What is a Literature Review?

• an overview of previous research on your

research topic
• a comprehensive review of all published
research that is relevant to your proposed
investigation and guided by your research
objectives
Purpose of a Literature Review
• Convey the depth and breadth of research that
has been accomplished on a subject
• Supports the motivation and significance of the
research
• Identify important issues and link to hypotheses
• Identify key areas of missing knowledge
• Describe methodologies used
• Describe existing data sets
• Link proposed research to previous and ongoing
research efforts -- provide context
A literature review has a number of functions
Bring clarity and focus to your research
problem

 Improve your methodology

Broaden your knowledge base in your

research area

Contextualise your findings

How to do a Literature Review
• Define the research topic
• Compile and prioritize a list of keywords
• Identify sources of information
• Read, evaluate, analyze all the works
• Discuss findings and conclusions with others -- important
for understanding context, gaps in previous research
• Identify relationships between works in the literature
• Articulate how these apply to your research
What should be done before writing the
literature review?
 Narrow your topic
 There are hundreds or even thousands of
articles and books on most areas of study. The
narrower your topic, the easier it will be to
limit the number of sources you need to read
in order to get a good survey of the material.
Your instructor will probably not expect you
to read everything that's out there on the topic,
but you'll make your job easier if you first
limit your scope.
• Consider whether your sources are
current
– Some disciplines require that you use
information that is as current as possible. In
the sciences, for instance, treatments for
medical problems are constantly changing
according to the latest studies. Information
even two years old could be obsolete.
 However, if you are writing a review in the humanities,
history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the
literature may be what is needed, because what is important
is how perspectives have changed through the years or
within a certain time period.
 Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or
literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your
discipline expects.
 You can also use this method to consider what is "hot" and
what is not.
 Identify Resources
• Books
• Journals
• Conference Papers
• Dissertations
• Bibliographies
• Maps
• Internet
• Indexes/Abstracts Printed
• Electronic Databases
• Government publications
• Theses
• Interviews and other unpublished research
 Assessment
• Assess the quality of the information source:
– refereed journal article?
– conference proceedings?
– corporate report?
• Assess the standing of the author
– academic?
– journalist?
– government employee?
– is the work in their major field of research?
 Evaluate the Information
• determine the facts/points of view
• examine new findings
• question assumptions
• determine if methodology is appropriate
• are the objectives clearly outlined
• do the conclusions logically follow from the
objectives?
• identify classic, “landmark” articles
 Continually Evaluate Your
Research Process
• No relevant information?
– Need to reconsider your search strategy
– New keywords
– Explore other disciplines for information
• Too many irrelevant items?
– Re-evaluate keywords
– Narrow scope of your search
• Document your search strategy
– Keep multiple lists of keywords
– Indicate what works, what doesn’t
 Information Management
• Select a strategy for organizing information
– Notecards (primitive but it works!)
– List of references on a computer
– Bibliographic database software (EndNote)
• Develop good lit search habits
– Start immediately
– Keep searches up to date
– Summarize papers that you read
 Organization
• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the
literature review, such as the central theme or
organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is
organized either chronologically, thematically, or
methodologically (see below for more information
on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you
have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where
might the discussion proceed?
 Organizing the body
 Once you have the basic categories in place, then you
must consider how you will present the sources
themselves within the body of your paper. Create an
organizational method to focus this section even
further.
 To help you come up with an overall organizational
framework for your review, consider the six typical
ways of organizing the sources into a review:
 Chronological
 By publication
 By trend
 Thematic
 Methodological
 Questions for Further Research
 Elaborate on …..
 the accepted facts in the area
 the popular opinion
 the main variables
 the relationship between concepts and variables
 shortcomings in the existing findings
 limitations in the methods used in the existing
findings
 the relevance of your research
 suggestions for further research in the area.
 Good vs Poor
A ‘good’ literature review….. A ‘poor’ literature review is…..

….. is a synthesis of available research …..an annotated bibliography

….. is a critical evaluation
….. has appropriate breadth and depth
….. has clarity and conciseness
….. uses rigorous and consistent
methods
….. confined to description
….. narrow and shallow
….. confusing and longwinded
….. constructed in an arbitrary way
 Final Checklist
 Have I fulfilled the purpose of the literature review?
 Is it written at a level appropriate to its audience?
 Are its facts correct?
 Is all the information included relevant?
 Are the layout and presentation easy on the eye?
 Is the language clear, concise and academic?
 Does the abstract summarise the entire review?
 Does the introduction adequately introduce the topic?
 Is the body organised logically?
 Does the conclusion interpret, analyse and evaluate?
 Are the recommendations reasonable?
 Does the table of contents correspond with the actual contents? Are page
numbers correct?
 Have I acknowledged all sources of information through correct
referencing?
 Have I checked spelling, grammar and punctuation?
 Have I carefully proof-read the final draft?
 Pitfalls
- Vagueness due to too much or
inappropriate generalisations
- Limited range
- Insufficient information
- Irrelevant material
- Omission of contrasting view
- Omission of recent work
 Format for Citing References

Author, A., & Author, B. (year). Title of book

(edition if not first). City: Publisher.
Book by a single author
• Leshin, C.B. (1997). Management on the
World Wide Web. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
 Format for Citing References

Author, A., & Author, B. (year). Title of book

(edition if not first). City: Publisher.

Book by more than one author

• Cornett, M., Wiley, B.J., & Sankar, S. (1998). The
pleasures of nurturing (2nd ed). London:
McMunster Publishing.
 Format for Citing References
Journal Article
Author, A., & Author, B. (year). Title of article. Title
of Journal, volume number (issue number), page
numbers.
• Barry, H. (1996). Cross-cultural research with
matched pairs of societies. Journal of Social
Psychology, 79 (1), 25-33.
• Jeanquart, S., & Peluchette, J. (1997). Diversity in
the workforce and management models, Journal of
Social Work Studies, 43, 72-85.
 Format for Citing References
Referencing Electronic Sources
Author, A. (year, month day). Title of article. Title
of Newspaper. Retrieved from home page web
address
• Nader, C. (2009, June 19). Mental health issues
soar among children. The Age. Retrieved from
http://www.theage.com.au
Thank you…