Writing a literature review

1
Writing a literature review

• Dr Hazel Hall, Reader, School of Computing

2
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 workshops 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 the workshop on critical reading
• but on how to present the analysis that you have
  completed

3
Literature review
Where we left off last time
What have been the main research questions?
What are the main perspectives on this topic in
previous research?
In which subject areas has the topic been studied?
Do parallel literatures exist for this topic?
What are the main conclusions on previous
research in this area?
What are the key concepts in this area?
Coherent synthesis of past and present research
in the domain of study
How is this topic approached by others?
Who are these others?
Which existing work could be extended?
Where are the gaps in literature?
Where is existing knowledge thin?
Which aspects of this work are of most relevance
to my study?
Which discussions?
What are the key areas of debate in this area?
Which work is subject to challenge?
Which sub-themes?
Which writers?
4
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

5
Agenda

• Main themes to be covered
• Challenges associated with writing literature
  reviews
• Purposes of writing literature reviews
• Anticipated standard of literature review content
• Anticipated standard of presentation of material
  in a literature review
• Common problems with literature reviews
• Challenges revisited
• There are also some exercises to complete
  either in this session or as private study

6

• CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH WRITING LITERATURE
  REVIEWS

7
Challenges

• Lets start with a couple of questions
• What do you consider to be the three main
  challenges of writing a literature review?
• Why do these challenges cause you difficulties?

8
Classification of challenges

• As a group, we will attempt to classify the
  challenge
• These will be revisited later with (we hope!)
  some strategies on how to address them

9

• PURPOSES OF WRITING LITERATURE REVIEWS

10
Output purposes of the literature review

• Requirement of the PhD
• Versions required for interim stages of PhD
  registration at Napier
• Expected as a chapter in the submitted thesis
• 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, write analytically, 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

11
Process purpose of the literature review

• Part of your apprenticeship in research
• You improve your skills as a researcher
• Writing skills - both in general, and in the
  discourse of your domain
• 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
• Growth in independence as you find your own
  voice
• Learning through writing and articulating your
  ideas
• Knowledge gain helps direct your empirical
  research
• Decisions on scope and feasibility of practical
  work
• Definition/redefinition of research questions,
  including protection from wheel reinvention
• Evaluation criteria for your own research output

12
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?

13

• ANTICIPATED LITERATURE REVIEW CONTENT

14
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 topics 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

15
Trends in a topics treatment by key researchers
Lineage of social network analysis
16
Trends in a topics treatment by key researchers,
in subject domains, over time(Based on an
analysis of 13 sources)
Theorists and themes of social exchange
17
Trends in aspects of topics treatment according
to research approaches and their underlying values
Theories on managing consultation
processes Adapted from Newman, D. (2008,
January). E-consultation, from citizens to
parliaments. Internal research seminar presented
at Napier University.
18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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!

22

• ANTICIPATED STANDARD OF PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL
  IN A LITERATURE REVIEW

23
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

24
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 (from the
workshop on Critical Reading) applies to your
efforts to read critically, it sets the standard
for the presentation of your own line of argument.
25
Logic of argument
26
Logic of argument

• Anticipate readers 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?

27
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

28
Exercises

• Have a look at exercise 2 on the yellow sheet
• If there is time, also try exercises 3 and 4

29

• COMMON PROBLEMS WITH LITERATURE REVIEWS

30
Problems with scope
31
Problems with scope
32
Problems with scope solutions 1
33
Problems with scope solutions 2
34
Problems with scope solutions 3
35
Problems with scope solutions 4
36
Problems with under-developed work

• Under-researched work
• Antecedents of problems often lie with poor
  literature searching, and/or lack of skills in
  critical reading
• Inappropriate source material covered
• Key texts missing from the analysis, often at the
  expense of less valuable material
• Recent material missing from the analysis new
  papers, updated versions of conference papers now
  as peer-reviewed journal articles
• Over-reliance on secondary citing
• Bias in treatment of the topic due to lack of
  immersion in (or engagement with) the literature
  of the domain, ignorance (deliberate or not) of
  conflicting views

37
Problems with under-developed work

• Lack of analysis
• Material is simply summarised
• Material has not been fitted to the needs of the
  study
• Over-use of quotations, obviously paraphrased
  sections of others work student hands over
  power of authority
• Driven by simple author-by-author,
  format-by-format or chronological journey through
  publications, rather than a strong line of
  argument related to the research aims you
  should be building an argument, not cataloguing a
  library
• Treatment does not hold together as a story
• Reads like a set of facts
• Purpose of chapter unclear in introduction
• Value of chapter unclear in conclusion
• Work at this level often looks more like a
  business report short sections, bulleted lists,
  structure evident through multiple headings

38

• CHALLENGES REVISITED

39
Challenges revisited

• Exercise 5
• Reconsider your responses to Exercise 1 and
  possible means of addressing these challenges.