Please provide a 1-2 paragraph response for the following post

The literature review is a critical analysis of existing academic literature centering around a predefined research problem (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015).

A well written critical literature review should define known and unknown concepts regarding your problem statement (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). Through the following discussion, I introduce the literature review liability and key components of Mittal (2016) as well as a brief discussion of the relationship between the critical analysis of the literature and my proposed research problem.

Key Components of Study

The theoretical framework of the quantitative study conducted by Mittal (2016) is the impact of transformational leadership (TL) on employee turnover intentions (TI). To date, no defined underlying model defining the relationship between TL and TI exists (Mittal, 2016). The purpose of the study conducted by Mittal is to examine the mediating factors between TL and TI.

Trust maintains a positive relationship with TL (Mittal, 2016). Trust is also positively related to affective organizational commitment (AOC) (Mittal, 2016). Therefore, Mittal found that trust and psychological empowerment (PE) are mediating factors between TL and AOC. Mittal also determined the existence of a positive association between PE and AOC. With the determined negative correlation between AOC and TI (Mittal, 2016), Mittal identified the decisive role that PE, trust, and AOC play in lowering employee TI.

Literature Review Viability

According to Randolph (2009), there are several methods a researcher can use to evaluate a literature review. Randolph stated (as cited in Boote & Beile, 2005) that a researcher evaluating a literature review could use a five-category rubric for evaluation.

I believe the categories of this literature review matrix proposed by Randolph can be utilized to determine the viability of academic research for a literature review. The five categories stated by Randolph (as cited in Boote & Beile, 2005) are coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric. Given the criteria of the five categories stated by Randolph (as cited in Boote & Beile, 2005), I believe that Mittal (2016) maintains literature review viability.

For example, Mittal critically examined the state of the TL field of study by exclaiming the need for the examination of the underlying model defining the relationship between TL and TI. Also, Mittal is clearly written, coherent, and well developed which would further literature review viability (Randolph, 2009).

Critical Analysis

I believe that critical analysis of the literature begins with the beforehand mentioned five-category rubric for evaluation introduced by Randolph (2009) (as cited in Boote & Beile, 2005). As an independent scholar, my research problem and ultimate research philosophy can be introduced and supported by justifying literature inclusion or exclusion, critically examining the state, history, and ambiguities of my chosen research field, critiquing use and appropriateness of research methods, and writing a clear, well developed, and coherent literature review (Randolph, 2009).

In Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence supports the need for a well defined critical literature review. Also, I believe the independent scholar should be aware of the differences between the literature review and the annotated bibliography. I believe the thematic approach matrix introduced by Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill (2015) is an excellent start to a successful critical literature review.

References

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. Doi:10.3102/0013189x034006003

Mittal, S. (2016). Effects of transformational leadership on turnover intentions in IT SMEs. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8), 1322-1346. doi:10.1108/IJM-10-2014-0202

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1-13.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.