QSO 500 Module Two Short Paper Guidelines And Rubric Overvie

Qso 500 Module Two Short Paper Guidelines And Rubric Overview

For this short paper assignment, you will be critiquing the literature section of a research article. Your critique should analyze the theories that ground the research problem, discuss biases and limitations in the literature review, and evaluate whether the literature review follows guidelines from your textbook, specifically Chapter 4. The paper should be 2-3 pages long, double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12-point font, with at least three APA-cited sources. Your critique should be well-organized, free from major grammatical errors, and include in-text citations and a complete references list.

Paper For Above instruction

The article under review, titled "Diversity Management: An Organisational Culture Audit to Determine Individual Differences," presents a literature review that aims to establish the theoretical foundation for understanding diversity management within organizations. A critical examination of this literature review reveals both strengths and areas for improvement in line with scholarly standards and guidelines outlined in academic writing resources.

Theories Grounding the Problem

The literature review identifies several key theories that underpin the problem of diversity management. Notably, Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is referenced to explain how individuals categorize themselves and others based on perceived group memberships, influencing intergroup relations within organizations. The review also discusses Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory (Hofstede, 1980), which provides a framework to understand cultural differences that impact organizational diversity. These theories serve as foundational models that help interpret individual differences and their influence on organizational culture.

For example, the literature cites research employing Social Identity Theory to illustrate how bias and intergroup conflicts can arise from salient group memberships. It also references studies using Hofstede’s dimensions to analyze cross-cultural disparities in workplace behaviors. By citing these theories, the author grounds the problem of diversity management within established psychological and cultural frameworks, enhancing the review’s scholarly rigor.

Biases and Limitations in the Literature Review

While the review effectively draws on reputable theories, it exhibits some biases and limitations. One noticeable bias is the over-reliance on Western-centric models and perspectives, such as Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, which have been criticized for lacking applicability across diverse cultural contexts (McSweeney, 2002). The review does not sufficiently address these critiques or explore alternative frameworks that may offer a more nuanced understanding of cultural diversity globally.

Additionally, the literature review tends to emphasize positive aspects of diversity initiatives without fully acknowledging potential challenges or unintended consequences, such as tokenism or organizational resistance (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). The author mentions limitations of certain theories, but these are not thoroughly integrated into the overall analysis. Furthermore, bias is evident in the selection of sources, which predominantly come from published studies favoring diversity programs, possibly skewing the review toward optimistic interpretations.

Guidelines Followed and Elements Present

According to Chapter 4 of your textbook, a comprehensive literature review should include a clear theoretical framework, critical analysis of sources, identification of gaps or limitations, and logical organization. The review successfully incorporates relevant theories like Social Identity and Hofstede’s Culture Model, fulfilling the requirement for a theoretical basis.

However, elements such as critical evaluation of the sources, explicit discussion of biases, and acknowledgment of gaps in the literature are less developed. The review tends to summarize rather than critically analyze the cited studies, which diminishes its scholarly quality. It also lacks a systematic structure that clearly delineates different themes or areas for future research, which are important aspects of a well-rounded literature review.

Overall, while the literature review adheres to some guidelines by citing relevant theories and sources, it falls short in providing a critical and balanced analysis aligned with best practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the literature review in the article "Diversity Management: An Organisational Culture Audit to Determine Individual Differences" effectively identifies core theories that ground the problem, but it also demonstrates biases toward Western perspectives and limited critical engagement with sources. To improve, the review should incorporate more diverse theoretical frameworks, critically evaluate existing studies, and explicitly discuss limitations and gaps. Such enhancements would strengthen its contribution to understanding diversity management from a more global and nuanced perspective.

References

• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications.
• Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or bad experiments? Assessing the efficacy of corporate diversity training. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.
• McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.