and further explains journalists in the mainstream media tend to verify information with many sources and only use relevant information that can carry the news professionally. Presentation of literature In respect to presentation of literature review, Pang et al (2014, P.98-100) shows that contribution of their research is socially constructed, and, therefore, attempt to develop valid claims made by other scholars to pass knowledge they hope an academic audience would find useful. Pang’s et al (2014, P.98-100) shows that scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Indeed, his review of scholarly work by different researcher shows that knowledge is inseparable from the knower, as its content is a consequence of social interactions and practices who strive to make meaning out of their research. This is shown when Pang’s et al. (2014, p.100) selects articles for his review that attempted to link social media with crisis communication, as well as a society and the authors who contributed to the knowledge. For instance, they cited knowledge claims by Silver (2011), a scholar, who gather knowledge from an American society during the Occupy Wall Street protests to explain how social media became meaningful for passing information on how protestors clashed with the police. According to Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1026), the meaning of contribution comes not from presenting facts, but from developing honest claims to pass knowledge targeted at academic audiences and to ensure that the audience perceives a phenomenon in a particular way. In their view, scientific knowledge is socially constructed even as the agency of research contribution is through texts. Therefore, Pang’s et al (2014, p.100) cited Silver’s (2011) contribution to scientific knowledge, linking him to his research on an American society. In turn, this shows that his research content is a consequence of social interactions and practices. In which case, Pang’s et al. (2014, P.98-100) presentation acknowledges that the world is made up of facts, and that the knowledge has a profound goal of providing literal account of the world plainly. Gaps in literature Gaps in Pang’s et al. (2014, P.98-100) literature review can also be determined using Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997, p. 1023-1062) guide. Despite the apparent strengths discussed above, Pang’s et al. (2014, P.98-100) literature review has certain gaps. They seem to have overlooked the significance of using noncoherent intertextual fields. In their view of the concept of noncoherence Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997, p.1038) observed that in noncoherent intertextual fields, reviewed articles should be presented as fitting in a common research program yet also linked by a considerable degree of disagreements. Indeed, Pang’s et al (2014, P.98-100) key weakness is that they elected to solely use articles whose construction of consensus is related. A major disadvantage of such an attempt is that it does not provide an opportunity to explore the concepts argued in-depth in order to compare a diverse knowledge base. Consequently, Pang et al. (2014, p.98-100) failed to achieve a “presentation of discord,” which Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) observe can be attained using a range of rhetorical practices that show contentious issues among a strand of pieces of research. Pang et al. (2014), therefore, diverged from Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1038) idea of an effective review by failing to depict disagreement and challenges observable among studies, and instead limiting the diversity of the knowledge base by selecting articles discriminatingly to support his argument that social media is an effective communication tool during a crisis. Additionally, while Pang et al. (2014, p.98-99) attempted to identify prevailing perspectives among scholars regarding the relationship between the social media and the mainstream media in crisis management, they did not show how such perspectives are misguided, as well as the weaknesses of such perspectives. In the first paragraph of the literature review, Pang et al. (2014, p.98) identify the "dominant view" as the significance of social media in “escalating” a crisis, yet fail to critique that perspective. They also ignore any other possible "streams of thought" or alternative meanings. According to Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997, p.1046), in an effective literature review, the texts should identify the dominant views yet also emphasise how such viewpoints are erroneous. Pang et al. (2014, p.98-100) also failed to test into the research methods or theoretical frameworks used or developed by the sources they cited. Instead, they concentrated on their main arguments. Therefore, this proves that the researchers failed to establish the validity or theoretical strength of the arguments they selected to cite. Such a practice is inconsistent with Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997, p.1024) idea that a research paper would be more valid and can be considered strong based on how the authors provide a significant test of the researchers developed or new theories, which diverge from the ones traditionally published in the journal. References Locke, K & Golden-Biddle, K 1997, "Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies," The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 40 no 5, pp. 1023-1062 Pang, A, Hassan, N & Chong, 2014, "A Negotiating crisis in the social media environment: Evolution of crises online, gaining credibility offline," Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 19 no. 1, pp. 96-118 Read More