OPD: Getting Started with the Literature Review

Key points from today's OPD session Getting Started with the Literature Review with Dr Gordon Spark at UoD.

• Literature Review is to be analytical rather than descriptive
• Three fold - Content, Style and Structure. Structure being the key
• Don't simply show end product, but how idea came into being...take the engine apart. 
• Analysis...break something down into its constitutional parts

Night view of the Pompidou Centre. Copyight of the Pompidou Centre. Photo by PH Migeat.

What is a literature review?

• Reading around subject
• 2 stages - Process and Product (all material read and actually what's included eventually)
• Survey of the field e.g using a map as a metaphor > Map > Defined Boundaries > Territories not included > Where are the borders > Show broad contours > Specific Points of Interest. Define perameters
• Original Contribution - is really quite small. Doing something different. Critiquing the literature and what it doesn't do.
• Places research in context, no matter how niche. Always placed in wider context to give value - then placed back in context "this is how it relates to previous research"
• Shows influences and methodologies - the order of contents is defined through this process
• The literature review is the foundation

What a literature review is not....

• An annotated bibliography
• A book review
• A description of what's already been done.

Definitions...

• Succinct
• Provides background and justification for a fully professional grasp of the background theory
• Extract and synthesize the main points, issues, findings and research methods which emerge from critical review  e.g "This study found this, but this study found this...why is that?"

Criteria for sources

• 'Author unknown' does not provide a good impression. References are listed alphabetically
• Authors - who wrote it, what's their authority
• Date - written, published, currency e.g how far back 2000? 1990? Consider who pitching to, or colleagues to ascertain date perameters. Consider major developments in field
• Publisher - well known or garden shed? Self-publicising not recommended as an authority
• Impact - how often cited. Google scholar will reveal citings. How often referenced. How often do names come up.
• What? Why? When? Where? Who? helps critique the literature.
• What do I want do get out of reading this?
• What do I already know?
• What are the gaps in my knowledge?
• Read abstracts to discover this. Read intro and contents. Read topic sentences, contents and index. Scan and skim read.
• Patrick Dunleavy How to Author a PhD http://www.goethe-university-frankfurt.de/47929871/Dunleavy_2003.pdf. Encourages a 'rolling abstract' updated every couple of weeks. Helps keep track of where the research is at
• NOT reading for pleasure - closed reading
• If the Thesis and Research involves cutting edge, fast paced tech, then keep up to date with current research, right up until the time I submit.

Analytical Depth - Bloom's Taxonomy

• Build References during and throughout process
• Good record keeping and note-keeping. Endnote

Scope

• Should include current thinking in UK and World. Be aware.
• Do not try to fit 'everything' in. It's not possible, plus it's part of being critical

Structure

• Where will the literature review fit within the overall thesis structure?
• - Dedicated Chapter?
• - Incorporated into introduction?
• - Dispersed throughout thesis?

http://www.ultimatedental.com.au/signin/Article/scientific+report+structure-785

Main introduction and introduction to chapters

• Set general context
• Define specific focus
• Signpost the writer's intention
• Be clear in leading the reader
• Then deliver

Proper paragraphs

• One rule. One point. One argument
• Type as it will be submitted e.g 1.5 lines. If 3-4 or 5-6 paragraphs are on a page, then the paragraphs are too short
• Apply TEA....  (T) Topic Sentence  (E) Evidence  (A) Analysis - so what?
• If a paragraph changes direction it may start with 'However' or 'A number of contradictions' between X and Y. Then so what? Unpack evidence

Conclusion in chapters

• Reminder of question
• Key findings and arguments from the main body or chapter
• Logical
• Place findings back out into wider context
• A conclusion should NOT
•  - simply repeat main body
•  - introduce new evidence
•  - include citations 
• -  introduce new arguments
• - contradict or fail to follow on logically from work done in main body

Writing Style

• Do NOT over complicate language or style
• Clear and simple
• Write OBJECTIVELY rather than subjectively...e.g Twenty people were surveyed, rather than 'I surveyed twenty people'
• Emphasis on action rather than actor (note Word will try to change this!)
• 'The World' rather than 'Our World'
• 'This evidence' rather than 'I feel that this evidence'
• It is, rather than It's
• Do not write questions or rhetorical questions....'There are several questions that can be explored' rather than 'what can be done?'  'Analepsis' not 'flashback'
• Write in proper paragraphs
• Signpost and write with the reader in mind - ask, will other people understand this?

Incorporating evidence

• Direct quotation  Smith (2015, p.11) argues that "etc etc " Use quotations sparingly and introduce.
• Use attitude verbs e.g instead of 'says' use 'claims', 'demonstrates', 'contends'

Overcoming writer's block

• Just write
• Write anything
• Write badly for now
• Set goals for a specific period of time
• Switch off from distractions and make space for just writing - no text, no phone
• Start in middle or conclusion
• Start with what's in your head