CETM11

Portfolio item 1 –A comparative literature review
This is worth 30% of your module
The following learning outcomes are assessed:
Knowledge
1. A critical appreciation of the nature of research and the goals of academic reading, information searching and communication.
2 A critical appreciation of the clarity, scientific approach and structure of academic writing.

This item will allow you to get feedback on skills that you need to help with the Research Plan in Portfolio item 2.

TASK
You are required to do a comparative literature review of the following topics (you may need to customise the title to include the domain)

Choose one of the following topics on which to do a comparative literature review (word limit 2000 words): * The impact of personality traits of the project leaders in project success * Managing change management * Communication skills and project success * Network security and social networking * The role of effective IT management strategies in organisations * Assessing risks in home and public access wireless networks * Ethics in the design of business applications

You may find the Q5 technique useful to map out the structure of each paper before you do the review.
The task
You will select a topic then find two or more academic papers that address the topic. You are required to write a comparative review of the topic from the perspective of these papers. This may require you to examine several schools of thought, issues, or the positions taken by different sets of authors. You may create a hierarchy of issues and sub-issues to compare and contrast, as suggested by the following general plan (adapted from http://www4.caes.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/section2/part2.htm).
You may find it useful to analyse the papers first by using the Q5 technique on each one.

Q5 Questions | Suggestions | 1 a Title of the research plan | Keep this focused | 1b What is the research question? | This should be the research question(s) identified from the paper. You can state hypotheses as well. | 1 c What are the key concepts? | This will come from their review of the literature. What are the main ideas/ constructs?. | 1 dWhat methods will be used? | This is very important. Describe, justify and explain the design of any research instruments they used to collect the data. | 1 e What answers are likely to presented? | Write a summary of the findings | 1 f What is the contribution of this work? | How novel is this? Is this an extension of another researcher’s work but in a different context/ country/system? How could it be developed further. |

Table 1 gives the main criteria for each section, the relative weightings and suggested word limits.

Table 1 Comparative Review structure Introduction 20% (about 200 words) | This section introduces your overall topic. You should establish the significance of the topic/subject and identify the main problem/issue/theory that you will focus on. | Body 70% (1400-1600 words) | You will develop a systematic argument about the similarities and differences between the papers and write a discussion of the central issues. In particular: * Use your sources to support a particular point * Establish what comparison you are going to establish in the review * Avoid a "black and white", right/wrong type of judgement of the positions of your review. | Conclusion 10%(about 200 words) | This is a summary of the respective merits of the various theories or positions (NOT the conclusion of the topic) |
Word count approx. 2000 words

Feedback sheet Structure | >80% | 71-80% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | Boderline Fail | Fail | Mark | Introduction 20% | Introduces the overall topic in a very well-written, concise style with an outline of the current, key academic debate about the topic | Introduces the overall topic in a very well-written, concise style with an outline of the current, key academic debate about the topic | Introduces the overall topic in a well-written, style with an outline of the current academic debate about the topic | Introduces the overall topic in a style with an outline of the current, academic debate about the topic | Introduces the overall topic with an outline of the academic debate about the topic | A descriptive account of the topic with little or no link to the current debate | Not done, no comparison or plagiarised | | Body 70% | A very systematic argument developed about the similarities and differences between the papers and an excellent discussion of the central issues | A systematic argument developed about the similarities and differences between the papers and a very good discussion of the central issues | A systematic argument developed about the similarities and differences between the papers and a good discussion of the central issues | An argument developed about the similarities and differences between the papers and some discussion of the central issues | Some argument developed about the similarities and differences between the papers and some discussion of the central issues | A very descriptive account of the papers | Not done or containing large sections of the original papers | | Conclusion 10% | An excellent summary of the arguments and of the respective merits of each theory or position. An excellent summary of the arguments and of the respective merits of each theory or position | A very good summary of the arguments and of the respective merits of each theory or position | A good summary of the respective merits of each theory or position | A reasonable summary of the respective merits of each theory or position | A brief descriptive summary of the respective merits of each theory or position | Summary relates more to the papers’ conclusions or inadequately sums up the merits and demerits of the papers | Not done/ too brief or plagiarised | |