It is rewarding to see that some of the items of the research agenda presented in 2010 (eg, items 2, 4, 6) 3 have already been partly or fully addressed and this, indeed, informed the current update.
The 21 factors were identified from data collected at our previously conducted workshops or from the extant PI literature; and related to the nature (12 items) and the interpersonal aspects (9 items) of the research process.
As there are few benchmarking datasets in keystroke dynamics, all the 200 references were considered to answer this item of the research question.
It follows that the most important item on the agenda of this research program is to produce arguments that will decide between the competing conceptions of action in play.
Most of the items deemed by this research team to be essential to an elderly patient's discharge summary coincided with those obtained in the D-SAFE: a detailed description of the medical interventions (not simply a medication list), a detailed functional status, as well as recommendations for follow-up.
For example, Strategy 3 of Move 1, Reviewing items of previous research is not present in P2.
Reviewing items of previous research is a strategy used by P3 as well, though not in the initial position of the proposal.
As seen in Table 1, Move 1 Establishing a territory is realized by three strategies: Claiming centrality, Making topic generalizations and Reviewing items of previous research.
It sets up the larger intellectual or real world background for the proposed topic via the use of four mutually inclusive strategies: Claiming centrality, Making topic generalizations, Reviewing items of previous research, and Stating personal interest.
Therefore, Samraj (2002, 16) proposes removing Reviewing items of previous research as a step under Move 1, and instead treating it as a "free-standing sub-step that can be employed in the realization of any step in the introduction".
