Justification of the Study...again

Going back almost four months now (my, this is taking a while), I review my March 31 post on Justification of the Study.  Dr. S told me that I really needed to beef this up.  Naturally, I see that the proposal assignment requires a full page of text for this justification (and I didn't take this to heart the first time around why?) - I only wrote about three paragraphs in version 1.  

Dr. S explained that this is the "so what?" of the research proposal.  Leedy and Ormrod, page 57 (2005) ask "Of what use is it? What practical value does the study have?"  From How to Write a Research Proposal (cited in the 31 March post), I get the following:

• Concise and clear outline of the objectives I want to achieve through the dissertation.
• Show why the intended research is important.
• Show why the research justifies the search effort.
• Outline the significance/relevance of the topic.  The justification can be either:

1. empirical in nature, i.e., what I hope to add to an existing body of knowledge, or
2. theoretical in nature, i.e., what I hope to make easier to understand by giving more information on contentious areas in a body of knowledge or provide new conceptual insights into that knowledge.

"All research is part of a larger scholarly enterprise."  I "should be able to argue for the value and positioning of [my] work."  

In The Importance of Research by a group called "Unite for Sight" (a global health delivery organization that supports eye clinics worldwide) - with my adaptations in black:

The purpose of research is to inform action.  Thus, my study should seek to contextualize its findings within the larger body of research.  Research must always be high quality in order to produce knowledge that is applicable outside of the research setting with implications that go beyond the group/sample that I targeted in my research.  Furthermore, the results of my study should have implications for policy and project implementation.