I need to write the Research Background section. With refere

I need to write the Research Background section. With reference to the academic literature and other reliable sources, I need to identify the gaps in the field. Specify my research aims, clarifying how my research will answer the research question, solve the problem, test the hypothesis, and achieve the research goal. In this paper, I must argue that, given the current state of progress in the field, the opportunity for a contribution exists which can be done by indicating the gaps in knowledge and achievement. My aims are to acquire new knowledge and achieve something new, so the gaps are filled or reduced. This is done by addressing my research questions, problems, hypotheses and goals. My uploaded research proposal would give a brief idea of this. The readers should be persuaded that, given the current state of progress in the field of scholarly interest, the opportunity for a contribution exists. The most common strategy is to begin by identifying the gap. Although the gap is the explicit focus of this section, the fact that I am arguing for its existence is commonly not clarified until near the end. There are good reasons for delaying the key point or punchline. It gives me time to provide context, allowing the readers to understand and become excited about what is often a rather specialised idea. Also, writing discursively gives more freedom to discuss ideas in a richer way than if we were relentlessly promoting a single idea. By being forced to frame the gap within a context of what has already been achieved, we will almost inevitably be exposed to novel ideas. The aims: Across all disciplines, the background section should end in a similar way, by noting or recapitulating any gaps, and then announcing the associated aims. Aims can be of four different types. A goal: The simplest case involves a project where the contribution to the field will be a new or improved product or process. Here, I should end by stating the goal. These is the uni requirements for my Confirmation of Candidature: A hypothesis or question: When the contribution will be new knowledge, then the research background typically ends with one or more hypotheses or questions. Hypotheses are more common when the topic is well-understood. Any hypothesis will involve a prediction that is explicitly testable. For example, if there were already strong reasons to believe that the blue colour of flowers of species X is responsible for attracting bees, then the researcher could state this hypothesis: Mutant flowers of species X that are white should attract fewer bees than naturally blue flowers. In contrast, if little is known about what attracts bees to species X, and there were, for example, eight possible factors, you would be more likely to conclude your background section with a question: Which attributes of species X are responsible for attracting bees? The less well-understood an area is, the more general the question tends to be. A problem: Stylistically, a general question can also be phrased as a problem or issue: As yet, it is not known which attributes of species X are responsible. for attracting bees. In mathematics, the word problem is also used in a more precise sense, to refer to long- established challenges, such as Hilbert’s problems. In some areas of sociology, the aim of a project is to help solve a social problem directly. In participatory or action research (Stringer, 2013), the researcher aims to bring about change during the course of the project, rather than it only occurring subsequently as a by-product of new knowledge. Leading up to your Aims: (i) The Research Funnel Perhaps the single most common structural pattern of a Research Background section is where the scope of the discussion steadily narrows as it proceeds. This is often referred to as the ‘research funnel’. Like an actual funnel, the content is broad in its focus at the top (. it starts by providing a context for the project) then narrows down to your research area, and your aims. The usefulness of this pattern across the disciplines is also supported by how commonly it is used in research article Introductions (Swales & Feak, 2004). If you use the research funnel approach in your CoC, you will narrow its focus much more gradually than would typically be the case in a published paper. In the latter case, narrowing the scope might occur several times within a single paragraph. The Research Background section of a proposal is typically many times longer than the Introduction of a paper; thus, narrowing the scope will probably largely occur, not within paragraphs, but at the start of a paragraph or sub-section. The greater length, and the less explicitly argumentative style you use in this section, allow you to discuss ideas and theory in a more in-depth manner. This is particularly important for researchers in the humanities, the social sciences and law. In these discipline areas, considerations of theory, philosophy and epistemology are typically more substantial than in the natural sciences, for example. Consequently, the researcher has an opportunity to create a positive impression by demonstrating the ability to skillfully discuss such matters. Leading up to your Aims: (ii) Other organising principles The Research Background section can be organised according to many other principles, and these allow you to write even more discursively. The various possibilities (such as chronology; increasing relevance; theory to practise; compare and contrast) are covered in many thesis writing guides, as part of how to write a literature review (. Carter, Kelly, & Brailsford, 2012). Indeed, in many CoCs, the Research Background section has been simply titled, Literature Review. A highly discursive style does have one drawback. Unless you are a gifted storyteller, the discursive style tends to provide more opportunities for the reader to miss or forget any gaps you raise in your discussions. Also, if you have revealed more than one gap, the reader might be confused as to which are of direct importance to the project. Whenever there are such risks, it is important you recapitulate the relevant gaps in a concluding paragraph to the sub-section. In other cases, this concluding sub-section is much longer, because other types of information are needed to help the reader ‘connect the dots’ between your gaps and the associated aims. Such sub-sections are also common in the Introductions of theses in the social sciences and are often titled Scope. Background sections with an atypical purpose While a thorough analysis of the existing literature is the most common way to identify a gap, it is not the only way. In an approach sometimes used in the social sciences, problematising, researchers look outside the standard literature of their field for inspiration (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). In research areas that are very historically contingent (. management, education), it is more likely that a highly influential theory might depend, perhaps entirely, on an unacknowledged assumption that is no longer true. In such cases, a researcher might consider the standard literature of little use, and focus instead on insights from alternative sources. For somewhat similar reasons, those social scientists who use a grounded theory approach typically hold off from framing their study within any existing theoretical framework. The theory with the greatest explanatory power is expected to emerge only once data has been collected. Exposure to plausibly relevant literature might also be consciously avoided prior to data collection. In this case, the approach is not taken because the literature itself is considered incorrect, but because it might cause the researcher to be biased when collecting and analysing data (Birks & Mills, 2015). Tools and Resources ? References for writing the Research Background section are provided at the end of this document. ? The Research Blueprint, a way of conceptualising the hierarchical logic of a research project. Elaborating more on the biopsychosocial model in terms of oral health and linking it to my research topic (The Effect of Poor Oral Health on the Physical and Mental Wellbeing of People with Psychosocial Disabilities and their Ability to Access Medicare and NDIS Health Care Services). If possible, other things to cover are: (will upload a document to help with these concepts) Oral health indicators of Australian Adults, Oral Health and Visiting Patterns of Australian Adults, Implications of Poor Oral health/ Outcomes and Impact of Oral Disease, The Dental System/ Dental schemes in Australia, Dental Public services, Dental Private services, Expenditure on dental services, dental schemes in Australia, Broader Impacts on the Health System, Hospitalisations, Cost to Government and Society. Why do both Medicare and NDIS provide funding for medical services but not for dental? I am also planning to focus on people with psychosocial disabilities especially those with severe and persistent mental health conditions. psychiatric illness can lead to poor oral health, increased decay and gum disease as a consequence of bacterial infection and most importantly the side effects of psychotropic medication that can lead to dry mouth that could lead to caries and periodontal disease. Also, other factors such as poor nutrition and oral hygiene; the heavy consumption of sugary drinks; comorbid substance misuse including tobacco, alcohol; and most importantly, low income and financial barriers hinder their access to dental services that are very expensive in Australia. The latter is the main point of my research study as people with psychosocial disabilities especially those with severe and persistent mental health conditions are usually unemployed and/or on a low income. As a result, they cannot afford dental services. Low-income levels and financial constraints compared to those without disabilities. Decayed teeth and poor oral health are not simply cosmetic problems but could be the cause of serious sickness and even death. Consequently, the disabled require more support in maintaining optimal oral health outcomes to enable them to live well and flourish. Therefore, Australian health care schemes such as Medicare and NDIS must close the gap in dental health disparities and bridge the dental-medical divide. Notably, the NDIS does not fund dental services. However, the NDIS funds a range of disability-related supports based on a patient’s individual needs. For example, it can fund allied health therapy services including occupational, physio, and speech therapies in cases where it is needed because of a person’s disability. Further, it can also pay for aids and equipment, including hearing and mobility aids that results from a prior disability of individual patients. Dental services are expensive and are not funded by other areas of health care. As a result, this needs to change to maintain optimal health outcomes for people living with disabilities. Notably, it is challenging to rationalise the current approach where both Medicare and NDIS excises the dental care from services provided to the rest of the body. Rather than working in partnership in delivering health care services for those with disabilities, dental and medical care is excised as distinct care practices, and as such, health care systems treat it indifferently from other care services.