Review of Related Literature

Lesson Objective
• I should be able to select relevant literature.
 Activity
Keywords Methods of Searching
 Activity
• What do I know about RRL?
• What do I do in reviewing related literature?
 RRL (Review of Related Literature)
• An integrated synthesis drawing upon a select
list of academic sources (mainly journal
articles) with a strong relation to the topic in
question
• It is a paper that includes a description and a
critical evaluation of past research.
 A literature review
• Is not a list of every item and resource with
any possible relation to your topic
• Focuses on materials that are directly relevant
to the addressing of your topic
• Highly selective
• Focused on a particular question or area of
research
• Narrowly focused to concentrate only on truly
relevant materials
 A literature review is not
• A summary of available materials without any
critical description or component; or
• An annotated bibliography
 RRL vs. Annotated Bibliography
Literature Review Annotated Bibliography
Differences in PURPOSE
• Makes a case for further investigation • Is a list of what’s available in a given
and research, highlighting gaps in field, accompanied by a short
knowledge and asking questions that description. While it may feature a
need to be answered for the critical component, the criticism is
betterment of the discipline; as such, generally directed at the quality of the
its contents are selected to make the work, rather than at its value in
case. answering a particular question or
buttressing an argument

Differences in Format
• Is a prose document similar to a • Is simply a bibliography (a list of works
journal article or essay, not a list of or resources) accompanied by
citations and descriptions. annotations. The annotations are
• Often has subsections that highlight usually short descriptions and a brief
themes within the literature review. critical assessment of each work.
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain the motivations for doing research.
a. Convince the reader that the research area is
significant/ important/ interesting
• You are trying to convince the reader to read on and also
providing context to help them see the “bigger story” of
which your research is a part.
• Why did I think that doing research in this general area
would be interesting and important (in some sense)?
 a. convince the reader that the research area is
significant/ important/ interesting
E.g. “Malaria remains one of the world’s greatest public
health challenges. … Today, an estimated 40% of the
world’s population remains at risk of malaria, with 500
million cases annually, resulting in 1–2 million deaths,
mostly of young children, each year. … The development
of widespread resistance to relatively inexpensive drugs
(such as chloroquine), the difficulty of ... have meant that
poorer tropical countries have been unable to control
malaria. .... The development of an effective and
inexpensive vaccine is thus a major focus of research.”

• Source: M.F. Good et al. (2005), Annual Review of

Immunology, 23, 69-99.
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain the motivations for doing research.
b. Convince the reader that we should not be
(completely) satisfied with the existing literature
on the topic and that your research will fill some
important or interesting gap or address some
important limitation or deficiency
– To do this you need to critique the prior literature; if
there’s no gap or limitation or deficiency with the prior
research, why is there a need to do more in the area?
– What made me think that more research in the
particular sub-area that I chose was warranted?
b. Convince the reader that we should
not be (completely) satisfied …
E.g. “The smart antenna is one of the promising techniques to
overcome problems of multipath propagation and co-channel
interference [in wireless communication networks]. In general, it is
classified into switched-beam and adaptive arrays *1+. … The
advantages of the switched-beam antenna are the simplicity of its
tracking algorithm and low cost. However, it is limited in terms of
combating interference. The adaptive array offers better performance in
terms of fighting interference. However, this is at the expense of higher
costs associated with the sophisticated signal processing algorithm and
complicated hardware implementations.

In this paper, we describe …, which provides an intermediate solution.

...”
• Source: P. Ngamjanyaporn, M. Krairiksh and M. Bialkowski (2005),
Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 45, 411-415.
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why your research took the precise
direction that it pursued.
c. Explain and justify your research
hypotheses/ideas
– What theory and/or prior experimental results
suggested to you that your hypotheses were likely
to be true/ ideas were likely to be fruitful? This
necessitates arguments, because if things are
certain, you don’t have hypotheses, you have facts
and there is no need to do any research!
 c. Explain and justify your research
hypotheses/ideas
E.g. Knowing that some heart attacks are caused by blood clots
forming in coronary arteries partially blocked by plaque build up,
and that aspirin reduces the ability of blood to clot, one might
form the hypothesis that perhaps regularly taking small doses of
aspirin might reduce the incidence of heart attacks in at-risk
populations. The reason research is needed is because while the
idea sounds great in theory, perhaps in practice taking a dose
small enough to avoid problems such as gastro-intestinal or
cranial bleeds would not lead to any significant reductions in
heart attack rates.

• Inspired by: Physicians’ Health Study

(http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/phs1.htm)
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why your research took the precise
direction that it pursued.
d. Explain how the historical context for your
research guided what you did
– But only if that is important for understanding where
your research fits into a “bigger picture” or if
understanding the past is helpful for understanding
the present and giving direction for where your
research needs to go. For example, a legal studies
thesis might review the evolution of legal thinking and
policy in an area in order to see what issues have been
considered and addressed which will help identify
what still needs to be worked on and so that new
proposals take into account the lessons of the past.
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why you conducted your research in the way
that you did
e. Explain and justify your choice of theoretical
framework
– Theory guides what to look for when collecting data
(because theory can be used to make predictions) and also
helps you analyse and interpret what you find, so writing
critically means moving beyond simply summarising the
theory to explaining how it will guide research design and
data interpretation and also noting any limitations and
how you intend to deal with these (see Sutton & Staw
(1995) in the references for this section for some common
errors in the ways some authors try to do these things). If
there is a choice of theoretical perspectives you could take
(sometimes captured by the phrase, “schools of thought”),
then you would also need to justify your choice.
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why you conducted your research in
the way that you did
e. Explain and justify your choice of theoretical
framework
– What did I need to know to design my experiments
/ come up with my experimental or analytical
approach / come up with my research questions /
interpret my findings? Why did I think the
perspective I chose is the best one for investigating
my research questions?
 e. Explain and justify your choice of
theoretical framework
E.g. In research looking at student learning in some
area, one might look at things from a behavioral
perspective, a social cognitive perspective, or a
cognitive perspective (or a combination of these). But
which perspective would be the best one for
investigating the particular questions about student
learning that you have?

• Inspired by: V. Cahyadi (2007), “Improving teaching

and learning in introductory physics”. PhD thesis
submitted to the University
 e. Explain and justify your choice of
theoretical framework
E.g. Your theoretical framework might
also be a hypothesized interaction model
Actual Perceived
such as the one shown opposite. In such Surface level surface level
a case, your literature review would need diversity diversity
to explain why you think various theories influence
and/or prior experimental results Team social
Outcome Team task
suggest* that such a model is likely* to interdependence
Collaboration integration performance
be correct. (*Remember that things
cannot be certain or there would not be Moderator of influence

a need to do some research. In this case,

the research questions might be to test influence
Actual Deep Perceived
the strength of the various links or to level variety deep level
further develop understanding of the diversity

mechanisms of the interactions, in which

case your review would need to identify
weaknesses in our understanding that
need addressing.)
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why you conducted your research in the
way that you did
f. Convince the reader that your research methods
are sound and were well thought through
– What approaches could have been used for your
research?
– Why did you think the approach you chose was the
best one given any constraints?
– Writing critically here also involves writing with an
awareness of the potential limitations of your
approach (see for example,
http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1039), which
means also explaining how you intend to control for
and/or account for those possible limitations.
 f. Explain and justify your choice of
theoretical framework
E.g. Research of this type is typically conducted using a
cohort or longitudinal design because … (refs.).
However, these approaches have disadvantages such as
… (refs.), and these are particularly significant in the
context of the present study where … To overcome
these problems, a case-control approach was used.
Such an approach is not normally used for research of
this type because it can suffer from limitations such as
… and … (refs.). However, in the context of the present
study, these were not considered to be a major issue
because …
 Purposes of Literature Review
To explain why you conducted your research in the
way that you did
g. Introduce relevant terminology and provide
definitions to clarify how terms are to be used
– When using new or contested ideas where no
universally agreed upon definition for a term or
concept, it is necessary to discuss the options and
explain why you decided on one particular
interpretation or definition.
– For the purposes of this research, what exactly am I
going to take X to mean and why do I think that is the
best choice?
 RRL in Quantitative Research
• Traditional review – Qualitative Research
• Systematic Review – Quantitative Research
– ‘question-driven methodology’ is used by
quantitative researchers who begin their research
work by asking questions – one big question that
states the main problem of the research and a set
of sub-questions that deal with the specific
aspects of the research.
 RRL in Quantitative Research
• Qualitative research likewise begins with
research questions, but these are open-ended
and subjective questions, in contrast to
quantitative questions that aim at obtaining
exact, specific, and objective answers whose
origin or sources are easy to trace. (Ridley
2012, p. 189; Jesson 2011)
 Steps in Conducting a Systematic
Review
• Systematics review of related literature
happens through the following sequential
steps:
1. Clarifying the research questions
2. Planning the research based on your
understanding of the research questions
3. Searching for Literature
4. Listing criteria for considering the values of
written works.
 Steps in Conducting a Systematic
Review
5. Evaluating the quality of previous research
studies.
6. Summarizing the various forms of knowledge
collected.

Adopting a systematic review of related

literature prevents you from being bias in
dealing with the varied form of literature.
Meta-analysis in Quantitative research
• Meta-analysis is a kind of review of related
literature in which you re-examine and
combine the results of two or more statistical
studies for coming out with a grand total to
indicate stronger effects of the research
outcome. Putting the results together and
making them appear as one result work to
strengthen whatever impact the independent
variable has on the dependent variable.
Meta-analysis in Quantitative research
• Merging of statistical results is not always
applicable to all quantitative research studies.
You resort to meta-analysis only if the
statistics you intend to combine come from
studies having several similarities like they are
comparable in terms of research questions,
research design, treatment, measuring
technique and measurable outcome.
Meta-analysis in Quantitative research
• Homogeneous studies – studies that could be
combined
• Heterogeneous studies – are exempted from
this type of systematic review of related
literature.
Meta-analysis in Quantitative research
• The qualitative approach of narrative
synthesis which is a traditional review using
written verbal language to explain or describe
test results is the appropriate RRL method for
heterogeneous studies
• The meta-analysis systematic review prevails
strongly in the field of medicine where
researchers must conduct studies to yield
medicines that, supported by sufficient
evidence, are capable of reaching their
certainty level (Ridley 2012; Jesson 2014)
Specific Review Questions for different
Types of Research
Broad Research Goal Some specific review questions
Problem Solving • What do we need to know about the
causes of the problem to make
progress?
• What new techniques or approaches
might be tried and why might these be
better than existing approaches?
• What new understandings about the
causes of the problem suggest new
approaches to take?
• What alternative approaches to
conceptualizing the problem might
lead to new and better ways of
addressing the problem?
Specific Review Questions for different
Types of Research
Broad Research Goal Some specific review questions
Filling a gap in understanding What theories can guide:
• Where to look for answers?
• How to interpret findings?
• How to conduct analyses
Possibly: Where is the current theory
deficient?
Evaluating something • What criteria will be used and why?
• How will you operationalize the
criteria? (E.g. How will you judge “user
friendliness” when evaluating a piece
of software or some new electronic
gadget?
Specific Review Questions for different
Types of Research
Broad Research Goal Some specific review questions
Improving something • What are the benefits of
improvement/ cost of not improving?
• What aspects are least satisfactory/
most likely to leas to significant
improvements if addressed and why?
• Why isn’t the thing working as well as
we’d like? [Now see “problem solving”
above.]
Specific Review Questions for different
Types of Research
Broad Research Goal Some specific review questions
Resolving a conflict in the literature • What are the arguments and counter-
arguments for and against different
points of view? (This may involve
reviewing different “schools of
thought” about in the context of the
research question. The aim is to
identify potentially problematic
assumptions which may need to be
more carefully investigated.)
• What is needed to make progress with
resolving the controversy.
 Key Points when Reviewing the
Literature
• Reviews of the literature are not summaries,
they are arguments (that there is a gap that
needs filling; that you have sound reasons for
believing your hypotheses are likely to be
true; that your methods have been well
thought through in relation to your research
goals;… plus an exposition of the particular
background knowledge needed to make
progress with the research.
 Key Points when Reviewing the
Literature
• The purposes listed above are not generally all
addressed in a single section called the
“Literature Review”, but would be distributed
between the introductory, literature review/
theory, and methodology chapters or sections.
• Review should involve synthesis: how does the
literature as a whole answer your focus
questions.
 Key Points when Reviewing the
Literature
• Whenever you include any discussion or prior
literature in your writing, you should have a
clear purpose for doing so and you should
make that purpose clear to the reader. (Note
that, “I’m providing some background ≠
purpose, “I am providing the which I need to
establish/demonstrate/ convince the reader
that…” = a purpose. Another way of loo
 Reminder!
• You will present relevant findings and issues from
your research articles in your literature review. Decide on
what organization pattern makes sense for organizing the
studies into a coherent presentation: chronological,
categorical/topic, general-to-specific, known to unknown,
etc. Try to follow the models of the research articles you’re
reading and the textbook’s description of previous research
as closely as possible. You will not include ALL the
information from each study; rather you will use each study
to help you advance the necessary definitions, context,
explanation and rationalization for variables, gaps, and the
argument your paper is making (i.e., the rationale for your
study). Your goal in this section is to synthesize information
from the studies into a meaningful presentation.
 Reminder!
• Your study rationale is the last part of the body section of
your literature review. This is where you explain the
thinking that leads to your research questions or
hypotheses (you’ll draw upon the past literature to do
this—your hypotheses may be extending a previous study,
filling a gap you’ve identified, etc.). What research
questions or hypotheses can you derive from your
examination of the previous literature? While you may have
some research questions that relate to HOW youth use
media that you won’t be able to answer through the
research that YOU will undertake, you should also have a
research question that relates to the original study of youth
media that you will do (e.g., studying the content of
websites/Q-A columns, etc.).
 Let’s Answer!
• Fill in the blanks with the correct answers to complete
the text.
Review of related literature happens in two ways: (1)
_________ and systematic review. Systematic review is for
(2) _______; traditional for qualitative research. A review of
statistical results makes you use (3) ______ kind of
systematic review. All test results are applicable to (4)
________ except those coming from (5) ______ studies. (6)
______ review through meta-analysis are given by (7) ______
studies not by (8) ________ that are characterized by
dissimilar research aspects. Whatever studies the statistical
results come from, these should be (9) _____-based results;
meaning they are based on facts. Not giving importance to
proofs or evidence, you resort to presenting literature review
results being (10) ________.
 Relevant
Adjective:
• related to a subject or to something
happening or being discussed
• correct or suitable for a particular purpose

Source:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/eng
lish/relevant