Referencing style is APA 6th edition.
Please edit 2 dissertation sections : introduction and methodology.Also please add additional 380 words to methodology section,by using my tutor’s instructions.Please fell free to replace sections that are not correct or good enough. Please find below the tutors instructions :
Overview: This would greatly benefit from being more specific. If you read academic journal papers they provide an abstract that usually explains clearly what the study is about and the exact area of research. You state that you provide ‘ a detailed description of a new product…etc.” This is rather vague and does not provide a clear statement about what the study is about.

What is a product?: I find this section confusing. It is anecdotal in places and rather general in focus. If this is necessary to define what a ‘product’ is then it may be better in the literature. If the study is about NPD then do you need to explain what a “product” is? It is incorrect in places (“fast moving products are not regularly purchased” and uses strange language “Uddin (2014) complemented the information” (odd choice of language). You also imply that all FMCG goods are perishable? I find this section too simplistic and needs to be better applied to the exact research area.

Justification for the research: Your first line states there are lots of studies on the process of NPD – these need to be referenced. Again you use some odd language in your discussion (“Objectively”, “chasm” “implicitly”). Some of the words you use do not seem appropriate and make for a strange read in places. This also contains several areas of poor grammar that need to be addressed. The weakness with this section is however that the discussion is too broad and you still do not make clear the exact nature of the research and what aspect of NPD you are researching and WHY?

Research Objectives: These are not research objectives. I suggest you revisit the research methods text books and read a chapter about setting research objectives. Analysing the literature,collecting data and make recommendations etc.is an expected part of any research project. You need to provide a clear statement of what your specific research objectives are.

Research Questions: Again these need to provide a clear statement about WHAT you are exploring/investigating. Question 1 is what you will do in the literature review. Question 2 and 3 are not specific. Again I suggest you look at a research methods text book and ensure you have understood what objectives and questions should state.

Outline of the Dissertation: It was good to see you have explained the structure of the Dissertation. You discuss here a “knowledge gap” – but you have not made clear what this gap is? You also discuss secondary data (has this been used in your study? You do not include mention of a Discussion?

Methodology: Grammar needs to be checked. (Introduction). The Introduction also implies that the aim of exploratory research is to explore research methods for the study – rather than a research approach in its own right?. It is usual to discuss your research philosophy at the beginning of the methodology Chapter.

Research design: It is good to see that you have tried to justify the choice of approach here – this would be a lot stronger if you could be clear about what aspect of NPD is being explored.

Population: Good to see a discussion of the population – Gay ref (1987) – very old. Have you not read anything more current? I think you may need to look at this again. Your sample population was drawn from Serbia and not ‘all companies’. You need to provide a fuller description of the sample itself. Who were the participants, age , experience etc. You say they are ‘high ranking’ what does this mean – what were their job titles ? and why are they more likely to have more knowledge? This needs to be justified more fully. Also how have your recruited the sample?

Procedure: What do you mean by “pre-produced research procedure”.

Data Collection methods: Why does the discussion start a review of the literature on FMCG? Your heading states ‘data collection methods’ – so I am expecting to read about HOW you collected the data and WHY you used those methods. Also you imply that finding respondents is ‘wide and growing’ – which contradicts your argument that you have done 10 interviews. You also imply that using qualitative methods do not complement exploratory research? “though the research will follow the exploratory design…..” . You also imply that other forms of research are “easy and straight forward” – is this an anecdotal observation? . You also discuss about how “qualitative researchers are oftenly caught in the global conversation regarding evidence-based research movement and emerging guidelines” . This statement needs to be related to your study – why does this matter to your research? What are the implications of this to your study?.

You also state “The research is aimed at uncovering the development process in the manufacture and market of the fast moving consumer goods in the world” – this returns to my previous comments about being clear about your research. There have been lots of studies that have looked at the NPD process – what aspect are you studying that is different? Your statement is too broad and you need to provide a clear statement about what aspect of NPD you are exploring.

You discuss using interviews. You need to explain where these took place, how long they lasted. The interview guide needs to be included in the Appendices. You state that using a guide ‘ensure the success of the research’ – you need to explain WHY. Also why were interviews appropriate for the exact area of the NPD area you are exploring (whatever that may be).

Reliability and Validity were discussed – but you have not explained or justified what measures you have taken within your own study to ensure both.

External validity needs discussing.

Limitations need discussing.

Secondary data: You discuss the literature review as secondary data. A literature review is a review of the academic. I see no evidence that you have used secondary data within your study? You may have misunderstood the meaning of secondary data and I suggest you read a chapter in a good research methods text book to check your understanding of this.

Ethics: Again you have discussed the importance of ethics – but you do need to explain what measures you took to ensure you met your ethical obligations. For example how did you ensure informed consent?