How Should I Select, Read and Review the Literature?

Abstract

Creating the literature review can be one of the most interesting and rewarding components of postgraduate research. However, with the vast array of information available both online and in hard copy from a diverse range of sources potentially relevant to your topic and related disciplines, it can also be intimidating. In this chapter, we discuss a range of issues and strategies associated with assembling a literature review, including preparation strategies, searching strategies, issues associated with reading the literature, note taking, writing up and revision. We reinforce the importance of reading critically and for different types of information and learning (contextual, conceptual, theoretical, methodological, analytical, practical).

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questions You Could Ask During Active Reading

• Who are the authors of this piece?

• What do you know about them?

• What is the perspective of the writer(s)—goes to the issue of the author(s) guiding assumptions?

• What is the journal quality?

• How old is the material, and on what date was the research done (it may have been many years before it was published)?

• What were the authors trying to discover—how did they position their study?

• Is it an original study, or a report of other people’s work?

• Is it empirical (has data in it), theoretical, or polemical (argumentative)?

• How was the literature review structured?

• What theory is cited?

• What was measured or gathered?

• What methods were used (computer modelling, experiments, field measurements, interviews, participant observation, etc.)?

• What information is available on their sample and the sampling process (is there a breakdown of the sample by age, race, gender etc.; was the sampling process random, purposive or some other scheme)?

• What were the response rates?

• How were the data collected?

• What analyses were used?

• What were the results?

• Are the arguments logical?

• What support or evidence has been provided for the key message?

• What do the authors conclude, and to what do they attribute their findings?

• Can you accept the findings as convincing?

• Why is this piece of research important?

• Could this be applied in practice?

• Is the material correctly and fully referenced?

• How can I apply these findings to my own work?

  (adapted from Wellington et al., 2005, p. 75 and Delamont et al., 2000, p. 55)

Note that Quinton and Smallbone (2006, pp. 87–88) offer two similar frameworks for ‘deconstructing journal articles using primary data’ and for ‘deconstructing journal articles using theory’.

Appendix 2: Concise Critical Notes: Articles and Papers Template

Adapted from Cottrell (2011, p. 157).

Concise Critical Notes: Analysing Arguments in a Theoretical Paper Template

Adapted from Cottrell (2011, p. 155).

Appendix 3: Meta-criteria Research Outcome Evaluation Framework

Adapted from Cooksey (2008, Table 1, pp. 7–9)

Appendix 4: Literature Review Scoring Rubric

Category	Criterion	1	2	3	4
1. Coverage	A. Justified criteria for inclusion or exclusion from review	Did not discuss the criteria inclusion or exclusion	Discussed the literature included and excluded	Justified inclusion and exclusion of literature
2. Synthesis	B. Distinguished what has been done in the field from what needs to be done.	Did not distinguish what has been and has not been done	Discussed what has been and has not been done	Critically examined the state of the field
	C. Placed the topic or problem in the broader scholarly literature	Topic not placed in broader scholarly literature	Some discussion of broader scholarly literature	Topic clearly situated in broader scholarly literature
	D. Placed the research in the historical context of the field	History of topic not discussed	Some mention of history of topic	Critically examined history of topic
	E. Acquired and enhanced the subject vocabulary	Key vocabulary not discussed	Key vocabulary defined	Discussed and resolved ambiguities in definitions
	F. Articulated important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic	Key variables and phenomena not discussed	Reviewed relationships among key variables and phenomena	Noted ambiguities in literature and proposed new relationships
	G. Synthesised and gained a new perspective on the literature	Accepted literature at face value	Some critique of literature	Offered new perspectives
3. Methodology	H. Identified the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field, and their advantages and disadvantages	Research methods not discussed	Some discussion of research methods used to produce claims	Critiqued research methods	Introduced new methods to address problems with predominant methods
	I. Related ideas and theories in the field to research methodologies	Research methods not discussed	Some discussion of appropriateness of research methods to warrant claims	Critiques appropriateness of research methods to warrant claims
4. Significance	J. Rationalised the practical significance of the research problem	Practical significance of research not discussed	Practical significance discussed	Critiqued practical significance of research
	K. Rationalised the scholarly significance of the research problem	Scholarly significance of research not discussed	Scholarly significance discussed	Critiqued scholarly significance of research
5. Rhetoric	L. Was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review	Poorly conceptualised, haphazard	Some coherent structure	Well-developed, coherent

1. Note The column-heading numbers represent scores for rating dissertation literature reviews on 3-point and 4-point scales (adapted from Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 8, who cited the original source as Hart, 1999)