Research Methods Lecture 4 17 November, 9-12 Johan Brink Aulan.

Research MethodsLecture 4

17 November, 9-12

Johan Brink

Aulan

Agenda

• Conducting a literature reviewBREAK

• Source criticism

• Meta-studies

• Reading

Reasons for writing a literature review

WHY?

Reasons for writing a literature review

1. You need to know what is already known – reinventing the wheel

2. Learn from others mistakes and avoid them3. Learn about different theoretical and

methodological approaches4. Understand the context of the problem5. Understand the structure of the problem6. Help you develop your analytical framework7. Consider to include additional variables –

extend research8. Suggest future RQ’s9. Help with the interpretation of your findings10. Gives you pegs on which to hang your

findings11. Its expected!

A good literature review

1. Literature mentioned and discussed relates to the problem statement of the study

2. Mentions different theoretical ideas contributing to the future exploration or explanation of the study’s problem statement

3. Summarizes previous studies addressing and investigating the current study’s problem statement

4. Discusses the theoretical ideas mentioned against the background of the results of previous studies

5. Analyses and compares previous studies in the light of their research design and methodology

6. Demonstrates how the current study fits in with previous studies, and shows its specific new contribution

Narrative literature review

• Traditional• To generate

understanding rather than accumulating knowledge

• Evolving process• Suitable for inductive

studies

Read!

Keep notes

Generate New keywords

Note key words

Note referred literature

Search

Systematic literature review

Critique against narrative literature review– can lack a means for making sense of what

the collection of studies is saying – can be biased by the individual researcher – often lack rigor

• Not transparent• Not reproducible

– low emphasize on practitioners • The relevance gap• The language of practitioners

Systematic literature review• Planning the review

– Review Panel (Experts)– Review Protocol

• RQ• The population• The search strategy• Inclusion & exclusion

• Conducting the review– Identification of research– Selection of studies– Quality assessment– Data extraction– Data analysis

• Reporting and dissemination– Report and recommendations– Disseminating into practice

Systematic literature review• Planning the review

– Review Panel (Experts)– Review Protocol

• RQ• The population• the search strategy• Inclusion & exclusion

• Conducting the review– Identification of research– Selection of studies– Quality assessment– Data extraction– Data analysis

• Reporting and dissemination– Report and recommendations– Disseminating into practice

Critique• Depend on definitions• Bureaucratic process• Positivistic approach• Tricky to deal with

qualitative research

NotesReference Summary Type Theoretical

perspectiveMain RQ

Main conclusion

Research design

Empirical data

Good / Bad

References

IT- Tools • EndNote• ProCite• Mendeley• …

Style• Harvard• Footnotes

(Page 117)

Searching• Key words

– Save them!• Time dependent• Different meaning in different

discourses• US/UK

– AND, OR, NOT, *, ?, *,’xxx’• References

– Times cited– Authors

• Search engines & library– http://scholar.google.se/– EBSCO– www.ub.gu.se/

• Review papers– Academy of Management Review– International Journal of

Management Reviews

Discuss 2 and 2

Come up with a suggestion for at least 5 search terms for either a, b or c

After break write on boardMotivate your choices a) Who becomes an entrepreneur and what does

it take to be a successful one?b) What explains the difference in

internationalization strategies chosen by financial institutions in Europe?

c) How effective is impression management in the consultancy industry?

Source criticism

• Trustworthy source– Updated?

• Independent sources• Secondary sources

– The Chinese whisper game!• Motivation

– Why do they say this?

• Peer reviewed, academic, journals

• Trade journals• Books

Meta-analysis• Combining / Pooling of

quantitative studies• Emerged in psychotherapy

research in the 70ties Overall generalizations

• Positivistic• Allows for an increase in

power and thus based on a summary estimate of the effect size and its confidence interval, a certain intervention may be proved to be effective even if the individual studies lacked the power to show effectiveness (Ohlsson, 1994, p. 27)

Meta-ethnography

• Translate and interpretations of other researchers studies

• Translations between studies – what can I see in this? – Alternative interpretations– Higher order interpretations

• Synthesis and expressing (writing it up)

• Depends upon the richness in empirical material

Biblioteric studies

Biblioteric studies

Bibliometric studies: Author co-citation

Bibliometric studies: Co-occurrence keywords

Bibliometric: Journal co-citation

Bibliometric studies: Author co-citation (min 5 co-citations)

Reading

1. Read abstract2. Skim through it!

1. Title, headings, chapters2. Check empirical evidence & kind

of method

3. Check the references 4. Read sub-headings

1. Figures, tables, pictures…

5. Skim through preface and introduction

6. Read conclusions, interesting chapters, last chapter

7. ….Everything else

Reading• Take notes• Nice position• Fresh and crisp air• Light• Use highlighting pens• Read & look at the text -Do not

‘sound out’ in your head -( no silent speech)

• Do not bother with trying to understand every word

• You actually reads sentences - Do not focus on every word

• Read with a ‘moving pen’ -Do not go back