I have so far attended several postgraduate workshops on review of the literature. Every speaker keeps insisting that a good literature review does not just summarize sources, but analyzes, synthesizes, and critically evaluates. Well, the word that intrigues me the most is ‘synthesize.’
Literature review refers to a survey of scholarly works on a specific topic. I immediately understand that a literature review should provide current knowledge and help identify relevant methods, theories, and gaps. During this time, the library becomes my second home as I pore through relevant information sources.
I come across McCombe’s (2019) write-up on literature review which I take to heart. According to the author, a good review should: Show how familiar I am with my topic and scholarly context; help develop a theoretical framework and methodology for my research; help to position me in relation to other theorists and researchers, and demonstrate how my research contributes to a debate or addresses my gaps.
Various scholars offer various methods of approaching a literature review. What is important to note, however, is that a good review will stand out. It is possible to waste time on a wrong review.
Let me give you my experience to illustrate what I mean by time-wasting. I start off with a topic that involves two ‘variables’ without engaging the industry. I just read a few articles, a few books, and off I go to write my review. But I feel the document isn’t quite in place. I then decide to speak to the experts and government officials about my topic and discover that I am treading on over-researched ground. No wonder I cannot find the gap!
Once I have had this all-important consultation, I get busier. My topic changes. One ‘variable’ and the target group changes entirely, thus sending me to the drawing board. It means I am discarding more than 50% of my proposal. So I start reviewing again. Upon completion, I still feel something is not quite right. At around the same time, there is a workshop about reviewing the literature. The speaker is categorical that until I have a minimum of seven sources in one paragraph, I haven’t begun reviewing! My initial reaction is that she is kidding, but I keenly follow when she presents a sample of a bad review and a good review.
As usual, Mr. Google and other databases are such delightful, close companions and they don’t disappoint. Mr. Google leads me to dissertationmentor.org by Dr. Guy White who provides further insight into what a good literature review looks like. Thus, allow me to share the little knowledge I have gained through my supervisors, workshop speakers, and other sources.
First, I must be sure about my purpose statement or study ‘variables’. My supervisors have approved my topic which is feasible. I have found my study’s focus and created a thesis statement which I will use to review my literature. Once that is decided, I begin searching for sources. I know I must conduct a focused search, otherwise, I will end up frustrated and give up. You cannot imagine how vast databases are. For example, Google Scholar. I initially get more than 30, 000 sources, so I must refine my search either according to relevance or year. Since I am looking for journal articles, I restrict my search to 5 years and by relevance. They are now reduced to 18,000. Besides the huge number of possible sources, there is the issue of cost. Some journals are not open access and require payment.
I need to be strategic on Google Scholar to avoid wasting time. That’s why my purpose statement is a very important guide. If the title of the article under review looks helpful, I read the abstract to help determine whether I need the article. If the article is relevant, I go further to click on the section ‘Related articles,’ which has other similar articles. It’s very easy to lose focus here and wander off. To stay on course, I go back to my original list and continue down even as I open related articles. Remember, there are many other databases such as Ebscohost, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and so on. They are all vast and I am aware I can spend months searching if I don’t hone my search skills.
I consider books to be very important too. Some institutions consider books to be the first primary source of the literature review while others consider journal articles. In my search using books, I ensure to capture my problem historically. Beginning from the past has led me logically into the present where recent articles point me to the knowledge gap.
How do I organize my sources? Dr. Guy, in my opinion, offers a workable solution. He recommends an Excel or Word matrix where I paste my sourced information. The following can make headings for the matrix. I have also provided an example of each:
Year: 2017
Type: Article
Citation:Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1-11. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043
Topic: The digital divide
Quote: The concept digital divide is usually defined as the gap between people who do and do not have access to forms of information and communication technology Pg 1
Paraphrase: Use own words
Dr. Guy further advises that for each source I read, I should pick at least 5 quotes and target to record at least 25 quotes a week. Once my entire search is done, I should print out my matrix and paste the copies in the most appropriate place, for example, a wall, table, etc.
I should use my own words as far as possible from the quotes so that once I start writing my proposal, I will simply copy and paste. Dr. Guy posits that citations should be a conversation among the authors, which I am reporting. Further tips include the following:
The entire literature review should be 70% synthesized with multiple sources while single sources should only occupy 30%
A paragraph should contain at least three synthesized authors (someone else recommends no less than 7 synthesized sources)
The review should be about what other people discovered not what they did
Each section should end with a synthesized summary statement
Have a ‘therefore’ at the end of the review
The problem statement should be well-supported by the literature
Finally, to test if the review is good, cut the first line of each paragraph and put them together, and see if the paragraph tells a story. If it doesn’t, revisit the literature. In utilizing Dr. Guy’s advice, I go a step further and request a friend who has no idea about my study to tell me what she thinks it is about. I am delighted when she reports exactly what I have in mind.
Next is to critically review the organized material. Our research methodology lecturer often told us that the problem statement should contain articles published in Scopus, especially from Q1 journals. Some of the following questions about the article under review will help in the critique:
Is the research question significant?
Is the work original?
Is it important?
Have the instruments used been demonstrated as reliable and valid?
Do the outcome measures relate clearly to the variables with which the investigation is concerned?
Does the research design fully test the hypothesis?
Are the subjects fully representative of the populations to which generalizations are made?
Did the researcher observe ethical rules?
Are the results meaningful?
The following checklist can also help:
Introduction: Why did they start the research?
Methods: What did they do?
Results: What did they find?
Discussion: What do the results mean?
On theories, the famous argument concerns how many theories to include. I remember when I first started my doctoral studies, my supervisor had no problem with my inclusion of three theories. When I transferred to my next university, my lead supervisor told me to cut the theories to one saying I didn’t need so many. Now at my third university, I am back to three. The bottom line is that the theory or theories should help support or underpin the study or study purpose. In a quantitative study, one is testing a theory while in a qualitative study, one is formulating a theory.
I recall a recent case of a fellow student who failed his viva voce because the examiners argued that he had used the wrong theory in a quantitative study. Of course, I had many questions in my mind. For example, how could that have escaped the supervisors and internal examiners at the proposal defense? I can imagine the mental and emotional anguish this student went through since he can only take his re-viva after one year.
There is also the argument about using recent sources. In my opinion, there is no harm in using a source as old as life itself if it will help support my argument and if it’s the only source available. The problem comes in overusing old sources at the expense of new sources which points to laziness.
I also learn the following:
Paraphrasing: It is tricky since I must retain the author’s exact meaning. Even one wrongly used word can distort the meaning.
Keeping own voice: It’s possible to get lost in a sea of quotations by other authors so that in the end, my document appears to be a report of what others are saying instead of what I am saying.
Remembering the purpose statement: This is about my research; why I am doing it, not what other authors are saying about it.
Being selective: Not everything is beneficial to my research.
Reading with a purpose: What exactly am I looking for? What are the major concerns, theories, arguments, and so on about my topic?
Summarizing and synthesizing: I am not just collecting arguments to lump them together, but gathering then synthesizing as I demonstrate the relationship between what the authors are saying and my own work.
Being clear about the type of literature to review: Am I looking at issues to do with theory, methodology, or policy? Am I seeking quantitative or qualitative studies?
Not reading everything: I may quote a thousand sources, but realistically, did I read all of them? For example, if it’s a book, I may want to concentrate on the relevant chapters.
Reading and writing: I should always make notes.
Photocopying the copyright page or extracting the citation details from online sources: This should happen the moment I retrieve the book or journal article. I know it will get very stressful to compile my references. But certain software like Mendeley, Endnote, etc. today has made it easier to organize reference lists.
Being smart in my presentation: For instance, not starting every paragraph with the author’s name.
Happy reviewing!
Comments