Literature
Review**
A literature
review must do these things:
Here are some of the questions your literature
review should answer:
1.
What
do we already know in the immediate area concerned?
2.
What
are the characteristics of the key concepts or the main factors or variables?
3.
What
are the relationships between these key concepts, factors or variables?
4.
What
are the existing theories?
5.
Where
are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in our knowledge and
understanding?
6.
What
views need to be (further) tested?
7.
What
evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited?
8.
Why
study (further) the research problem?
9.
What
contribution can the present study be expected to
make?
10.
What
research designs or methods seem unsatisfactory
How Can I Write A Good Literature Review?
|
Remember
the purpose: it should answer the
questions we looked at above. Look at how published writers review the
literature. You'll see that you should use the literature to explain your
research - after all, you are not writing a literature review just to tell
your reader what other researchers have done. You aim should be to show why your research needs to be carried out,
how you came to choose certain methodologies or theories to work with, how
your work adds to the research already carried out, etc. |
|
Read
with a purpose: you need to summarize the work you read but you must
also decide which ideas or information are important to your research (so you
can emphasize them), and which are
less important and can be covered briefly or left out of your review. You
should also look for the major concepts, conclusions, theories, arguments
etc. that underlie the work, and look for similarities and
differences with closely related work. This is difficult when you first
start reading, but should become easier the more you read in your area. |
|
Write
with a purpose:
your aim should be to evaluate and show relationships between the work already done (Is Researcher Y's theory more
convincing than Researcher X's? Did Researcher X build on the work of
Researcher Y?) and between this work and your own.
In order to do this effectively you should carefully plan how you are going
to organize your work. |
*A lot of people like to organize their work
chronologically (using time as their organizing system). Unless
developments over time are crucial to explain the context of your research
problem, using a chronological system will not be an effective way to organize
your work. Some people choose to organize their work alphabetically by author
name: this system will not allow you to show the relationships between the work
of different researchers, and your work, and should be avoided! Instead,
organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify
trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material
published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept
of your thesis or research question.
TRAPS
Some traps to avoid:
|
Trying
to read everything! As you might already have discovered, if you try to be
comprehensive you will never be able to finish the reading! The idea of the
literature review is not to provide a summary of all the published work that
relates to your research, but a survey of the most relevant and significant
work. |
|
|
|
Not
keeping bibliographic information! The moment will come when you have to
write your references page . . . and then you realize you have forgotten to
keep the information you need, and that you never got around to putting
references into your work. The only solution is to spend a lot of time in the
library tracking down all those sources that you read, and going through your
writing to find which information came from which source. To avoid this
nightmare, always keep this information in your notes. Always put references
into your writing. |
Literature Review: An Example
Here is an example of using the literature to
explain and define a problem. This example is taken from an introduction
because most thesis literature reviews tend to be too long for us to easily
look at. Although your literature review will probably be much longer than the
one below, it is useful to look at the principles the writers have used.
On the
optimal container size in automated warehouses
Y. Roll, M.J.
Rosenblatt and D. Kadosh, Proceedings of the Ninth ICPR
Automated
storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) are being introduced into the industry
and warehousing at an increasing rate. Forecasts indicate that this trend will
continue for the foreseeable future (see [1]). Research in the area of AS/RS
has followed several avenues. Early work by Hausman,
Schwarz and
Several
researchers addressed the problem of the optimal handling unit (pallet or
container) size, to be used in material handling and warehousing systems. Steudell [13], Tanchoco and Agee[14], Tanchoco et al. [15] and
Grasso and Tanchoco [5]
studied various aspects of this subject. The last two references incorporate
the size of the pallet, or unit load, in evaluation of the optimal lot sizes
for multi-inventory systems with limited storage space. In a report on a
specific case, Normandin [10] has demonstrated that
using the 'best-size' container can result in considerable savings. A
simulation model combining container size and warehouse capacity
considerations, in an AS/RS environment, was developed by Kadosh
[8]. The general results, reflecting the stochastic nature of the flow of
goods, are similar to those reported by Rosenblatt and Roll [12]. Nevertheless,
container size was found to affect strongly overall warehousing costs.
In this paper,
we present an analytical framework for approximating the optimal size of a
warehouse container. The approximation is based on series of
generalizations and specific assumptions. However, these are valid for a
wide range of real life situations. The underlying assumptions of the model are
presented in the following section.
Notice how the writers have:
|
grouped similar information:
"Steudell [13], Tanchoco
and Agee[14], Tanchoco et al. [15] and Grasso and Tanchoco [5] studied
various aspects of this subject." |
|
shown the relationship between
the work of different researchers, showing similarities/differences:
"The general results, reflecting the stochastic nature of the flow of
goods, are similar to those reported by Rosenblatt and Roll
[12]." |
|
indicated the position of the work
in the research area history: "Early work by Hausman,
Schwarz and |
|
moved from a general
discussion of the research in AS/RS to the more specific area (optimal
container size) that they themselves are researching i.e. they relate
previous work to their own to define it, justify it and explain it. |
**This document is complied, modified, and expanded
from several sources.