Abstract:

This study assesses the usage of computer as a predominant technology and it's influence on
the structure of Newspaper organization. The study sets out to investigate the level at which the
computer system is being utilized in organizations and companies such as Banks, Insurance
companies, refineries etc. The study utilized an intracomparative field study as a means of data
collection from a national sample of daily newspaper. A stratified random sample of daily
newspaper was selected from Editors and Publishers due to the fact that the size distribution of
daily Newspaper does not follow a normal distribution. Questionnaires were sent to managing
editors of the selected newspapers. Interviews were also conducted with practicing managing
editors and journalism educators. The study finds out that locus of decision making is predicted
by differing unit technology measures rather than by personal decision. The study also finds out
that the greater the uncertainty in the task environment, the less routinization possible. The
study recommends that future studies must be increasingly sensitive not only to the
operationalization of contextual variables but likewise to the extent and manner in which the
computer is used and the programmability of the task to which its utilization is applied.

Analysis:

No doubt, the researcher did a great job in conducting a research on such a controversial topic
as this. But it is a proven fact that no research paper could be void of criticism as no intellectual
write up could be 100% perfect. Going through the research paper, it is discovered that the
entire work is a step forward on the work of Banbury and Nahapiet (1979) in their work on
distincting between automated and craft-based primary school tasks.

Though the research paper is near perfection especially considering the logicality displayed by
the writer in the presentation of his thoughts. The grammar of the writer is also worthy of note
as virtually all his ideas were presented in simple and correct English. Moreover, the method of
data collection can not but be appreciated as the researcher implored the use of
intracomparative field study as a means of data collection which could be regarded as the best
for this type of research.

Nevertheless, the paper could not be considered as error free as the following could be noted.
An incomplete statement is discovered on page 250, line 8 of the research work. Furthermore, it
is also noticed that the precise total number of questionnaires destributed was not specified by
the writer.

From the wite up, it is obvious that no visibility test was conducted by the researcher before the
commencement of the research work which probably could have accounted for some of the
error inherent in the paper. Finally, the researcher gives no specification of the total number of
Organisation consulted, how then do we figure out the percentage of returned copies of
questionnaires which was acclaimed by the researcher to be 21%?

Summarily, the researcher should get some kudos for the job done but at the same time, fellow
critics should critically look at the criticisms raised here and the researcher's attention should be
properly drawn to these.