Refining ALRA diagram variables - examples

The following five examples are on refining management-concerns diagram and theoretical framework level-0 variables  in the subject of the agile literature review approach:

Related to management-concerns diagrams (3 examples)

Example 1: The initial variable formulation could be interpreted as "ABC's Ltd's brand management capability weakness", thus an "organizational capabilities" variable. It could also be conceived as an outcome variable. The refined one is more clearly an "environmental drivers" variable.

Example 2: The two initial variables are all about human resource management; they are consolidated and the focus on "competence" is also stressed, so that the revised variable is more clearly an "organizational capabilities" variable.

Example 3: the original variable does not appear as a solutions-related variable; it is revised to stress this nature with the phrase "the potential solution of the leadership training programme...".

Related to theoretical framework level-0 (2 examples)

Example 4: the original variable tends to put much attention directly on the topic of organizational agility; it runs the risk that the in the subsequent literature review, the two topics of external environment assessment and organizational agility competence will collapse into one topic. Thus, the component formulation needs to stress the environmental characteristics more clearly (that could then justify the need for organizational agility) (re: on organizational agility)

Example 5: The original zone 3 outcomes-related component is still not clear on what specific outcomes to evaluate on; one needs to bear in mind that management concerns could cover variables in other zones, such as environmental drivers and organizational capabilities. Also, many of the theoretical framework level-0 components are derived from the management-concerns diagram  variables anyway. Their influences on this component are indicated in the arrows of this theoretical framework. The revised one is more specific what organizational outcome to focus on. In this case, it is the financial performance of ABC Ltd.

The examples above are not meant to be model answers, but are intended to point to ways to make the formulation of variables/ components (i) clearer in meaning and (ii) more appropriate to belong to a particular zone and, subsequently, to guide the ALRA research task requirements.

On the double systemicity of theoretical framework construction in the ALRA

The overall theoretical framework set in the agile literature review approach (ALRA) is described as doubly systemic. They are systemic at both level-0 and the level-1a/-b. This is illustrated in the following diagrams for illustration:

In parallel with the systematic diagramming at the theoretical framework level-1b, is one at the theoretical framework level-1a:

Note that at level-0, the components are high-level research tasks while at level-1b, the research tasks are low-level research tasks.

Two types of research tasks in the Agile Literature Review Approach

There are two types of research tasks in the Agile Literature Review Approach.

Type 1 research tasks [high-level research task] are the theoretical framework component labels (re: theoretical framework level-0), such as "to evaluate the innovation capability of ABC Ltd". They are  broader research tasks and should be perceived as: (i) research objectives of the research project and (ii) an invitation to carry out literature review tasks so as to come up with a set of academic ideas to enable these research tasks to be carried in a theory-driven way using a balanced set of inter-related academic ideas. A type 1 task is also called a literature review task, because of that. It is also called a theoretical framework component label in the ALRA subject.

Type 2 research tasks [low-level research task] appear in theoretical framework level-1b. They are more focused research tasks (for specific theoretical framework components) that adopt a specific academic idea (of a theoretical framework component) to carry out 1-2 specific research methods. An example can be: to learn the perceptions of middle-managers on the managerial leadership competence of the senior managers of ABC Ltd [optional: using semi-structured research interview method].  *** in this case, the academic idea is "managerial leadership competence" and the research method used is "semi-structured research interview).

In the project management jargon, research task type 1 [high-level] is work breakdown structure level 2, e.g. task 1, while a research task type 2 [low-level] task of a task 1 belongs to level 3, e.g., task 1.1.

Level of complexity of analytical academic ideas in theoretical framework level 1a

When constructing theoretical framework level 1a (in ALRA), we need to populate a theoretical framework level 0 with academic ideas. The majority of these academic ideas are analytical in nature. That is, they are not simply definitions of academic concepts, e.g. definition of employee turnover. It should be clear that if all the analytical academic ideas employed in a theoretical framework [level 1a] are very simple ones, the overall quality of the literature review remains quite crude. In this respect, it is useful to clarify the notion of analytical academic idea complexity in terms of levels of complexity. This is illustrated in the following table.

          Level of complexity of analytical academic ideas

Complexity level	Example of analytical academic ideas
Level 4	Dynamic capability model of Teece
Level 3	Porter and Lawler Model of Motivation
Level 2	Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Level 1	Top management commitment is a necessary condition for Total Quality Management success

It is important that for a student employing the agile literature review approach (ALRA) be able to adopt at least a few analytical academic ideas in their theoretical framework (level 1a) at complexity level 3 or 4. If all the analytical academic ideas used (as populated in the theoretical framework level 1a) are at level 1, the overall quality of the literature review for the ALRA exercise remains very crude.

Strengths, weaknesses and employment challenges of the ALRA

Quite a number of ALRA students have encountered difficulties to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the agile literature review approach (ALRA) when when writing the dissertation report chapter on literature review. The following table summaries the main points on them. They should be a useful reference to inform them on writing about it in their dissertation reports.

Strengths, weaknesses and employment challenges of the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA)

Strengths	Weaknesses	Employment challenges
1.     Agile (lean and responsive; easy to start 2.     easy to refine ideas and thinking) 3.     Management-concerns focused 4.     Research objectives focused 5.     Sensitive to the idiosyncrasy of the case study 6.     High visibility of the holistic view of the overall intellectual response (e.g., on a set of related literature review tasks) 7.     Foster and facilitate intellectual learning based on the existing intellectual capability of the researcher 8.     Facilitate collaborative co-learning between the dissertation project supervisor and supervisee	1.     Literature review on individual academic topic not comprehensive nor vigorous 2.     Lack of guarantee that the researcher is able to relate academic ideas between various literature review tasks 3.     Frequent changes of the overall ALRA theoretical framework can still be time-consuming and troublesome to be made 4.     Mainly suitable for doing an applied business research on a single case study	1.     Rely on the underlying engaged intellectual learning (e.g. on literature review knowledge (including the ALRA) and academic ideas in the relevant management literature review) of the researcher to employ the approach well 2.     Rely on a properly produced management-concerns diagram to justify the ALRA exercise 3.     Rely on a competent dissertation supervisor who is also well versed in the ALRA

Examining the underlying research philosophies in an ALRA-based dissertation project

Most MBA students writing up the chapter on Research Methods find it challenging to examine the underlying research philosophies of their dissertation projects.

Basically, you need to examine:

(a) research methods anchoring: trying to argue (e.g. to explain how) that a chosen set of research methods endorses the worldview (e.g. its ontology, epistemology and favored research methods) of a specific research philosophy.

(b) research philosophy switching: trying to argue that the research design involves using 1-2 research methods that endorse a different underlying research philosophy. In short, there is a research philosophy switching from one used research philosophy to another one employed in the same dissertation project.

The following diagram is illustrative in the context of a agile literature review approach (ALRA)-based dissertation project:

It is useful to also discuss (i) the specific strengths and weaknesses of adopting a particular research philosophy as well as (ii) how the chosen research philosophy (or chosen research philosophies with philosophy switching) shape formulation of research objectives, research questions and research design formulation.

To improve your skills to review research philosophies in your dissertation projects, you need to study research methods textbooks as well as academic articles that discuss research philosophies and their employment in specific research works.

Steps for producing a management-concerns diagram

Steps for producing a management-concerns diagram:

Step 1: Identify a number of variables and factors directly and indirectly related to a set of management concerns and issues of a client system.

Step 2: Locate them into the three zones of environmental drivers, organization capabilities and outcomes/ solutions.

Step 3: Link them up to make up a plausible scenario that at the same time reflects the soft complexity of the set of management concerns/ issues under review. [Management issues are those that the management of the client organization is unhappy or excited about, yet not strongly feeling that they need to be addressed in the near future; management concerns are same as management issues except that the management strongly feel that they need to be addressed in the near future.]

Step 4: Clearly identify the variables of management concerns and issues in the diagram.

Step: 5: Review the management-concerns diagram to see if it provides the appropriate basis of your dissertation project justification.

Class exercise: construct a management-concerns diagram with the following variables:

1. Marketplace is becoming more competitive
2. Business environment is getting tough due to trade war
3. Quite a number of key senior technical staff will retire soon
4. Organizational culture is defensive and conservative
5. Weak managerial capability to recruit and retain employees
6. Weak organizational innovation capability
7. Low staff morale
8. Weak managerial leadership at the top level
9. High staff turnover at the operational level
10. Infrequent introduction of new products
11. Not clear how to figure out a business diversification strategy
12. Continuous sales revenue decline over the last 3 years
13. Working environment is stressful and error-prone

Offering concrete academic ideas in the construction of ALRA theoretical frameworks

When offering academic ideas in the construction of ALRA theoretical frameworks, you need to provide concrete academic ideas, and not simply a management subject. For example, when you are providing academic ideas for a theoretical framework component on "evaluating the present strategic change efforts of ABC Ltd", your academic idea could be "top management team characteristics" influence, and not simply "strategic change theory". The former academic idea is much more concrete than the latter one.

The following extract of an academic article provides further clarification on this topic and the example on strategic change.

Another example is that when your theoretical framework component is  "To evaluate the marketing capability of ABC Ltd", your academic idea could be the marketing capability notion of Shin and Aiken (2012) [more concrete], instead of simply marketing theory [too broad]. See extract as follows:

Make sure that all your academic ideas incorporated into your Agile Literature Review Approach theoretical framework are supported by your study note on literature review, so that your academic ideas can be traced to specific academic journal articles. 

Finally, you need to justify in your dissertation report that your chosen academic ideas are useful for you to perform your theoretical framework component task.

Guidelines for producing theoretical framework level 1b

The guidelines for producing theoretical framework level 1b are as follows:

Theoretical framework 1b makes use of the academic ideas in theoretical framework 1a to produce research tasks. Because research tasks are in the form of a sentence, it is not quite feasible to produce it in the form of a diagram. In this case, just list the theoretical components (with labels) and provide the list of research tasks per component is quite appropriate. The list format goes something likes this:

E.g.

Component X: to evaluate XXXXX(e.g., Component 3: to evaluate the innovation capability of ABC Ltd.)
Research task 3.1
Research task 3.2
Research task 3.3
.....



Theoretical framework level 1b is concisely described as theoretical framework level 0 + research tasks

______________________________________________________

The following note illustrates what is an academic idea and its corresponding research task:

"Leadership theories abound in the literature. One management principle is that managers should coach their subordinates as well as assess them (Wong and Li, 2015). Given guidance, the leadership styles of managers can greatly influence employees’ behavior (Lin et al., 2010; Li and Sun, 2015). Two dimensions of leadership are recognized by the Ohio School of Management Leadership, which are leader consideration and leader initiating structure. Leader initiating structure is bound up with how a supervisor coaches service staff. Leader consideration refers to the degree to which supervisors create an atmosphere of support and show their concern for the subordinates’ well-being (Bass and Stogdill, 1981; Judge et al., 2004; Kerr et al., 1974; Lin et al., 2014)"; [Lishan Xie, Yaoqi Li, Sheng-Hsiang Chen, Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2016) "Triad theory of hotel managerial leadership, employee brand-building behavior, and guest images of luxury-hotel brands", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 9, pp.1826-1847, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2015-0004.]

Key words: leader consideration and initiating structure

Research tasks: To learn perception of how existing managerial leadership quality in terms of leader consideration and initiating structure affect employees' and organizational performance [by unstructured interview and questionnaire survey on company staff].

In this example, "leader consideration and initiating structure" is an academic idea while "To learn perception of how existing managerial leadership quality in terms of leader consideration and initiating structure affect employees' and organizational performance [by unstructured interview and questionnaire survey on company staff]" is its corresponding research task. 

The specification of research method {i.e. [by unstructured interview and questionnaire survey on company staff]} in the research task is optional.

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-1c in the Agile Literature Review Approach:

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-1c in the Agile Literature Review Approach:

The terms used are: 

1. Zones (zone 1: environmental drivers; zone 2: organizational capabilities; zone 3: outcomes/ solutions)
2. Components (make sure to include component numbers)
3. Component labels
4. Core-focus domain
5. Links (between components)
6. Academic ideas
7. Research methods {Mapping them onto the theoretical framework is known as research methods mapping}


See if you could find these terms in the following diagram:

Theoretical framework level 1c is concisely described as theoretical framework level 1a+ research methods mapping

Additional reading: the implications of research methods mapping.

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-1a in the ALRA

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-1a in the Agile Literature Review Approach:

The terms used are: 

1. Zones (zone 1: environmental drivers; zone 2: organizational capabilities; zone 3: outcomes/ solutions)
2. Components (make sure to include component numbers)
3. Component labels
4. Core-focus domain
5. Links (between components)
6. Academic ideas


See if you could find these terms in the following diagram:

Theoretical framework level 1a is concisely described as theoretical framework level 0 + academic ideas

__________________________________________________

On the element of academic idea, the following example is illustrative:

"Leadership theories abound in the literature. One management principle is that managers should coach their subordinates as well as assess them (Wong and Li, 2015). Given guidance, the leadership styles of managers can greatly influence employees’ behavior (Lin et al., 2010; Li and Sun, 2015). Two dimensions of leadership are recognized by the Ohio School of Management Leadership, which are leader consideration and leader initiating structure. Leader initiating structure is bound up with how a supervisor coaches service staff. Leader consideration refers to the degree to which supervisors create an atmosphere of support and show their concern for the subordinates’ well-being (Bass and Stogdill, 1981; Judge et al., 2004; Kerr et al., 1974; Lin et al., 2014)"; [Lishan Xie, Yaoqi Li, Sheng-Hsiang Chen, Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2016) "Triad theory of hotel managerial leadership, employee brand-building behavior, and guest images of luxury-hotel brands", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 9, pp.1826-1847, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2015-0004.]

Key words: leader consideration and initiating structure

Research tasks: To learn perception of how existing managerial leadership quality in terms of leader consideration and initiating structure affect employees' and organizational performance by unstructured interview and questionnaire survey on company staff.

In this example, "leader consideration and initiating structure" is an academic idea. [Note: Research tasks are not included in theoretical framework level 1a].

Further reading: some clarification about literature review with reference to the theoretical framework level-1a.

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-0 in the Agile Literature Review Approach

Terminology used in theoretical framework level-0 in the Agile Literature Review Approach:

The terms used are: 

1. Zones (zone 1: environmental drivers; zone 2: organizational capabilities; zone 3: outcomes/ solutions)
2. Components (make sure to include component numbers)
3. Component labels
4. Core-focus domain
5. Links (between components)


See if you could find these terms in the following diagram:

Subsequently, the components are called items. The main thing to bear in mind is that the theoretical framework items are used to conduct literature search (and then literature review). Thus, while management-concerns items can be expressed in the language of the stakeholders in the case study, the derived theoretical framework item has to adopt typical business / management topics in the academic literature. This enables the theoretical framework to serve as an agenda to do literature review. Specifically, the key words (as spoken in the academic literature) used to express the theoretical framework items are to be used for literature search in order to further identify some relevant academic ideas to populate the theoretical framework level-0 to become the theoretical framework level-1a. For example, the management-concerns diagram may use terms such as "difficult to calculate product expense", "difficult for the business to make money". or "office staff is unhappy as their supervisors are horrible". In the theoretical framework level-0, the items would probably be "difficult to perform product costing", "difficult to improve business performance, especially financial performance", and "low staff morale, especially due to poor supervisors' management style". A good source to pick up typical business/ management topics is to refer to the table of contents of business/ management textbooks.

The "complicated understanding" orientation of the Agile Literature Review Approach

The "complicated understanding" orientation (CUO) of the Agile Literature Review Approach is based on the following two learning attitude commitments:

Commitment 1: Develop a complicated understanding of the problem-situation and the chosen set of management concerns  [for the dissertation project] facing the client system as embedded in the problem-situation. This commitment is mainly employed in the problem-exploration phase of a research project].

Commitment 2: Develop a complicated intellectual response to the chosen set of management concerns for the researcher's dissertation project. This commitment is primarily adopted in the literature review phase of a research project].

Th CUO guides the ALRA-based dissertation project works on the project orientation phase, continuous problem-exploration, literature review and research investigation, among others. The CUO alerts to the high tendency of restrictiveness (e.g., perception blind-spots of all sorts) in the researcher's and client management's boundary judgement on management problem definition, research objective formulation and literature scope determination. Besides, from the standpoint of formulating a proper dissertation proposal, the research problem definition and literature review scope should not be too narrow (and the project topic too simple).

On the nature of the management-concerns diagram in the Agile Literature Review Approach

This discussion examines the nature of the management-concerns diagram in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA) and how to decide on its appropriateness:

In the Agile Literature Review Approach, the management-concerns diagram represents a chosen set of management issues (i.e. factors related to the organizational environment, organizational capabilities and business outcomes/solutions) that (i) the organization management team is so unhappy about or, alternatively, so exited about that they strongly feel that they need to be addressed in the near future and (ii) the researcher is also interested to conduct research on them. It can be further clarified in the form of the following diagram:

Referring to the diagram, the management-concerns diagram covers a set of components on management concerns that are at the same time of intellectual interest to the researcher [i.e. the shaded area in the diagram]. In the actual construction of such a diagram, the researcher could introduce a few additional related variables about the client system's environment or organizational performances/ solutions so as to make the comprehension of the set of management concerns easier. If the management-concerns diagram covers topics in the unshaded area, the overall research direction, e.g., in research objectives, literature review focus and research design, etc., is also not appropriate. In a nutshell, there has to be a congruity between the researcher-preference-based individualized and client-concerns-specific considerations in final the management-concerns diagram adopted for an applied business research project for such a diagram to be adopted.


Note: in the discussion, management issues are those the management team is unhappy about or excited about, yet not feeling that they need to be addressed in the near future; management concerns are similar to management issues, except that the management team feels strongly that they need to be addressed in the near future. Thus, management concerns provide a much stronger justification base for launching a research project with an explicit goal to intellectually respond to them, ultimately with some recommendations to cope with them. This then explains why management-concerns diagram should mainly cover management concerns rather than management issues.

Comments on the overall process to conduct literature review on a theoretical framework [level 1a] component

Comments on the overall process to conduct literature review on a theoretical framework [level 1a] component in the ALRA:

The overall process

1. Describe how the academic ideas together enable you to perform the component evaluation task. 

2. Discuss how the academic ideas are able to clarify the nature, e.g., meaning, of the evaluation task and the academic concepts involved. 

3. Examine the importance of the lead model, including its ability to synthesize, if feasible, the rest of the academic ideas involved.. 

4. Evaluate how the chosen analytical concepts (academic ideas) enable you to more specifically, including more systematically, perform the evaluation task.

An example of mgt-concerns components by zones on the staff turnover theme (ALRA)

The following is an example of management-concerns components by zones on the staff turnover theme in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA) subject:


Zone 1: Environmental driver [internal environment related]

Component name: error-prone and stressful working environment due to high staff turnover


Zone 2: Organizational capabilities:

Component name: management concern on the existing management capability to manage staff turnover


Zone 3: Outcomes/ solutions:

Component name: management concern on the poor corporate financial results, considered to be partly due to the insufficient management capability to manage staff turnover

Dissertation report: main ALRA deliverables

Dissertation report: main Agile literature Review Approach (ALRA) deliverables 

Chapter 1 - Introduction: 
*Management-concerns diagram 

Chapter 2 – Literature review: 
*Theoretical framework [level 0] [level 1a] [level 1b] 
Level 0: components with labels 
Level 1a: Level 0 + academic ideas per components
Level 1b: Level 0 + research tasks using the academic ideas 

Chapter 3 – Research methods: 
*Theoretical framework [1c: either 1a + research methods mapping or 1b + research methods mapping] 
Level 1c: Level 1a or 1b, with research methods mapping

The 3 zones in the main diagrams used in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA)

The 3 zones in the main diagrams used in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA) are:

Zone 1: Environmental drivers: topics (e.g. factors, drivers or concerns) that are related to external and internal environments. As factors, drivers and issues, they exert much influences on certain organizational capabilities under examination, as relatively independent and nonmanipulable variables.

Zone 2: Organizational capabilities: topics related to certain organizational (both internal or inter-organizational) capability domains, such as innovation capability, managerial leadership competence, and supply chain management capability, etc..The prime attention is on their quality and competence status which have impact relevance to the organizational performance outcomes (e.g. financial/ non-financial and successfulness to cope with identified management concerns, and effectiveness of existing and potential organizational improvement initiatives.

Zone 3: Outcomes/ solutions: These cover both (i) outcome status on the organizational financial and nonfinancial performances and successfulness to deal with chosen management concerns and (ii) effectiveness of existing and potential solutions being considered to address the chosen management concerns.

The three zones are related in the sense, broadly speaking, that components/ factors in zone 1 influence components/ factors in zone 2; and components/ factors in zone 2 influence those in zone 3.

This is shown in the following diagram

Examples of components for the three zones are: 

Zone 1: Environmental drivers: Intensity of competition in the external environment; Customers becoming more demanding and sophisticated on service quality offered by the company. Internal environmental drivers could be the existing employee profile, e.g. ageing employees or millennial employees, and their job expectations.

Zone 2: Organizational capabilities: innovation capability, supply chain management capability, business intelligence management capability, and managerial leadership competence.

Zone 3: Outcomes/ solutions: (i) outcomes-related: return on equity, customer loyalty status, size of market share, staff morale status, employee commitment status, employee job stress level status, staff turnover status; and (ii) solutions-related (existing and new): service-automation project, flexible job arrangement initiative, and new e-service application.

Examples of management-concerns diagrams and theoretical frameworks are provided in other blog articles, thus not examined in this blog article.

Steps for literature review of an academic idea in ALRA

Steps for literature review of an academic idea in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA):

How to analyze a research method finding in ALRA

How to analyze a research method finding in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA):

Verify academic idea status in theoretical framework [level 0] construction (ALRA)

The theoretical framework [level 0] in the Agile Literature Review Approach (ALRA) represents the researcher's intellectual response to the management concerns (as depicted in the management-concerns diagram]; at the same time, it constitutes the literature review agenda of the researcher using the ALRA. As such, when converting a management-concern statement [in the management-concern diagram] into a theoretical framework component label [in theoretical framework level 0], it is vital to verify at the outset that such component label is expressed with an academic idea, and not just an idea in layman's terms. This verification can be quickly done with Google Scholar. The following example is illustrative:

Step 1: identify a management-concern statement [re: the management-concerns diagram]:

"Management is concerned about what are the prevailing SME customer preference on accounting services"

Step 2: formulate a corresponding theoretical framework [level 0] component label [re: the theoretical framework (level-0)]:

"To find out the prevailing SME customer preference on accounting services".

Step 3: to quickly verify whether the idea of customer preference is indeed an academic idea.

Type the word "customer preference" in Google Scholar to see if there are any academic articles that involve examination on the idea of "customer preference". The search result shows that there are indeed some academic articles that did examine the idea of "customer preference". Thus, it can be verified that the "customer preference' term can be considered as an academic idea. In this case, the theoretical framework component label is proper and serves as a reasonable response to the management concern of "Management is concerned about what are the prevailing SME customer preference on accounting services" [re: the Management-concerns diagram].

Writing literature review for the theoretical frameworks level 0 and level 1a

Writing up literature review for the theoretical frameworks level 0 and level 1a (with academic key words) in the agile literature review approach

Activity 1

Using your compiled study note for a specific theoretical framework component , present your literature review ideas in the following sequence:

Step 1. A discussion on the definitions and major concept typologies as related to the theoretical framework component; then indicate your own standpoint and specific preference on them as related to your present project work.

Step 2. A discussion on the main research interests and research gaps in the academic literature; then discuss your own preference on research interests and how you are going to deal with the relevant research gaps in the academic literature so as to proceed with your own investigation.

Step 3. An indication of specific research tasks you intend to perform that make use of the academic ideas, notably on specific analytical concepts and techniques, and viewpoints as presented in steps 1 and 2.

Activity 2: move on to write literature review on the next theoretical framework component

***** 

(a) make sure your overall discussion is directed at informing you how to perform your theoretical framework component task: e..g. to evaluate the innovation capability status of ABC Ltd' to evaluate the managerial leadership competence status of XYZ Ltd.

(b) as your literature review study note on a specific theoretical framework component also covers concept definitions, research interests and gaps, and analytical concepts and techniques, you should find it very useful to write up your literature review chapter. If not, you need to do additional literature review to enhance the content of your study note.

(c) your discussion on a particular component is likely to touch on how your ideas about your theoretical framework component contributes to the discussion of the related components in other parts of your theoretical framework.

(d) Length of your discussion depends on whether the component is a core-focus one or not: the length of your writing for a core-focus component should be much longer than that of a non-core-focus one.