A dissertation does not merely restate the available knowledge base of a particular topic, but adds to or augments it.
• Introduction: The introduction describes the content, scope, and organization of the review as well as the strategy used in the literature search.
• Review of literature: This section:
− is clearly related to the problem statement, purpose, and research questions;
− states up front the bodies of literature that will be covered, and why;
− reviews primary sources that are mostly recent empirical studies from scholarly journals and publications, as well as secondary sources;
− is logically organized by theme or subtopic, from broad to narrow;
− synthesizes findings across studies and compares and contrasts different research outcomes, perspectives, or methods;
− notes gaps, debates, or shortcomings in the literature and provides a rationale for the study; and
− provides section summaries.
• Summary: A comprehensive synthesis of the literature review should complete this section.
Reason
This chapter provides a strong theoretical basis for the dissertation by analyzing and synthesizing a comprehensive selection of appropriate related bodies of literature. The review of literature should build a logical framework for the research, justify the study by conceptualizing gaps in the literature, and demonstrate how the study will contribute to existing knowledge. The review serves to situate the dissertation within the context of current ongoing conversations in the field.
Quality Markers
A comprehensive and thoughtful selection of resources that cover the material directly related to the study’s purpose and background, not the full scope of the field, is considered a mark of a quality literature review. All relevant primary sources and empirical research studies are cited (these are preferable to secondary sources, which are interpretation of the work of others). The writer adopts a critical perspective in discussing the work of others, and provides a clear analysis of all available related research. Relevant literature is critiqued, not duplicated, and there is a clear connection between the purpose of this study and the resources included. Another quality marker is the correct use of American Psychological Association (APA) format, citations, and references throughout.
Frequent Errors
Frequent errors include insubstantial breadth of review (i.e., insufficient number or range of resources; failure to include relevant primary sources) and insubstantial depth of review (i.e., use of nonscholarly material; inability to demonstrate clear understanding of resources). Another error is that the review reads more like a catalog of sources than a synthesis and integration of relevant literature. There is also a tendency to eliminate literature that contradicts or questions the findings of the dissertation’s study. Other errors include incorrect or insufficient citation of sources,
resulting in accidental plagiarism, and presentation of a diagrammatic conceptual framework with no accompanying narrative explanation.
◥ University. {q} PhD. {tr} Training. ☝️ Machi (2016) Literature review. A literature review is a text of a scholarly paper, which includes the current knowledge including substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews use secondary sources, and do not report new or original experimental work.[1] Types of Literature Reviews[edit] Most often associated with academic-oriented literature, such as a thesis, dissertation or peer-reviewed journal article, a literature review usually precedes the methodology and results section. Literature reviews are also common in a research proposal or prospectus (the document that is approved before a student formally begins a dissertation or thesis). Its main goals are to situate the current study within the body of literature and to provide context for the particular reader. Literature reviews are a staple for research in nearly every academic field.[2] Distinguishing between Process and Product[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Further reading[edit]
Literature Review. Complex Literature Review ---> PhD. Simple Literature Review ---> MSc. Literature Search. Literature Survey. Literature Critique. ☢️ Grey Literature. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Systematic review. Systematic reviews are a type of literature review that collects and critically analyzes multiple research studies or papers, using methods that are selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing studies that relate to and answer those questions in a structured methodology.[1] They are designed to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are key in the practice of evidence-based medicine,[2] and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study.
An understanding of systematic reviews, and how to implement them in practice, is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care. Characteristics[edit] A systematic review aims to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question. Stages[edit] The main stages of a systematic review are: Steps in a Systematic Review - A Guide to Conducting Systematic Reviews. It is recommended that you register your systematic review protocol prior to conducting your review. This will improve transparency and reproducibility, but will also ensure that other research teams do not duplicate efforts. If you are working with the Cochrane or Campbell Collaborations, you will publish your protocol with those organizations. If you are working independently, consider registration with: PROSPERO: An international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care.
Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record. Open Science Framework: An open source web application that connects and supports the research workflow. Research Article Structure - Occupational Therapy - LibGuides at University of Mississippi Medical Center. ☢️ PICO. Working with literature for Cambridge.
☝️ Literature 3. ☝️ Literature 1. ☝️ Literature 2. ☝️ Literature 4. Research Methods in Literature Review. Author - Dr Helen Aveyard, Oxford Brookes University Dr Helen Aveyard is the author of a recent textbook: Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide (Open University Press / McGraw-Hill 2007). She is also Senior Lecturer at Oxford Brookes University, in the School of Health and Social Care where she is involved in the teaching and development of research education.
Prior to this she held a research scholarship in Health Care Ethics at King's College University of London where she undertook a doctoral study examining the ways in which informed consent is addressed by nurses prior to nursing care procedures. Expert Reviewer - Professor William O'Connor, Limerick University Professor William O'Connor is head of Teaching and Research in Physiology at the new Graduate Medical School at Limerick University. Writing a Literature Review. What is a literature review?
A literature review is a description of the literature relevant to a particular field or topic. This is often written as part of a postgraduate thesis proposal, or at the commencement of a thesis. A critical literature review is a critical assessment of the relevant literature. It is unlikely that you will be able to write a truly critical assessment of the literature until you have a good grasp of the subject, usually at some point near the end of your thesis. How does a literature review differ from other assignments? The review, like other forms of expository writing, has an introduction, body and conclusion, well-formed paragraphs, and a logical structure.
What counts as 'literature'? ‘Literature’ covers everything relevant that is written on a topic: books, journal articles, newspaper articles, historical records, government reports, theses and dissertations, etc. Why do a literature review? How many references to look for? How to write a literature review. Harvard Write. Reading and Remembering. Summary of this page How do you manage to get through your reading, and retain what you have read? Always remember: academic material is not meant to be read.
It is meant to be ransacked and pillaged for essential content. Be selective. How do you remember what you have read? One of the basic principles of memory is that the quality of memory is related to the quality of your interaction with what you are trying to remember. Consider this: why is it so easy to remember the contents of an article about something you are really interested in? Learn to use your own cognitive strengths—visual, oral-aural, systematic, etc. A final hint—don't take notes whilst you are reading. There is another bonus: you will find that by reading in anticipation of writing a summary, your reading improves by becoming more analytical and conscious of ‘key points’.
The Academic Skills team run workshops during semester which will help you develop your reading and memory techniques. The problem. How to undertake a literature search and review. Periodical literature. Periodical literature (also called a periodical publication or simply a periodical) is a published work that appears in a new edition on a regular schedule. The most familiar examples are the newspaper, often published daily, or weekly; or the magazine, typically published weekly, monthly, or as a quarterly. Other examples are newsletters, literary magazines (literary journals), academic journals, and yearbooks. These examples are typically published and referenced by volume and issue. "Volume" typically refers to the number of years the publication has been circulated, and "Issue" refers to how many times that periodical has been published during that year.
For example, the April 2011 publication of a monthly magazine first published in 2002 would be listed as, "Volume 9, Issue 4. " The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) is to periodical publications what the ISBN is to books: a standardized reference number. Literature Reviews. Sometimes we have problems writing a literature review. There are different styles of review which complicates matters. Some reviews are a critical analysis of key papers in the area, another type of review known as a review paper actually gathers literature over a period (of say 5 or 10 years) and then classifies it and determines research trends and gaps. However, the most common, and the one you are likely to use in your thesis is to analyse the literature related to your particular research questions.
Note that I mention research questions! Building a literature review around your research questions gives your literature review immediate structure. You don't have to use the questions themselves as sub-heading but you can use the major themes of each question as a sub-heading. The major trap is to try to include everything that you have read. What do you do if you haven't got research questions yet? World Oral Literature Project. SAFARI. Asks: “what is information?” And considers the types of information that we use in everyday life and for studies. Recommended duration: 1 hour Looks at where information comes from and goes to; how it gets categorised and spread around, and where you may find it. Recommended duration: 1 hour Looks at how to think about information in ways that will allow you to create a search strategy, and use it to access catalogue and database resources.
Looks at the practice of searching - on and offline - and how to use different electronic search tools and techniques. Asks how information can be evaluated for quality and why this needs to be done, and suggests a tool to do this. Explores why information needs organising and ways of doing this using tools and techniques, including referencing, bibliographies, social bookmarks etc. Follow the About Safari link if you would like to know more about how Safari works. Annual Reviews WhitePaper Web 2011. RMIT - Literature Review. 2018 - [The Cochrane Consumer Network] - (Cochrane Collaboration) What is a systematic review? A systematic review summarises the results of available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Judgments may be made about the evidence and inform recommendations for healthcare.
These reviews are complicated and depend largely on what clinical trials are available, how they were carried out (the quality of the trials) and the health outcomes that were measured. Review authors pool numerical data about effects of the treatment through a process called meta-analyses. Then authors assess the evidence for any benefits or harms from those treatments.
The review plan Review authors set about their task very methodically following, step by step, an advance plan called a protocol. The review question The review title Titles of Cochrane reviews also have a set layout: Intervention for problem in a disease or population, and sometimes an outcome. 2018 - (Campbell Collaboration) What is a systematic review. 1988 - (Markus & Robey) IT & Organisation Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. 1994 - (Malone & Crowston) The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. 2017 - VINE - 47 - 02 - (Chulatep, et al.) Utilizing a systematic literature review to develop an integrated framework for information and knowledge management systems. 2018 - SQJ - 26 - 01 - (Heck & Zaidman) A systematic literature review on quality criteria for agile requirements specifications. 2010 - IST - 52 - 08 - (Kitchenham, et al.) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study.
JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page. Abstract Context In a previous study, we reported on a systematic literature review (SLR), based on a manual search of 13 journals and conferences undertaken in the period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2007. Objective The aim of this on-going research is to provide an annotated catalogue of SLRs available to software engineering researchers and practitioners. Method We performed a broad automated search to find SLRs published in the time period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2008. Results Our broad search found an additional 35 SLRs corresponding to 33 unique studies. Conclusion SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology.
Keywords Systematic literature review Mapping study Software engineering Tertiary study Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. 2001 - NEP - 01 - 02 - (Carnwell & Daly) Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature. 2003 - BIM - 14 - 03 - (Tranfield, et al.) Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review.
2005 - ER - 34 - 06 - (David & Penny) Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. 2005 - HRDR - 4 - 03 - (Torraco) Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. 2006 - JCM - 05 - 03 - (Green, et al.) Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page. Abstract Objective To describe and discuss the process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication of narrative overviews of the literature should be standardized to increase their objectivity.
Background In the past decade numerous changes in research methodology pertaining to reviews of the literature have occurred. Methods Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts. Discussion An overview of the use of three types of reviews of the literature is presented.
Conclusion Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution to the literature if prepared properly. Key Indexing Terms Review Literature Authorship Peer Review, research Manuscripts Meta-analysis. 2006 - ACM - [Conference] - (Budgen & Brereton) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Context: Making best use of the growing number of empirical studies in Software Engineering, for making decisions and formulating research questions, requires the ability to construct an objective summary of available research evidence.
Adopting a systematic approach to assessing and aggregating the outcomes from a set of empirical studies is also particularly important in Software Engineering, given that such studies may employ very different experimental forms and be undertaken in very different experimental contexts.Objectives: To provide an introduction to the role, form and processes involved in performing Systematic Literature Reviews. 2009 - MH - 73 - 03 - (Erren, et al.) How to surf today’s information tsunami: On the craft of effective reading. 2009 - AJPMR - 88 - 05 - (Dijkers, et al.) The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing. The systematic review differs from traditional narrative reviews, which may lack a focused question, rarely develop a methodology that is peer reviewed, seldom use forms for abstracting data or have independent abstraction of evidence by two or more reviewers, and may go well beyond the evidence in the literature in making recommendations.
Adherents of the systematic review methodology have become dismissive of narrative reviews, accusing them of a number of limitations, including being inconsistent with the evidence, lagging behind the evidence, and being inconsistent with one another.28 The “evidence” in this connection is the quantitative data, especially effect sizes, that can be gleaned from primary (original) research reports. 2013 - BMJ - 346 - f139 - (Tsafnat, et al.) The automation of systematic reviews. Guy Tsafnat, senior research fellow1, Adam Dunn, research fellow1, Paul Glasziou, professor2, Enrico Coiera, professor1Author affiliationsguyt@unsw.edu.au Would lead to best currently available evidence at the push of a button The Cochrane handbook stipulates that systematic reviews should be examined every two years and updated if needed,1 but time and resource constraints mean that this occurs for only a third of reviews.2 Indeed, it may take as much time to update a review as it did to produce the original review.
If this effort were redirected at developing methods to automate reviews, then updating might one day become almost effortless, immediate, and universal. In his novel Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut Jr described machines that record the hand motions of artisans and replay them to reproduce a perfect copy of the artefact, more quickly and more economically. Technology has advanced such that software can be used … 2013 - Aslib - 65 - 03 - (Jaidka, et al.) Literature review writing: how information is selected and transformed. 2013 - PLOS-CB - 09 - 07 - (Pautasso) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. 2013 - EMS - 43 - Supplement C - (Maier) Literature Review. 2016 - AORN - 103 - 03 - (Baker) The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review. 2002 - (Webster & Watson) Literature Review.
✉️ Levy & Ellis. 2009 - (Stuermer) Find the Gap. 2005 - (Davison et al) On Peer Review Standards For the Information Systems Literature.