WRITING A LITERATURE REVIEW

Transcription

1 WRITING A LITERATURE REVIEW

2 What is a literature review? A critical assessment of the current state of knowledge on a topic; Or A critical assessment of the current state of knowledge on a topic with a view to researching one of the gaps in that body of knowledge.

3 As a critical assessment, an effective review analyses and synthesises the published work on a topic What do these key words mean? Critical Assessment Analyse Synthesise

4 Critical thinking embodies a questioning attitude towards published work on a topic (eg a set of research articles, policy documents, published standards, case studies) which incorporates: Analysing: select, differentiate, dissect, break up, unpacking (Hart, 1998, p.111). It includes consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each article, and a comparison of the articles with each other.

5 Assessing: evaluate, make a judgement. What is the value of the article? Synthesising: integrate, combine, recast, formulate, reorganize a new or different arrangement (Hart, 1998, p.111). In other words the articles are presented in a new way which offers new insights into the topic.

6 Therefore, an effective review should: Summarise and evaluate findings Compare and contrast different authors views to o Group authors who draw similar conclusions, and o Note areas where authors are in disagreement Highlight exemplary studies Note gaps in knowledge

7 A review preparatory to a research project should also: Highlight the gap(s) in knowledge the researcher will address Define and limit the problem the researcher is working on Ensure the researcher avoids duplication (unless that is the purpose) Evaluate potential research methodologies and procedures

8 Defining the Topic be clear about the focus of the review be clear about boundaries: the issues to be included, and the issues to be excluded (and why) may be useful to engage in some preliminary reading to help in defining the topic

9 Reading critically Organise the sequence of readings to gain an overview (broad texts/chapters) before plunging into in-depth reading (research articles) on particular points Reading research articles in chronological order can help you see how later studies build on/critique earlier ones (Garrard, 2011). Ask yourself what you expect to learn from each book/chapter/paper: do you need this reading?

10 Be an active reader: take notes, interact with the text as much as possible. Try to recreate an empirical study in your mind how did the authors go about this study? How does it work? Handy tools: Highlighter/Post-it notes (real or electronic) to note key points, record your comments, ideas as they arise Critiquing tool to guide your questioning Calculator to check calculations where you can (Garrard, 2011)

11 Critiquing tools A critiquing tool is a toolbox of probing questions designed to assess the quality of a research paper Widely used in health research to support evidence based practice, but the principle can be extended across the disciplines Many instruments have been extensively validated and tested for reliability Different tools exist for different types of studies (for example, RCTs, case studies, qualitative research, etc) You can tailor your own list of critical questions

12 Rudestam and Newton s (2001) critiquing tool looks at: 1. Conceptualisation 2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses 3. Research design 4. Results and discussion 5. Summary considerations Extended version in the SLC s An introduction to literature reviews

13 Structuring your review Question: Which arrangement of the material is preferable? or Article-by-article Article 1 theme A, theme B Article 2 theme C Article 3 theme A, theme D Article 4 theme A, theme B Thematic arrangement theme A article 1, article 3, article 4 theme B article 1, article 4 theme C article 2 theme D article 3

14 Article-by-article some authors take an author-centric approach and essentially present a summary of the relevant articles. This method fails to synthesize the literature. Thematic arrangement A literature review is concept-centric. Thus, concepts determine the organizing framework of a review. (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xvi)

15 Identifying the key concepts or themes requires a systematic approach to the readings, looking at them collectively as a body of work in order to identify the key themes which cut across the readings.

16 Developing a thematic analysis of your readings Webster and Watson (2002) and Garrard (2011) suggest creating a grid or matrix, recording all the important information from your readings. The critical response to each reading should be added in as well.

17 Articles Research question Article-centric matrix Key features Theoretical perspective Methodology & Procedure Findings Critical evaluation

18 Garrard (2011) suggests that the selection of column topics is central to developing an effective and thorough review. The first three column topics should be 1. Authors, title, journal 2. Year of publication 3. Purpose of the article

19 Further column topics should be considered carefully under two broad categories: methodological characteristics content-specific characteristics You might be aware of some of these from the start of your reading; you might become aware of others as you read and abstract the information. Examples in Garrard (2011)

20 Why go to these lengths? Recording the readings in this systematic fashion should allow a thematically based structure for the review to emerge. Determining the structural arrangement you will employ is the essential step you must make in creating an effective and thorough critical review of the literature. Your only guide to determining thoroughness is your own sense of knowing the literature well enough to own it (Garrard, 2011, p.113, emphasis added).

21 Key themes/concepts form sections and subsections (headings) o Bonus feature: also breaks down the writing task into smaller chunks Logical sequencing of sections o o Embodies the author s synthesis of the topic a significant factor in the quality of the review Usually need to explain structure in the introduction Be wary of chronological organisation

22 Example review article structure Buchman, C., DiPriete, T.A., & MacDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 34,

23 Abstract 319 Introduction 320 From kindergarten through high school 320 Explaining gender gaps from kindergarten to high school 323 From high school to college 324 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Directions for future research 331 References 332

24 Abstract 319 Introduction description 320 From kindergarten through high school 320 Explaining gender gaps from kindergarten to high school 323 From high school to college 324 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Directions for future research 331 References 332

25 Abstract 319 Introduction 320 From kindergarten through high school 320 Explaining gender gaps from kindergarten to high school 323 From high school to college 324 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Directions for future research 331 References 332 discussion & synthesis

26 Abstract 319 Introduction 320 From kindergarten through high school 320 Explaining gender gaps from kindergarten to high school 323 From high school to college 324 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Directions for future research 331 References 332 Gaps in the literature

27 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Individual-level factors 326 Family resources 327 Academic performance 328 Incentives and returns to college 328 Institutional factors 329 Gender-role attitudes 329 Labor markets 329 Educational institutions 329 Military service 330

28 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Individual-level factors 326 synthesis organising literature around theoretical perspectives Family resources 327 Academic performance 328 Incentives and returns to college 328 Institutional factors 329 Gender-role attitudes 329 Labor markets 329 Educational institutions 329 Military service 330

29 Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326 Individual-level factors 326 Family resources 327 Academic performance 328 Incentives and returns to college 328 Institutional factors 329 Gender-role attitudes 329 Labor markets 329 Educational institutions 329 Military service 330 Individual studies grouped thematically and critically evaluated

30 Writing the review Analysis For each section summarise the relevant readings (long shots and close-ups) discuss strengths and weaknesses of the material, as uncovered by critical reading compare the relevant ideas, theories, views, and findings expressed in the literature (comparative analysis) articulate and discuss similarities in and differences between the readings

31 Critical analysis example Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social studies, and English in middle school raises the achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys, producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a matter of fit and that students learn more on average from teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the students in Dee s sample were not randomly assigned to teachers, male students with low performance may have been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving their performance (Sokal et al. 2007). (Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)

32 Critical analysis example Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social studies, and English in middle school raises the achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys, producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a matter of fit and that students learn more on average from teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the students in Dee s sample were not randomly assigned to teachers, male students with low performance may have been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving their performance (Sokal et al. 2007). (Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)

33 Critical analysis example Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social studies, and English in middle school raises the achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys, producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a matter of fit and that students learn more on average from teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the students in Dee s sample were not randomly assigned to teachers, male students with low performance may have been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving their performance (Sokal et al. 2007). (Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)

34 Comparative analysis example Stevenson & Baker (1987) found that parents are more involved in school activities with sons and more involved in home activities with daughters; as children grow older, parental involvement with boys declines, but their involvement with girls remains constant. On the one hand, Muller (1998) finds that parental involvement in children s schooling is not gender specific and further speculates that parental involvement may serve to counteract gender stereotypes about math and science as male domains. On the other hand, Entwisle et al. (2007) maintain that the large growth in the gender reading score gap between first and fifth grade among low-income students is due in part to parents lower reading expectations of boys. (Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)

35 Comparative analysis example Stevenson & Baker (1987) found that parents are more involved in school activities with sons and more involved in home activities with daughters; as children grow older, parental involvement with boys declines, but their involvement with girls remains constant. On the one hand, Muller (1998) finds that parental involvement in children s schooling is not gender specific and further speculates that parental involvement may serve to counteract gender stereotypes about math and science as male domains. On the other hand, Entwisle et al. (2007) maintain that the large growth in the gender reading score gap between first and fifth grade among low-income students is due in part to parents lower reading expectations of boys. (Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)

36 Comparative analysis There is a range of possible outcomes, with questions that follow: 1. Widespread agreement: Is this agreement reasonable? Has anything gone unconsidered? 2. Broad agreement with a dissenting voice: Is this unconventional view worthy of my attention? If so, how does it change my thinking? 3. Widespread disagreement: How have such differences arisen? How might I make sense of the chaos?

37 A common mistake in literature reviews: The assembly of lots of research and analysis without any obvious explanation of how it all links together In other words, a lack of synthesis of the literature How is the synthesis achieved in the paper by Buchman et al. that we have examined?

38 Synthesis can often be achieved in a discussion section at the end of the review. This discussion will allow you to develop an explanation of how your various themes connect together and connect to the central topic of the review. Secondly, you will be able to develop your own position or argument. You will be able to explain what the literature (as a whole) means, in your view.

39 A review succeeds when it helps other scholars to make sense of the accumulated knowledge on a topic (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xviii). At the end of your review your reader should know: what is clear and well understood, what is unclear and requires further research, and what the implications for practice are.

40 A literature review checklist Selection of the material Is the purpose of the review clear? Are the parameters of the review reasonable? Why are some papers included but others omitted? Are recent developments emphasised? Is the focus on the primary literature, with only selective use of secondary sources? Is the selected literature relevant?

41 Critical evaluation Is the review organised thematically? Is the review organised logically? Is there greater emphasis on the more important issues, and less emphasis on peripheral matters? Are research methods and designs critiqued? In situations where results conflict or are inconclusive, is there a discussion of the possible reasons why?

42 Interpretation of a topic or research problem Does the review contribute to the reader s understanding of the topic or research problem? Are the research methodology and design congruent with the conclusions drawn from the literature review? (Language & Learning Skills Unit, University of Melbourne., n.d.)

43 References Buchman, C., DiPriete, T.A., & MacDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 34, doi: /annurev.soc Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (3 rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage. Language & Learning Skills Unit, University of Melbourne. (n.d.). Reviewing the literature. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from Rudestam, K., & Newton, R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. University of Melbourne Library. (2012). What is a literature review? Retrieved February 20, 2012, from Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Retrieved from