Dissertations 2 research + lit reviews (pre-2003 compatible)

Dissertations & Major Project Writing

Week 2 of 5:

Research skills,‘surveying the literature’& the ‘literature review’

Robert Walsha, LDU City campus, Calcutta House, CM2-22

An LDU short course presentation

Dissertations & Major Project Writing week 2

This week’s topics:

• Research skills, methods & methodology:– critical analytical research: effective

information gathering;– critical reflection;– keeping a research journal.

• ‘Surveying the literature’: understanding & undertaking effective literature reviews

critical analytical research

• It’s all about asking questions!• Note-taking strategies for success;

– Skim-reading, chapter/index searching, etc– Using the margins;– Note-taking for context;– Photocopying as a tool / highlighting;– Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps for

keeping focus of key issues & their relationships with one another; also for establishing clear structural approaches;


– Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps …

Example of a mind-map

– ‘Cornell’ system, to facilitate questioning, critical pro-active note-taking

Climate ClassificationGB234 / 03/04/02

I. System of Climate Classification

Koppen A. Invented by Vladimir Koppen, botanist. Saw biologicalactivities as function of climate characteristics

What did he do?Why important?

B. Created climograph; displays mo'ly temp. and precip. On 1graph

Defineclimograph. Howdo you calculate

C. Main concern was make it simple: rel'ship betweenpotential evap and amt of mois rec'd at any geo. location

Give example

II. Arctic Climates: ET + EF. E avg. mo'ly temp<50

List and define Eclimates

ET: avg. temp. warm'st mo. 50F + < 32F

CharacteristicsET? EF?

*tundra or continental sub arctic

EF: avg. temp. in warm'st mo. <32F

*ice cap or arctic

Define Humid DryBoundary

III. Humid Dry Boundary

How HBDcalculated?

A. Marks maj. diff. between humid + dry climate regime.

Example? B. Must know how boundary calculated

Summary: Koppen was a botanist who invented a system of climate classification.He believed that characteristics of climate determined biological activities (such as????) o classify climates he developed the climograph, which displays variables ofmo'ly temp. and precip. We are looking at the relationship between potentialevaporation and amt. of moisture rcvd at a particular geographical location. E-typeclimates are locations where avg. mo. Temps are less than 50F. precip. is rcvd. Butcomes as snow. ET climates are tundra or continental sub-arctic. Warmest mo.temps of 50-32F. EF climates are ice cap or arctic. Warmest mo. = below 32F.


(Source unknown)


• Note-taking strategies for success (cont.);– Attention to detail with quotation marks

(avoiding risk of unintended plagiarism);– Once beyond initial researching stages: keep

separate notes for separate parts of your dissertation / project (e.g., one set of notes per chapter / section);

– Or try recording your notes (MP3 recorders, etc).


• Critical analytical research/note-taking: the importance of asking questions ‘as you go’:– Look for central ‘themes’ ~ ‘It will be

argued…’;– Skim reading to identify potentially relevant

passages;– Be selective about information you record:– Seek to discern: (i) analysis (ii) description.


• Constantly question:– ‘is this relevant?’ ‘is it information I (might)

need?’– ‘have I fully understood what the author is

saying?’– ‘Is it “argument”?’ ‘If so, is the source a

“messenger” or “originator”?’ If messenger, where are the ideas coming from?


• Constantly question:– ‘What are the issues here?’

• The ‘who’ ‘what’ ‘where’ ‘how’ ‘why’ ‘when’ questions;

• Be inquisitorial, not adversarial, in asking questions about the author(s) interpretations:– ‘Is the author correct, or is there a flaw in

their argument’?


– Preconceptions?– Does date of publication influence the

author’s evaluation? – What about place of publication?– Any bias or personal attachment?– Do they have a stake in the subject they are

writing about?– Is the information accurate, or are there

errors?


– Have subtleties been missed? Has any fundamental perspective been missed?

– ‘Is there a reason why the information may have been presented in the way it has?’

– Does the nature of the source affect the way it is written and the judgements that are made?

– ‘Why was the work written?’ What was the intended audience?

– How does it ‘fit’ with argument located elsewhere? Are there similarities? Differences? … and how compatible?


• And ask questions about the author’s evidence:– ‘Do the sources/research approaches used by

the writer affect the way he/she writes?’;– ‘Is the evidence well-presented, and are the

conclusions drawn the appropriate ones?’– Has the writer relied on primary or secondary

material?;– Is there anything ‘new’ about the evidence

utilised?;


• Finally:– ‘What is really being said here?’– ‘Are there any points the author might be

seen to have inadvertently missed (or deliberately avoided)?’

critical reflection

• Reflection ‘as you go’: assessing significance, relationships between things you have learnt; identifying argument, noting your view of strength & compatibility of arguments, etc.

• Also: ‘post-study reflection’ can be helpful in this process.

Keeping a research journal


• Is there a requirement for keeping a research journal or log?

• If yes, maintain this on a daily basis …

• … make as in-depth/ critical as possible …

• … evidence especially useful for discussion in any ‘research methods’ section.


• Even if no requirement: a research log can:– Improve your introducing of the topic, your

ability to convey exactly what you are interested in/looking for;

– improve the focus & coherency of your information gathering, aiding critical reflection as your research develops … and so benefit the focus/coherency of your end project

literature reviews

• The purpose of a ‘literature review’;

• What the literature review should show:– understanding of the debate related to topic;– where the different explanations/

interpretations/ theories/ suggestions/ ideas originate …

– … plus their relative contribution;

literature reviews

– any difficulties and problems within the literature or in wider assumptions that will require investigation;

– any misconceptions/ misunderstandings

• Variations of literature review (over)

literature reviews

Lit. Review options (placing)

AIssue-structured(arts-humanities

model)

BExperiment/survey/

results-led(i.e., scientific-model)

1. … as part of Introduction

X ? (too large for intro?)

2. … as separate section following Intro?

3. … ‘as-you-go’ (i.e. dealing with topic-by-topic in main chapters)

X: need for a distinct Lit Review section at start; main chapters focus on own research results

literature reviews

Lit. Review options

AIssue-structured

(arts-humanities model)

BExperiment/survey/

results-led(i.e., scientific-model)

Function Introductory Introductory +

If part of Introduction section, may be anything from a paragraph upwards;

If a separate section, would need to be larger

Lit. reviews tend to be more detailed, as subsequent chapters centre on own experiment or survey results

literature reviews

• What types of source should I mention in my literature review?

• Being selective about sources & information included;

literature reviews

• The importance is identifying the nature & purpose of the source …– Academic? Non-academic? If, ‘non’, what?– ‘messenger’ or ‘originator’ of information?– Intent? To inform? To persuade?

literature reviews

• Important: determine the nature of ‘what it is saying’ (or not, as the case may be): e.g.,– new idea/argument/research/approach?– a reinterpretation?/an adaptation?– A synthesis?

• … and ‘what it represents’: e.g.,– In terms of academic understandings? Popular

understandings? Misunderstandings?– Old? New? Unusual? Orthodox? Representative?

Unrepresentative? views

• … and ‘how it relates’ to the knowledge.

literature reviewsIdentify the nature

of the sourceIs it academic*?

Is it a primary or secondary

source*?

YesNo

Is it a primary or secondary

source*?

PrimarySecondary

magazine or newspaper article,

trade/ industry publication, other

published diaries, letters, memoirs, company reports, findings of official enquiries, etc.

biography

monograph

survey / thematic title, with at least 1 relevant

chapter

core / basic subject text

edited anthology, withat least 1 relevant chapter

journal article

Secondary

various other secondary

Primary

literature reviews

Has its publication contributed to

understandings of – or had influence upon – the topic, directly or

indirectly?

Published diaries, letters, memoirs, company reports,

findings of official enquiries, etc.

Deciding what to include

Primary

Drop it!

Include it!Yes

No

literature reviews

How does the source comment on the literature? … it may provide clues

for your own review!

Does it contain original

research?


thinking? No

No

Yes

Secondary Does it survey the existing literature? Deciding

what to include

No

Yes

… plus!make note of

any new sources to check out.

literature reviews

Can the author’s

interpretation be linked with any existing tradition or similarity of thinking?

Decide whether it’s worth citing the source as a recent adherent

to the view.

No


research?Deciding what to include

Secondary(Cont.)

No


thinking?

No

Yes

Does the author in any way

adapt/ modify the existing arguments?No

Yes Include it! Assess the worth & significance

of the author’sadaptation

Yes

literature reviews

So, you perceive the author’s

interpretation as departing from

existing understandings?

Further reading may help clarify

this!

Double

check

before

dropping!

Not Sure?

Yes

No



Secondary(Cont.)

No

Can the author’s

interpretation be linked with any existing tradition or similarity of thinking?

No

Yes


thinking?

No

Yes

literature reviews

Was the argument influential?

I.e., have others taken up this line of

explanation/ thinking since?

Why not?Are the arguments

spurious? Have the findings been challenged

elsewhere? Does the argument deserve greater

attention? Include it, addressing these

points! No

Include it, linking it with other sources

it inspired

Yes

Deciding what to include

Secondary(Cont.)

So, you perceive the author’s

interpretation as departing from

existing understandings?

Not Sure?

No

Yes

literature reviews

Does the work contribute anything else worth mentioning? For

example, does it typify popular assumptions, popular fixations?

Does it perpetuate over-simplifications or prevailing mis-

understandings?Drop it!

Include it!

No

Yes



Secondary(Cont.)

Yes No


thinking?

No

literature reviews

• How general or exact-topic-specific?

Precise topicof investi-

gation

Wider relatedTopic (for

useful context)

Trajectories of Lit

Reviews

literature reviews

Trajectories of Lit

Surveys

Example 1: Lots of literature on your topic? Start on context / bigger picture / essential related research; move swiftly to your precise topic …

Main Topic

Wider topic/context

Main Topic

Wider topic/ context

1 2

Example 2: Not much written on your topic? Start on context / bigger picture / related studies, concentrating on parallels, but crucially commenting on (relative) lack of research/published material on your precise topic

literature reviews

• Keeping the literature review within bounds;

• Should I review books I’ve not read?

• How should I structure my review?

literature reviews

• Do I ‘criticise’ or merely ‘present’ the literature?

• Final tip: see how the academics do it themselves!

Dissertations 2 research + lit reviews (pre-2003 compatible)

Education

research skills

research journal

critical reflection

mindmaps example

literature reviewrobert

moly temp

ldu city campus

weeks topics