Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development

Kotbari, Comilla

Research Review Format

Title of the Research: Adoption of ICTs in Local Government Institutions in Bangladesh

1. Whether the objectives are clearly defined and linked with the title of the study? Is there
any inconsistency between objectives and title, please make specific comments.

The first objective is clearly stated while second one is too broad. Additionally, although the
researcher did not mention third objective in 1.2, but they stated ‘ To develop policy guidelines
for successful e-governance in Local Government’ under the scope of the Study (1.4, page 7). This
contradicts and the result of the third objective is missing in the study.

2. Whether the justification of the study has been adequately clarified?

The justification of the study seems the author presents literature review, particularly at the
beginning of this section. The researcher(s) can emphasize the research gap that signifies to
conduct this research.

3. Whether the scope of the study is clearly narrated in line with the objectives?

This part seems ok. However, how is the third objective abruptly included in this section?

4. Whether research methods are clearly narrated and used in line with objectives? If not,
please make specific comments.

The researcher tried to utilize a detailed methodological adoption. Survey, in-depth interview
and observation methods were used in the study. Although villagers were randomly selected, the
process of selecting upazila and union parishad, elected representatives were not mentioned
(page 59). Since the research is about adoption of ICTs at the LGI, secretaries need to be included
in the methodology.
The strong point of the methodology is the number of respondents. However, is there any
justification of selecting 30 service recipients from two unions under each upazila?

1
5. Whether literature review in his report is adequate and relevant. Kindly make the
suggestions if necessary.

It seems the researcher extensively studied but s/he needs to revise whole literature as this part is
highly plagiarized.

6. Whether contents of different chapters of the report are consistent with the objectives of
the study?

Although chapters are well-arranged, there are some flaws which are linked to question
number 7 and 9. The researcher can address together getting the idea from comments made
under 7 and 9.

7. Please comment on the quality and analysis of data in the report? Kindly indicate the
inconsistencies if any.

Seeing the data analysis part, it gives a good impression of capturing many issues pertaining to
the subjective. They have presented two chapters separately based on two objectives. However,
the chapter 5 discusses ICTs at the union level, what is about the upazila? The title of the research
indicates both and the chapter 6 captures both LGIs.

Major inconsistency is found that the service recipients at upazila level were not included, or no
clarification whether respondents for each union gave opinions about both upazila and union
level services. If the latter part is acceptable methodological clarification is needed.

In the data analysis, comments of UP secretaries were emphasized, however, they were not
mentioned as the respondents in table 4.2.

From the data analysis using charts and tables, it seems excessive amount of charts which the
researcher could present differently. Because of the excessive charts, it gives very general
description and lacks of insight. Moreover, they just describe the chart and table just below these.

Table-6.4.17 was prepared so carelessly. For a good analysis, they could change the statement
as universal not in the future form.

The researcher mentioned they utilized observations, however, what they observed and what are
implications of those observations.

8. Whether sequence of contents has been kept logically to make the report an ideal one? If
not, please indicate the gaps.

The logical sequence of contents is ok.

2
9. Whether the conclusion has been drawn on the basis of results or findings?

The conclusion part is the summary of the research written by the own words of the researcher
based on the synchronization of the objectives, methods. However, introduction part seems a
literature review. Although the researcher conducted research on both upazila and union level,
this part missed upazila (7.1).
Starting of 7.2 seems very general which might be appropriate as the background of the study
in the first chapter. Findings of the research presented here are of union parishad. Because of
this inconsistency, the recommendations are also partially representative.

10. Whether the recommendations are made in line with the findings of the report?

Please see comments of question 9. Recommendations were made only on union although they
emphasized both upazila and union.

11. Whether footnote, citation and bibliography are properly prepared and placed in the
research report? If there are any gaps, please indicate.

The researchers did not give bibliography, utilized references. References can be arranged at the
end of the report instead of keeping it at the end of every chapter. The present system gives wrong
notion. The ‘Conclusion and Recommendations’ chapter is a 7-page write-up with a 7-page
references. [this is seen in the hardcopy]. Since the researcher(s) has given references at the end of
the chapter, it indicates s/he utilized all references inside text, which contradicts. Serial number is
not necessary in the reference list.
The researcher(s) needs to check the citation style and edit accordingly. References must be
alphabetized.

12. Kindly comment on the standard and accuracy of language used in this report.

The report needs to be thoroughly edited by a language editor. Very small mistakes are there that
weakened the quality of the report. Please find some marked inside the text. Major flaws regarding
the time dimension of the report as in many cases, they mentioned in the future form which means
they will do, but they have already conducted the research.

3
13. Please edit the report if necessary-

I have done it in the soft copy using track change.

14. Kindly give your comments on the overall quality of the research report.

This is undoubtedly a good researching topic to contribute to e-governance and provide better
services.
Although the researcher conducted the research on ICTs adoption in LGIs, the report finally
ended up with the union parishad. They could change the title adding union parishad and
subsequently change the corresponding chapter, or if they want to keep both, they need to
reorganize, or revise methodology to support those which I think difficult.

15. Please give your opinion according to the following options relating to publication of the
research report in the form of a book put your initial in the appropriate box.

Can be published in the present form Can be published with minor editing

Can be published with major editing x Re-writing and through editing is needed
before publication

Signature of the Reviewer :

Name of the Reviewer : Dr. Mohammad
Rezaul Karim
Address : BPATC, Savar, Dhaka,
Email: rezapatc@gmail.com