A literature review is a structured account of a topic area that lays the foundation for a research effort. It must be comprehensive, current and lucid. Of most importance it must be critical meaning that YOU must add comment or explanation to what you have found - in short a review is not a recitation of what has been found but and exposition of it.
It follows that from a structural point of view you need a themed list of sub-topics using headings, subheading, paragraphs, bullets, tables, diagrams and so on in order to get a coherent and lucid discourse on your chosen subject area. This is not a trivial matter and you must expect to go over it many, many times before it is completed.
A Simple Literature Review Checklist
In summary, the review is about your topic area and about you becoming sufficiently expert in it to deal with the presenting problem that you have uncovered. The intention is for you to offer a discourse that is Focused, Relevant, Authored, Measured, Evaluatory and expressed as a Dialogue. (Notice the acronym FRAMED)
Focused – this means that your whole effort is focused on the topic area and the particular aspect of it that you are pursuing. So do not be tempted to add in other things just because they might be useful, interesting, and novel or you just have nothing else to say.
Relevant – any topic area aspect will itself represent a large body of knowledge and so you must continually ask if a particular element in the knowledge domain is relevant to your particular study.
Authored - any literature review is to be written by its author. This sounds obvious but it is all too easy to fill up a review with cited quotations, paraphrases and summaries so that the ‘hand’ of the review author is not evident anywhere in the work. When this happens it is not an evaluative review at all but simple plagiarism. The author’s ‘hand’ must guide and direct the review in an evaluatory fashion so that the review is a message from the review author and not a recitation of what has been found elsewhere. Typically this is done by using your own skills and knowledge to introduce, comment, add to, modify and extrapolate from various primary sources available.
Measured – this is a matter of selecting and using the focused and relevant materials that you have found. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to pack in information in excruciatingly detail and so end up with a laboured entry that treats your readers as if they were completely ignorant of the subject area. So you need to ask honestly “is the entry a measured response to the readers information needs?”
Evaluatory – authors sift through the primary sources looking for materials to use. The essence of this sifting is an evaluatory outlook based on an awareness of your problem theme, your topic area and your own ideas. Care is needed because this process is not about searching for materials that you agree with or like in some way. Instead it is a contextualised response (based on what you already know) and that may mean you find materials that are new to you, materials that make you change your own knowledge base and even materials that completely replace what you previously thought of as solid.
Dialogue – a review is a form of argument. Good arguments are based on a strong theme and try to explain to, and convince your readers about something. So it is best if you think of it as a kind of dialogue in which you challenge them about your review theme and content.
Thank you very much for your input. My first degree... is in education and combined studies. I have not done ANY philosophy before apart from child development... learning theories etc if that counts as 'philosophy'. I know exactly what my research will be, how I will conduct it etc etc etc. I just don't KNOW which 'philosophical theory' it sits on ??
I'm finding very difficult to engage with the topic as I really don't 'get' much of it - and any bits I do 'get' make sense in isolation but not when trying to make links. So as you can probably tell I'm feeling quite UN-motivated which is not typical of me. I like to really 'engage' with my learning - but philosophy has got the better of me it seems.
For example I understand what epistemology/ontology are but only in isolation I can define them - don't have a clue what my ontological/epistemological stance is or would be in relation to my research nor do I know how to 'establish'/find it!
I am in the social sciences and have looked at Popper and his falsification theory but didn't really understand it! Added to that we were advised to 'falsify' our research and not prove it otherwise?? whatever that means!?
I am in the social sciences and have looked at Popper and his falsification theory but didn't really understand it! Added to that we were advised to 'falsify' our research and not prove it otherwise?? whatever that means!?
Any advice/help would be appreciated.again, many thanks.
Am I correct in understanding then, that falsification is inductive?
aah I see see. thanks Hugo!!!
I'm pretty sure I'll eventually get there inshaAllah but at the moment I just feel like I'm wading in syrup trying to find my way (!!)
I've never had a problem with engaging with learning or theories this is just one NEW experience... and I feel a bit 'lost' not to mention 'dim'. Sitting in lectures not knowing what on earth some of the stuff means is not a nice feeling...
A question - do many students/people struggle with this area or is it simply me? Please be honest...
I will reflect on falsification and induction... the reason I asked is if they were similar/same is because in induction you're not 100% sure (right??) it's an observed affect that can change over time??not a law as in deduction? or have I got this completely wrong! awaiting your response
You are getting nearer but if you say "induction and theory' together you are making a blunder. Let me suggest what you do and if you can work it out you are more or less there. Think about your research and what you intend to thenHi Hugo,
Thanks for your reply and patience. I will get 'there' eventually inshaAllah I promise you that! Still mulling over induction and my 'theory'.
I've also semi - established my research will be founded upon or in critical realism (I *think*). Another thing I've learnt is your where your research sits philosophically (realism, posivitism etc) and your methodology are two different things? Initially I was very confused but I think that's clarified somewhat now so the clouds are dispersing sloooooowly.
Will keep you posted re the induction.. I thought one was 'law' universal and the other one that can change???
You are getting nearer but if you say "induction and theory' together you are making a blunder. Let me suggest what you do and if you can work it out you are more or less there. Think about your research and what you intend to then
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what primary data will I try to collect" then
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what primary data will I collect"
Now you should get DIFFERENT answers, the data sets will not be totally different but they will be different and if you can see why this is so then hooray!! Next
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what will I try to show by processing primary data" thenAgain you should get two DIFFERENT answers
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what will I try to show by processing my primary data"
This example might help you see what difference it makes to your data if you are being inductive or deductive.
Ways of thinking and what they imply
Deductive (rationalism) - this way of thinking means you are using your mind to form a theory about a given situation and why it is as it is before you have collected any data.
Analogy - Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be deductive if he worked out rationally (in his mind so had a theory) how the crime was committed. He would then collect evidence to TEST his theory.
Inductive (empiricism) - this way of thinking means you will rely on the data when you eventually get it to explain a situation. If you like it implies you have no fixed ideas on solution but will decide these when you get the data
Analogy – Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be inductive if he waited until he had all the data and then used the data (empirically) to infer (you can say guess) how the crime was committed.
Here is a fuller example with a hint of realism:
Suppose I am a teachers and I have the problem of students coming late to seminar sessions and I want to collect data about it with a view to finding a solution because coming late is annoying and disrupts classes.
If I am deductive I might suggest the theory that coming late is due to cultural norms. Because I have this theory ALL my data is going to be about cultural norms because I set out to TEST the theory to see if it is true. So I am “forced” to define only data about culture: country of origin, religion, family values, previous schooling, male/female relationships, respect for elders, etc
If I am inductive I have no theory because implicitly I cannot decide what is causing this problem or its possible solution so in effect I just have to guess what data might be useful. So I am “forced” to define (almost randomly) data about: age, course, religion, values, respect, lodgings, transportation, the weather, friends, other classes and so on.
Notice that sometimes the data will be the same or similar but your UNDERLYING motive for its choice will be be different.
PS Just to be a bit silly if I were testing Ohms law which is a theory about resistance, voltage and current then those are the values I collect and can use to test the theory. It would be utterly stupid to collect any other data.
Yes this is inductive, because you don't have a theory you don't with any kind of certainty know what data to select, you may have a gut feeling but you have nothing to test. So the best you can do here is use you data to try to describe and perhaps explain what is going on and out of that you might also suggest a relationship and that can be tested by later researchers.hmmm... also thinking of deductive reasoning in research... I did some research a few years ago... my hypothesis was that there was a possible relationship between between suffering abuse (csa) and self harm in adult life...
So I did some research and the findings strongly supported the above. Anyway is the above example of deduction or induction??
Hugo - If one has a hypothesis then it is essentially deductive because obviously you MUST select data that is to do with that Hypothesis. The reason you do this is because you want to TEST the hypothesis to see if it true (within experimental limits) or false.
If you had been inductive you would just have said more or less I want to investigate abuse and self harm but you mind set would have been open in the sense that you do not go to it with any precocious view or theory but just to explore it. You may then later perhaps suggest a theory or make some implications but they would not be predictive and strictly only apply to the data you collected.
The difference between that research and my proposed research is I don't really have a hyphothesis as such eg x causes y or there's a relationship between x and y. It's very exploratory and I will be exploring perceptions and experience of a certain phenomena in social sciences. I have some 'idea' of the issue but no hypoth. etc. So is this inductive???
No idea if I'm on the right track here... hoping I am!!
??
Thanks Again Hugo,A few questions;
1. In induction and deduction does one have more weight/precedence/authenticity than the other?? i.e. is any one of them favoured or preferred over the other?
2. Regardless, of your philosophical stance induction/deduction is inherently present? Am I correct?
Many thanks
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.