Disinfection Alternatives for Contact Surfaces and Toys at Child Care Centers - Essay Example

?A. Quantitative Study: Disinfection alternatives for contact surfaces and toys at child care centers A The literature review in this study was formulated by starting to discuss the importance of child care centers (CCCs) nowadays (Jimenez, Martinez & Chaidez, 2010). This tried to build the connection of CCCs on the effectiveness of different disinfection alternatives for contact surfaces. Contact surfaces were emphasized to be the integral parts of microbial dissemination among children (Jimenez, Martinez & Chaidez, 2010). In line with this, the literature review also emphasized the risk of children to acquire infectious diseases from CCCs (Jimenez, Martinez & Chaidez, 2010). In other words, there were three important points that the proponents of the study were able to emphasize. The first point is about giving the significance of CCCs in the study. The second point is about building a significant relationship between different disinfection alternatives and the CCCs. This is further supported by the third point which is about trying to show the level of children’s risks for infectious diseases from CCCs. As noticed, the literature review was formed as a way to highlight the significant purpose of the study. It supported the main goal or objective of the proponents and as a result, it paved the way for effective introduction of the necessity to conduct such research. A.2 I find the literature review clearly written because its contents were highly organized. The proponents were able to relate all major concepts which can be found from the title of the study. All major concepts were given equal amount of focus in the literature review, which made the entire study clear and enough to be understood. As stated previously, there was a clear emphasis on the proponents’ important points of conducting the study. From the literature review, there was a clear introduction and discussion of the main variables. This clearly shows another important factor in writing good literature review and that is about consistency in addressing the different variables used in the study. This is the reason why it was not hard enough for me to understand the entire research. The literature review was able to give me the framework of the study as my solid foundation in understanding what the proponents were actually trying to find out. In other words, it is important to consider the entire literature review in this research as a fundamental background of the research. In conclusion, I should say that the entire literature review of this study was clearly written because it was enough to help me understand the proponents’ objectives. A.3 As stated earlier, the literature review for this study has become the fundamental framework. The proponents were able to relate the most important concepts from the literature review in their discussion. For instance, it was evident that the entire discussion was about the issue of finding which among of the chosen alternative disinfectants could provide maximum result. The entire discussion was supported by quantitative analysis and information in order to justify any relevant conclusions that would be made. In line with this, there was a clear discussion about the number of bacterial count on surfaces after using certain disinfectant. As it can be observed, the discussion was focused on the variables or conceptual framework mentioned in the literature review. This emphasizes the fact that the authors were able to make simple justification of the importance of literature review in their discussion. Thus, this makes the whole point that the entire discussion could not stand by itself without the literature review which actually was able to help build the foundation of the entire research. This only means that the entire discussion has fundamental framework on the literature review, and the entire research could not elaborately present its whole point without prior understanding about the inclusion of specific variables or concepts in it. B. Qualitative Study: Sustainable Management of the Future Environment under Uncertainties and Risks. B.1 The proponent of the study started the discussion with uncertainties and risks (Wang, 2010). Included in these were those cases with worst hurricanes that visited the United States and inflicted destruction to lives of people, health issues and more. However, the main focus of the proponent was highlighted within the context of problems with water such as scarcity, security, health issues and more. Furthermore, climate change and human activities were also emphasized. In line with these crises, the proponent was able to discuss in the literature about China’s achievement in environmental protection in the middle of its growing economy. In addition, there was also an inclusion of the United States Environmental Protection Agency contributions. The discussion of the literature was spontaneous leading to the integration of introduction and review of literature. In this case, the literature review has become the basis of the proponent’s conclusion and at the same time the justification or elaboration of the introduction. In this case, there was a clear basis that the literature review used by the proponent was able to expand the introduction. This led to a meaningful and concrete understanding of the very broad introduction discussed by the proponent. Thus, the literature review was a strong supporting detail of the introduction or purpose of the paper. B.2 As stated earlier, the literature review was written as a justification or supporting detail of the introduction or purpose of the study. However, the introduction was broad in its context so the only way to pick specific themes was through emphasizing certain issues in the literature review. The crisis and risk management seem to be a broad context. Thus, the proponent was able to provide specific topics out from these issues. The literature review was clearly written considering that it has become the proponent’s main discussion of the entire research as well. The research was just like an evaluation trying to consider the current situation and as well as the ultimate moves conducted by China and the US. The proponent was emphasizing these two giants in the economy considering that there is an implication of strong connection between crisis and risks management with growing economy. A specific example would be the climate change and the human activities and China’s and US’s contribution in them (Wang, 2010). It is therefore implied that the literature review was clearly written considering the fact that the proponent was able to create specific focus on the concerned issues. As a result, the readers would be given enough information about the subject matter. B.3 The literature review was at the same time the heart of the discussion because it has become the basis of evaluating the capacity of China and the United States to face the challenges of risks and crises. It has also become the basis of understanding the prevailing condition. All of these significantly relate with the findings and discussion of the proponent. As a result, the literature review was tantamount to understanding the whole issues discussed in the study. In addition, findings and discussion could not stand alone because of their strong interconnection with the literature review. This shows that the literature review in the study was the actual research conducted by the proponent, and out from the information generated from it are specific implications that resulted to the formulation of findings and eventually conclusion. The proponent was able to conclude the paper by emphasizing the new challenges in the new decades to come based on the information stated in the literature review (Wang, 2010). This only shows that the literature review was tantamount to the discovery of new ideas and addressing the main objectives of the study. It is clear to say that the entire information from findings and discussion were strongly founded by the literature review. Both Quantitative and Qualitative Study: Resident-to-resident relational aggression and subjective well-being in assisted living facilities. C.1 There were two important points of the literature review. The first point was about making it the basis for problem of the research questions (Trompetter, Scholte, & Westerhf, 2011). The proponent was able to discuss the level or anxiety and depression among older adults living in assisted living facilities. The proponents also highlighted the fact that there were only few studies highlighting the negative interactions among residents in assisted living facilities when in fact, there were various cases about it existing in these types of environment. This only shows that the proponents were able to use literature review in order to support the intention and goal of their study. The second point was about trying to justify the methods used in the study. The proponents were able to explore various methods in testing relational interactions among the chosen respondents. These included what questionnaires to be used. This has become the basis of formulating qualitative questions and transforming them into quantitative information. The formulation of questions like this paved way for easy implementation of the research process as well as their analysis. In other words, the use of literature review that would support the appropriate methodology in this study clearly emphasizes the overall goal of the entire research. C.2 The literature review was written in a way to present it as justification of the proponents’ various points and as basis for the formulation of the right methodology and research approach. The study was a combination of psychology, sociology and clinical health issues (Trompetter, Scholte, & Westerhf, 2011). Thus, there were remarkable integrations of varying significant concepts among these fields. In order to clearly justify them, the literature review from time to time should appear as supporting detail of any statement expressed by the proponents. In other words, the proponents were entirely relying on the availability of related literature about their specific points made. In line with this, there was a clear implementation of justifying the necessary concepts prior to the introduction of points of the proponents. There was a hint of complexity within the literature review, but each idea or concept was remarkably integrated within the proponents’ main points making the entire research clear about what it needs to achieve in the end. This made the literature review clearly written although it was very complex at some point due to the integration of different fields of knowledge. However, the consistency and focus were still there which has become the basis that the literature review was indeed clearly written. C.3 In this study, the proponents were able to justify some existing literature review and even refute the other (Trompetter, Scholte, & Westerhf, 2011). The discussion was able to draw connection with the literature review because as stated earlier, the proponents could not make their points without further justifying them with other related points from other sources. In this way, it has become easy for them to refute or agree with certain points made from other studies prior to their research. In general, the literature review tried to address certain gaps and these can be clearly depicted in the discussion of findings. These gaps were created and even discussed within the literature review. The discussion of findings clearly emphasized all of these by referencing existing related studies that could help support the idea and findings of the proponents. In other words, the literature review in the case of this study was not just able to address some remarkable gaps, but it also paved way for the right approach or process that need to be used in achieving remarkable results. In this study, its findings will never be completed without relying on the literature review which has to be a strong basis for whatever significant points of the proponents. References Jimenez, M., Martinez, C. I., & Chaidez, C. (2010). Disinfection alternatives for contact surfaces and toys at child care centers. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 20, 387-394. Trompetter, H., Scholte, R., & Westerhf, G. (2011). Resident-to-resident relational aggression and subjective well-being in assisted living facilities. Aging and Mental Health. 15, 59-67. Wang, D. (2010). Sustainable Management of the Future Environment under Uncertainties and Risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 16, 1249-1254. Read More