Writing a literature review

Professor Hazel Hall

School of Computing

Professor Hazel Hall

@hazelh http://hazelhall.org http://about.me/hazelh

h.hall@napier.ac.uk 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

h.hall@napier.ac.uk 0131 455 2760

Slides on SlideShare at:

http://slideshare.net/hazelhall