PhD training workshop material on writing a literature review for Edinburgh Napier University research students.

1. Writing a literature review
Professor Hazel Hall
School of Computing

2. Professor Hazel Hall
 @hazelh
 http://hazelhall.org
Slides on SlideShare at:
 http://about.me/hazelh
http://slideshare.net/hazelhall
 h.hall@napier.ac.uk
 0131 455 2760

3. Workshop focus
Workshop focus is on writing a literature review
 Not on how to identify material on which to base a literature
review
 covered in training on literature searching
 Not on how to evaluate, critique or analyse the output of material
gathered as the result of a literature search
 covered in training on critical reading
…but on how to present the analysis that you have
completed

4. Literature review
In which What are the What have been the
Do parallel subject areas main main research
literatures exist has the topic questions?
for this topic?
perspectives
been studied?
on this topic in
previous What are the main
What are the key research? conclusions on
concepts in this area? previous research in
this area?
Coherent synthesis
Who are How is this topic of past and present Which existing
these approached by research in the Where are the gaps in work could be
“others”? others? literature? extended?
domain of study
Where is existing
Which aspects of this knowledge “thin”?
Which work are of most
discussions? relevance to my What are the key
Which work is
study? areas of debate in this subject to
area? challenge?
Which sub-
Which writers?
themes?

5. Perspectives
Hazel
 PhD external examiner
 PhD supervisor
 PhD graduate
 Active researcher involved in peer assessment of journal,
conference and research proposal submissions
Students
 PhD students going through the process, supervised by a range
of staff
 Critical readers of the published work of others

6. Agenda
Main themes to be covered
 Challenges associated with writing literature reviews
 Purposes of writing literature reviews
 Anticipated standard of content of literature review
 Anticipated standard of presentation of material in a literature
review
 Common problems with literature reviews
 Challenges revisited

7. CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH WRITING
LITERATURE REVIEWS

8. Challenges - exercise
Let’s start with a couple of questions
 What do you consider to be three main challenges of writing a
literature review?
 Why do these challenges cause you difficulties?

9. Classification of challenges
As a group, we will attempt to classify the challenges
These will be revisited later – with (we hope!) some
strategies on how to address them

10. PURPOSES OF WRITING LITERATURE REVIEWS

11. “Output” purposes of the literature review 1
Requirement of the PhD
 Versions required for interim stages of PhD registration at Napier
 Especially important for the transfer report
 Expected as a chapter in the submitted thesis

12. “Output” purposes of the literature review 2
The literature review chapter
 Part of your original contribution to the extension of knowledge
at the forefront of your field
 Demonstration that you are capable of carrying out research in a
systematic manner:
 conducting literature searches
 recording output according to recognised standards
 Evidence of your independent critical powers
 to read critically
 to write analytically
 to draw on the extant literature to conceptualise, design and
implement a large research study
 Proof that you understand applicable techniques for advanced
levels of academic enquiry

13. “Process” purpose of the literature review
Part of your apprenticeship in research 1
 You improve your skills as a researcher
 You enhance your writing skills
 in general
 in the discourse of your domain
 You gain subject expertise as your knowledge grows through
absorbing the work of others
 particularly useful if you are later involved in data collection with domain
specialists
 You grow in independence as you find your own “voice”
 You learn
 through writing
 through articulating your ideas

14. “Process” purpose of the literature review
Part of your apprenticeship in research 2
 Knowledge gain helps direct your empirical research so that
 You can make decisions on the scope and feasibility of practical
work
 You can define/redefine research questions, and protect yourself
from “wheel reinvention”
 You can devise the evaluation criteria for your own research output

15. Research evaluation and the literature review
Later chapters will refer back to literature review
 Do your findings confirm those of others?
 Does your work extend that of others?
 Does your work provide new meaning to the work of others?
 Does your work break new ground?
 Does your work raise issues about the methodological choices
made in previous studies?
 Does your work challenge existing theoretical approaches to
your subject?

16. ANTICIPATED LITERATURE REVIEW CONTENT

17. Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader needs to understand the context into which your
work fits
 Thematic line of argument driven by the priorities of the research
in question
 Trends in the topic’s treatment identified, e.g.
 By geography
 By sector
 By key researchers
 Over time
 (Not author-by-author, format-by-format, simple chronological
description)
 Strong links provided across published work, as relevant to the
main themes of your study

18. Trends in a topic’s treatment by key researchers
Lineage of social network analysis
Gestalt theory Structural-functional anthropology
Field theory, sociometry Warner, Mayo Gluckman
Group dynamics Homans
Barnes, Bott, Nadel
Graph theory
Mitchell
Harvard structuralists
Social network analysis

19. Theorists and themes of social exchange
Anthropology Dominant themes Sociology Behavioral Dominant themes
psychology
Early Malinowski Gift-giving as a moral
C20th Mauss obligation.
1950s Homans Thibaut & Exchange is ubiquitous.
Kelley Trust generates exchange
and trust.
1960s Levi-Strauss Shared with sociologists. Homans Exchanges are non-
Blau negotiable, reciprocal &
sequential.
Focus on actions by
individuals in dyadic
relations. Trends in a topic’s
1970s Ekeh Social cohesion
ac hieved through social
Emerson
Granovetter
Power.
Focus on relations. treatment by key
exchange. Social network analysis.
Heath Rewards and punishment. researchers, in subject
1980s Cheal Gift giving for
reproducing social
Cook &
Emerson
Power & power proc ess es.
domains, over time
relationships.
Current Godelier Relevanc e of gift giving Molm Coercive power.
(Based on an analysis of
Godbout in modern societies, e.g.
the nature of what is
exchanged; charitable
Lawler Bargaining. 13 sources)
donations as a f orm of Lawler Quality of exchanges.
gift giving; power of Yoon
marginalized Uzzi
participants in gift
ec onomies; wealth,
patterns of gift giving
and gift consumption as
indicators of social
position and power;
univers ality of the
general logic of
exchange and
reciprocity

20. Trends in aspects of topic’s treatment according to
research approaches and their underlying values
Theories on managing consultation processes
Adapted from Newman, D. (2008, January). E-consultation, from citizens to parliaments. Internal
research seminar presented at Edinburgh Napier University.
Type of process Research approach (example) Focus (example) Values from
Democratic Deliberative democracy Relationships between Democratic theory
government and citizens in
consultation processes
Participative Social exclusion Who controls engagement Participants’ needs
Administrative Public administration Efficiency and effectiveness of Consulters’ needs
consultation leading to
decisions
Decision making Normative and descriptive Decision processes and speed Organisational objectives
decision making in psychology of decision
and management
Communicative Computer mediated Interactions in communication Models of communication
communication activities processes
Knowledge transfer Knowledge management Barriers to organisational Ideals of knowledge
learning sharing in communities

21. Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader expects you to have done the hard work of
evaluating the extant literature
 You assess the value of the literature reviewed at a number of
levels
 individual papers (material that is “significant”)
 collections of material, e.g. by defined groupings such as sector
 You emphasise limitations of existing knowledge
 Identifying gaps in the literature to promote the value of your
research
 Confirm that your work is worthwhile, timely, and that the investment
in your PhD study (time and money) has been put to good use

22. Coherent synthesis of past & present research
The reader needs to be convinced that the work is
complete in terms of material evaluated
 “Completeness” depends on clear definition of scope
 “Completeness” evident in citations that are
 Highly relevant
 Plentiful
 Accurate
 Precise
 Up-to-date

23. Framing of the synthesis
Sign-posting value of strong introductions and conclusions
 Introduction
 What will be found here
 Its scope
 Why its inclusion is necessary as a preface to the discussion of your
full research study
 Conclusion
 Statement of the strongest messages of the chapter
 Implications made clear, particularly on the value of the PhD study
as a whole
 Clear links to the next chapter

24. High-note end to conclusion
“On the basis of everything that you have just read there
is absolutely no question that the past 3 years of my
life have been extremely worthwhile dedicated to the
pursuit of this fabulous study. And, guess what lucky
reader? In the next chapter you will learn all about
how I planned and executed my empirical research!”

25. ANTICIPATED STANDARD OF PRESENTATION OF
MATERIAL IN A LITERATURE REVIEW

26. Presentation priorities
Line of argument
 Accessible and easy to follow
 Lively and engaging
 Evident in the text of the narrative, rather than over-reliance on
headings as sign-posts
 Provided as an analysis in the narrative, with
descriptive/illustrative material “demoted” to tables and/or
diagrams
 Leaving the analysis to the reader is dangerous: apart from annoying
the reader, he/she may come up with a completely different
perspective from yours
 Complete, yet succinct, with repetition minimised due to sensible
use of cross referencing

27. Critical reading – the focus
When reading academic work you are evaluating the level
of argument presented Just as the content of this slide
Just as the content of this slide
applies to your efforts to read
applies to your efforts to read
critically, ititsets the standard for the
critically, sets the standard for the
Look out for presentation of your own line of
presentation of your own line of
argument.
argument.
 Claims/conclusions
 Reasons/interpretations of data that lead to the above
 Evidence on which above is built
 Any qualifications for the claims/conclusions

28. Logic of argument
The early work of X (X, date) on Y is fundamental to Claims/conclusions
research in this field.
The results of his experimental work carried out in the Justification of claim
early 1940s are widely cited (for example, A, date; B,
date, C, date).
Indeed, up until 1970, a number of conferences were Detailed evidence of claim
dedicated to further exploration of his theoretical work,
such as the series entitled International perspectives
on Y held in the US.
In recent years, however, this work has been ignored, Qualifications of claim
mainly due to developments in computing, and is now
regarded as less important than once believed.

29. Logic of argument
The early work of X (X, date) on Y is fundamental to Claims/conclusions
research in this field.
qu e t ion ,
s
essiton s,o
The results of his experimental work carried outer’ss qu Justification of claim
d en t o
r a inr’the
te rea der B,orkkop en t
edate; w or op
early 1940s are widely cited (for ntitccpa teA, you r w
i i ipa a e
A example, ve you
An ot le av :
do n ot lns succhass:
date, C, date). e
do n tio ns su h a
quesstio ?”
que t there ?”?”
in he o re
Indeed, up until 1970, a number of conferencesurrpo in Detailed ?”
yyowereou thinkksso evidence of claim
ou p
t is
dedicated to further exploration of• his theoretical work,u thine?”
“Wha t is akessyyo
ha m e o
• “Whperspectives i n c ”
such as the series entitled International hat mak ur evvden ce?
“W a
•• “W
t ide
yo r e
on Y held in the US. hat tiss y” u
••“W ha at? ” i o
“W wh t?
a
In recent years, however, this work ••“So whignored, Qualifications of claim
“So
has been
mainly due to developments in computing, and is now
regarded as less important than once believed.

30. Well-presented work inspires confidence
Standards
 Formal, grammatical English
 Appropriate deployment of the vocabulary of the subject domain
 Consistent use of tenses
 Decide a cut-off for what is “current” and what is not
 References presented according to recognised standard
Your voice
 Your interpretation demands your words – not a patchwork of
quotations (or paraphrased paragraphs) of other authors

31. COMMON “PROBLEMS” WITH LITERATURE REVIEWS

32. Problems with what to review (scope)
Knowing where to start,
(e.g. wide then narrow,
or narrow then wide?)
and what to include
I don’t know exactly what I am going to research
Knowing when to stop
because I have not yet read the relevant literature,
literature searching
Indeed everything seems relevant!
I don’t know whether what I am reading is really
relevant because I have not yet decided exactly
what it is I am going to research.
Knowing when to stop
“perfecting” the file
Knowing how far to
venture into the
literature of associated
domains

33. What to review (scope): “solutions” 1
Knowing when to stop Use review papers first, “read” bibliographies, recognise reference (as well
literature searching as content) saturation point
If you have identified much literature, and know that there is even more to
uncover, it may be the case that your chosen topic is too broad. Consider
limits: a particular influence on your main theme, a time-limited treatment.
Also bear in mind that this will need to be justified in the thesis.
Switch from “historic” search to “current” search
Build safety nets with alert services, both automated and human
You will reach a stage where you switch from building your literature review
in an emergent fashion, to enhancing its content through additional of
material from directed reading
Deadlines should force you to stop anyway
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice

34. What to review (scope): “solutions” 2
Knowing where to start Start somewhere – everyone has this problem at the beginning
writing, (e.g. wide then Establish how much material already exists at each “level” of the topic
narrow, or narrow then Experiment, e.g. mind-map in both directions
wide?) and what to
include Focus on what “bothers” you
Make thematic notes according to a structure that mirrors the main themes
of your study
Aim to know in depth what you are doing, and in breadth what is relevant to
what you are doing
Remember critical reading advice on long and medium shots, and close-
ups
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice

35. What to review (scope): “solutions” 3
Knowing how far to Tread very carefully here
venture into the Increase your familiarity first by looking at basic material such as domain-
literature of associated specific dictionaries and text-books
domains Travel with those from your domain who have explored in this region before
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice

36. What to review (scope): “solutions” 4
Knowing when to stop Perfectionists need to recognise the file as a perpetual beta that will be
“perfecting” the file revisited (and re-edited – sometimes painfully) several times it prior to
submission
Consider whether you are really adding value to the file or simply using the
literature review as a form of security blanket or excuse for procrastinating
– you should be multitasking by this stage
Deadlines should force you to stop anyway
Bear in mind initial research aims and main research questions
Take supervisor advice

37. Problems with under-researched work
Not enough previous
work is reviewed
Inappropriate source
material is covered,
e.g. key texts are
missing from the
analysis - often at the
expense of less
valuable material;
recent material is
missing (new papers,
updated versions of
conference papers
cited); over-reliance on
secondary citations
Bias in treatment due to
lack of immersion in (or
engagement with) the
literature of the domain
and/or ignorance
(deliberate or not) of
conflicting views

38. Solutions for under-researched work
Not enough previous Ensure that your literature searching technique is thorough by, for example,
work is reviewed by taking advantage of all the fee-based search services that Edinburgh
Napier subscribes too (as well as Google Scholar) and using social media
Inappropriate source as a source of current awareness
material is covered,
e.g. key texts are Conceive literature searching as an on-going process
missing from the Use human agents for identifying relevant new material: your subject
analysis - often at the librarian, your supervisor, your peers, authors already identified as relevant
expense of less Annotate your literature review so that you know which sources to recheck
valuable material; for updated versions
recent material is Wherever possible, seek out and use the original sources
missing (new papers,
Be thorough in your treatment. Discuss conflicting views with others, e.g.
updated versions of
supervisor, contacts at conferences, peers online
conference papers
cited); over-reliance on
secondary citations
Bias in treatment due to
lack of immersion in (or
engagement with) the
literature of the domain
and/or ignorance
(deliberate or not) of
conflicting views

39. Problems with under-developed work
Material is simply
summarised
Material has not been
fitted to the needs of
the study: overuse of
quotations and
paraphrasing – student
hands over the power
of authority
Treatment does not
hold together as a
“story”
Work looks like a
business report

40. Problems with under-developed work
Material is simply Remember the “So what?” factor
summarised Resist the temptation to work with photocopies/pdfs of source material next
Material has not been to you. Instead develop your line of argument from fully digested (and well
fitted to the needs of referenced) notes derived from the source material
the study: overuse of Use quotations only for instances where what is said is expressed in a
quotations and particularly interesting way, or when the originator of the quotation is of
paraphrasing – student particular interest
hands over the power Build a line of argument that is yours as relevant to your study (and not
of authority author-by-author, not source format-by-format, not a simple chronological
treatment)
Treatment does not Remember that you are building an argument (not cataloguing a library)
hold together as a
“story” Provide a strong introduction, sign-posting, and conclusion that tie the
contents of the literature review to the research aims, and emphasise its
Work looks like a purpose and value
business report Avoid short sections, bullet lists and multiple headings: the structure of your
work should be evident through the line of argument presented

41. CHALLENGES REVISITED

42. Challenges revisited
Exercise
 Reconsider your responses to the exercise and possible means
of addressing these challenges

43. Professor Hazel Hall
 @hazelh
 http://hazelhall.org
Slides on SlideShare at:
 http://about.me/hazelh
http://slideshare.net/hazelhall
 h.hall@napier.ac.uk
 0131 455 2760