Scholars Before Researchers
The process by which researchers handle the literature review of their research studies have been noted by Boote and Beile as one of the most identified failure in most doctoral research presentations. These claims have been further supported by Maxwell in his critique rendered towards the assessment of the article written by Boote and Beile with regards scholars and the skills that they apply to come up with read-worth literary review sections in their studies. More than that, Maxwell also intends to represent the importance of relevance of literary review towards the entirety of a research piece. According to him, the relative connection of the literary review with that of the theme that is represented in the study is an important part of representing the truth behind the theoretical basis of the research and its definitive connection with the results collected from the methodologies adapted in each study. In the discussion that follows, it shall be understood how Max reviews the writing of Boot and Beile as he tries to insist on the relative relation of a relevant literary review with that of the establishment of the strength of a research.
Assessment of Abstract and Content
Doctoral research according to Maxwell is a specific requirement for learning professionals to prove that they have learned properly all the subjects that they have enrolled in and that they know the practicality of such matters. Undeniably, it could be realized that this is the reason why doctoral research presentations are expected to mirror the skills and knowledge learned by the students from their lessons. Applying such philosophies and theories of learning in actual cases that would benefit the whole society is a proof that they indeed were able to get the gist of their studies. In the process of establishing an efficient and well presented research, the literature review section stands as one of the most important backbones of the discussion. From this section comes the base theories and the past evidences that support the central idea of the research. Hence, it is then very important for this section to have a well established status in presenting the focal topic of the study. However, among all the different parts of the research presentations, it seems that the literature review section becomes the least discussed in research classes. Apparently, the effect of this on the outcome of the completed studies is very much compelling that renders the entire study a weak presentation of issues and solutions for particular problems being addressed therein.
Boote and Beile points out the fact that the lessened guidance provided to the students with regards the proper ways of establishing a strong literary review actually weakens the capability of the research to render full reference to the topic being discussed or resolved in the study. This has been further supported by Maxwell as he said he actually saw the effects of misguidance to researchers during his teaching years. He claims that the inability of the research subject educators to show the students how important literature review is lessens the capability of the students to provides more effective research materials that ought to be practically used for actual application in their own chosen fields. The evaluation of Maxwell with the article he is assessing is based on the parallel occurrence that he experienced in connection with what the authors were referring to in their article. This basically makes Maxwell’s writing a good source of evidence as to how true the assumptions of Boote and Beile were.
Critique of Maxwell’s Evaluation
Establishing a professional ground as the basis of his evaluation, it could be realized how effective Maxwell tried to handle the assessment process. Treading carefully through the important points that the authors presented and supporting the said claims with actual experience accounts on his personal understanding of the topic makes his evaluative presentation rather trustworthy. While Maxwell supports the entirety of the article that the authors wrote, he also thoroughly mentions of the weak sides of the research which is basically pointing out that the educators have the central responsibility for the production of weak research materials on the part of the students under doctoral courses. According to Maxwell, the incapability of the educators to provide proper guidance should be compensated by the desire of the researchers themselves to present a usable thesis and/or a simple research that would be practical for the experts on their field to apply to actual cases [for the sake of development].
Notably, Maxwell points out that in the process of completing their research , Beile and Boote should have presented the two sides of the coin, both that of the educators and that of the students as well. Since the topic in consideration involves doctorate studies, Maxwell argues that the effort of learning and gaining personal development especially in the process of creating a research material that is useful for the society should come from both sides of the parties involved. Although guidance is required, Maxwell believes that at least fifty five percent of the overall success of a research paper comes from the willingness of a student to establish a well reputable and best validated research as a representation of his/her learning.
With the use of strong evidences from his own collection of literary sources, Maxwell tries to clarify the role that the literature review section has towards establishing a better and reputable research material. And with these collected resources, he also points out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the article written by Boote and Beile with regards the same topic hence rendering his assessment non-biased and well defined especially on the part of showing the focal issue being tackled which pertains to the establishment of a well grounded literary review. With an unbiased handling of the article’s assessment, Max supports the idea that the literary review should be well grounded, but he also insists on the other end that they should be equally relevant to the entire theme that is being pursued in the research as the central focus of discussion.