Sample IT Research Paper on Comparative Analysis of Scientific Texts

Comparative Analysis of Scientific Texts

In the curriculum of the Masters of Science in IT, one of the fundamental deliverables is the participation in coming up with a comparative paper that tries to give an incisive analysis on the various types of scientific papers and their importance in the various fields of study. The objective of this paper is to give a comparison of the various scientific texts with keen attention on investigating and comparing the quality of the paper on various deliverables. The paper is organized such that section two gives a description of the approach that has been used to assess the papers. Section three gives the results of the various assessments that have been done on these papers. The valuation of the results, limitations and the implications of the assessment are done in section 4. Conclusion and recommendations are dealt with in the section five.

In carrying out the assessment, five distinct scientific articles that are all geared towards giving much concern to the critical success factors in the implementation of the enterprise resource planning program in various businesses have been chosen. I chose this area of IT because it touches on not only the improvement of business dealings but it also gives an opportunity of automation of various business processes that are deemed to be quite important in making sure that the companies provide platform efficiency in their businesses. I intend to go deeper into this topic by writing a thesis that concerns this area of technology. The five files that have been used are well researched articles that portend the real issues that concern the conception of the enterprise resource planning. In my pursuit of gaining the profound knowledge on enterprise resource planning, I found it interesting to evaluate, analyze and compare the five articles in terms of their research questions, methodologies and lastly their objectives. The five scientific selected texts here are as tabled below.

Text numberThe Text Reference
Text 1Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. European journal of operational research, 146(2), 352-364.
Text 2Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European journal of operational research, 146(2), 241-257.
Text 3Arik Ragowsky, T. M. S. (2002). Enterprise resource planning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 11-15.
Text 4Soh, C., Kien, S. S., & Tay-Yap, J. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 47-51.
Text 5Dredden, G., & Bergdolt, J. C. (2007). Enterprise resource planning. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 31(2), 48-53.

Used criteria for the assessment

In the current context of scientific study there are various criteria have been used to explicitly analyze the whole structure of articles and texts. In deriving the criteria for evaluation, we used the various evaluation techniques of contained in the lecture notes. Additionally, we derived criteria from the connotations of the whole context of the standards used in analyzing thesis. The thesis templates used are that made by Jonker and Pennink (2010). This has allowed us use the following sets of criteria as listed below.

NoCriterionNormWeight
1ObjectivesExpectations, reasons and purpose of the research well explained.4%
2Significance and impact of the studyThe degree of importance in terms of what it adds to the current contextual study and researches. I.e. the relevance, generalization and the impact it has on the business field. 7%
3Thesis statementThe problem statement is in the scope and highly related to the topic of the study. And is in line with the context of the study.5%
4Literature reviewThe extensiveness of the literature with reference to the study. The depths of the literature in explain the whole context of the study topic.7%
5Research questionsClearly defined and on the scope explain the research objectives. Provides feasible connotations, novelty, ethical and relevance to the study topic.10%
6MethodologyThe effectiveness of the methodology in revealing substantial results to this scientific field. Objectivity to the research question and how the methodology gives way to profound recommendations.12%
7Results and findingsEasily traceable to the methodology. Clearly described reasonably argued and accurately connoted.10%
8Analysis and discussionsPrecisely addressing and derived from the results and findings. Retrospective approach to getting answers. Strict description of the constraints of the research findings.13%
9ConclusionsAbility to address the whole context of the study in the shortest way possible. Clear argumentation of the whole context of the study.12%
10RecommendationsDrawn from the analysis and address the various research questions postulated.12%
11ReadabilityPrecise presentation free from grammar and spelling mistakes. The degree of easiness in the administration of profound presentation techniques.8%
    

A closer look at the criteria postulated above, the first ten criteria are stipulated to scrutinize specific contents of the scientific texts. The last criterion (number 11) provides the scrutiny of the whole content of the scientific text in general. The main reason why we chose the criteria is because they are deemed to depict the real quality of the scientific texts in various sets of the areas of analysis. They tend to explicate the authenticity of the whole structural make up of the texts brought forward.

In terms of weightings of the selected criteria, more weights have been given to the results and findings, the methodology, the analysis and discussion the conclusion and the recommendations. The main reason for this is to bring to light not only the authenticity of the whole context of these scientific texts but also to give its relevance to the whole societal context. The less important criteria in this study are such as the objectives, the thesis statement and the significance and the impact of the study. These criteria are lowly rated since they do not touch so much on the content of the study. Additionally, it is believed the real strength of the study is in the context and the analysis of the same.

Method of assessment in the evaluation of the whole context of the documents, we evaluated them in terms of the criteria postulated in the contextual background of whole study. This allowed for consistency and uniformity in the analysis of the same. Furthermore, the evaluation was synchronized by the use of the Dutch academic grading system as shown below.

MeritGrade
Exemplary10
Very good9
Good8
Fairly good7
Average6
Below average1-5

The weighted values are calculated for each of the articles and scaled down to a range of 1-10.

Results of the assessment

In this section we give the summary of the results and the ratings that have been postulated in each of the criteria of evaluation. The first issue to explicate here is to give an incisive look into the overview of the each scientific text.

Pertinent characteristics of each scientific text
TextYear, AuthorTypeTopicApproachTechniques
Text 1Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2003)A journal of ResearchA taxonomy of critical factorsQualitativeliterature study, 8 interviews  
Text 2Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003)A journal of researchImplementation procedures and critical success factorsQuantitativeliterature study, interviews  
Text 3Arik Ragowsky, T. M. S. (2002)Research paperEnterprise resource planning in management perspectiveQuantitativeliterature study, interviews  
Text 4Soh, C., Kien, S. S., & Tay-Yap, J. (2000)Research paperCultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?Mixed designliterature study,  6 interviews  
Text 5Dredden, G., & Bergdolt, J. C. (2007)Research paperEnterprise resource planning. Air Force Journal of Logistics,Quantitativeliterature study, 4 interviews  

The weighted valuation of all the scientific texts.

The results below are the results of the weighted valuation of the scientific texts.

CriterionText 1Text 2Text 3Text 4Text 5
Objectives21423
overall weight44444
Significance and impact of the study52656
overall weight77777
Thesis statement52314
overall weight55555
Literature review54357
overall weight77777
Research questions79687
overall weight1010101010
Methodology98121011
overall weight1212121212
Results and findings897109
overall weight1010101010
Analysis and discussions11981012
overall weight1313131313
Conclusions11129710
overall weight1212121212
Recommendations119794
overall weight1212121212
Readability87575
overall weight88888
    8.86     7.29   7.76   7.74   8.64
    0.81     0.66   0.71   0.70   0.79
The overall standard weightings    8.05     6.63   7.05   7.04   7.85

Analysis of the results

From the results, it is evident that the scientific text that has been highly rated is text 1. This notion is because according to the eleven sets of the criteria, the text 1 has scored highly and is deemed in each set of categories of criteria. In terms of weightings of the selected criteria, more weights have been given to the results and findings, the methodology, the analysis and discussion the conclusion and the recommendations. The main reason for this is to bring to light not only the authenticity of the whole context of these scientific texts but also to give its relevance to the whole societal context. The less important criteria in this study are such as the objectives, the thesis statement and the significance and the impact of the study. These criteria are lowly rated since they do not touch so much on the content of the study. Additionally, it is believed the real strength of the study is in the context and the analysis of the same. The main reason why we chose the criteria is because they are deemed to depict the real quality of the scientific texts in various sets of the areas of analysis. They tend to explicate the authenticity of the whole structural make up of the texts brought forward.

Work Cited

Al-Mashari, Majed, Abdullah Al-Mudimigh, and Mohamed Zairi. “Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors.” European journal of operational research 146.2 (2003): 352-364.

Dredden, Glenn, and Jeffrey C. Bergdolt. “Enterprise resource planning.” Air Force Journal of Logistics 31.2 (2007): 48-53.

Sadagopan, Sowmyanarayanan. “Enterprise resource planning.” Encyclopedia of Information Systems 2 (2003): 169-184.

Soh, Christina, Sia Siew Kien, and Joanne Tay-Yap. “Enterprise resource planning: cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?” Communications of the ACM 43.4 (2000): 47-51.

Umble, Elisabeth J., Ronald R. Haft, and M. Michael Umble. “Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors.” European journal of operational research 146.2 (2003): 241-257.