Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Literature Review (L4 &5) :green_book: :blue_book: (General steps…
Literature Review (L4 &5) :green_book: :blue_book:
definition
a
critical, analytical summary & synthesis
of the current knowledge & topic
NOT
a summary or chronological list of articles/researches
compare & relate
theories, findings
have a
theme
to organize the review
make it easier to
examine contrasting perspectives, approaches, findings & methodologies
analyze the strength & weaknesses of prior work
point out gaps of other works
discuss
significant
academic literature important to our focus (not exhaustive)
concise yet thorough
review of related past & current work
organization depends on
type, purpose & topic
being reviewed
document a need for our proposed study
document importance of the research problem
review works
written by
scientists
researcher for scientists
researchers
sources
Secondary
focus for
Lit. review
Books
peer reviewed
scholarly journal articles
reviewers check for proper methodologies used, take on relevant work, adequately supported conclusions & relevance and important contribution to field
not guarantee 100% correct
reviewed by other scientists and experts of the field before published to journal
written by researchers or scientists about their work
Primary
direct, uninterpreted
records of the subject
example
lab reports,
field notes, measurements
dissertations
patents
articles of original research
conference proceedings
Tertiary
summary/introduction
Encyclopedias
dictionaries
text books
gives general framework to understand our field
Database/Indexes
e.g. IEEE explorer
list of primary & secondary resources
research process for lit. rev
starts with Tertiary
2nd: Secondary
3rd. primary
Types of Lit. rev
stand alone
lit. rev articles
provide an overview & analysis
of current state of research on a topic
annual reviews journal
computing reviews journal
in
Research proposals
point out current issues & Q's of your topic
purpose
help to show how your research contributes to the field
convince thesis committee to allow to pursue the interested topic of research
in
Research report in workplace
give context on how your work is contributing
significance
build & add on to prior work
Expanding resources
for other researchers to build on
General steps (Writing)
annotated bibliography
brief, critical sypnosis of each work
Thematic organization
more reading
write individual sections
Integrate sections
Important points
be specific & succint
be selective i.e. important points
is it current article?
what specific claims made?
support for the claims?
source of evidence of the work
does the author take into account contrary or conflicting evidence?
what specific conclusions are drawn?
SPECIFIC TYPES
Systematic Mapping
gives visual summary,
map
of results
less efforts & course grained overview
provides a structure of types & results of researches - Categorization
a methodology, typically in medical research
Goal
overview of research area
see
quantity
&
type
of research & results
identify the forums in which the research is published
Systematic Lit. Review
systematic review vs. lit. review
a type of Lit. review
focus on a RQ, try to identify, appraise, select & synthesize
ALL HIGH QUALITY research evidences and arguments
related to the research questions
4 types
meta analysis
use statistical methods on combination of data on selected studies
comparative analysis
Thematic analysis
Narrative summaries
synthesize current researches
Fair (no bias)
Rigorous
defined procedure
review procedure is open
starts with well-defined Q's
more efforts
than informal reviews
do in group better than alone
systematic mapping vs. systematic lit. review
Goal is different
SLR
identify
BEST PRACTICES
based on empirical evidence
SMap
focus on classification,
thematic mapping
, identify publication fora
process differs
SLR
thematic analysis to see which categories are well covered i.e. #no. of publications
SMap
quality of articles not evaluated
Breadth & depth differs
SLR
state
outcome & quality assessment of articles
.. Hence more effort & focus of study is more specific
SMAp
can include more articles because not evaluated in detail e.g. whole software product line area
REVIEWING lit. review
quali vs. quanti
Quantitative
foreshadows research questions
give explanation for the results in other studies & theoretical prediction at the end of study
Qualitative
used to compare & contrast with other studies at end of study
does not foreshadow research Q's - to encourage participants to give their views
PROCESS
identify key terms
select & scan articles based on 2-3 key terms that capture the essence of the project
locate literature
critical evaluation & select literature
a good, accurate source?
is the source worthy of inclusion?
topic relevance
does the literature examines the same individuals and sites you want to study?
accessibility & availability
problem relevance i.e. same research problem as yours?
Organize literature (map view)
a) identify key terms of topic and place at the top of the map
b) sort studies by group/families of studies
c) label/heading for each group of review
e) develop map
d) draw a box "my proposed study". draw lines to connect with other branches of literature
write a review
use consistent style
end of text references
within text references
Headings
figures/tables
types of review
Thematic
document themes identified by researchers
no study discussed in detail
study-by-study
detailed review of each study
studies grouped by themes
summaries linked by transitional sentences