How to conduct and write the review of related literature.

1. Research
Review of Related Literature

2. Outline
• Purpose of the review of literature
• Assessing literature
• Preparing the Review of Related Literature
• Assembling the Review of Related Literature
• Other Concerns and Considerations

3. Purpose of the Review of
Related Literature

4. Purpose of the Review of
Related Literature
• To broaden the perspectives and
understandings of the thesis topic by reading
as much relevant written material on the
subject.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

5. Purpose of the Review of
Related Literature
• It can offer new ideas, perspectives, and
approaches that may not have occurred to you
• It can inform you about other researchers who
conduct work on this area – individuals whom you
may wish to contact for advice and feedback
• It can show you how others have handled
methodological and design issues in studies similar
to your own
• It can reveal sources of data that you may not have
known existed
(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

6. Purpose of the Review of
Related Literature
• It can introduce you to measurement tools that
other researchers have developed and used
effectively
• It can reveal methods of dealing with problem
situations that may be similar to difficulties you
are facing
• It can help you interpret and make sense of your
findings, and ultimately tie your results to the
work of those who have preceded you
• It will bolster your confidence that your topic is
one worth studying, because you will find that
others have invested time, effort and resources in
studying it.
(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

7. Limitations of the Review of
Related Literature
• The likelihood of identifying, securing, and
reviewing publications that may have little or
no value to the subject area.
• Researchers have the tendency to fit useless
information to the review of related literature.
• Finding contemporary information
• Rule of thumb: sources should be less than ten years
old unless the topic involves the humanities, history
or social sciences.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

8. “
”
If I have seen farther from
others,
It is because I have stood on the
shoulders of the giants.
Isaac Newton

9. Assessing Literature

10. Assessing the Literature
• Scholarly Publications
• Peer reviewed publication or information that has
gone through a blind review process in which a
panel of subject-experts review (referee) the
material and then combine the collective reviewer
responses to either confirm or deny the claims made
within the publication.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

11. Assessing the Literature
• Newspapers,
magazines, books,
gluers, advertisements,
manuals and
periodicals
• Internet and radio
interviews
• Television news
broadcasts and film
documentaries
• Journals
• Textbooks
• Government reports
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

12. Length
• Longer articles
providing in-depth
analyses of topics.
• Shorter articles
providing broader
overviews of the
topics
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

13. Authorship
• Author usually an
expert or specialist
in the field, name
and credentials
always provided
• Author usually a staff
writer or a
journalist; name and
credentials often not
provided.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

14. Language/Audience
• Written in the
technical or
theoretical jargon of
the field for
scholarly readers
(professors or
researchers)
• Written in non-
technical language
for anyone to
understand.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

15. Format/ Structure
• Articles usually more
structured, may
include these
sections: abstract,
literature review,
methodology, results,
conclusion,
bibliography
• Articles do not
necessarily follow a
specific format or
structure.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

16. Special features
• Illustrations that
support the text,
such as tables of
statistics, graphs,
maps, or
photographs
• Illustrations with
glossy color
photographs, usually
for advertising
purposes.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

17. Editors
• Articles usually
reviewed and
critically evaluated
by a board of experts
in the field
(refereed)
• Articles are not
evaluated by experts
in the field, but by
editors on staff.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

18. Serialization
• Typically, volume and
issue numbers are
identified, and
pagination of the articles
in one issue pick up from
the ending page number
of the previous issue,
there are usually four to
six issues published per
year, thus constituting a
“volume,” with each
volume beginning on a
new page 1.
• Each new issue
begins with page 1,
and individual issues
most likely referred
to by month a dn day
date, rather than
volume and issue
number.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

19. Credits/ Citations
• A reference list
(works cited) and/or
footnotes are always
provided to
document research
thoroughly
• A reference list
(works cited) is
usually not provided
although names of
reports or reference
may be mentioned in
the text.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

20. Cost
• Access to a single
article can be
purchased up to $40
• Entire publication
(all articles) can be
purchased for under
$15
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

21. Perspective
• Viewed as expert
knowledge and valid
information
• Viewed as casual
opinion for
entertaining value
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

22. Type of Scholarly Journals
• Research journals
• Funding agency reports
• Reports that inform policy makers and
professional societies
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

23. Preparing the Review of Related
Literature (Process)

24. Stage 1: Define the Topic
• See “Selecting Research Objectives”
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

25. Stage 2: Search and Organize
• Three major subject areas of literature:
• Life sciences
• Physical science
• Social science
• Sources of information
• Library
• Internet
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

26. Stage 2: Search and Organize
Organizing Literature (Three Methods)
Controversy Categorizing information in two: those in favor, and those against
Method Categorizing information according to the research methods used
Position Categorizing information according to author’s objectives or
position on the issue
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

27. Stage 3: Evaluate and Assess
• Some useful questions:
• What are the ideas put forth by the authors to
explain a particular event or trend?
• What are the counter-arguments to the authors’
points?
• What are the weaknesses in the authors’ arguments?
• What other evidence is available to support
alternative explanations?
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

28. Stage 4: Analyze and Interpret
Fact Meaning
(What the researcher
has learned)
Implication
(What it means to the
project)
Views of nature facilitate
faster healing within the
healthcare environment
(Ulrich, 1995)
Gaining a view from all
hospital rooms is a lofty
endeavor, but if it can be
achieved, the people may
begin to perceive
hospitals more favorably.
Design Idea: Include
window boxes outside of
patient windows
containing flowers and
other elements commonly
found in nature.
Note:
1. Above is a sample of how to organize data.
2. The implication can be organized according to: design issues, design criteria,
key concepts and research methods.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

29. Assembling the Review of
Related Literature (Format)

30. Outline
• Introduction
• Body
• Conclusion
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

31. Introduction
• It should define the general topic and provide
the reader with a perspective from which the
literature was reviewed.
• The researcher should point out common
themes found within the body of work that
was reviewed.
• Establish the researcher’s perspective by
explaining the criteria used in analyzing and
comparing the literature.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

32. The Body
• Researchers can group the outlines in
whatever way is most productive to telling
their story or getting their point across.
• Categories or subheadings can be developed
according to controversy, method or position.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

33. Conclusion
• Like all other sections of the thesis, the
review of related literature requires a
conclusion. Here the researcher must
summarize the contributions of each study
reviewed and its relevance to the researcher’s
study.
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

34. Other Concerns and
Considerations

35. Invalid Review of Related
Literature
• Insufficient preparation in the conduct of the
study can lead to careless yet honest mistakes,
leading to faulty conclusions.
• Since any research work is built upon a
previous research work, once the basis is
flawed everything else that follows become
flawed as well. (Domino Effect)
(Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. ,2011)

36. Knowing when to quit
• Look for repetitive patterns in the materials
you are finding and reading. When you no
longer encounter new viewpoints then you
may be reasonable sure that you are familiar
with the critical parts of the literature.
(Leedy, P.& Ormrod, J. ,2005)

37. Plagiarism

38. References
• Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. (2011).
Evidence Based Design: A Process for Research
and Writing. Prentice Hall
• Leedy, P., Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical
Research: Planning and Design, 8th ed. Pearson
Education, Inc.