Writing a literature review
Professor Hazel Hall
School of Computing
Professor Hazel Hall
@hazelh http://hazelhall.org http://about.me/hazelh
[email protected] 0131 455 2760
Slides on SlideShare at:
http://slideshare.net/hazelhall
Workshop focus
Workshop focus is on writing a literature review
Not on how to identify material on which to base a literature review
covered in training on literature searching
Not on how to evaluate, critique or analyse the output of material gathered as the result of a literature search
covered in training on critical reading
…but on how to present the analysis that you have completed
Literature reviewWhat are the
main perspectives
on this topic in previous
research?What are the main
conclusions on previous research in
this area?
What are the key areas of debate in this
area?
Which aspects of this work are of most relevance to my
study?
What are the key concepts in this area?
What have been the main research
questions?
In which subject areas has the topic
been studied?
Do parallel literatures exist for this topic?
Which discussions?
Which sub-themes? Which writers?
Which work is subject to
challenge?
Where is existing knowledge “thin”?
How is this topic approached by
others?
Coherent synthesis of past and present
research in the domain of study
Where are the gaps in literature?
Who are these
“others”?
Which existing work could be
extended?
Perspectives
Hazel PhD external examiner PhD supervisor PhD graduate Active researcher involved in peer assessment of journal,
conference and research proposal submissions
Students PhD students going through the process, supervised by a range
of staff Critical readers of the published work of others
AgendaMain themes to be covered
Challenges associated with writing literature reviews
Purposes of writing literature reviews Anticipated standard of content of literature review Anticipated standard of presentation of material in a literature
review Common problems with literature reviews
Challenges revisited
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH WRITING LITERATURE REVIEWS
Challenges - exercise
Let’s start with a couple of questions
What do you consider to be three main challenges of writing a literature review?
Why do these challenges cause you difficulties?
Classification of challenges
As a group, we will attempt to classify the challenges
These will be revisited later – with (we hope!) some strategies on how to address them
PURPOSES OF WRITING LITERATURE REVIEWS
“Output” purposes of the literature review 1
Requirement of the PhD
Versions required for interim stages of PhD registration at Napier Especially important for the transfer report
Expected as a chapter in the submitted thesis
“Output” purposes of the literature review 2
The literature review chapter
Part of your original contribution to the extension of knowledge at the forefront of your field
Demonstration that you are capable of carrying out research in a systematic manner:
conducting literature searches recording output according to recognised standards
Evidence of your independent critical powers to read critically to write analytically to draw on the extant literature to conceptualise, design and
implement a large research study Proof that you understand applicable techniques for advanced
levels of academic enquiry
“Process” purpose of the literature review
Part of your apprenticeship in research 1
You improve your skills as a researcher You enhance your writing skills
in general in the discourse of your domain
You gain subject expertise as your knowledge grows through absorbing the work of others
particularly useful if you are later involved in data collection with domain specialists
You grow in independence as you find your own “voice” You learn
through writing through articulating your ideas
“Process” purpose of the literature review
Part of your apprenticeship in research 2
Knowledge gain helps direct your empirical research so that
You can make decisions on the scope and feasibility of practical work
You can define/redefine research questions, and protect yourself from “wheel reinvention”
You can devise the evaluation criteria for your own research output
Research evaluation and the literature review
Later chapters will refer back to literature review
Do your findings confirm those of others? Does your work extend that of others? Does your work provide new meaning to the work of others? Does your work break new ground? Does your work raise issues about the methodological choices
made in previous studies? Does your work challenge existing theoretical approaches to
your subject?
ANTICIPATED LITERATURE REVIEW CONTENT
Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader needs to understand the context into which your work fits Thematic line of argument driven by the priorities of the research
in question Trends in the topic’s treatment identified, e.g.
By geography By sector By key researchers Over time (Not author-by-author, format-by-format, simple chronological
description)
Strong links provided across published work, as relevant to the main themes of your study
Trends in a topic’s treatment by key researchers
Gestalt theory Structural-functional anthropology
Field theory, sociometry Warner, Mayo Gluckman
Group dynamics Homans Barnes, Bott, Nadel
Graph theory Mitchell Harvard structuralists Social network analysis
Lineage of social network analysis
Anthropology Dominant themes Sociology Behavioral psychology
Dominant themes
Early C20th
Malinowski Mauss
Gift-giving as a moral obligation.
1950s Homans Thibaut &
Kelley 1960s Levi-Strauss Shared with sociologists. Homans
Blau
Exchange is ubiquitous. Trust generates exchange and trust. Exchanges are non-negotiable, reciprocal & sequential. Focus on actions by individuals in dyadic relations.
1970s Ekeh Social cohesion
achieved through social exchange.
Emerson Granovetter
Power. Focus on relations. Social network analysis.
Heath Rewards and punishment. 1980s
Cheal Gift giving for reproducing social relationships.
Cook & Emerson
Power & power processes.
Current Godelier
Godbout Relevance of gift giving in modern societies, e.g. the nature of what is exchanged; charitable donations as a form of gift giving; power of marginalized participants in gift economies; wealth, patterns of gift giving and gift consumption as indicators of social position and power; universality of the general logic of exchange and reciprocity
Molm Lawler Lawler Yoon Uzzi
Coercive power. Bargaining. Quality of exchanges.
Trends in a topic’s treatment by key researchers, in subject domains, over time(Based on an analysis of 13 sources)
Theorists and themes of social exchange
Trends in aspects of topic’s treatment according to research approaches and their underlying values
Type of process Research approach (example) Focus (example) Values from
Democratic Deliberative democracy Relationships between government and citizens in consultation processes
Democratic theory
Participative Social exclusion Who controls engagement Participants’ needs
Administrative Public administration Efficiency and effectiveness of consultation leading to decisions
Consulters’ needs
Decision making Normative and descriptive decision making in psychology and management
Decision processes and speed of decision
Organisational objectives
Communicative Computer mediated communication
Interactions in communication activities
Models of communication processes
Knowledge transfer Knowledge management Barriers to organisational learning
Ideals of knowledge sharing in communities
Theories on managing consultation processesAdapted from Newman, D. (2008, January). E-consultation, from citizens to parliaments. Internal research seminar presented at Edinburgh Napier University.
Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader expects you to have done the hard work of evaluating the extant literature
You assess the value of the literature reviewed at a number of levels
individual papers (material that is “significant”) collections of material, e.g. by defined groupings such as sector
You emphasise limitations of existing knowledge Identifying gaps in the literature to promote the value of your
research Confirm that your work is worthwhile, timely, and that the investment
in your PhD study (time and money) has been put to good use
Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader needs to be convinced that the work is complete in terms of material evaluated
“Completeness” depends on clear definition of scope
“Completeness” evident in citations that are Highly relevant Plentiful Accurate Precise Up-to-date
Framing of the synthesis
Sign-posting value of strong introductions and conclusions
Introduction What will be found here Its scope Why its inclusion is necessary as a preface to the discussion of your
full research study
Conclusion Statement of the strongest messages of the chapter Implications made clear, particularly on the value of the PhD study
as a whole Clear links to the next chapter
High-note end to conclusion
“On the basis of everything that you have just read there is absolutely no question that the past 3 years of my life have been extremely worthwhile dedicated to the pursuit of this fabulous study. And, guess what lucky reader? In the next chapter you will learn all about how I planned and executed my empirical research!”
ANTICIPATED STANDARD OF PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL IN A LITERATURE REVIEW
Presentation priorities
Line of argument Accessible and easy to follow Lively and engaging Evident in the text of the narrative, rather than over-reliance on
headings as sign-posts Provided as an analysis in the narrative, with
descriptive/illustrative material “demoted” to tables and/or diagrams
Leaving the analysis to the reader is dangerous: apart from annoying the reader, he/she may come up with a completely different perspective from yours
Complete, yet succinct, with repetition minimised due to sensible use of cross referencing
Critical reading – the focus
When reading academic work you are evaluating the level of argument presented
Look out for
Claims/conclusions Reasons/interpretations of data that lead to the above Evidence on which above is built Any qualifications for the claims/conclusions
Just as the content of this slide applies to your efforts to read critically, it sets the standard for the presentation of your own line of argument.
Just as the content of this slide applies to your efforts to read critically, it sets the standard for the presentation of your own line of argument.
Logic of argument
The early work of X (X, date) on Y is fundamental to research in this field.
Claims/conclusions
The results of his experimental work carried out in the early 1940s are widely cited (for example, A, date; B, date, C, date).
Justification of claim
Indeed, up until 1970, a number of conferences were dedicated to further exploration of his theoretical work, such as the series entitled International perspectives on Y held in the US.
Detailed evidence of claim
In recent years, however, this work has been ignored, mainly due to developments in computing, and is now regarded as less important than once believed.
Qualifications of claim
Logic of argument
The early work of X (X, date) on Y is fundamental to research in this field.
Claims/conclusions
The results of his experimental work carried out in the early 1940s are widely cited (for example, A, date; B, date, C, date).
Justification of claim
Indeed, up until 1970, a number of conferences were dedicated to further exploration of his theoretical work, such as the series entitled International perspectives on Y held in the US.
Detailed evidence of claim
In recent years, however, this work has been ignored, mainly due to developments in computing, and is now regarded as less important than once believed.
Qualifications of claim
Anticipate reader’s questions,
do not leave your work open
to questions such as:
• “What is your point here?”
• “What makes you think so?”
• “What is your evidence?”
• “So what?”
Anticipate reader’s questions,
do not leave your work open
to questions such as:
• “What is your point here?”
• “What makes you think so?”
• “What is your evidence?”
• “So what?”
Well-presented work inspires confidence
Standards
Formal, grammatical English Appropriate deployment of the vocabulary of the subject domain Consistent use of tenses
Decide a cut-off for what is “current” and what is not
References presented according to recognised standard
Your voice Your interpretation demands your words – not a patchwork of
quotations (or paraphrased paragraphs) of other authors
COMMON “PROBLEMS” WITH LITERATURE REVIEWS
Problems with what to review (scope)Knowing where to start, (e.g. wide then narrow, or narrow then wide?) and what to include
Knowing when to stop literature searching
Knowing when to stop “perfecting” the file
Knowing how far to venture into the literature of associated domains
I don’t know exactly what I am going to research because I have not yet read the relevant literature, Indeed everything seems relevant!
I don’t know whether what I am reading is really relevant because I have not yet decided exactly what it is I am going to research.
What to review (scope): “solutions” 1
Knowing when to stop literature searching
Use review papers first, “read” bibliographies, recognise reference (as well as content) saturation point
If you have identified much literature, and know that there is even more to uncover, it may be the case that your chosen topic is too broad. Consider limits: a particular influence on your main theme, a time-limited treatment. Also bear in mind that this will need to be justified in the thesis.
Switch from “historic” search to “current” search
Build safety nets with alert services, both automated and human
You will reach a stage where you switch from building your literature review in an emergent fashion, to enhancing its content through additional of material from directed reading
Deadlines should force you to stop anyway
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice
What to review (scope): “solutions” 2
Knowing where to start writing, (e.g. wide then narrow, or narrow then wide?) and what to include
Start somewhere – everyone has this problem at the beginning
Establish how much material already exists at each “level” of the topic
Experiment, e.g. mind-map in both directions
Focus on what “bothers” you
Make thematic notes according to a structure that mirrors the main themes of your study
Aim to know in depth what you are doing, and in breadth what is relevant to what you are doing
Remember critical reading advice on long and medium shots, and close-ups
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice
What to review (scope): “solutions” 3
Knowing how far to venture into the literature of associated domains
Tread very carefully here
Increase your familiarity first by looking at basic material such as domain-specific dictionaries and text-books
Travel with those from your domain who have explored in this region before
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice
What to review (scope): “solutions” 4
Knowing when to stop “perfecting” the file
Perfectionists need to recognise the file as a perpetual beta that will be revisited (and re-edited – sometimes painfully) several times it prior to submission
Consider whether you are really adding value to the file or simply using the literature review as a form of security blanket or excuse for procrastinating – you should be multitasking by this stage
Deadlines should force you to stop anyway
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice
Problems with under-researched workNot enough previous work is reviewed
Inappropriate source material is covered, e.g. key texts are missing from the analysis - often at the expense of less valuable material; recent material is missing (new papers, updated versions of conference papers cited); over-reliance on secondary citations
Bias in treatment due to lack of immersion in (or engagement with) the literature of the domain and/or ignorance (deliberate or not) of conflicting views
Solutions for under-researched workNot enough previous work is reviewed
Ensure that your literature searching technique is thorough by, for example, by taking advantage of all the fee-based search services that Edinburgh Napier subscribes too (as well as Google Scholar) and using social media as a source of current awareness
Conceive literature searching as an on-going process
Use human agents for identifying relevant new material: your subject librarian, your supervisor, your peers, authors already identified as relevant
Annotate your literature review so that you know which sources to recheck for updated versions
Wherever possible, seek out and use the original sources
Be thorough in your treatment. Discuss conflicting views with others, e.g. supervisor, contacts at conferences, peers online
Inappropriate source material is covered, e.g. key texts are missing from the analysis - often at the expense of less valuable material; recent material is missing (new papers, updated versions of conference papers cited); over-reliance on secondary citations
Bias in treatment due to lack of immersion in (or engagement with) the literature of the domain and/or ignorance (deliberate or not) of conflicting views
Problems with under-developed workMaterial is simply summarised
Material has not been fitted to the needs of the study: overuse of quotations and paraphrasing – student hands over the power of authority
Treatment does not hold together as a “story”
Work looks like a business report
Problems with under-developed workMaterial is simply summarised
Remember the “So what?” factor
Resist the temptation to work with photocopies/pdfs of source material next to you. Instead develop your line of argument from fully digested (and well referenced) notes derived from the source material
Use quotations only for instances where what is said is expressed in a particularly interesting way, or when the originator of the quotation is of particular interest
Build a line of argument that is yours as relevant to your study (and not author-by-author, not source format-by-format, not a simple chronological treatment)
Remember that you are building an argument (not cataloguing a library)
Provide a strong introduction, sign-posting, and conclusion that tie the contents of the literature review to the research aims, and emphasise its purpose and value
Avoid short sections, bullet lists and multiple headings: the structure of your work should be evident through the line of argument presented
Material has not been fitted to the needs of the study: overuse of quotations and paraphrasing – student hands over the power of authority
Treatment does not hold together as a “story”
Work looks like a business report
CHALLENGES REVISITED
Challenges revisited
Exercise
Reconsider your responses to the exercise and possible means of addressing these challenges
Professor Hazel Hall
@hazelh http://hazelhall.org http://about.me/hazelh
[email protected] 0131 455 2760
Slides on SlideShare at:
http://slideshare.net/hazelhall