Impact of ageing workforce on small businesses in uk

Research Strategy
This study will adopt an exploratory research design where secondary data analysis will be used to understand phenomenon. Secondary data indicates the multiple dimensions based on the realities of different authors. According to Edirisingha (2012), the ontological and epistemological idea behind it is interpretivism. There are different realities presented are socially constructed; thereby, this research forms a basis for future objectively constructed realities through actual primary research.
Data Collection
This type of study relies on results, reports, working and conference papers, and that have already been presented. This secondary analysis is aimed at establishing hypotheses that can be used by future researchers who wish to engage in primary research future. The secondary analysis is easy to conduct because it is cheap and less time consuming.
Sampling Strategy
Since this is there is limited empirical information on this topic, this secondary analysis will utilize secondary data from previous literature to determine the factors that have been proposed result in an aged workforce in small businesses. In addition, this analysis will help to determine the impact this ageing workforce has on the small business: positivity or negatively. Review was based on reports and articles on ageing and small business specifically in the UK. Only articles written in English were included.
Data Analysis
The findings in this review represent the raw data. Since the evidence to be included is Based on the search results and nature of evidence, data analysis will be based on extracting the study, population, and results, which will be in tabular form.
A systematic review was used to determine the impact of ageing on small businesses in the UK. This kind of study is more ideal because it allows the application of evidence-based research in to the real world of business. This kind of study targets both quantitative and qualitative type of data. The use of systematic reviews allocation of individuals into groups based on the researchers purpose, in this case, the age factor. Being a systematic review, various databases were used, including Wiley Online, CIPD website, JSTOR, Springer, Project Muse, ProQuest Archive, Academic Search Complete and others based on relevance of the research study. The search terms used were developed in reference to the topic of the study. These terms included age, ageing, old/older generation, business performance, effect/impact, small businesses UK and the articles were selected after a thorough review of the abstract. In the event an abstract was missing, the full text was used for determining inclusion or exclusion of the article. Articles included in the study had to meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The selection process was made by the review team, which included two reviewers and their discrepancies were resolved by including a third reviewer.
The inclusion/exclusion criteria entailed the selection of studies that solely adapted experimental kind of studies but randomization was not crucial. Studies examining the effect of age on small businesses (located in the UK) were of interest. The problem of study is old age; thus, the study compares the baby boomers from the age of 55 in accordance with Dhanjal and Schirle (2014) with the younger population less than 55 years in the workplace. Also, individuals included in the study had to have at least three years, but no more than four years, of experience working in a small business. Internships and attachments counted for the years of experience. Older people are presumed to have numerous chronic ailments according to the Institute of Medicine (2008); hence, articles reporting on medical costs as a variable were excluded from the review. Also, the individuals had not have received a performance appraisal prior to the study to ensure that the baseline performance assessment was the first and improvement strategies done during appraisal processes were not underway in either one of the participants.
Apart from the inclusion and exclusion criteria stated above, all studies were included regardless of the language used in reporting. Keeping note of all the essential elements of the studies to be included in this review, the review of empirical evidence older than ten years was disregarded. Therefore, the studies were limited to the years between 2007 and 2016. The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The review was conducted for a time period of three months. During this time, the searching, inclusion and exclusion of research studies, and went on. Data was extracted from the selected articles and spreadsheet was used to present the results. Publications from the selected studies were appraised and if found worthy of inclusion, was reviewed. Search results were checked based on relevance and duplication. Hence, similar publications of a study were linked to avoid duplication (Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research & Institute of Medicine, 2011).
Studies that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were retrieved for further appraisal. Validity of the review was assured by determining the quality of the studies reviewed, and studies with a low score were excluded from this review. The quality of the studies included in this review was determined by a scoring system developed by the review team. The quality assessment tool used in this review was adapted from the AMSTAR tool (Smith 2011, Devane 2011, Begley 2011, and Clarke, 2011).
Upon obtaining the original results, a thorough examination of the inclusion criteria and quality of the studies led to a small number of studies that were used for the final review. The effects of age were noted down using M/s Excel and a second review was done to ensure that no one effect had been omitted. In addition, this reporting template was used to note down the sample size of each study, the effect sizes of the result, and robustness of the methods used in each study. Themes were noted for qualitative studies, and this information formed basis for the narrative.
Variation in the studies methodology made it impossible to combine the results. Heterogeneity prevailed in reference to the age of the participants in the different studies and the variables of interest. Therefore, the results of each study were discussed separately. A narrative approach sufficed as the mode through which the authors summarized the findings.

Ethical Approval
This research is entirely based on secondary research analysis. The ethical clearance process with the Anglia Ruskin University re secondary data approval.
This research also has approval from the Anglia Ruskin University and gives rise to no ethical issues.

This was the method chapter that I got it from you guys back in August and my tutor has gone through it and gave me following comments …please go through it and please modify it accordingly…It seems there are few things missing on it.
Unfortunately at the moment it is reading like a findings chapter ie what you have done and not why and what you intend to do.

The chapter is the defence of a research design which provides clarity from research methods theory for what you intend – has to be written in the future tense and provide a structure of what you will do.

There are also no discussion of the constraints.

You may want to use some of this for your findings you need to translate it to your plans for what you will do