Please post a scholarly reply that are a minimum of 200 words each.
There are 3 different posts below. Read and come up with minimum 200 words, scholarly written to each of them.
It is NOT required that every question or point be analyzed; more focused discussions on one or more central points are encouraged.
Original questions:
Q1: Review your required reading, especially Goodson’s (2017) Exercise 35, and think about your experiences in writing your introduction and literature review from RES 7011. Discuss the strategies (successful and unsuccessful) you can use to organize and write that paper. What new APA guidelines have you learned? What are some ways to be more precise – and concise – in your scientific writing?
Q2: What ideas do you have for how you may test any research questions based on those papers?
Three answers(posts) to the questions (above), that need response
Post 1
Q1: Review your required reading, especially Goodson’s (2017) Exercise 35, and think about your experiences writing your introduction and literature review from RES 7011. Discuss the strategies (successful and unsuccessful) you can use to organize and write that paper. What new APA guidelines have you learned? What are some ways to be more precise – and concise – in your scientific writing?
I must admit that I struggled a great deal when I was writing my introduction and literature review for the past course. A literature review is focused on “reviewing” research that is already present about a specific topic. While I kept this in mind, the organization of the paper is what was most difficult for me. I was used to arranging my research in the typical paper form, with background info, the body and conclusion. A literature review and its introduction are not like typical papers. Goodson (2017) provides a well-written checklist for introductions. The first step is to propose a topic, research question, problem or hypothesis that is clear. I would say I was successful in that. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the previous discussion board, the topic I proposed of “Intercultural competence with global talent management,” is somewhat broad, but I would say that the topic is clear. Another point Goodson mentions is to have a clear purpose statement beginning with “The purpose of…” I was successful in including this within my introduction as well. Looking back at the paper, I could have inserted this purpose statement a bit earlier within the introduction, but it still served its purpose and its placement was necessary considering the information aforementioned to it. In the future, I plan to be more precise and concise by not presenting too much background info. Being that I used Goodson’s text as a guideline for my literature review, I would say that I was successful in completing the checklist, with relevant background information and recent sources, just to name a few. I had the most trouble at the end of my paper when creating the reference pages. The APA guideline that I most recently learned how to conduct properly is when citing references at the end of the paper. According the the American Psychological Association (2020) all references must be complete and have all the information required. Most of my references lacked DOI numbers, which is very important for others to access the sources. I am very much aware of that now and plan on creating better references pages in the future.
Q2: What ideas do you have for how you may test any research questions based on those papers?
Based on the papers I presented within my literature review, I believe the first step to testing the research questions is to find as much information as possible. Global talent management and intercultural competence are not topics that just focus on one place or thing. “Global” refers to all around. One idea I have is to present information from different countries. I also am still deciding between a qualitative or quantitative based study. Regardless though, the information will be well-sourced, well-presented, and well-rounded. The best way to get ideas is to do more research!
References:
– American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
– Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Sage Publications.
Post 2
Q1: Review your required reading, especially Goodson’s (2017) Exercise 35, and think about your experiences writing your introduction and literature review from RES 7011. Discuss the strategies (successful and unsuccessful) you can use to organize and write that paper. What new APA guidelines have you learned? What are some ways to be more precise – and concise – in your scientific writing?
Looking back on the experience in 7011 and drafting my Introduction & Literature Review, I would keep much the same in the process. Throughout my academic career, often, due to outside circumstances, I end up rushing and racing against the clock to produce a quality end product. The Introduction & Literature Review process was different; I attribute much of that to how Dr. Cooper developed the class. However, it is also related to my love and passion for my research topic. Dr. Cooper developed the class in a way that allowed us to complete most of the work early in the semester, giving us the opportunity. After drafting the original submission, I continued work on it to produce a product I was proud of. According to Goodson, the paper meets many criteria in review (2017). First, the problem and research questions are clearly stated. Within the paper, it is quoted, “This raises the question, how do firms invest their recourses, i.e., time, energy, and money, to develop employees?
Moreover, what implications do say investment has on an organization’s competitive advantage and employee productivity?” The wording was intentional to ensure that any individual, regardless of background, can understand and utilize the research from this study. The paper also establishes credibility and expresses how the paper is utilized in two separate fields, the academic and the corporate realm.
Through writing the introduction and literature review, I was also allowed to develop my writing skills further and, inadvertently, my APA knowledge. While I entered this program with surface-level knowledge of the proper formatting and citations, over the past two semesters, I have learned how to cite without assistance from online sites like citation machines and easy bib. Further, I have learned more about in-text citations and the proper way to insert citations during the writing process (American Psychological Association, 2020).
To be more concise, I can continue to work on writing and messaging strategies and revisit Exercise 23 in the Goodson text (2017), which asserts that writers should clear out the clutter.
Q2: What ideas do you have for how you may test any research questions based on those papers?
The ideas I have to test the research questions are based on mixed methodology. Ideally, the paper will test the initial variables using qualitative methods to gauge employee perception of human capital valuation. In addition, the qualitative elements will establish credibility within the organizations, allowing the research to understand the correlation between valuation strategies, employee productivity, and organizational competitive advantage.
References:
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association
Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Sage Publications
Post 3
Q1: Review your required reading, especially Goodson’s (2017) Exercise 35, and think about your experiences in writing your introduction and literature review from RES 7011. Discuss the strategies (successful and unsuccessful) you can use to organize and write that paper. What new APA guidelines have you learned? What are some ways to be more precise – and concise – in your scientific writing?
Unfortunately, RES 7011 was a few years ago for me so I felt quite removed from the experience of working on my chosen research topic. Having gone off the path, I am circling back to rediscover the topic with a bit of trepidation so performing well laid procedural exercises such as Goodson (2017) offers a sense of comfort. Exercise 35 focuses on writing a strong introduction which is an integral part of understanding the topic and being able to effectively communicate it to others (Goodson, 2017, p. 243). Starting over on something an earlier version of you began can be intimidating because insecurities of poor writing resurface and validation of a self-critical perspective come into focus. However, the Goodson (2017) exercises did help me view my past writings through a fresh lens that was not as self-deprecating as previously mentioned, rather, it allowed me to identify a new benchmark and launching point where I can see how far I have come since then and the opportunity for growth and continued learning.
What I gleaned from the APA publication is how to focus on what needs to be said to enhance clarity. According to the American Psychological Association (2020), “Say only what needs to be said in your writing” (p.113). It is profoundly simple however, in the practice of achieving a certain number of pages in articles within the American school system, fluff within writing becomes a sought-after commodity and the practice quickly becomes bad form and a well ingrained habit. One way I plan to approach clarity is to reduce redundancy in my writing. Often times, I make a claim and the evidence closely resembles the claim but in a different format. By intentionally practicing a self-critique with this in mind, I am developing the skill of identifying redundancy.
Q2: What ideas do you have for how you may test any research questions based on those papers?
To evaluate my research questions, I would like to evaluate the constructs I am attempting to explain or evaluate. Initially, I am looking at a purely quantitative study that explains a phenomenon by way of case study, survey, or possibly both. For the research question to be effective, I would like to bring in other opinions of those who have experience in developing and critiquing qualitative research and offer feedback that could help me to refine the questions further. Additionally, once I have more confidence in a set of questions, it would be helpful to run a quality check against current literature and research to ensure continuity.
Reference:
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association
Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Sage Publications.
McGregor, S. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. Sage Publications.