Research

Review of Related Literature

Outline

• Purpose of the review of literature

• Assessing literature

• Preparing the Review of Related Literature

• Assembling the Review of Related Literature

• Other Concerns and Considerations

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature

• To broaden the perspectives and understandings of the thesis topic by reading as much relevant written material on the subject.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature

• It can offer new ideas, perspectives, and approaches that may not have occurred to you

• It can inform you about other researchers who conduct work on this area – individuals whom you may wish to contact for advice and feedback

• It can show you how others have handled methodological and design issues in studies similar to your own

• It can reveal sources of data that you may not have known existed

(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature

• It can introduce you to measurement tools that other researchers have developed and used effectively

• It can reveal methods of dealing with problem situations that may be similar to difficulties you are facing

• It can help you interpret and make sense of your findings, and ultimately tie your results to the work of those who have preceded you

• It will bolster your confidence that your topic is one worth studying, because you will find that others have invested time, effort and resources in studying it.

(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

Limitations of the Review of Related Literature

• The likelihood of identifying, securing, and reviewing publications that may have little or no value to the subject area.• Researchers have the tendency to fit useless

information to the review of related literature.

• Finding contemporary information• Rule of thumb: sources should be less than ten years

old unless the topic involves the humanities, history or social sciences.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

“

”

If I have seen farther from others,It is because I have stood on the shoulders of the giants.

Isaac Newton

Assessing Literature

Assessing the Literature

• Scholarly Publications• Peer reviewed publication or information that has

gone through a blind review process in which a panel of subject-experts review (referee) the material and then combine the collective reviewer responses to either confirm or deny the claims made within the publication.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Assessing the Literature

• Newspapers, magazines, books, gluers, advertisements, manuals and periodicals

• Internet and radio interviews

• Television news broadcasts and film documentaries

• Journals

• Textbooks

• Government reports

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Length

• Longer articles providing in-depth analyses of topics.

• Shorter articles providing broader overviews of the topics

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Authorship

• Author usually an expert or specialist in the field, name and credentials always provided

• Author usually a staff writer or a journalist; name and credentials often not provided.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Language/Audience

• Written in the technical or theoretical jargon of the field for scholarly readers (professors or researchers)

• Written in non-technical language for anyone to understand.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Format/ Structure

• Articles usually more structured, may include these sections: abstract, literature review, methodology, results, conclusion, bibliography

• Articles do not necessarily follow a specific format or structure.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Special features

• Illustrations that support the text, such as tables of statistics, graphs, maps, or photographs

• Illustrations with glossy color photographs, usually for advertising purposes.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Editors

• Articles usually reviewed and critically evaluated by a board of experts in the field (refereed)

• Articles are not evaluated by experts in the field, but by editors on staff.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Serialization

• Typically, volume and issue numbers are identified, and pagination of the articles in one issue pick up from the ending page number of the previous issue, there are usually four to six issues published per year, thus constituting a “volume,” with each volume beginning on a new page 1.

• Each new issue begins with page 1, and individual issues most likely referred to by month a dn day date, rather than volume and issue number.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Credits/ Citations

• A reference list (works cited) and/or footnotes are always provided to document research thoroughly

• A reference list (works cited) is usually not provided although names of reports or reference may be mentioned in the text.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Cost

• Access to a single article can be purchased up to $40

• Entire publication (all articles) can be purchased for under $15

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Perspective

• Viewed as expert knowledge and valid information

• Viewed as casual opinion for entertaining value

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Type of Scholarly Journals

• Research journals

• Funding agency reports

• Reports that inform policy makers and professional societies

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Preparing the Review of Related Literature (Process)

Stage 1: Define the Topic

• See “Selecting Research Objectives”

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Stage 2: Search and Organize

• Three major subject areas of literature:• Life sciences

• Physical science

• Social science

• Sources of information• Library

• Internet

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Stage 2: Search and Organize

Organizing Literature (Three Methods)

Controversy Categorizing information in two: those in favor, and those against

Method Categorizing information according to the research methods used

Position Categorizing information according to author’s objectives or

position on the issue

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Stage 3: Evaluate and Assess

• Some useful questions:• What are the ideas put forth by the authors to

explain a particular event or trend?

• What are the counter-arguments to the authors’ points?

• What are the weaknesses in the authors’ arguments?

• What other evidence is available to support alternative explanations?

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Stage 4: Analyze and Interpret

Fact Meaning

(What the researcher

has learned)

Implication

(What it means to the

project)

Views of nature facilitate

faster healing within the

healthcare environment

(Ulrich, 1995)

Gaining a view from all

hospital rooms is a lofty

endeavor, but if it can be

achieved, the people may

begin to perceive

hospitals more favorably.

Design Idea: Include

window boxes outside of

patient windows

containing flowers and

other elements commonly

found in nature.

Note:

1. Above is a sample of how to organize data.

2. The implication can be organized according to: design issues, design criteria,

key concepts and research methods.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Assembling the Review of Related Literature (Format)

Outline

• Introduction

• Body

• Conclusion

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Introduction

• It should define the general topic and provide the reader with a perspective from which the literature was reviewed.

• The researcher should point out common themes found within the body of work that was reviewed.

• Establish the researcher’s perspective by explaining the criteria used in analyzing and comparing the literature.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

The Body

• Researchers can group the outlines in whatever way is most productive to telling their story or getting their point across.

• Categories or subheadings can be developed according to controversy, method or position.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Conclusion

• Like all other sections of the thesis, the review of related literature requires a conclusion. Here the researcher must summarize the contributions of each study reviewed and its relevance to the researcher’s study.

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Other Concerns and Considerations

Invalid Review of Related Literature

• Insufficient preparation in the conduct of the study can lead to careless yet honest mistakes, leading to faulty conclusions.

• Since any research work is built upon a previous research work, once the basis is flawed everything else that follows become flawed as well. (Domino Effect)

(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

Knowing when to quit

• Look for repetitive patterns in the materials you are finding and reading. When you no longer encounter new viewpoints then you may be reasonable sure that you are familiar with the critical parts of the literature.

(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

Plagiarism

References

• Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. (2011). Evidence Based Design: A Process for Research and Writing. Prentice Hall

• Leedy, P., Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design, 8th ed. Pearson Education, Inc.