Web Toolbar by Wibiya

Writing the literature review


We usually encounter problems in writing a literature review that meets our adviser's or panelists' approval. Usually they will comment that our literature review isn't comprehensive enough, that it doesn't show the "state of the art" in the particular field, that it doesn't provide a context to our research inquiry, and so on.
Picture
'Hell's Judges' by Wafulz
So we have to remember our literature review will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
  • Provides historical background of key concepts/variables
  • Provides comprehensive discussion (reflecting in-depth search) of appropriate and relevant theories related to the research topic
  • Provides subtopics/subheadings that reflect state-of-the art focus of the study
  • Provides summary of trend and/or gap in related literature
  • Provides a good argument that leads to the research problem for investigation
This follows what John W. Cresswell, writing in Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (2nd ed.; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), says the literature review should demonstrate (29-30):
  1. "It shares with the reader the results of other studies that are closely related to the study being reported"
  2. "It relates a study to the larger ongoing dialogue in the literature about a topic, filling in gaps and extending prior studies"
  3. "It provides a framework for establishing the importance of [your] study as well as a benchmark for comparing the results of a study with other findings"
Now we may have an idea why our adviser or panelists shake their heads when reading our literature reviews. Perhaps we didn't really do a thorough search for studies and other materials related to our research subject. Or perhaps we didn't choose the right materials -- choosing to present data found in textbooks or encyclopedias, and not for background but for our main argument, when we should have searched for and used studies to delineate the "issues and debates" related to our research subject .
Shannon Christine Matterm, in her "The Literature Review/ Mediagraphy" article in Words in Space website (a good and useful resource, by the way), presents a diagram that clearly shows what the literature review should do:
Picture
So what do our advisers and panelists want to read in our literature review?

First of all, they want to see our research skills as it translates into our writing. They want to see our critical thinking skills, especially in how we are able to make connections among the different ideas we discuss in our review and how we point out gaps that leads us to narrow down our research inquiry.

They also want to read a well-organized review (chronological, thematic, methodological) that fits our own research agenda. And they want to read not just a description of the studies reviewed, but also our critical appraisal of these studies.

Leslie Baxter and Earl Babbie, in The Basics of Communication Research (Toronto, Ontario: Wadsworth, 2004), presents several checklists to follow when reading quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research studies. Through these checklists, we can easily highlight the significant aspects of every study we review:
  • The nature of the study -- quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method (and, to insert Mattern's ideas here, applied and artistic methods)
  • The paradigm of knowing used or embedded in the work
  • The purpose and rationale of the study
  • The research questions or hypotheses
  • The research design and methodology employed
  • The variables operationalized, measured, and analyzed
  • The units of analysis and the sampling method (or other methods) used
  • The results or findings of the study and their implications for further study

And by following these checklists, we can present a credible argument that will lead to our own narrowed-down problem statement and research questions or hypotheses.
Two sample literature reviews, provided in Mattern's article, may help us to construct our own papers. We may follow the same structure employed in these samples: a short introduction of the research subject, followed by an assessment of the scope of studies done on the area, and with the sources grouped logically (chronological, thematic, or methodological). To complete the review, we also need to provide some concluding paragraphs that sum up the ideas raised in our critical appraisal (our argument) of the "issues and debates" that underscore the sources reviewed.

Another online source that may help us is from the University of Toronto's Writing site.

Bookmark and Share

Topics

  • Orientation
  • Research Problem
  • Rationale
  • Review of Related Literature
  • Statement of the Problem
  • Objectives of the Study
  • Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
  • Significance of the Study
  • Methodology
  • Research Design
  • Elements and Variables
  • Methods of Analysis
  • Procedures
  • Timeframe
  • Results of the Study
  • Discussion of Results
  • Tabular and Graphical Presentation
  • Summary of Findings
  • Conclusion
  • Implications of the Study
  • Recommendations
Protected by Copyscape Online Infringement Checker