Hints and suggestions to help with MIS741 Assignment 2

The following outlines a potential structure for the Assignment 2 report with points to consider.

There should be a cover page (not included in the word count), then followed immediately on the second page by the start of the report (i.e. Introduction section onwards). No table of contents, no executive summary, etc.

Structure of the report

Introduction

· State the purpose of the report (i.e. the topic it will argue/evaluate), why the topic is important, and how the report will do this (i.e. using the ethical decision-making framework).

· Two to three short sentences at most will be sufficient for an introduction to this report.

Section for each part of the framework

· It will make sense, at the very least, to have separate sections for each part of the framework (questions on left hand side of framework table)

· A section for Questions 1 and 2 of the framework

· A section for Questions 3 and 4 of the framework (and maybe 5 as well if the analysis of this question results in similar to 3 and 4)

· A section for Question 6

· A section for Question 7

· For each of the sections listed above:

· You could create a table summarising your analysis of the research sources/literature for the stakeholders (see the examples in Workshop 3 for spam).

· You should discuss the table by citing research evidence (i.e. your research sources/literature) which justifies your summary statements in the table.

· The table and your discussion of the table should consider the short, medium and long-term impact (based on your research evidence), as applicable, for each stakeholder type.

· Remember that your analysis should be balanced and not prioritise one stakeholder type over another. If you are going to prioritise any stakeholder type, the ACS states that it should be the public and not organisations, individual employees, etc.

Section presenting full framework analysis

· It would then be logical to present a table summarising the full analysis on one page (e.g. the example in Workshop 3 on spam).

· Discuss what the table suggests overall about the morality of the topic posed, and cite research evidence to justify this (e.g. if you have given more wait to some questions over other questions).

Conclusion

· Write a brief conclusion (2-3 sentences at most) summarising the argument/evaluation in the report and the overall conclusion made about the morality of the topic posed.

References

· Then list your references

Using research evidence

All sections of the report, except the Introduction and Conclusion, must include citations for most of your sentences that support the sentence.

Do not use one or more references just at the end of the paragraph

The following example is not a good use of research evidence, because it is not clear whether the citation is supporting just the last sentence or the entire paragraph.

Societal stakeholders (e.g. consumers, citizens) now expect organisations to consider the societal and environmental impact of the products/services they sell. Internet-connected glasses under development today are a case in point because they can result in unforeseen problems including cybercrime and child pornography (Stephan et al. 2012).

Even if the paragraph has two citations at the end, it will be exactly the same issue.

Do not rely on one citation only to support the argument

The next example fixes the previous problem by adding a citation to the first sentence. It is then clear that the “Stephan et al.” citation supports both sentences.

Societal stakeholders (e.g. consumers, citizens) now expect organisations to consider the societal and environmental impact of the products/services they sell (Stephan et al. 2012). Internet-connected glasses under development today are a case in point because they can result in unforeseen problems including cybercrime and child pornography (Stephan et al. 2012).

The new problem, however, is that the paragraph argument is weak because it is only supported by one article.

Do not summarise each source in a paragraph

A common approach that students use when using research evidence in paragraphs is to summarise each article separately, as shown in the next example.

Stephan et al. (2012) argue that the Internet-connected glasses being developed today could result in unforeseen future problems including cybercrime and child pornography. Raymond and Shackleford (2015) explain that Internet-connected glasses could result in future problems where jurors viewing information they should not access during a court case.

The problem with this approach, especially as additional articles are summarised, is that the paragraph becomes very long and repetitive.

Use different sources for each paragraph

The following example addresses the problems above because there are now three different sources. For example, instead of summarising three articles that say similar things, combine them into a single sentence and have three citations. This would be an example of combining what you are reading into a synthesis of an idea.

The example below also illustrates that we can use citations within a sentence, and not just at the end. We used this approach to simplify the previous example.

Notice also how the first sentence looks more convincing (or that it has stronger evidence) because there is more than one citation supporting it. We could improve the second sentence in similar ways by adding additional citations.

Societal stakeholders (e.g. consumers, citizens) now expect organisations to consider the societal and environmental impact of the products/services they sell (Chaarlas and Noorunnisha 2012; Stephan et al. 2012). Internet-connected glasses being develop today are an example because they can result in unforeseen problems including cybercrime, child pornography (Stephan et al. 2012) and jurors viewing information they should not access during a court case (Raymond and Shackleford 2015).

Sources used for these examples

Chaarlas, LJ and Noorunnisha 2012, ‘Utilitarianism in CSR reporting: the maximum good for stakeholders’, Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 4(1), 38-48.

Raymond, AH and Shackleford, SJ 2015, ‘Jury glasses: wearable technology and its role in crowdsourcing justice’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(1), 115-153.

Stephan, KD, Michael, K, Michael, MG, Jacob, L and Anesta, EP 2012, ‘Social implications of technology: the past, the present, and the future’, Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(Special Centennial Issue), 1752-1781.

 

“PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ESSAY PAPER LTD AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

UK BEST WRITING