South Africa’s Portuguese community-based organisations

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE: THEORY AND RESEARCH LITERATURE ON DOCUMENTING THE UNDER-DOCUMENTED

The significance of the literature review for this study

As mentioned in chapter one, by way of an empirical investigation, the aim of this study is to devise an archival collecting framework for the Portuguese community by suggesting strategies for safeguarding the records generated by their community-based organisations, as a means of preserving their contemporary social history, memories and experiences, and of proposing a documentation model that will assist in the development of such a collecting plan. However, before embarking on the actual empirical part of the study, this chapter provides the necessary theoretical paradigm which underlines the importance of having an inclusive and representative archival heritage, and the need to document under-documented communities, such as the Portuguese community. To achieve this required a comprehensive literature review.
To put the findings in a larger context, the researcher deemed it essential to start by exploring the issues entailed in documenting under-documented communities, immigrant and community archiving and related practices. To this end, a theoretical framework needed to be established by examining existing archives and records management literature. This meant that it was necessary to uncover past and contemporary issues confronting these disciplines. Because of the in-depth nature of this study, an extensive study of national and international sources was vital, consisting of, inter alia, relevant books, archival records, periodicals (including online journal articles), websites and Internet resources, research reports and unpublished theses.
Extensive debate has been devoted to the significance of a literature review in any research undertaking. Robinson and Reed (1998:58) describe a literature review as “a systematic search of published work to find out what is already known about the intended research topic”, and point to its value by explaining that the literature review serves many important purposes, including establishing the need for the research; broadening the horizons of the researcher; and preventing the researcher from conducting research that already exists. Aitchson (1998:58) supports the view that a literature review allows the researcher to find out what has been done in terms of the problem being investigated – to ensure that duplication does not occur. In addition, the author points out that literature reviews should not be unnecessarily lengthy and unfocused, with the researcher attempting to include anything vaguely related to the research problem.
Bless and Higson-Smith (2000:20) suggest a number of noteworthy reasons for a literature review, which include the following:
to sharpen and deepen the theoretical framework of the research;
to familiarise the researcher with the latest developments in the area of research;
to identify gaps in knowledge, as well as weaknesses in previous studies;
to discover connections, contradictions or other relations between different research results by comparing various investigations;
to identify variables that must be considered in the research;
to study the definitions used in previous works as well as the characteristics of the populations investigated, with the aim of adopting them for the new research; and
to study the advantages and disadvantages of the research methods used by others, in order to adopt or improve on them in one’s own research.
In addition, Bless and Higson-Smith (2000:20-21) assert that researchers should not simply describe or replicate the ideas of other researchers when reporting on the literature reviewed, but need to provide critical insight and analysis. Leedy (1989:66) affirms this by noting that the more knowledgeable the researcher is, the better she or he will be able to understand the research problem. He goes on to say that the purpose of a literature review is not only to identify and reproduce all information written about a topic, but also to gain insight into and understanding of the problem at hand, through analysis and synthesis.
There are many ways in which the literature review can be structured. However, according to Matthews and Ross (2010:105), “… the most common approach is to provide an overview of the subject matter of your research, including perhaps a historical and then a current context before moving on to explore your research areas in more depth, increasingly becoming more focused on your research area.” The authors go on to explain that “… in a literature review short discussions, or mini-essays, are developed around the key areas of the research topics and the literature is drawn upon to provide supporting evidence for the points made” (Matthews and Ross, 2010:105).

Mapping the literature review

The literature review for this study followed the approach described by Matthews and Ross (2010). In consequence, the review of the literature started by focusing on the reasons for undertaking the literature review in the first place; it then turned to the broad theoretical framework in which the study is placed; this was followed by a review of the historical perspectives on documenting the under-documented – in South Africa and abroad; next, the current situation of documenting the under-documented was examined; and finally, it moved on to become increasingly more focused on the research topic by exploring, in depth, specific developments that have been influenced by – or impacted on – documenting the under-documented.
More precisely, this chapter reviews and reports on the literature which addresses the following:
literature that supports the theoretical framework of postmodernism and social history, which underlines the premise of this study, namely the social and ethical responsibility that the documentary heritage of a nation should – as far as possible – reflect, and be representative of all communities that make up a society, including the implication that communities that have been underrepresented, require a more inclusive process in order to restore their collective histories;
developments in archival principles and practices that have a bearing on documenting under-documented communities and related concepts, including concepts and practices such as the ‘total archives’ concept, the ‘stewardship’ approach to custody, ‘community archiving’ and the practice of ‘participatory archiving’; and lastly, more specifically, literature that directly reports on documenting under-documented social groups, such as immigrant communities, and on establishing community archives – in the international context, in Africa and in the South African environment.
Particular attention was given to literature that reported on – and gave insight into – endeavours that include community organisational records as a means of safeguarding community social history and experiences, since this is the focal point of this study. These endeavours in archiving community memory derive from a variety of contexts, including programmes and projects managed by mainstream institutions and those maintained within the community. In addition, the review concentrated predominantly on under-documented communities and social groupings such as immigrant and ethnic groups of safeguarding – and not so much on other possible under-documented domains, such as under-documented localities or themes – since this again, was at the centre of this study. At times though, when reporting on South Africa – and especially the rest of Africa – literature involving non-traditional archival endeavours such as oral history projects and underrepresented topics such as documenting liberation struggles, were also discussed as they were the prevalent forms of such programmes in these countries, and they provided at least a partial means towards some understanding of how these related efforts are being tackled on this continent.
Finally, a variety of issues were examined in the literature reviewed, but of central importance was to identify theories and practices which might support the collection, management and preservation of community-based organisational records, such as those created by South Africa’s Portuguese community organisations in Gauteng.

Theoretical framework for this study

Before reviewing the literature on documenting under-documented communities, community archiving and related practices, this section reviews the literature on the theoretical developments that support or have impacted on these archival practices and therefore provides a theoretical paradigm for this study.
The convergence in recent decades of two schools of thought, postmodernism and social history, has provided archivists with good reasons for collecting the documents of under-documented social groups and community archiving (McDonald, 2008:10). These two schools, although distinct, are clearly associated and they both impart ideas similar to the archival profession, ideas that are of particular relevance to this study – namely and most notably – the notion that there is a need to preserve a comprehensive documentary heritage of society by not only favouring the dominant narrative discourse, but by equally including the voices of ordinary people and the marginalised that may be underrepresented such as women, marginal religious groups, ethnic, linguistic and immigrant minorities, and so on. This becomes evident in the discussions below:

Postmodernism and how it has impacted on archival theory and documenting the under-documented

White (2008:ix) claims that, with the increasing academic debate within the Archival Sciences about the place of postmodern ideas and the impact that these might have had – and continue to have – upon archival practice, has come an awareness that there are many communities whose experiences are not being documented or adequately preserved. However, to appreciate White’s (2008) statement fully, one firstly needs to understand postmodernism and its place in archival discourse.
The height of postmodernism is often seen in the works of philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jean Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard. Simply put, these philosophers reject the idea of objective truth and global cultural narrative. In this context, postmodernism is concerned with plurality, differences, scepticism and textualisation (McDonald, 2008:11). It is often seen as a reaction to positivism and modernism, where objectivity, certainty and unity were underpinning views. “The theoretical discourses of post modernity take a long, hard look at the rationalist assumptions underpinning modernist thought and practice” (McNeil, 2001:51). Or, as another author explains: “Postmodernism calls into question Enlightenment values such as rationality, truth, and progress, arguing that these merely serve to secure the monolithic structure of modern society by concealing or excluding any forces that might challenge its cultural dominance” (Greene, 2002:53). And then, as Light and Hyry (2002:217) explain, “Post-modern theory emphasises the inherent relativism and subjectivity of observation and representation. It rejects objective truth and grand historical narratives, preferring instead plural, provisional, and interpretive perspectives”.
Cook (2001:15) notes that postmodern concepts offer possibilities for enriching the practice of archives. He observes that various authors in the archival field have been writing about the implications of postmodernism for archives, including authors such as Harris (1997) and Nesmith (1981), and perhaps most visibly Jacques Derrida in his book, Archives fever: a Freudian impression. However, he also acknowledges the possible weaknesses of postmodernism often highlighted by its critics (Cook, 2001:15):
“The first target is always the relativism of post-modernism. If post-modernists say that everything is relative, that every meaning hides a meaning within an infinite cycle of this deconstruction, that nothing can be known with complete assurance, that words and images are the only reality, then why should archivists not dismiss post-modernism itself as just another relativism – just as untrue, unstable and relative as everything it criticises? If post-modernists claim that history is a series of fictions imposed by those in power to augment their political and social position, how can this ever appeal to archivists, a large portion of whose work and clientele is focused on the past and its evidentiary record of actual facts?”
However, despite the perceived weaknesses and contradictions of postmodernism, Cook (2001:22) argues that postmodernism,
“… especially in its deconstruction form allows the release of tremendous energies by sweeping away that which has been constraining, that with which archivists have lived by habit or professional fiat. Post-modernism in this way can be enormously
liberating and constructive. Deconstruction is not about destroying in endlessly relativist critiques, but about constructing, about seeing anew and imagining what is possible when the platitudes and ideologies are removed. It is a mode of enquiry, of reading, of analysis, that generates an energy towards the openness required for genuine innovation and change”.
Cook (2001:22) goes on to say postmodernists in the archival domain, such Derrida, are essentially deconstructionists in the sense that they are critical of what is preserved in the archive and they are suspicious of the authenticity of that memory. In his investigation of the possible impact of the postmodern philosophy on archival discourse, which is based on Lyotard’s work, the 1979 publication, The post-modern condition: a report on knowledge, Cook (2001:17) explains that “… post-modernism eschews meta narrative, those sweeping interpretations that totalise human experience in some monolithic way. Post-modernism seeks to emphasise the diversity of human experience by recovering marginalised voices in the face of hegemony”.
Cook (2001) adds that, in the rethinking from a positivist framework with a traditional state-centred archives, to a distinctively postmodern alternative, archivists repeatedly challenged five central traditional principles of the archival profession (Cook, 2007:43):
“1) that archivists are neutral impartial custodians of ‘truth’; 2) that archives as documents and institutions are disinterested, unself-conscious or natural by-products of actions and administration’s; 3) that the origin or provenance of records may be found in a single office rather than situated in the complex societal processes and multiple discourses of creation; 4) that the ‘order’ and language imposed on records through archival arrangement and description are value free re-creations of some prior reality; 5) that archives in society are the passively inherited meta-narrative of the state rather than an integrated or holistic total archive from public and private provenances”.
Nesmith (2002:27) affirms Cook’s (2007) remarks above, and highlights especially his first point regarding archival neutrality in the postmodern debate by explaining that postmodernism “helps us to see that contrary to the conventional idea that archivists simply receive and house these vast quantities of records, which merely reflects society, they actually co-create and shape the knowledge in records, and thus help form society’s memory”. He goes on to explain that in the process of ‘archivisation’, the archivists’ “personal backgrounds and social affiliations, their professional norms, self-understanding and public standing all govern the selection of archival materials, determine how they describe or represent it to make it intelligible and accessible; prompt their commitment to its indefinite retention and the special measures they take to preserve it over the long term…” (Nesmith, 2002:31). Light and Hyry (2002:217) point out that, “… most significantly post-modern thought challenges archivists, as individuals and social actors, unable to separate their own viewpoints and decisions from their contexts, to consider and acknowledge our mediating role in shaping the historical record”.
Postmodernism has increased the awareness of archivists that archives are neither neutral nor objective. According to the postmodern discourse, archives and records in a given society are very much biased towards the important and powerful people of the society, tending to ignore the impotent and obscure. Postmodernism highlights this relationship between power and the archives. It is also important to note that this power relationship is multi-dimensional. Not only do the powerful have power over the archives, but the archives also possess a large measure of power: “Archives have power over history, memory and the past” (Jimerson, 2006:24). Jimerson (2006:22) therefore suggests that archivists should embrace that power and that, with it, comes responsibility, especially when it relates to appraisal and collections development, where the impartial and passive nature of the archivist is no longer accepted. Instead, the archivist has – and always has had – the power to decide on what will be selected, constructed and preserved, from the total available, for posterity.
Cook (2001:23) further comments that, as a result of postmodernism, “society has become more aware of what post-modernists called the ‘Other’ – those beyond itself, those whose race, class, gender, or sexual orientation may be different from its own, and those who in a globalised community it can no longer ignore when constructing its own identities and composing its own narratives”. He goes on to say that the postmodernist state of mind celebrates ambiguity, tolerance, diversity, and multiple identities. “It does so in large part by shattering metanarratives – and the concepts, language, history, and archives upon which they are based” (Cook, 2001:24).
Cook (2001), turning to a practical example of postmodern archival practice, ‘postmodern appraising’, explains that the archivist would ask who and what they are excluding from archival memorialisation, and why, and then build appraisal strategies, methodologies and criteria to correct the situation. Archivists choose which records to preserve, using the power of appraisal to emphasise, consciously or unconsciously, chosen narratives while ignoring others. By acknowledging and trying to overcome the partiality towards records of powerful groups in society, archivists can provide a more balanced view of the past, and allow future generations to examine and evaluate the experiences and contributions of all voices in society. As a result, Jimerson (2006:30) suggests that archives and archivists are active contributors to the societal process of “remembering and forgetting” that may result in inclusion or exclusion and, as such, they have the responsibility of striving towards providing the future with a representative record of human experience or to “hold up a mirror for mankind”.
Daniel (2010:90) also recognises that postmodernists explored various aspects that bear on archival theory, particularly “an assault on objectivity and impartiality, and a call to dismantle the dominant discourse and recover the voices of the marginalised”. The author goes on to say that the impact on the archival and heritage fields has been significant, because it has opened a debate about the neutrality and objectivity of archival acquisition, it has broadened the definition of records, and it has widened the scope of events and people to be documented, leading to some important initiatives in documenting the under-documented (Daniel, 2010:92).
The archives profession, partly due to the framework that has governed its theory and practice, has – purposely or unintentionally – been responsible for maintaining the dominance of certain mainstream narratives, and the omissions and perspectives of others in societies’ documentary heritages. Its body of theory and practice originated in order to support the bureaucratic, accountability and cultural needs of government and mainstream organisations. Archival theory and practice have especially overemphasised the preservation of government documents and records of ‘national significance’, and this has allowed for or resulted in an uneven record of human experience. Also, according to earlier archival theorists, such as Jenkinson (1922), archivists are passive keepers of documentary remnants left over by their creators. Postmodern archival theorists, on the other hand, argue that archivists themselves are the creators of social memory. Through appraisal and collections development, they actively form archival heritage and, in so doing, they should not only seek the records of the mainstream and the state, but they should also collect and represent the stories of all that makes up a society, such as smaller or obscure social groups.
Jimerson (2006:32) reinforces the above by arguing that the challenge, therefore, is to represent all of society in our documentary heritage. He recognises that, although it may be impossible to achieve this in its entirety, “it is still a noble calling”. Thus, archives need to devote, or at least be concerned with, documenting women, racial and ethnic minority groups, immigrants, labourers, the poor and other underrepresented groups. The goal of the archives and heritage professionals should be to ensure “archives of the people, by the people, and for the people”, so that archives can fulfil their proper role in society.
Finally, it is important to be reminded of and to highlight here the direct relevance of the postmodern discourse to this particular study. As mentioned above, postmodernism brings about the awareness that archives are neither neutral nor objective. Therefore it implies that the dismantling of the dominant discourse and the recovery of the voices of the marginalised are necessary, alluding to a host of groups that may be underrepresented and under-documented in the documentary heritage of a particular society, among them the poor, women, religious, ethnic and immigrant communities. As this study focuses on an immigrant minority in South Africa, namely the Portuguese community, the influence of an epistemological and social force such as postmodernism, and the arguments presented by this movement provide a framework which allows for a more inclusive construct of the past. Without this realisation of the need for a broader representation of the past in the archive – brought about to a large degree by postmodernists in the archival domain – it would be more challenging to articulate and rationalise the inclusion of these often overlooked and ignored groups. To conclude the debate on postmodernism, the quote by Jimerson (2003:56) is fitting here:
“Because the meaning is something that is always constructed and not inherent in documents, the postmodernists argue, archivists need to think clearly about how we determine which manuscripts and records should be collected and preserved. In making such decisions we should seek to minimise personal biases and to ensure adequate documentation of all aspects of society. This is a challenge before us as we decide how to develop an effective strategy for archival acquisition in the twenty-first century”.

 ‘Social history’ and its influence on archives and documenting the under-documented

Originating in the 1960s, and associated with postmodernism, ‘social history’, or the interest in the latter, was a move away or a shift from the historian’s and archivist’s preceding focus on the privileged and powerful and deals with ordinary people rather than the privileged or the influential. According to Greene (2003-2004:98) postmodernism argues that social history has a vital place in remembering the past. Postmodernists therefore reject the argument that ‘traditional history’ – which is revised by professional historians – is more legitimate and therefore worthy of archiving, while social history or memory – which is passed down through generations of ordinary people – has a much less legitimate purpose. Greene (2003-2004:98) goes on to say that “…
behind each of these end uses is a set of end users: professional historians on the one hand, and amateur researchers of all kinds on the other. And behind each of these purposes is also a distinct set of archival and other documentary material that is more or less legitimate or useful to the end users”. He suggests that the “business of remembering” is therefore dependent on both ‘history’ and ‘social history or memory’ (Greene, 2003-2004:98).
Van Wingen and Bass (2008:576) explain that, before ‘social history’, “the prevailing view was that historians could write objective histories and that archives were neutral repositories for documentary evidence”. Additionally, representation of history in archives typically focused on government, political structures and national leaders. They go on to say that “no historiographical event of the twentieth century more profoundly affected the archival profession than the new social history” (Van Wingen and Bass 2008:575). Mayer (1985:391) further explains that “social history is not interested in the extraordinary accomplishments of a few, but in the common everyday struggles and experiences of groups of ordinary people”. It therefore encompasses the history of ordinary people and their experiences of coping with everyday life. This includes, inter alia, the study of black history, ethnic history, gender history, family history, rural history, and immigrants.
Although social historians were eager for information on ordinary people and on social groups in society, when looking for these in archives they found large gaps and biases. Daniel (2010:85) elaborates on this, saying that the institutional nature of archives and the influence of Schellenberg’s appraisal theory and practice, contributed to the governmental and state focus of many archives (Daniel, 2010:86):
“Searching for information on marginalised or anonymous individuals and groups could therefore be a time-consuming and labor-intensive task across geographically scattered local historical societies or collecting archives… . At best, government records treated such individuals and groups as statistics. Archivists often rejected case files, perhaps the most significant source of information on individuals, because of their bulk and low evidential value”.
Daniel (2010:86) also highlights the changes brought about by social history, arguing that, before the recognition of social history, often “only records of notable persons, to use Schellenberg’s phrase, were thought worthy of being preserved”. However, as studies in social history – and its influence on archives – grew, archivists were urged to put together a more even-handed and representative record of history by ensuring better documentation on neglected themes, areas and communities.
Finding social history an important research trend that demanded a response from the archival community, Mayer (1985:388) advised changes to various aspects of archival management in order to keep up with research in the then emerging discipline, including reassessing acquisitions strategies, appraisal criteria, provenance, arrangement practices and descriptive techniques. Regarding appraisal and acquisition, he explained that, while archives had tended to collect the documents and records of prominent members of society and mainstream organisations, particular effort should be made to preserve those less available records which document the experiences of black people, ordinary women, and immigrant communities amongst others. Van Wingen and Bass (2008:575) support this by noting that, in the light of social history, which is a “history from the bottom up”, archival practices regarding what archival heritage should be collected, have shifted to include the history of ordinary people, and neglected voices, such as smaller social groups identified by gender, race, ethnicity and class differences.
As social history showed itself to be a viable, durable historical approach, archivists also began to reconsider previous assumptions about the kinds of materials they should seek and acquire from these ordinary people and marginalised groups. Besides ephemera such as pamphlets, letters, photographs, newsletters and diaries, non-traditional materials including oral traditions were also considered as important expressions of culture that were often overlooked by historians and archivists. Van Wingen and Bass (2008:580) further explain that, by reinterpreting existing archival sources with an eye for the traces of people’s lives underrepresented in archival institutions, social historians discovered new uses for materials previously thought to possess little historical value, such as directories, ships’ manifests, school records and files of community social organisations. Welburn and Pitchford (2009:2-3) also recognise this issue by suggesting that, regardless of the attitude towards elitist materials, social historians require new and different sources of information that have not been utilised before.
Lastly, however, Mayer (1985:393) cautions that archivists focusing on social history initiatives may discover that they have (once again) unwittingly collected only the papers of elite or middle-class blacks, leading feminists, prominent minority businessmen, and so on – in other words, the elite of the under-documented. It is important to collect their papers, but special efforts must be made to obtain those less readily available records which also document the lives of ordinary blacks, poor women, and poor or ordinary immigrant families. He suggests that one way to fill some of these gaps is by collecting the records of fraternal, ethnic, cultural, benevolent and welfare organisations and other community-based organisations. Other devices suggested, include oral histories and family histories.
As a final point, although the significance of the recognition in the archival field of the importance of social history for this study is evident, it may be appropriate here to point out some of its direct contributions. Firstly, just as with postmodernism, social history calls for a more inclusive narrative. As such it demands the incorporation of the voices of ordinary people and neglected communities in the archival heritage, including immigrant groups, such as the South African Portuguese community. In addition, it requires unconventional types of materials and alternative sources of materials to be sought in order to construct this more inclusive history. These may involve, inter alia, records created by community members and organisations, including community-based establishments, such as the Portuguese community organisations suggested for this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background to the study
1.3 Motivation for the study
1.4 Theoretical framework for this study
1.5 Statement of the problem
1.6 Aims, research objectives and research questions
1.7 Significance of the study
1.8 Originality of the study
1.9 Delimitation of the study
1.10 Key theoretical concepts
1.11 Outline of research methodology
1.12 Outline of chapters
1.13 Summary of chapter one
CHAPTER TWO: SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 History of the Portuguese in South Africa
2.3 South Africa’s Portuguese community-based organisations
2.4 Concluding comments
2.5 Summary of chapter two
CHAPTER THREE: THEORY AND RESEARCH LITERATURE ON DOCUMENTING THE UNDER DOCUMENTED
3.1 The significance of the literature review for this study
3.2 Theoretical framework for this study
3.3 Literature reviewed on documenting underrepresented groups, community archiving and related practices
3.4 Summary of chapter three
CHAPTER FOUR: EXAMPLES OF ENDEAVOURS TO DOCUMENT UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY ARCHIVING AND RELATED INITIATIVES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 International initiatives
4.3 Initiatives in Africa
4.4 South African initiatives
4.5 Comparison matrix of the initiatives reviewed
4.6 Summary of chapter four
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Study of the literature
5.3 Review of websites
5.4 The empirical investigation
5.5 Summary of chapter five
CHAPTER SIX: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Analysis of the data from the semi-structured interviews with the Portuguese community-based organisations in Gauteng
6.3 Analysis of the interviews held with the National Archives and Records Services of South Africa and the archives/special collections departments of three South African universities in Gauteng
6.4 Summary of chapter six
CHAPTER SEVEN: DATA INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
7.2 General information about the South African Portuguese community-based organisations in Gauteng
7.3 Information about the records produced and held by these organisations
7.4 The recordkeeping practices of these organisations
7.5 The willingness of these organisations to support and contribute towards an archives collecting initiative of the community
7.6 The organisations’ preferences regarding custody of their potential archival records
7.7 Additional comments and suggestions provided by the interviewees
7.8 The willingness of mainstream institutions to accommodate the records of these community based organisations
7.9 Summary of chapter seven
CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of the major findings of the study
8.3 Conclusions
8.4 Recommendations – the way forward
8.5 An integrated framework for collecting the records of South Africa’s Portuguese community based organisations in Gauteng
8.6 Suggestions for future research
8.7 Concluding comments
8.8 Summary
LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT