Learning Objectives
|
By the end of this workshop, the reader should be able to:
1. State the purpose of a literature review. 2. List some common ethical issues or pitfalls to avoid. 3. Explain the importance of a coding sheet. 4. Give examples of how a literature review could have too much and too little information at the same time. 5. Explain the difference between a narrative literature review and a systematic literature review. 6. When is it appropriate to do a meta-analysis? 7. Choose a book and provide the correct APA format bibliography citation for it. 8. What are the three key sections or features of a literature review? 9. List and explain 5 things editors will look for when reviewing a literature review for publication. |
|
Introduction to Literature Reviews
A literature review is a research paper which is defined in time and scope to analyze and synthesize relevant literature to support a theory or construct new knowledge. Literature reviews are used for a number of reasons: to present what has been done and what still needs to be done, discover new or important variables, establish the context of a problem, to present a new point of view or to identify relationships (Hart, 1998). Webster and Watson (2002) feel that an effective literature review provides a foundation for future knowledge. It should have appropriate breadth and depth, but also conciseness and clarity. Quality research should be used when composing a literature review so that there is a sound foundation for new theory (Levy & Ellis, 2006).
Types of Literature Reviews
Narrative reviews: a narrative review of the literature is written from a certain perspective and therefore it can be broad and biased. It is usually an invited piece of literature and describes the current state of science from a specific contextual and theoretical perspective. A narrative review does not systematically list the method of finding evidence and is not meant to be reproducible.
Systematic Reviews: a systematic review is a well planned and careful review of the literature looking at all peer reviewed journal articles, during a particular time frame which provide evidence pro or con to support and provide the theory to answer a question. Selection of which articles or records to include is done by predetermined strict criteria in order to prevent bias.
Meta-Analysis: a meta-analysis is a type of systematic review which looks at multiple studies with the goal to analyze and statistically combine data to provide greater statistical power when answering a question.
Systematic Reviews: a systematic review is a well planned and careful review of the literature looking at all peer reviewed journal articles, during a particular time frame which provide evidence pro or con to support and provide the theory to answer a question. Selection of which articles or records to include is done by predetermined strict criteria in order to prevent bias.
Meta-Analysis: a meta-analysis is a type of systematic review which looks at multiple studies with the goal to analyze and statistically combine data to provide greater statistical power when answering a question.
Introduction
The introduction to the literature review should provide information to the reader on why a review is needed, what questions or areas of research are not fully explored and what variables are involved. This is the theory or background on which your literature review is built. After the variables are defined, the scope and limitations of the paper need to be well defined. The next step is to state a well defined problem or list of objectives. The methods section should have clear instructions on how the search was conducted so that it is reproducible. It should list the time span limitations, whether the article were full-text available or not, what databases were searched and the key words that were utilized. In addition, boundaries must be explained such as what topics will not be included, what areas will be explored and, if relevant, from whose perspective they will be explored (Webster & Watson, 2002). This section provides the empirical evidence that you will need to support or refute your theory section. A careful review of each study must be made looking at its reliability, validity testing and the ability to generalize its results to other settings. Finally, you need to take the time to synthesize all of the information for your reader in either a written format, a table or both.
Procedure
Considerations for a research review include how it will be considered complete and systematic. When doing a literature search take care not to use just one database or set of keywords. Scan the citations for the articles you have found to see if they add to your topic. Levy and Ellis (2006) also recommend looking for previous work by relevant authors as well as additional keyword stated in an article- a backwards search. In addition, after finding relevant articles and authors look for other articles citing that article or author- a forward search (Levy & Ellis, 2006). The search is nearing completion when no new concepts or authors are found.
The literature review should be organized by concept and include all relevant information from a variety of authors. Use tables and figures to help synthesize your information and make it clear to the reader (Webster & Watson, 2002). The main purpose of a literature review is to make sense of a body of knowledge for a reader in an unbiased manner. Levy and Ellis (2006) utilize Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956) when describing what the writer should do. First they should know the literature and be able to synthesize concepts together. Then they should demonstrate comprehension by their ability to summarize and interpret their findings as well as be able to develop theories and new constructs to apply their knowledge. Finally, the writer should take the time to analyze the information, synthesize it and evaluate their findings (Levy & Ellis, 2006).
|
Webster and Watson (2002) recommend using the present tense in writing to convey the immediacy of the topic and because it is easier to read. As you develop your theory take time to build a case for it and provide suggestions for future research. Levy and Ellis (2006) define a theory in qualitative research as a foundation for your research. Since you have just reviewed the literature take the time to critically review your theory for the reader. In the discussion section, explain why your work extends on previous work. After a review is completed and submitted, it will be reviewed. According to Webster and Watson (2002), expect that reviewers will be looking for contribution to the body of knowledge, impact on the field, logical arrangement and thoroughness of the review.
|
Cautions
Webster and Watson (2002) also caution researchers to watch their tone and not be overly critical about other researcher's work. Levy and Ellis (2006) stress that careful citations must be used so that each author is given credit for his/her work. In addition care must be taken to not misstate an author's point-of-view or present it out of context. In addition, Hart (1998) cautions the writer must not present speculations or claims made by others as facts, attributing a statement to an author that they did not make or knowingly taking another's work as your own. When choosing what literature to include, make sure that you read the whole paper, not just the abstract, and make sure that it is peer-reviewed.
WebAdMIT technology and scoring algorithms; A systematic review of the literature evaluating factors contributing to the ability to effectively score medical school admissions metrics using technology.
This is a systematic review of the literature looking at the academic and non-academic metrics that are used to evaluate the admissions applications of students applying to medical school. It has classically been very difficult to come to an agreement on what is needed to holistically evaluate or review an application for admission. WebAdMIT is new admissions technology and has the ability to develop multiple scoring algorithms. Can this technology be used to effectively sample more metrics in a candidates application to supplement the human review and make it more holistic?
Coding Forms
A literature review may require review of a 100 or more articles. A coding form is necessary to keep track of all of the information. In addition, a filing system should be maintained that allows easy access and retrieval of articles if additional information is needed. Initially it is difficult to know what and how many categories to put in a coding form. This becomes more clear as you read the literature. An Excel table is a great resource to use because it allows easy sorting.
| blank_coding_form.xlsx |
Literature Review
Format
|
1. Introduction- explain the topic and purpose of the literature review. Explain why the area of research is important and why we should not be satisfied with its current state.
2. Theory- explain your terms and your variables as well as define the theories that you will discuss 3. Discuss the evidence- both pro and con, be wary of presenting opinions as facts 4. Limitations of current research- the purpose of a literature review is to assimilate the currently available research and present a new theory or gap in knowledge that needs to be explored. 5. Conclusion/recommendation: what needs to be done to solve the original problem? |
|
Review
After a literature review has been written it is necessary to have it peer reviewed in order to make sure that your reasoning is sound. Boote and Biele (2005) have developed a literature scoring rubric which authors can utilize to review their work.
1. Coverage: did the author justify and give criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature.
2. Synthesis: clearly states what has been done and needs to be done, showed relationships between their work and other scholarly work, clearly defined terms and variables, thoroughly synthesized the information in order to generate a new perspective.
3. Methodology: discussed and appropriately critiqued their research methods
4. Significance: clearly explained the practical and scholarly significance of the research method
5. Rhetoric: written in a well developed, clear, coherent manner (Boote & Biele, 2005)
1. Coverage: did the author justify and give criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature.
2. Synthesis: clearly states what has been done and needs to be done, showed relationships between their work and other scholarly work, clearly defined terms and variables, thoroughly synthesized the information in order to generate a new perspective.
3. Methodology: discussed and appropriately critiqued their research methods
4. Significance: clearly explained the practical and scholarly significance of the research method
5. Rhetoric: written in a well developed, clear, coherent manner (Boote & Biele, 2005)
| webadmit_technology_and_scoring_algorithms_abstract.docx |
Assessment
|
|
|
References
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans: D. McKay Co.
Boote, D., & Biele, P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 8.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science Journal, 9, 181-212.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii-Xxiii. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319.
objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans: D. McKay Co.
Boote, D., & Biele, P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 8.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science Journal, 9, 181-212.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii-Xxiii. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319.
