Assignment 2 Research Article Critique

Assignment 2 Research Article CritiqueAssignment 2 Research Article CritiqueThe article “ Measuring innovation in a ‘low-tech’ service industry: the case of the Dutch hospitality industry” was written by Pim Den Hertog, Faiz Gallouj and Jeroen Segers (July 2011). It presents the findings of innovations in the Dutch hospitality industry among 613 firms. This paper will review the article as well as the main arguments and will review the article, evaluate the quality of writing, and focus on the methodology and methods within the article. The article is a mixed method, combination of qualitative and quantitative method, research report. It is organized as follows. The first section positions innovation contribution in the expanding literature on innovation in service. In a second section, the authors flag how innovative the Dutch hospitality industry is compared with other Dutch service industries. The third section introduces a framework for measuring innovation in the hospitality industry. Next section briefly presents the research methodology, such as the semi-structured interview, the telephone survey and a measure of innovation intensity. Then, the main body of the article shows some key results of the survey and discusses some implications for managing innovation in the hospitality industry. Finally, the conclusion section presents the survey results and discusses the current status of innovations in the Dutch hospitality industry, and some measurements of service innovations are raised (Hertog, Gallouj. & Segers, 2011). Though every section in the article is related to the topic innovation in the Dutch hospitality industry, some sections do not play their roles well. The literature review section offers useful information to the readers. It gives them some ideas about the recent progress of the research field. It lists and generalizes several different ideas of the two streams of studies on innovation in the hospitality industry- innovation and entrepreneurship studies within hospitality and tourism and innovation in services studies. Moreover, it points of the advantages and inadequacies of the previous studies which is an important part in the literature review. Nevertheless, some previous studies are just listed without analysis and comments in this part. In addition, the literature review section lacks critic thinking. In general, the clarity of the content is fine. It is relatively easy to understand what the article talks. It has to say that there are some problems. First, the uses of some abbreviations make the readers feel confused. In this article, unlike new service design (NSD) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the authors do not write the extend name of some abbreviations, such as ICT, R&D department and CIS (Hertog, Gallouj. & Segers, 2011). If the readers do not have certain knowledge in the major, they will not know the meaning. Fortunately, as these abbreviations are just some unimportant examples in the article, they do not impact on the readers’ understanding of the main idea of the article. Another problem is some words cannot be related to the meanings they want to deliver. For example, the authors use “ our one sector one country study” without any tip. Through context, the readers can get the meaning- the study of innovation in the Dutch hospitality industry. Also, some data do not present directly. In the article, there are several sentences on p. 1437 mentions “ The majority of firms in the fast-food, restaurant and hotel subcategories are medium innovative…, a majority of all firms is still not or hardly innovative(Hertog, Gallouj. & Segers, 2011). There is no figure that shows these results. Thus, the authors should not present these results, or the authors can show more figures to prove the results. The tables and figures help the……………..