I haven't disappeared: I've simply been keeping quiet for the past few
weeks. The problems with my blood pressure and the medication that I have
been taking for it have been occupying my mind no small amount, but it seems
that there is a mild improvement that started a day or so ago, not
coincidentally because I doubled the dosage of the new medication that I am
taking. I note that this doubling was the advice of my GP, who told me to
start with a small dose then double it after a week. It also helps that I
have found an analgesic that handles the headaches that the new medication
creates - even if this
pain killer
is banned in several countries.
I find it interesting that my personal medical problems are far more
interesting to me than the havoc that the Covid-19 virus is wreaking on
Israel (and of course, elsewhere in the world). Although theoretically the
country has been locked down for two weeks, few people have observed this
and so infection rates have doubled and tripled. A more stringent lock down
will start tonight for a few weeks. To me, it doesn't matter much as I've
been working from home for the last two weeks and will continue to do so for
however long it takes.
A few weeks ago, before my medical problems got out of hand, I devoted some
time to the wreckage of my doctoral thesis. My understanding of the feedback
that I received is that basically the whole thing has to be redone and
rewritten, so I thought it prudent to start with the literature review. I
spent one evening looking for advice on how to write a critical literature
review, which is when I stumbled on the following:
Let us make one thing very clear. A PhD literature review isn’t just a
summary of existing literature. That’s an annotated bibliography and that
isn’t what a PhD literature review is about. This is the mistake I see most
frequently in the PhDs I proofread. Not only will your examiners send this
back for corrections, but it may mean the whole PhD thesis is problematic
because it isn’t grounded in a critical review of the literature. A PhD
literature review is a critical assessment of the literature in your field
and related to your specific research topic. When discussing each relevant
piece of literature, the review must highlight where the gaps are and what
the strengths and weaknesses are of particular studies, papers, books, etc.
Also, different pieces of literature are compared and contrasted with one
another so that themes and relationships are highlighted. [link]
Well, yes, that's exactly what I did - I served up an annotated
bibliography, although to be fair, I did add criticism. So I had to start
from scratch, looking for themes then writing about them without going into
any detail of the papers themselves. Thus maybe eight pages of text were
condensed into one paragraph (!) as follows ...
This richness of literature regarding CSFs [Critical Success Factor]
means that there is not total agreement as to what constitutes a CSF; each
author apparently feels obligated to find new CFS. For example, there
is dispute in the literature as to whether modifying the ERP system (misfit
strategy 4, as adopted by this thesis) is a CSF and so should be avoided;
the tendency is to avoid modification in large organisations (Bergeron et
al., 2004; Esteves and Pastor, 2005; Kang et al., 2008; Parhizkar, 2016;
Barth and Koch, 2019) and to embrace it in SMEs (Zach and Munkvold, 2012;
Beijsterveld and Groenendaal, 2015; Huang et al., 2018). The view that
modification is a CSF is upheld by Barth and Koch (2019, p. 667) who examine
CSFs in upgrade projects, remarking that "due to the high complexity of ERP
systems, upgrades can only be conducted within comprehensive projects and
require significant personal and financial resources as well as a high
degree of ERP know-how". Their conclusion was based on twelve interviews
with leading personnel from differing companies, all using SAP. This
conclusion is not necessarily valid when a company uses a different ERP
system more amenable to modification.
I sent the above to my supervisor a few weeks ago who only belatedly
replied to me on Monday, writing that this is exactly what needs to be done.
He also suggested a few terms to search for, such as 'software enhancement'.
Today I had the time and temperament to start working on this; I found a few
papers that were discussing misfits in the AutoCAD program. I realised that
AutoCAD is another example of what I term 'diagonal software', so I could
write a little about this. Unfortunately, the papers themselves are written
in very bad English and don't appear to yield very much for me, but under
the new regime, all I need to do is note that there is a small amount of
literature in this field that is parallel to mine.
I then spent a few hours creating the template for my new thesis. The first
chapter, the introduction, was imported with no change save to delete a few
paragraphs at the end that discuss the thesis structure. The second chapter,
about ERP systems, was bolstered by a few paragraphs that I wrote
immediately after the viva that explain why I focused on the four systems
that I mentioned. I added another paragraph or two about AutoCAD then threw
out almost everything about horizontal software. The few pages that begin
the new literature review, along with a page about search techniques, became
the beginning of the third chapter. I then went through these three chapters
and created a new bibliography to which I will be adding as I write more
material.
I also spent a frustrating hour trying to get Word to format headings in
the way that I want them. I am linking an
interesting article
on the topic, but I'm not sure that I managed to define the styles as the
article explains. Correct formatting leads to an automatic table of
contents, which is one reason why it is so important.
I will have plenty of time over the next two days to continue working on
the literature review, and it's about time that I stopped procrastinating
and got back down to work.