My Take on a Literature Review

I thought it would be interesting to share my experiences on how to do a literature review. 

Too much time on my hands I guess.

After looking around on the internet and in a couple of books I have at home, there seems to be a general consensus on the purpose of a literature review, and how it should be planned and carried out.  This is merely a bringing together of those themes.

Purpose:

The purpose of a literature review is try to bring together a range of theories with respect to a particular topic, identify points of conflict or tension between the various pieces of research, resolve conflicts, and suggest areas of further research that may help address “gaps” in the literature.  In other words:

• Tell me what the research says

• Tell me what the research means

• Tell me what the research does not say 

At a basic level, a literature review is simply an overview or summary of the definitions and theories in the literature (preferably peer reviewed) around your research question.

A quality literature review should not just summarise past and current research, but categorise that research and critically review it.  Put one theory up against another and discuss the strengths and limitations of those theories.  As part of that critical examination you should then present your own perspective on the research.  Finally, it may throw up gaps in the research or questions you feel have not been asked or answered.  This is an opportunity to pose those questions and suggest new lines of research within the research topic.

How to:

It is basically a step by step process the one I would use with Senior PE students if they are conducting a literature review.

Step 1:  Defining the Parameters:

Find out the following:

• Is this a basic literature review in which you simply aggregate the literature within the field?
• Is this a literature review that requires you to critique the current thinking/theories within the field?
• Does this review require me to “set the scene” or explain the reasoning for choosing this research question?
• Is there a word limit?
• Are the references included in the word limit?
• How many references should there be and what is the “quality” of the references required (peer reviewed journals etc.)?
• How current does the literature need to be?
• Is my own opinion important in this review?

Step 2:  Choose a Topic:

This is where you select a topic that will provide the focus (see later) for your literature review.  Research suggests that choosing a topic which has personal meaning/interest to us is more likely to lead to increased engagement and sustained motivation as the literature review progresses because our “lived world” is engaging with the “theoretical world”.  

Having autonomy with the topic is important.

As a little Physical Education aside, we know that exercise adherence is strongly dependent on the formation of personal goals and a recognition of the benefits that will accrue from it – then seeing those results.  In other words, the purpose of the exercise must be personal and not imposed by others.

Step 3:  Narrow the Focus:

Some topic areas are considerable and a literature review in that area will likely lead to a superficial review at best.  Narrow the focus.  Hone in on an area of particular interest within the field.  This will give your literature review focus and lead to the development of a “focus question”.

That focus question will contain carefully chosen key words that provide the branches you will consider as part of your review.

The benefit of a tight focus question is it immediately narrows the literature you need to source.

It is a little wordy, but this source is very good at explaining how to write a research question:

http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/tclibrary/tutorials/finding/research_questions_document.pdf

Step 4:  Accessing Literature:

It is likely the research you engage with will be peer reviewed journal articles.  Sometimes it may be a blog, new site magazine etc.  Regardless of the source, don’t just find something and use it.  Personally I collect a wide range of literature and place it in piles as they relate to particular key words in my research question.  The next step is to go through each piece of information I have collected and run it through a “filter” of simple rules:

• Where did the article come from?  What are the writer’s credentials? Who sponsored them (if applicable)?  In other words what is the validity of the piece of research?

• Check out their references?  Do they use quality research to support their research?

• Does it seem as though the writer has a particular viewpoint from the outset?  If so, what are they omitting from their thinking?

• Do they support their viewpoints with evidence?

• Does the writer add to the body of research, or merely rehash what already exists?

• Is the research current?  Older research in some fields has been surpassed (especially in sciences and medicine).

From here, I number the research articles in order from most to least valuable.  Least valuable tends to be covered in other pieces of research and adds nothing new.

Personally, I like to have a wide range of research from which to write because my science background tells me that one piece of evidence on a particular aspect of your topic – while interesting – needs to be corroborated with similar evidence.

Step 5:  Writing an Introduction:

For my Scholarship PE students, I want them to write an introduction that makes me want to read more.  Why did you choose this topic?  What does it mean to you?  What am I in for?  What are the parameters/key ideas you will cover (this will likely come from the key words in your research question).

Step 6:  The Body of the Review:

Be systematic.  Your review should progress with the key words of the research question so it builds up a picture of what you are trying to cover.  It should be arranged thematically.

For example, my literature review question was:

"How can teachers navigate the murky waters of digital collaboration and collusion in high stakes student academic writing?"

I wrote it by starting with the importance of academic writing and what makes it so challenging for students.

This led to defining collaboration and collusion (a “murky” set of terms for all concerned).

Which led to why might teachers cross the line from collaborating with students in developing their academic writing to colluding with them on academic writing?

This led to a consideration of how teachers and students might implement strategies to prevent this from happening.  What practical steps I can take to mitigate the possibility?

Finally, it was clear there was a gap in the research as most collaboration/collusion research is student-student, not student-teacher.  This is an area for further development.

Step 7:  References:

Make sure you know how to reference correctly.  This resource from the University of Waikato is very good https://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/236120/apa-quick-guide.pdf

Multiple references in your review on a particular point should be arranged chronologically.  Start with the oldest research first and finish with the most up to date.  For example:

… and power boundaries/imbalance between student/teacher (Schrodt, Witt & Turman 2007, Aultman et al, 2009; Sutton & Taylor, 2011; Mattsson, 2016), that can lead to well-intentioned collaboration  to improve the quality of academic writing becoming illegitimate collusion. 

The use of quotes in a literature review is challenging.  Typically they should be used sparingly because it is an aggregation of theories and you debating those theories.  It is worth finding out from whoever set the literature review the extent to which quotes may be used.

Step 8:  Reviewing and Proof-reading:

Allow plenty of time to go over what you have done.  Look for unnecessary words such as “very”, “really” and “as a result”.  Some can come out and others can be replaced (one word instead of three words).

Check your references are correct and the bibliography is in alphabetical order.

Run it through a spell and grammar checker (but do not let it auto correct) – can be nasty.

Make sure your voice is present in the review.  It should be very evident that you have done some thinking around what you have found.

Get someone else to read it.  Do they understand it?  If they are unsure about something, go back over it and look at it?  Does it make sense?  Ideally, it should make sense to someone new to the field.

I like to tell students that I want to be more informed at the end of reading what they have done than I was when I started.  I want it to provoke some questions.

Hopefully, once all that is done, you have a literature review.