No matter what them mongrel smokers think about the noxious little twig that slowly burns between their lips, they have no bloody right to pollute other.

No matter what them mongrel smokers think

about the noxious little twig that slowly burns between

their lips, they have no bloody right to pollute other

people’s air!

Advertisement

The Literature Review

The ideal way it should be.

I will not talk about writing styles, citation techniques or writing

bibliography

Why are we here?•Students must be trained to write•Technical writing is different from, say, news writing•Academic writing is about the only thing that will be evaluated by your examiners•Carelessness doesn’t pay!

Why do you need a LR?

• To show that you KNOW, UNDERSTAND, AND FAMILIAR with the issue• To show that you HAVE A REASON to do the research, and that you have something to contribute• It allows you to establish theories and methodologies i.e. “to keep you on track”

[i.e. YOU MUST READ!]

[Otherwise, you’re trying to make something out of nothing - which can be bloody “interesting” to your examiners!]

Do you need it?• HELL, YES!• this is the reason why your knowledge expands

• this trains you how “dig” for information

• it allows you to discover that your mind boggles, and that you’re a smart person (otherwise, you will not be here)

Literature Review•It MUST be a review (LOL!)(basically, is a critical dissection of what’s going on and how is that related to your work)

•It is NOT a summary•It is NOT a mere description of available materials (commonest mistake)•It is not meant for you to follow whatever have been done in history

A Review•The review swirls around your research objectives•Chapter one points to the LR chapter•The Key issue lies at the centre of argument•There is a problem or issue (or issues) that you want to address in the review

Wrong approaches•Because Research Objectives are outlined in Ch 1, students often forget about them in LR•A long LR is “better”•Students fail to address the issue/problem - “the burning questions”•Often, there is no issue/problem being addressed!

Failures to review the issues/problems

•Issues/Problems have been previously addressed•Objectives unclear•The justification for doing research is weak•The purpose of doing a postgraduate degree is wrong

[Research students need to look at this carefully]

Two important parts:•The information (entire) on the issue•The critical commentary by the candidate

The information•“The Literature” - Whose work should you review?•How much information is enough?•Books•Journals/Monographs•Technical Reports•Theses (?)•Other reports

About being critical•What is the issue?•Why is the issue important?•Why hasn’t it been addressed?•What have been done in relation to the issue?•Who did it? How? When? Where? What material? What method?•The question of correct and wrong (or successful/fail) approach by other people•What do you think about them?•What you plan to do

Getting and having the info•It pays to get familiar with the library system (attend a course)•There can be a lot to handle - your supervisor may play a role in guiding you•Scope, important players, controversies, successes, failures, etc.•It is about getting focused and having a clearer view of your issue

What if there was too little?

•I.e. You hardly find any literature on that issue•You might become “the man”•You didn’t have the means to “dig” into the volumes of literature•It is a hopeless/useless issue but you’re trying hard to prove otherwise!

How to make sense of the literatures

• To start to understand the issue – grasping the background

Your own previous workAn entirely new field/scope

• An issue is seldom monotonous (a reflection of the many different ways human think)• Recent review articles usually give a lot of help

Narrowing it down• getting down to business• Discussing articles aiming to isolate your issue• Isolating the issue help you find the most relevant literatures (and faster) [keywords]• It is preferable to quickly bring your scope down to manageable size – as against hunting aimlessly into the literatures

How good is your literature?

• Good literatures are usually published in good journals, or by established publishers• The only way to make sense of the quality is by reading them with you having your own argumentive questions on what is written (YOU SEE, THIS IS ABOUT BEING CRITICAL – even if this was your supervisor’s work)

A simple guide to judge

• Problem statement• Freshness of results• Thread creation• Sample size • Convincing argument• Analyses used• Perspective & justification of results• Significance•Assumptions• Methodology• Theoretical basis

What happens next?• When you are at ease talking, discussing and arguing about it, you’re already there.• The literature is now a part of your knowledge• More importantly, at this stage, you’re already carrying out your project – the knowledge must always form the background of what you do• Also – you can now see the traps!

“Dismantling a bike”• LR enables you to give alternative definitions of the same concept (that’s why some people can read to where one question is leading, and difficult issues are presented in a very simple and easily understood way)

Seeing the whole shebang

• Your LR finally gives the picture on how the issue grew in literature until it reaches the point you are now at.

• One should feel a great sense after seeing the integral parts of the whole problem.

Organizing the review

[There is no standard organization], but it should work:• Where your work fits• Why did you want to do it• Your theoretical framework• Isolating the issues/problems• Getting the most relevant literatures• Adding your own opinion to wrap up the chapter

Practical Review• “if one keeps reading his own work, he will not find more flaws than he anticipated” – we do have limitations!• Get feedback – PG students must organize meetings with relevant people• Don’t assume your supervisor likes your work (let alone your examiners)

Preparing for feedback

• Be prepared (some comments can be nasty)• Once a feedback is expected, you must know at what level you would need them to be:• structure, quality of arguments, flow, language, etc. [although it pays not to hand in half-cooked work]

What makes you shy away from getting feedback?

• So you think you’re bothering your SPV? (Hell, no! Providing supervision is their job!)• So help them to help you (make it easy for them)• You will be late in identifying an “absent” SPV if you don’t make many attempts many times earlier• Work no good? Well, you better know this one early, too!

How does a good feedback looks like?

• It is much more than a nod or a tick (which is a useless feedback)• It says:•“I’m happy with this section because…”•“I think someone else proven this otherwise, recently – here’s the paper”• “Don’t do this, you’ll appear laughable”• “You’re already way way off here, don’t waste your time”• “Sorry, I don’t read this section well, you tell me more?”

ExampleDespite the undisputedly high diversity of the fish fauna in Borneo, many important fundamental problems and questions remain unsettled, especially in fish taxonomy within the region (see for example Tan (2006)): the most blatant problem has been misidentification of many species, which resulted from the use of old literature and the failure of the scientific community to provide major review of the fish fauna. This consequently became entangled when local literatures were frequently cross-referred by junior workers and published in local journals that have very limited subscription.

The problem stateme

nt

i.e. Junior workers often missed this

fact

Example (ctd)The earliest work on the fauna of Borneo were carried out prior to 1900s; many of the specimens, most of them are them are holotypes, are now kept in Leiden Museum. The language of publications then was Dutch. Later, Inger (1962) carried out a major fish collection, mostly in the Sandakan area and his work, with a considerable later addition by Chin (1992) becomes the only accessible reference. Both Inger and Chin have long retired and interest in this field has not been revived for almost 40 years, now.

Example (ctd)Although the work by Inger (1962) remains a very important resource, new species of fish have been described in recent years (e.g. Chin (1992); Samat & Chin (1993), Ng (1996), Tan & Martin-Smith (1999), Ng & Lim (2000)). More importantly, many of the new species were not the result of a long-term collection efforts, but often from a single short term visit to a small forest stream; suggesting a great likelihood of even more new species.

Handing in LR•Your LR chapter must be seen and commented by your SPV at least once in the first semester. Going into your second semester without finishing your LR is a recipe for disaster.•It pays to get and read all the relevant sources (merely quoting the authors from secondary source is ALSO a recipe for disaster.

THANKS