LITERATURE REVIEW

PURPOSE OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW (RUDESTAM AND NEWTON)

To provide a context for your study To explain the importance of your study To explain the timeliness of your study To clarify the relationship between your study

and previous work in the field To demonstrate that your study is worthwhile

and distinctive Ie – it is not just a demonstration of your

knowledge of the existing literature!

PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW

offer new ideas, perspectives, and approaches

Help to know researchers who worked in your research area for advice or contact

Inform methodological and design issues used by others

Indicate sources of data which are not known to you

CONT’D

introduce you with measurement tools dealing with problem situations

Help to link your finding with others

Bolster your confidence as others valued as important research problem

Help to develop your argumentation and analytical skills

ROLE OF LITERATURE REVIEW IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES

Set out state of thinking /research in topic area

Identify gaps/flaws in existing knowledge

Consider methods used in topic area

Identify key questions to be studied and methods of enquiry likely to be effective

From Arksey and Knight (1999)

ROLE OF LITERATURE REVIEW IN LIBRARY-BASED DISSERTATIONS

Particular importance of critical analysis

Greater depth

Policy context

Implications for practice

Requires originality deriving from new perspective/ policy critique/creative synthesis – examples?

CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW (RIDLEY)

Historical background to study Definition of key terms and use in context of

work (could be in introduction) Discussion of relevant theories and concepts

underpinning research Contemporary debates, issues and questions in

field Discussion of related research, demonstrating

how study will extend/challenge this Supporting evidence for issues you are

addressing

PLANNING THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Systematic searches by key words Read the papers you collected Start writing informally early: it will help

develop plan and save panic later!

Cyclical process: Searching

Reading Writing

MAPPING THE LITERATURE REVIEW

OPPORTUNITY AND MOTIVATION IN INSTRUMENTAL AND SINGING TUITION:WHY DO CHILDREN TAKE UP AND GIVE UP MUSIC LESSONS?

MusicWhy study music?

Cognitive, social and emotional benefits of

music education

MotivationTheories of motivation

Motivation in education and

musicChildren’s motivation

Opportunity Historical

perspective Status of music

educationCurrent policy Availability of

tuition

APPROPRIATE SOURCES

Use original sources, not secondary sources or reviews wherever possible

Beware ‘soft’ sources eg internet/ unauthored Balance of ‘front-line’ literature

theoretical work reports of original research accounts of current practice policy statements

SELECTING SOURCES Read widely, then ask:

1. What is the relevance of this piece for my topic/research?

2. What information do I need to get from this piece that feeds into my writing?

‘build an argument, not a library’ (Rudestam 2001: 59)

Select literature to serve your purposes to avoid becoming overwhelmed to enhance criticality over description

CRITICAL READING

The critical reader evaluates the arguments of others:

What evidence does the author produce for their claims?

Does the author’s reasoning lead logically to the conclusions drawn?

What values or assumptions are made explicitly or implicitly?

How do the author’s claims relate to those of others?

How do the author’s claims relate to the reader’s own research or knowledge?

CODE LITERATURE YOU HAVE READ

Keep records of reading and code for future reference:

(1) Return to this for detailed analysis(2) Important general text(3) Of minor importance (4) Not relevant

Ensure you keep full citations (including page numbers for future reference) from the outset!

REQUIREMENTS OF ACADEMIC WRITING

1. Writing for building knowledge

2. All claims backed up by evidence

3. All sources of information acknowledged

4. Relatively formal style

5. Clear structure

CRITICAL WRITING

The critical writer constructs their own argument

Arguments have 2 components: A set of claims or assertions (conclusions) The warrant (backing) for them (evidence)

OPINION = UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONARGUMENT = CONCLUSION + WARRANT

(Wallace and Wray 2006)

DEVELOPING A COHERENT ARGUMENT

Rudestam (2001: 57) the literature review is ‘not a compilation of facts but a coherent argument that leads to the description of a proposed study’

Anticipate reader’s (or marker’s) comments: What is your evidence for this? What point are you trying to make here? So what? What are the implications? Where is this leading? Why does it matter?

DON’T REPORT - CRITIQUE

Assess the status of existing knowledge Give both or all sides of the argument Take a stance

Where does weight of argument fall? Where are gaps in the knowledge base?

Convince reader of legitimacy of assertions by sufficient logical and empirical evidence

ORIGINALITY:ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

Analysis: systematic extraction of ideas / theories / concepts / assumptions from the literature

Synthesis: making of connections between

elements derived from analysis to demonstrate patterns not previously produced

VOICE AND AUTHORSHIP

Foregrounding of writer voice Make connections between sources

‘X...whilst Y.....’; ‘furthermore, A contends...’ Summarise source text(s) then evaluate

‘but B’s research does not extend to consideration of...’

‘these examples demonstrate the significance of...’)

Summarise state of play at end of section

MAINTAIN YOUR AUTHORITY

Rudestam 2001, Ridley 2008 Develop your argument, and cite work of others to

evidence /buttress points/ provide examples... ‘Care leavers can be remarkably resilient (Dixon

et al 2006)’ …Rather than hiding behind authority of cited texts

‘Dixon et al (2006) found that care leavers can be remarkably resilient’ tends to shift focus from your argument to work of others

Use your own words Overuse of quotations will deflect your ownership

of the argument

ACKNOWLEDGING SOURCES

APA system of referencing

Partial references in text (Fortin 2009: 81)

Full references in Reference List Fortin, J. (2009 3rd edition) Children’s Rights and

the Developing Law Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

ORGANIZATION OF SOURCES

Group related studies together. Review briefly any weaker studies or studies

that share similar methods. Devote more attention to groundbreaking, stronger studies.

Organize studies by findings. Organize by methodology. Organize by theory.

ORGANIZATION …

ORGANIZATION BY CONCEPTS

Identify Keywords of your research topics Design Literature Map Organize your literatures by literature map

Summarize the most relevant articles

Include precise reference

LITERATURE REVIEW ORGANIZATION Organize topics

Ease of use

SW use

usefulnessOrganizational support

Training troubleshooting

Organization strategy

OVERCOMING WRITING AVOIDANCESTRATEGIES

Don’t wait until you have ‘something to write’ You will end up with more reading than you can cope

with Write as you go!

Start literature review as soon as you have started reading...

Most of us can’t organise thoughts in head – do it on paper First draft is hardest – then you have something to work on Work on several sections at a time – if you get

blocked/bored, a change is as good as a rest Don’t start at the beginning

leave the introduction until you know what you are introducing

See Allison and Race (2004)

REVISION OF DRAFTS

Leave first draft a while before returning to read it afresh and revise

Read aloud for sense and flow Read through quickly for overview of message Check for grammatical construction and

spelling Remove extraneous words and repetition If over the word limit, ask – how does this

section contribute to answering my research question?

WHAT MAKES A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW?

Demonstrates understanding of key issues in field

Provides context and justification for research question(s)

Critical evaluation Contributes to rationale for methodology Well-developed logical argument Clarity of expression and presentation Accurate references [Clear linkage to findings and conclusions]

29

LITERATURE REVIEW:HOW TO COMBINE, SYNTHESIS, AND DEMONSTRATE DIRECTION?

S tud y 1 S tud y 2 S tud y 3

T o p ic

THINGS THAT TEND TO GO WRONG

Research question not grounded in literature review (empirical study)

Literature review descriptive, not analytical Lack of originality arising from inadequate

synthesis Poor balance between review of theoretical work,

empirical research, policy and practice Linkage: literature review – methods -

findings Lacking multi-disciplinary perspective (Child

Studies)

JUDGING THE LITERATURE REVIEW (HART 1998/BOOTE AND BIELE 2005)

1. Coverage Justified criteria for inclusion and exclusion from review.

2. Synthesis Distinguished what has been done in field from

what needs to be done. Placed topic or problem in broader scholarly

literature Placed research in historical context of field. Acquired and enhanced subject vocabulary. Articulated important variables and phenomena

relevant to topic. Synthesized and gained a new perspective on the

literature.

3 Methodology Identified main methodologies /techniques in

field; advantages and disadvantages. Related ideas and theories in field to research

methodologies.

4. Significance Rationalized practical significance of

research problem. Rationalized the scholarly/theoretical

ignificance of research problem.

5. Rhetoric Written with coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSION

Show deficiency Is there missing variables

Previous studies did not see this variable Missing population groups

Previous study did not address this software type Replication of the study to a new context

Software usability study was not made in Ethiopian context

Can get research gap from previous journal articles

SUMMARY Ensures that you are not "reinventing the wheel". Gives credits to those who have laid the

groundwork for your research. Demonstrates your knowledge of the research

problem. Demonstrates your understanding of the

theoretical and research issues related to your research question.

Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant literature information.

CONT’D

Indicates your ability to integrate and synthesize the existing literature.

Provides new theoretical insights or develops a new model as the conceptual framework for your research.

Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature).

PROBLEMS WITH STUDENTS

Lacking organization and structure Lacking focus, unity and coherence Being repetitive and verbose Failing to cite influential papers Failing to keep up with recent developments Failing to critically evaluate cited papers Citing irrelevant or trivial references

REVIEW QUESTIONS

Select on Internet how literature review is conducted

Pick an article and evaluate its literature review sections

What patterns used – time or conceptual criteria

Search on Internet and read examples what paraphrasing means?

When do you plagiarism? Why? What was they gap they identified? Why it is

gap?

ASSESS THE 3 ARTICLES

Originality of contribution

Critical evaluation of literature

Policy/ practice/ research implications

Author’s voice

Structure

Coherence and writing style