KEY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH PARADIGMS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW AND THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the study as well as a review of the literature. The literature review explores the dominant theme of this study which is the application of Web 2.0 tools to enhance KM practices. As a way of introduction, the significance of a literature review in research is included in this chapter. Furthermore, the theoretical framework that guided this study is presented in this chapter as well. Additionally, the scope of this literature review is guided by the research objectives indicated in this study to justify the gap present for each corresponding objective.

The significance of a literature review

Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2010) define literature review as “a critical summary of the range of existing materials dealing with knowledge and understanding in a given field….its purpose is to locate the research project, to form our context or background, and to provide insights into previous work”. The literature review summarises and synthesises various ideas which other researchers have already put forward (Kaniki 2006). Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods (2006) provides the purposes of conducting literature review which include:- Clarify and conceptualise the research question, pointing out gaps in the existing literature;

  • Improve the methodology, done by observing how other investigators have studied the same topic; and Widen the researcher‟s knowledge in the chosen area.
    Leedy and Ormrod (2001:64) assert that “The review of literature allows one „to look again‟ (review) at what others have done in areas that are similar, though not necessarily identical to, one‟s own area of investigation”. In addition, Leedy and Ormrod (2010:51) provide the following benefits of conducting a literature review:- To ascertain whether other researchers have already addressed and answered the proposed research problem;
  • To offer new ideas, perspectives, and approaches that may not have occurred to a researcher;
  • To inform about other individuals who conduct work in the same research area;
  • To show how other researchers have handled methodological and design issues in similar studies;
  • To reveal sources of data that a researcher may not have known that they are available;
  • To introduce and provide measurement tools that other researchers have developed and used effectively; and
  • To reveal methods of dealing with difficulties similar to those faced in undertaking similar research.
    There are various types of literature reviews which give a particular reading a body of literature (Kaniki 2006). Cooper (1994), as cited in (Creswell 2003:32), propose that literature reviews can be described as integrative which focuses on theories that relate to the problem of the study. Another type of literature review is a methodological review (Creswell 2003:32). Similar to Cooper’s (1994), Kaniki (2006) introduces four types of literature review which include historical review which considers chronological development of the literature; thematic reviews which is structured around different themes and focus on debates between different schools; theoretical review which traces theoretical developments in a particular area and how each theory is supported by empirical evidence; and empirical review which summarises the empirical findings. The review of literature in this study included theoretical review which traces various theoretical developments supported by an empirical evidence in a particular area, empirical review which provide the summary of an empirical findings, and conceptual review (Kaniki 2006).

The theoretical foundations of the study

The theoretical foundations of a discipline are the basis on which research and development of the discipline are focused on generating ideas (Kombo and Tromp 2006). Neuman (2006) explains that researchers need to consult various theories to understand the problem of the study. The theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts, definitions, and propositions) that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomenon (Borbas, Jackson, and Langford 2004). Theories give researchers different perspectives through which to look at complex aspects and social issues, focusing their attention on different aspects of the data and providing a framework to conduct their analysis (Sveiby 2001). Mitchell and Jolley (2007) explain the benefits of using theory as opposed to the use of common sense in doing research. These include, but are limited to:- Theory tends to be more consistent than common sense;

  • Usually, theory does not contradict itself…;
  • Theory tends to be more consistent with existing facts than common facts;
  • Theory is not restricted to making common sense or intuitively obvious predictions;
  • Theory summarises and organises a great deal of information;
  • Theory focuses research;
  • Theory is broad in scope;
  • Theory can be applied to a wide range of situations;
  • Researchers can generate a wide variety of studies from a single theory; and
  • The theory explains facts with only a few core ideas.
    There are various KM and Web 2.0 models to support the application of Web 2.0 tools to enhance KM practices. This study employed four KM and Web 2.0 models to have a clear picture of the study problem. This is due to the fact that focusing on a single model may limit organisations to a range of possible solutions to the study problem. Each model has its characteristics and limitations. Further, selecting a suitable model needs an understanding of available models which explains the research problem in detail (Probst, Raub, and Romhardt 2000). Thus, the theoretical foundation of this study includes the following basic research models as described in the following sub-sections:-

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model is a model which was developed by Habib in 2006 (Habib 2006). Habib (2006) developed a detailed model known as Academic Library 2.0 concept model that includes interaction types as well as places. Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model explains how academic library can be considered as a place where both traditional and online services could take place at the same time. Habib (2006) explains that Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model is based on the idea that student life is divided into two parts which are the social and the academic. Therefore an academic library is a place which can provide both online and traditional services.
The goal of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model is to facilitate thoughts about how to design virtual and physical spaces according to the types of interpersonal interactions among library users and librarians. The model is a model encourages constant and purposeful change by inviting user participation in the creation of both physical and virtual services they want which is supported by consistently evaluating services (Mahmood and Richardson 2011:366). Therefore, Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model was used in this study to assist in the access and use of various Web 2.0 tools so as to facilitate KM practices, particularly knowledge creation and sharing, in academic libraries. Figure 3.2:1 shows Academic Library 2.0 model and its functionalities in academic libraries.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 
1.0 INTRODUCTION .
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.3 RESEARCH PURPOSE
1.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY
1.5 ORIGINALITY OF THE STUDY
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.8 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.9 SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
1.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.11 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS
1.12 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
CHAPTER TWO THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: AN OVERVIEW
2.2 HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS IN TANZANIA: AN OVERVIEW
2.3 ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN TANZANIA
2.4 THE PROFILE OF THE ACADEMIC LIBRARIES SELECTED IN THE STUDY
2.5 TANZANIA INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) INFRASTRUCTURE: AN OVERVIEW
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE  LITERATURE REVIEW AND THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 
3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A LITERATURE REVIEW
3.2 THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY
3.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
3.4 EMPIRICAL REVIEW
3.5 CHALLENGES WHICH HINDER THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
4.0 INTRODUCTION
4.1 RESEARCH PARADIGM
4.2 KEY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH PARADIGMS
4.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
4.3 STUDY POPULATION
4.4 SAMPLING
4.5 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND INSTRUMENTS
4.6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS
4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.9 EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 
5.0 INTRODUCTION
5.1 DATA PRESENTATION
5.2 RESPONSE RATE AND BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS
5.3 KM AWARENESS
5.4 APPLICATION AND BENEFITS OF KM PRACTICES
5.5 KM ENABLERS FOR EFFECTIVE KM APPLICATION IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
5.6 KM PRACTICES THROUGH SECI PROCESSES
5.7 The access and use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries
5.8 THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS FOR KM IMPLEMENTATION
5.9 FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES
5.10 CHALLENGES THAT HINDER THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES
5.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 
6.0 INTRODUCTION
6.1 BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS
6.2 KM AWARENESS AMONG RESPONDENTS
6.3 THE APPLICATION AND BENEFITS OF KM PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
6.4 KM ENABLERS FOR THE APPLICATION OF KM PRACTICES
6.5 KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND SHARING PRACTICES THROUGH KNOWLEDGE CREATION (SECI) MODEL
6.6 THE ACCESS AND USE OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
6.7 THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
6.8 KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND SHARING PRACTICES THROUGH WEB 2.0 DRIVEN SECI MODEL
6.9 FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES
6.10 CHALLENGES THAT HINDER THE APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KM PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
6.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER SEVEN  SUMMARY OF THE STUDY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 INTRODUCTION
7.1 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTIONS
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.4 PROPOSED INTEGRATED AND INCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS AND KM PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN TANZANIA
7.5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
7.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
7.7 GENERAL CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
APPLICATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS TO ENHANCE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN TANZANIA

Related Posts