2.2 Can a sound review help research move beyond commonly accepted wisdom? How?
The word “sound” implies that something is safe, strong, and secure, like the foundation of a building, the very structure upon which a whole edifice is built. Sound foundations are solid, stand firm, and resist direct attacks, while weak foundations crumble over time or cannot withstand the assault of a competing theory or contradictory piece of evidence. Sound is a constitutive part of diverse media and communicative practices in contemporary society. “Sound” also implies that something is healthy and vibrant — science that spawns new hypotheses and directions for further research. Unsound research is weak, lacks fitness, and is unable to thrive. The connections made between “sound” and “methodology” creates mental frames that simply do not coincide with how researchers actually evaluate methodology.
According to Bull & Back (2003), sound review remains significantly under researched as a form of communication, as a modality of experience, and as a resource for cultural expression and social action, even if recent years have witnessed a revitalized interest internationally in the area This is in spite of the centrality of sound in most media and communicative practices, including face-to-face interaction and digital networks. This type of review revisits previous research on three sound prototypes i.e., speech, music, and environmental soundscapes; which has mostly been undertaken in separate disciplines such as rhetoric, philology, linguistics, classical musicology, popular music studies, architecture, discourse analysis, and many more.
When using a sound research review, risks to subjects are minimized. For instance, (i) by using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.” At present, ordinary media users are in position, not only to receive, but also to send diverse forms of auditory, visual, as well as textual information. Users are becoming senders in new configurations of one-to-one, one-to-many, and, increasingly, many-to-many communication. Sound review allows the researcher to close the gap by using different findings of events. (Rynes, in press), pointed out that for researchers, there is evidence that closer links to practice provide access to high quality data, and that the amount of researcher time in the field is associated with greater academic citations as well as greater practitioner use of the findings. The researchers should develop an evidence-based on sound review capabilities in order to connect with the knowledge they need to become more effective. Therefore, it is in the self- interest of researcher to close the relevance gap, because he/she will then be better able to accomplish his/her purposes. Relevance should be a defining characteristic of rigor in the study of organizations (Starkey, Hatcheul, & Tempest, 2009) and should become one of the standards of excellence in the field (Hambrick, 2007; Mohrman et al., 1999).


I'm Katy

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out