Reference no: EM133998391
Topic - Factors Influencing Electronic Shopping Cart Abandonment (ESCA) among E-commerce Customers in Malaysia.
1. Introduction
The section mainly outlines the structure of the chapter instead of clearly presenting the core research problem.
The importance of studying shopping cart abandonment in Malaysia is not sufficiently emphasized. No AI shortcuts — Only authentic assignment help from real expert tutors.
The introduction should more clearly explain why the study is important for both academic research and industry practice.
2. Background of the Study
The background section provides a comprehensive overview of e-commerce evolution and growth, successfully establishing the broader context of the study.
The inclusion of recent statistics, industry reports, and global trends (e.g., revenue growth, user base, ESCA rates) strengthens the relevance and timeliness of the study. However, the section is overly descriptive and heavily reliant on secondary data without sufficient critical interpretation.
While global and regional perspectives are presented, the transition to the Malaysian context is relatively weak, with limited critical discussion on how Malaysia differs from or aligns with global trends.
The discussion of ESCA (Electronic Shopping Cart Abandonment) is clear and well-supported, but it tends to repeat statistics and descriptive explanations rather than synthesising them into meaningful insights.
The section attempts to highlight the importance and consequences of ESCA, yet the arguments are presented in a listing manner (e.g., impacts on sales, customer attrition, competition) without deeper analytical linkage.
There is insufficient critical engagement with prior studies. Although multiple studies are cited, the background does not evaluate or compare findings, making it appear more like a summary of literature rather than a critical foundation.
The importance of electronic shopping cart abandonment (ESCA) in the Malaysian e-commerce context is discussed but remains largely descriptive rather than critically analytical.
Although supporting statistics are provided to justify the issue, the discussion does not sufficiently synthesise these insights into a strong central research problem, resulting in a lack of sharp focus.
The identification of research gaps is broad but fragmented, covering geographical, demographic, methodological, and theoretical aspects. These gaps are not effectively integrated into a single, compelling research gap.
The justification for focusing on Malaysia is underdeveloped and lacks deeper critical explanation.
The discussion of variables (attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, emotional ambivalence, and intention) is overly detailed and resembles a literature review rather than being tightly aligned to the problem statement.
The theoretical justification for adopting the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is present but insufficiently critical, with limited comparison against alternative theories.
Several statements (e.g., "limited studies," "mixed findings," "need further investigation") are generic and repetitive, reducing academic strength.
The methodological justification (quantitative vs qualitative) is oversimplified, particularly the claim that qualitative studies lack statistical strength.
The logical flow shows weak synthesis across paragraphs, with ideas presented sequentially rather than cohesively.
3. Research Objectives
Some objectives could be more precise and analytically framed, for example by indicating direction, comparison, or explanatory depth rather than simply stating "influence."
4. Research Questions
The research questions generally correspond with the research objectives.
However, the section heading contains an incorrect label ("Specific Research Objectives" instead of "Specific Research Questions").
The questions largely repeat the wording of the objectives and could be more analytically framed.
5. Significance of the Study
The discussion is largely descriptive and generic.
It lacks critical depth and strong academic justification.
Claims of contribution are not sufficiently supported or differentiated from existing studies.
Theoretical contribution (e.g., TPB extension) is not strongly articulated as novel.
There is limited use of evidence to justify significance claims.
Clearer explanation is needed on how the study adds unique value beyond prior research.
6. Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature review is largely descriptive, with many sections summarising individual studies rather than critically synthesising the literature.
There is limited critical comparison of previous findings, particularly regarding inconsistent results across studies.
The justification for selecting the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as the main theoretical framework requires stronger argumentation.
Greater effort is needed to synthesise the literature to support relationships among variables in the conceptual model.
7. Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The methodology is largely descriptive with limited justification for key decisions.
The sampling strategy is outlined but lacks sufficient detail and justification, particularly regarding representativeness and sampling bias.
The data collection context (platform, location, respondents) is not clearly specified.
The use of purposive sampling is mentioned, but selection criteria and rationale are not adequately explained.
The measurement of constructs is presented, but there is limited discussion on validity and adaptation of existing scales.
The data analysis section lists multiple techniques but lacks alignment with research objectives and hypotheses.
The reliance on SPSS may be insufficient; Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is recommended for testing complex relationships and mediation effects.
The explanation of statistical methods (e.g., regression, mediation) lacks depth and justification.
Ethical considerations are included but not sufficiently elaborated, especially regarding privacy and consent.
8. Abstract & Structural Issues
The abstract should reflect a problem-driven and contribution-oriented structure, including:
The significance of the study
The methodological approach
Expected contributions
9. Introduction (Detailed Feedback)
9.1 Structure and Presentation
Definitions of key terms (e.g., e-commerce) should be placed in Chapter 2 rather than the Introduction.
Formatting issues (e.g., blank spaces) should be corrected.
Figures must be properly labelled with titles below them.
9.2 Use of Figures
Figure 1.1 lacks clarity regarding data source, geographical context, and timeframe.
Figure 1.2 is not critically interpreted; more analytical explanation is required, especially for regional differences.
9.3 Research Problem
The research problem is weak and insufficiently critical. It relies heavily on descriptive statements without clearly identifying:
A theoretical gap
A contextual or empirical gap
The urgency and relevance of the study
A stronger, evidence-based problem statement is required.
9.4 Significance of Study
The distinction between practical and managerial significance is unclear and should be explicitly differentiated.
9.5 Definition of Key Terms
Variables should be clearly defined based on established literature and supported by operational definitions aligned with the theoretical framework.
10. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The conceptual framework requires revision to ensure clarity, logical flow, and alignment with the theoretical foundation.
The framework appears unclear and insufficiently justified, particularly in terms of relationships among variables.
The arrangement of hypotheses is confusing, and the direction of relationships is not clearly presented.
Each hypothesis should:
Be logically derived from theory and literature
Clearly indicate direction of relationships
Be systematically organised (H1, H2, H3, etc.)
Greater coherence is needed between:
Conceptual framework
Research objectives
Hypotheses development
11. Methodology (Detailed Feedback)
11.1 Research Design
The methodology focuses more on definitions than justification. Clear rationale is needed for:
Selection of quantitative approach
Exclusion of qualitative methods
11.2 Population and Sampling
Target population requires further clarification
Sampling procedure is insufficiently explained, including:
Sampling technique
Sampling frame
Access to respondents
11.3 Statistical Techniques
The justification for statistical techniques is insufficient. The candidate should clearly explain:
Purpose of descriptive and inferential statistics
Role of correlation and regression analysis
Relevance of t-tests and ANOVA to research objectives
11.4 Validity and Reliability
Further elaboration is required on:
Content validity (e.g., expert review)
Construct validity (e.g., factor analysis)
11.5 Technical Issues
Formatting and spelling errors should be corrected
Proper citation is required in relevant sections
12. Referencing and Formatting
Several statements lack proper citation.
All claims must be supported with relevant and up-to-date references.
The list of abbreviations should be placed at the front section of the proposal.