Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? - Jörgen Sandberg, Mats Alvesson, 2011
Source: journals.sagepub.com
Article summary:
1. This article examines how researchers construct research questions from existing literature, and develops a typology of the most common approaches.
2. The most common approach across paradigmatic camps is to spot various ‘gaps’ in the literature and, based on that, to formulate specific research questions.
3. The article proposes ways of constructing research questions that move beyond gap-spotting, and discusses how these ways are likely to promote more interesting and significant theories.
Article analysis:
The article by Jörgen Sandberg and Mats Alvesson (2011) provides an overview of the different ways of constructing research questions from existing literature, with a focus on spotting gaps in the literature as the most common approach. The authors provide a comprehensive review of 52 articles in organization studies, which is useful for understanding the current state of knowledge in this field. However, there are some potential issues with trustworthiness and reliability that should be noted.
First, the authors do not provide any evidence for their claims about gap-spotting being the most common approach across paradigmatic camps. While they cite several sources to support their argument, they do not provide any empirical data or analysis to back up their assertion. This could lead to bias or one-sided reporting if other approaches are not given equal consideration or if certain perspectives are ignored altogether.
Second, while the authors discuss various social norms that favour gap-spotting as a way of constructing research questions, they do not explore any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on this issue. This could lead to partiality or missing points of consideration when evaluating different approaches to constructing research questions from existing literature.
Finally, it is unclear whether possible risks associated with gap-spotting are noted in this article; for example, whether it can lead to overly narrow interpretations of existing literature or limit creativity when formulating new research questions. Without exploring these potential risks in detail, it is difficult to assess whether this article presents both sides equally and fairly when discussing different ways of constructing research questions from existing literature.