Literature Review
1. What is a literature review?
A literature review is not just a set of summaries or a descriptive list of material. It shows the reader what previous research has been done, and evaluates that research to show an information gap which your own research will fill.
‘In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg your research objective the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.’ (http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html in The Literature Review 2000, CQU Library, [Online], Available: http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/litreview/pages [27 February 2003])
‘In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg your research objective the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.’
(http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html in The Literature Review 2000, CQU Library, [Online], Available: http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/litreview/pages [27 February 2003])
2. Why do a literature review?
(Taken from Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. 1994, Academic Writing for Graduate Students, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.)
Which of these theories contribute(s) most to our understanding of why we should use citations (references to other authors)? Do you have any other theories?
Here are some more reasons for writing a review:
· to avoid making the same mistakes as other people
· to carry on from where others have reached
· to increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
· to identify key works, information and needs in your area
· to position your own work in context
· to identify opposing views
· to demonstrate that you can access previous work
· to identify methods relevant to your project
(Adapted from Littrell, Romie F. (working paper) The Literature Review: Critically Analysing Information Sources. http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com [10 October 2003])
3. What literature should be included?
Use only what is relevant to your study.
Consider information sources. These may include:
(Taken from The Literature Review 2000, Central Queensland University Library, [Online], Available: http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/litreview/pages [27 February2003])
Always explain your selection criteria:
The remainder of the chapter that follows critically reviews contemporary literature regarding . . . . . . Early studies in the area (e.g. _________) generally concluded that . . . . . . As ________ and ________ (1989) pointed out, however these studies all failed to distinguish between . . . . . . and . . . . . ., and thus, their conclusions are suspect. Later studies have corrected this flaw, and will be the focus of the review that follows. Initial sections discuss . . . . . ., . . . . . . and . . . . . .. The review concludes with a summary and critique of existing literature, followed by a discussion of the specific research question and hypotheses suggested by the review and examined in this thesis.
(Cone & Foster 1993, pp. 110 - 111)
4. How should I do a literature review?
1. Select the topic
2. Set the topic in context
3. Look at information sources
4. Use information sources
5. Get the information
6. Organise the information
7. Position the literature review
8. Write the literature review
(Taken from Central Queensland University Library 2000, The Literature Review, [Online], Available: http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/litreview/pages [27 February 2003])
1. Define the information need and state it as a question.
2. Break the need into its component parts. Identify concepts and keywords.
3. Identify synonyms and prioritise keywords.
4. Select an information source that matches your information need.
5. Evaluate the information. Read the abstract.
6. Evaluate the search process. Have you got too little information? Maybe you need to broaden the scope of your search, try different types of sources or explore other disciplines.
7. Keep a list of all items ordered via document delivery, so that you don’t order the same item twice.
8. Organise the information you have found. Keep careful notes about the source of the information.
· Content – arguments, evidence, reliability, limitations, strengths, weaknesses
· Context in the discipline – landmark article? Useful contribution? Does it agree with/contradict current thought? Good introduction to field?
· Methodology – weak/strong reasoning? Replication possible? Adequate sample size?
· Author – academic standing, style, reference to other authors. Be careful if you disagree with an author – he or she may turn out to be your examiner!
· Relevance – date, type of publication, purpose, relevance to your study
5. How should I write?
· “Help. There is no literature to review!” Show the gaps in the current literature. Review literature which justifies your choice of topic.
· “When should I write it?” Before the rest of your thesis, to identify the gaps and focus your own thoughts.
· “Can I use I/we?” Check with your department.
· Active/passive – too much passive is boring
· Tenses – present tense to describe general principles or results; past tense to describe past findings
· Examiners – want to see that you can
- set up a theoretical framework for your research
- show your reader that you have a clear understanding of the key concepts/ideas/studies/ models related to your topic
- talk about the history of your research area and any related controversies
- discuss these ideas in a context appropriate for your own investigation
- evaluate the work of others
- clarify important definitions and terminology
- develop the research space you will also indicate in the introduction and abstract
- narrow the problem down; make the study feasible
(taken from Clerehan 1999, p. 2)
· Format – could be one or two chapters; literature reviews for science subjects may be part of the introduction, identifying work previously done in the field
· Position in thesis – usually after the introduction
· Headings – usage depends on your department
· Authority – develop a theme and use the work of relevant authors to support your argument; paraphrase rather than quote, if you can
· Layout – introduction, body and conclusion (see point 6 below for more detail)
I/We?
Active or passive?
Tenses – present or past?
Headings?
Number of chapters?
6. How should I group the literature?
There are different ways to group your literature. Here are some suggestions:
Imagine you have to write about the 6 reasons for writing a literature review given on page 1. How would you group them? What reasons can you give for this grouping?
Cone and Foster (1993, p. 108) suggest:
1. Cover studies that examine related independent variables together. (eg if you are reviewing strategies, group by types of strategies)
2. Examine related dependent variables (eg if you are looking at characteristics of adult children of alcoholics, review studies examining personality, then drinking patterns, then relationship skills, etc.) Or group by assessment method.
3. Organise by type of design. Weaker to stronger. Eg uncontrolled case studies before controlled case studies.
4. Organise around theoretical premises. Good for competing views or different theoretical threads.
Swales and Feak (1994, p. 182):
Established major theories
Rhetorical
Theories 4 and 6
Economic
Theory 3
Sociological
Theory 5
Theories associated with individual authors
Adjectives (which are used in your discipline? Are they positive [1] or negative [5], or on a scale in between?):
__simple __remarkable __efficient __inconclusive
__useful __questionable __elegant __unsatisfactory
__reliable __comprehensive __complex __over-simplified
__small __cumbersome __unusual __too general
__careful __incomplete __limited __traditional
__ robust __ambitious __important __innovative
__flawed __preliminary __complex __interesting
__modest __impressive __small scale
(Clerehan 1999, p. 15; Swales & Feak 1994, p. 136)
Exercise – reporting words (verbs, taken from Clerehan 1999, pp. 13 – 15)
Put the following words into the categories below:
argue acknowledge contend hold the view claim recommend remark note reiterate insist assume draw attention to reject maintain prove emphasise propose recognise dispute challenge
suggest observe point out account for stress
focus on underline support take for granted find
establish
Categories:
1. Author’s argument (author making a point in developing his/her argument).
2. Author’s claims (author convincingly making a point which justifies his/her argument).
3. Author’s emphasis (author drawing reader’s attention to a particular point).
4. Author’s references to other authors (author positioning him/herself in relation to other authors).
5. Author’s omissions (author not fully arguing a point).
6. Author’s admissions (author conceding a point of potential weakness).
Your thesis
Who are the major authors in your area?
Who are the minor authors?
What information gap are you trying to fill?
How will you divide the literature? By ideas, methodology, chronology, major/minor authors, or another arrangement?
Reporting words – suggested answers
(Each word is used only once here, but alternative answers are possible.)
1. Author’s argument
argue propose maintain contend suggest claim recommend hold the view
2. Author’s claims
3. Author’s emphasis
4. Author’s references to other authors
5. Author’s omissions
6. Author’s admissions
acknowledge recognise
Further reading
Bieber, M. & Smith, M. J. 2001, Article Review Guidelines, [Online], Available: http://www.cs.njit.edu/~bieber/CIS677S01/guidelines.html [21 January 2003]
Central Queensland University Library 2000, The Literature Review, [Online], Available: http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/litreview/pages [27 February 2003]
Clerehan, R. 1999, Reviewing the Literature, Monash University, Melbourne. Available online www.monash.edu.au, but you have to have a password to access the site.
Cone, J. D. & Foster, S. L. 1993, Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Conducting a Critical Review of the Literature, [Online], 29 June 2001 – last update, Available: http://www.ecac.unimelb.edu.au/write/review.html [17 July 2002]
Fenton, P. 2002, Literature Reviews & Thesis Structure: for Masters and Doctoral Students, [Online], Available: http://auckland.massey.ac.nz/dept/ss/ss_learning_resources.htm [18 March 2003]
Littrell, R. F. (working paper) The Literature Review: Critically Analysing Information Sources, [Online], Available: http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com [10 October 2003]
Rudestam, K.E. & Newton, R. R. 2001, Surviving your Dissertation, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Inc., London.
Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. 1994, Academic Writing for Graduate Students,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Winkel, A. & Hart, B. 1996, Report Writing Style Guide for Engineering Students, 3rd edn, University of South Australia, The Levels.
Critical Review Language
This list is not exhaustive! You may like to add other expressions when you come across them in other people’s reviews.
I want to claim that . . ./show that . . ./demonstrate that . . ./highlight that . . .
The aim of this paper is [to claim that] . . .
The point of this article is [to claim that] . . .
I shall be claiming that/showing that/demonstrating that/highlighting that . . .
It will be argued in this paper/review/thesis that . . .
The view presented in this paper/review/thesis is that . . .
The argument [advanced/put forward] in this paper/review/thesis is that . . .
The point of view expressed/put forward in this paper/review/thesis is that . . .
The conclusion I will be presenting is that . . .
The perspective presented here is that . . .
The point of view argued for here is that . . .
Smith claims that . . .
Smith asserts that . . .
Smith thinks that . . .
Smith's argument is that . . .
Smith argues/has argued that . . .
Smith's conclusion is that . . .
Smith concludes that . . .
Smith's claim is that . . .
Smith observed that . . .
Smith indicates that . . .
Smith found that . . .
Smith identifies . . .
Smith proposes that . . .
Smith revealed that . . .
Smith states that . . .
Smith suggests that . . .
Smith's point is that . . .
Smith's point of view is that . . .
Smith defines . . . as . . .
According to Smith . . .
From Smith's point of view . . .
The point of Smith's article/paper is that . . .
The substance of Smith's article/paper is that . . .
The upshot of Smith's argument/paper is that . . .
Smith's work/data allows him to draw the conclusion that . . .
Smith's work/data leads him to the conclusion that . . .
Some theorists, such as Smith (1989), think that . . .
It is thought by some theorists, for example Jones (1980) and Smith (1989),
that . . .
As reported by Smith, . . .
As noted by Smith, . . .
As Smith says, . . .
As history shows, . . .
In recent reports, . . .
Smith's claim seems to be that . . .
Smith seems to be claiming that . . .
Smith's argument seems to be that . . .
Smith's conclusion seems to be that . . .
The point of Smith's article seems to be that . . .
Use any of the examples in (2) and add "seems to" (don’t forget to change the other verbs if necessary). Exceptions: This cannot be used for the examples "From Smith's point of view", "According to Smith . . ." and "It is thought by some theorists . . ."
The conclusion of [all] this is that . . .
The result of [all] this is that . . .
An outcome of this is that . . .
An upshot of this is that . . .
A consequence of this is that . . .
When Smith's work is looked at closely, it is seen that . . .
When Smith's argument is analysed, it can be seen that . . .
Looking at Smith's work/argument [in detail] . . .
Analysing Smith's data shows that . . .
Developing Smith's work/argument to its logical conclusion shows that . . .
It can be seen/shown that . . .
One possible consequence of Smith's work is [that] . . .
From Smith's work it can be determined that . . .
One outcome of Smith's work is [that] . . .
The following argument can be brought out of Smith's work . . .
Using Smith's work it is possible to show that . . ./argue that . . .
Using the work of Smith (1980) and Jones (1989) it can be shown that . . ./argued that . . .
I do not agree [with Smith] that . . .
I will argue/shall be arguing against Smith's view that . . .
My argument against Smith is that . . .
My disagreement with Smith is that . . .
Unlike Smith, I want to suggest/claim/argue/propose . . .
Against Smith, I will/shall be claiming /arguing/presenting the view that . . .
Contrary to the views of Smith, I will/shall . . .
Smith’s argument(s) do(es) not seem to work, for the reason that . . .
In contrast to Smith’s view/argument/data . . .
The argument being advanced here is opposed to that of Smith . . .
It does not seem to follow from Smith’s work/data that . . .
Smith’s data/arguments are faulty for the reason that . . .
Analysing Smith’s work in this way, it can be seen/one can see that . . .
Problems arise in Smith’s work [when it is seen that] . . .
The point I am making/being made [here] is that Smith’s argument/data/conclusion does not follow.
I agree with Smith’s point [that] . . .
This is also Smith’s view . . .
I will argue a similar view to that of Smith.
Here I am following the work of Smith . . .
Following from Smith’s point . . .
I agree with Smith insofar as . . .
Not unlike Smith (1980), I am suggesting/proposing/arguing . . .
I agree with Smith in respect of his point that . . .
Along the lines of Smith (1980), I am suggesting/claiming/arguing/putting forward the view that . . .
The view I am putting forward here is largely in agreement with [that of] Smith.
The argument being put forward/adopted here is similar to that of Smith (1980).
In this matter, I am [largely] in agreement with Smith (1980).
This assumes that . . .
Smith assumes that . . .
Smith’s assumption is that . . .
Assuming . . . [,then,] it follows that . . .
The following assumption is being made here . . .
The general assumption is/was that . . .
The view that prevailed at that time is/was that . . .
One/An assumption of this view is that . . .
The assumption on which this depends is . . .
The assumption behind this view is [the point that] . . .
Smith’s argument depends on the assumption that/assumes one thing: . . .
X and Y . . .
He/She and other researchers
Scholars . . .
Recent results . . .
Research . . .
University research . . .
Some evidence . . .
Some researchers . . .
Some studies . . .
A recent study . . .
A recent survey . . .
Current articles . . .
Current publications . . .
(adapted from Martin Davies, Teaching and Learning Unit, University of Queensland, and Maureen Goldfinch, Student Learning Centre, Flinders University)