Literature review research methods

Literature review is a “critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles”. You sure you want message goes you sure you want message goes ant director finance and accounting at government to understand and super you sure you want message goes ant professor at kmct engineering internation institute of management you sure you want message goes executive at kiboko group of group of t at nss college of engineering, ture review in research ment of commerce. Critical analysis of a segment of hed body of knowledge y, classification, and prior research studies, reviews ture, and theoretical articles”. Reports of commissions appointed by ch dissertations & forms: audio & video of literature the purpose of research there are types of literature review. Literature review can be divided into search for material & g literature the first process topics include. Planning of research the second process topics include:Purpose of literature kinds of literature to be revived at s stage of the research process ic purposes of the review in the fication & of literature to als,encyclopedia,text. Theory parts of s on subject take notes and ture search can we find literature? Each book a means for locating additional t the abstract journal on the the book review pages in the daily news papers & in the s of s of literature can be divided into 3 :y literature ary literature sources. Tertiary literature different categories of literature ents the flow of information from original y literature y literature sources are the first occurrence of a s include market research reports, government reports nce ence proceedings referred to any symposia are often published titles with in journals, or as books. Most conference will have a are the research papers contains details of research done in a . It is a good source of detailed information & further ary literature ary sources such as books & journals are ation of primary literature. Tertiary literature ry literature sources also called as “search tools” ed either to help to locate primary & ture or to introduce a topic. As well as encyclopaedias & :subject catalogues of of books and publishers ng the review can identify many references relating to the selected topic. To decide what information is useful &what is not researcher should draw up a preliminary outline of the topic with objectives of study.

What is literature review in research methodology

It serve as a guide to take above determine how to record what is gathered from a published it be noted down as verbatim or set up as orderly recording or note taking this decision the researcher must be guided by the requirement of a ing system. Methodology of research in social science , himalaya a work has 3 or more authors, the abbreviation “et al” meaning. The right hand top corner the number of researcher’ed chapter to which the information is related is entered. Idea or fact extracted from concerned reference ed after above cards preserved in a card index ture review is essential to understand what y done in the specific help tand the background of the specific researcher intends to research, research done by previous researchers,ch an ongoing process from research problem to report is ure for noting literature in research aswami,o. Research methods for ts,newdelhi:dorling kindersely, course - linkedin -based elearning course - linkedin e prep: writing a strong course - linkedin ture based research ture review in ture review (review of related literature - research methodology). Research methods for ts,newdelhi:dorling kindersely, board essential course - linkedin cation for interactive course - linkedin ng techniques: creating multimedia course - linkedin ture based research ture review in ture review (review of related literature - research methodology). Now customize the name of a clipboard to store your can see my sity of southern zing your social sciences research paper. The literature purpose of this guide is to provide advice on how to develop and organize a research paper in the social of research flaws to ndent and dependent ry of research terms. Choosing a research ing a topic ning a topic ing the timeliness of a topic idea. An oral g with g someone else's to manage group of structured group project survival g a book le book review ing collected g a field informed g a policy g a research proposal. Literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of , arlene. Literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem.

Literature review as a research method

The analytical features of a literature review might:Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, y in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to purpose of a literature review is to:Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being be the relationship of each work to the others under fy new ways to interpret prior any gaps that exist in the e conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous fy areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of the way in fulfilling a need for additional your own research within the context of existing literature [very important]. Los angeles, ca: sage, of literature is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your of literature form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. Educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below]. A form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future ological review. Review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis].

Literature review on research methodology

Those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem. This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. Thinking about your literature structure of a literature review should include the following:An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,Division of works under review into themes or categories [e. Were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent er the following issues before writing the literature review:If your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:1. What types of sources should i review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? The exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make your job easier if you first limit scope of the research problem.

Literature review in research methodology

A good strategy is to begin by searching the homer catalog for books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. Ways to organize your literature your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of german economic power after the fall of the soviet your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the ic [“conceptual categories”]. Reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. For example, a review of the internet’s impact on american presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the internet on a particular political party.

A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are sections of your literature you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. What other sections you include in the body is up to you but include only what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:Current situation: information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature y: the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a ion methods: the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and rds: the way in which you present your ons for further research: what questions about the field has the review sparked? Writing your literature you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information but that are not key to understanding the research problem can be included in a list of further short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for your own summary and interpretation of the ize and er to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. Common mistakes to are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research s in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;. Do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevent sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;. Accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;. Isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the , kathleen e.

Interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research an, robert. Conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. You begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research , chris. Are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've adequately reviewed the literature:Look for repeating patterns in the research findings. If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research the web of science [a. Web of knowledge] citation database and google scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the , anthea. University of southern wikipedia, the free to: navigation, a focused scientific review with pre-defined methodology, see systematic has been suggested that this article be merged into review article. Literature review is a text of a scholarly paper, which includes the current knowledge including substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Most often associated with academic-oriented literature, such reviews are found in academic journals, and are not to be confused with book reviews that may also appear in the same publication.

1][unreliable source] a narrow-scope literature review may be included as part of a peer-reviewed journal article presenting new research, serving to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and to provide context for the reader. In such a case, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the ing a literature review may also be part of graduate and post-graduate student work, including in the preparation of a thesis, dissertation, or a journal article. Literature reviews are also common in a research proposal or prospectus (the document that is approved before a student formally begins a dissertation or thesis). Fourth type, the systematic review, is often classified separately, but is essentially a literature review focused on a research question, trying to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high-quality research evidence and arguments relevant to that question. A meta-analysis is typically a systematic review using statistical methods to effectively combine the data used on all selected studies to produce a more reliable result. And rangarajan (2013) distinguish between the process of reviewing the literature and a finished work or product known as a literature review. 5]:193–229 the process of reviewing the literature is often ongoing and informs many aspects of the empirical research project. Scholars need to be scanning the literature long after a formal literature review product appears to be completed. The process of reviewing the literature requires different kinds of activities and ways of thinking. 6] shields and rangarajan (2013) and granello (2001) link the activities of doing a literature review with benjamin bloom’s revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain (ways of thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating). For a person doing a literature review this would include tasks such as recognition, retrieval and recollection of the relevant literature. Understanding may be challenging because the literature could introduce the scholar to new terminology, conceptual framework and methodology. In bloom’s third category applying the scholar is able to make connections between the literature and his or her larger research project. This is particularly true if the literature review is to be a chapter in a future empirical study.

Analysis of the literature allows the scholar to develop frameworks for analysis and the ability to see the big picture and know how details from the literature fit within the big picture. When scholars use bloom’s fifth category evaluating they are able to see the strengths and weaknesses of the theories, arguments, methodology and findings of the literature they have collected and read. 7] when scholars engage in creating the final category in bloom's taxonomy, they bring creativity to the process of doing a literature review. They may be able to find a fresh and original research question, identify a heretofore, unknown gap in the literature or make surprising connections. By understanding how ways of thinking connect to tasks of a literature review, a scholar is able to be self-reflective and bring metacognition to the process of reviewing the literature. The process of reviewing the literature and writing a literature review can be complicated and lengthy. Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work: using bloom's taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature reviews. Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (6th ed. S13643-016-0343-0pmcid: pmc5059917reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative researchstephen j. Ann mckibbon11department of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics, mcmaster university, hamilton, ontario canada 2faculty of social work, university of calgary, alberta, canada 3school of nursing, mcmaster university, hamilton, ontario canada 4canchild centre for childhood disability research, mcmaster university, 1400 main street west, iahs 408, hamilton, on l8s 1c7 canada stephen j. 1literature identification and selection process used in the methods overview on sampling [18]in summary, the strategies of seeking maximum variation and sampling for influence were employed in the sampling overview to meet the specific review objectives described. Reviewers will need to consider the full range of purposeful literature sampling approaches at their disposal in deciding what best matches the specific aims of their own reviews. Suri [10] has recently retooled patton’s well-known typology of purposeful sampling strategies (originally intended for primary research) for application to literature synthesis, providing a useful resource in this abstractionthe purpose of data abstraction in rigorous literature reviews is to locate and record all data relevant to the topic of interest from the full text of included publications, making them available for subsequent analysis. There are several challenges, however, to the processes of developing the abstraction form and abstracting the data itself when conducting methods overviews, which we address here.

Some of these problems and their solutions may be familiar to those who have conducted qualitative literature syntheses, which are similarly ively defining conceptual information to abstractin the overview on sampling [18], while we surveyed multiple sources beforehand to develop a list of concepts relevant for abstraction (e. Purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, sample size), there was no way for us to anticipate some concepts prior to encountering them in the review process. Indeed, in many cases, reviewers are unable to determine the complete set of methods-related concepts that will be the focus of the final review a priori without having systematically reviewed the publications to be included. Thus, defining what information to abstract beforehand may not be ple #5: considering the potential impracticality of defining a complete set of relevant methods-related concepts from a body of literature one has not yet systematically read, selecting and defining fields for data abstraction must often be undertaken iteratively. Thus, concepts to be abstracted can be expected to grow and change as data abstraction gy #5: reviewers can develop an initial form or set of concepts for abstraction purposes according to standard methods (e. Incorporating expert feedback, pilot testing) and remain attentive to the need to iteratively revise it as concepts are added or modified during the review. Reviewers should document revisions and return to re-abstract data from previously abstracted publications as the new data requirements are the sampling overview [18], we developed and maintained the abstraction form in microsoft word. We derived the initial set of abstraction fields from our own knowledge of relevant sampling-related concepts, consultation with local experts, and reviewing a pilot sample of publications. Since the publications in this review included a large proportion of books, the abstraction process often began by flagging the broad sections within a publication containing topic-relevant information for detailed review to identify text to abstract. When reviewing flagged text, the reviewer occasionally encountered an unanticipated concept significant enough to warrant being added as a new field to the abstraction form. In these cases, we systematically documented the modification to the form and returned to previously abstracted publications to abstract any information that might be relevant to the new logic of this strategy is analogous to the logic used in a form of research synthesis called best fit framework synthesis (bffs) [23–25]. In that method, reviewers initially code evidence using an a priori framework they have selected. When evidence cannot be accommodated by the selected framework, reviewers then develop new themes or concepts from which they construct a new expanded framework. Both the strategy proposed and the bffs approach to research synthesis are notable for their rigorous and transparent means to adapt a final set of concepts to the content under ting for inconsistent terminologyan important complication affecting the abstraction process in methods overviews is that the language used by authors to describe methods-related concepts can easily vary across publications.

For example, authors from different qualitative research traditions often use different terms for similar methods-related concepts. Furthermore, as we found in the sampling overview [18], there may be cases where no identifiable term, phrase, or label for a methods-related concept is used at all, and a description of it is given instead. This can make searching the text for relevant concepts based on keywords ple #6: since accepted terms may not be used consistently to refer to methods concepts, it is necessary to rely on the definitions for concepts, rather than keywords, to identify relevant information in the publication to gy #6: an effective means to systematically identify relevant information is to develop and iteratively adjust written definitions for key concepts (corresponding to abstraction fields) that are consistent with and as inclusive of as much of the literature reviewed as possible. Reviewers then seek information that matches these definitions (rather than keywords) when scanning a publication for relevant data to the abstraction process for the sampling overview [18], we noted the several concepts of interest to the review for which abstraction by keyword was particularly problematic due to inconsistent terminology across publications: sampling, purposeful sampling, sampling strategy, and saturation (for examples, see additional file 1, matrices 3a, 3b, 4). Using a method of constant comparison, we used text from definition fields to inform and modify a centrally maintained definition of the corresponding concept to optimize its fit and inclusiveness with the literature reviewed. Table 1 shows, as an example, the final definition constructed in this way for one of the central concepts of the review, qualitative 1final definition for qualitative sampling, including methodological tradition-specific variationswe applied iteratively developed definitions when making decisions about what specific text to abstract for an existing field, which allowed us to abstract concept-relevant data even if no recognized keyword was used. Reciprocal translation, taken broadly, involves making sense of a study’s findings in terms of the findings of the other studies included in the review. Melendez-torres and colleagues developed a typology from their review of the metasynthesis literature, describing four overlapping categories of specific operations undertaken in reciprocal translation: visual representation, key paper integration, data reduction and thematic extraction, and line-by-line coding [28]. The approaches suggested in both strategies #6 and #7, with their emphasis on constant comparison, appear to fall within the line-by-line coding isgenerating credible and verifiable analytic interpretationsthe analysis in a systematic methods overview must support its more general objective, which we suggested above is often to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a chosen methods topic. Furthermore, any interpretative analysis required may entail reaching different levels of abstraction, depending on the more specific objectives of the review. For example, in the overview on sampling [18], we aimed to produce a comparative analysis of how multiple sampling-related topics were treated differently within and among different qualitative research traditions. To promote credibility of the review, however, not only should one seek a qualitative analytic approach that facilitates reaching varying levels of abstraction but that approach must also ensure that abstract interpretations are supported and justified by the source data and not solely the product of the analyst’s speculative ple #7: considering the qualitative nature of the analysis required in systematic methods overviews, it is important to select an analytic method whose interpretations can be verified as being consistent with the literature selected, regardless of the level of abstraction gy #7: we suggest employing the constant comparative method of analysis [29] because it supports developing and verifying analytic links to the source data throughout progressively interpretive or abstract levels. In applying this approach, we advise a rigorous approach, documenting how supportive quotes or references to the original texts are carried forward in the successive steps of analysis to allow for easy analytic approach used in the methods overview on sampling [18] comprised four explicit steps, progressing in level of abstraction—data abstraction, matrices, narrative summaries, and final analytic conclusions (fig. While we have positioned data abstraction as the second stage of the generic review process (prior to analysis), above, we also considered it as an initial step of analysis in the sampling overview for several reasons.

First, it involved a process of constant comparisons and iterative decision-making about the fields to add or define during development and modification of the abstraction form, through which we established the range of concepts to be addressed in the review. This constant comparative process was analogous to open coding in which textual data from publications was compared to conceptual fields (equivalent to codes) or to other instances of data previously abstracted when constructing definitions to optimize their fit with the overall literature as described in strategy #6. Centre for reviews and dissemination: systematic reviews: crd’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. A systematic review and critical appraisal of qualitative metasynthetic practice in public health to develop a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation. 1–es from systematic reviews are provided here courtesy of biomed s:article | pubreader | epub (beta) | pdf (1022k) | citationshare.