6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 Critique of a Research Report Order Description A file of a report will be attached. A critique of the report is what is required. Needs Harvard referencing style, in text referencing and reference list. Minimum 9 academic references – academic peer reviewed reference (peer reviewed journal articles are great) I have listed a couple of references that should be included in the critique below – 1 – Rob Kitchin – Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. 2- [ Kumar, Ranjit 2011, Research Methodology: A step by step guide for beginners, Third, SAGE, London. Chapter 2 – The Research Process a Quick Glance pp. 34 -43 Chapter 14 – Considering Ethical Issues in Data Collection pp. 282 – 290 Chapter 5: Identifying Variables Chapter 7: The Research Design ] all of these chapters are only considered one reference Possibly include this somewhere (briefly), but can not be considered one of the academic resources. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php Critique of a research report Should be an analysis of the argument presented in the report. How well the information is presented, what assumptions underline the argument, what issues are overlooked, what implications are drawn from such observations. It is a response and evaluation of what has been read in the report, not a descriptive account of what it in the report, discuss its strengths and weaknesses. The focus should be, the validity of the report based on research using peer reviewed academic references. Analysis of the research techniques used to gather the data in the report. If they were qualitative, quantitative, interviews, whatever techniques were used in the report. The means and manner of how the information is communicated The analysis needs to be from a research perspective with a communication and media focus. Questions to consider: What is the nature of the report? Who wrote it, why did the write it, what are their qualifications? What is the significance of the report? What are the objectives of the report? How well were they achieved? What is the design or method of the report? What is the particular appeal/lack of appeal? What assumptions have been made in the report? How do the assumptions and bias impact the validity of the report? Structure: Introduction – introduction of the subject – the report being analysed Review – the background facts, things the need to be understood about the report – significance, design, appeal, etc. Review/explain the assumptions that need to be understood before taking a position on the issue. Position needs to be clear – what is the evaluation, what is the basis of your conclusions. Each point should relate back to the central position. Conclusion – review of points made and rationale

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.