Muslim Immigrant Women Inadequate Levels of Health Treatment Literature Review literature review .. I will upload my prospectus which is a previous step be

Muslim Immigrant Women Inadequate Levels of Health Treatment Literature Review literature review .. I will upload my prospectus which is a previous step before starting literature review. Prospectus explains my topic and its a preparation step that gives idea about the topic which will be briefly explained in the literature review and the steps after literature review. A peer-reviewed electronic journal.
Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation. Permission is granted to distribute this article for nonprofit, educational purposes if it is copied in its
entirety and the journal is credited.
Volume 14, Number 13, June 2009
ISSN 1531-7714
A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
Justus J. Randolph
Walden University
Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to derail a dissertation. This article summarizes
some pivotal information on how to write a high-quality dissertation literature review. It begins with a
discussion of the purposes of a review, presents taxonomy of literature reviews, and then discusses the
steps in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature review. The article concludes with a
discussion of common mistakes and a framework for the self-evaluation of a literature review.
Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to
derail a dissertation. If the literature review is flawed, the
remainder of the dissertation may also be viewed as
flawed, because “a researcher cannot perform significant
research without first understanding the literature in the
field” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). Experienced thesis
examiners know this. In a study of the practices of
Australian dissertation examiners, Mullins and Kiley
(2002) found that,
Examiners typically started reviewing a
dissertation with the expectation that it would
pass; but a poorly conceptualized or written
literature review often indicated for them that
the rest of the dissertation might have
problems. On encountering an inadequate
literature review, examiners would proceed to
look at the methods of data collection, the
analysis, and the conclusions more carefully.
(Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 6)
Given the importance of literature reviews in both
dissertations and journal articles, it may be surprising
that so many of them are faulty. Boote and Beile (2005)
claim that “the dirty secret known by those who sit on
dissertation committees is that most literature reviews
are poorly conceptualized and written” (p. 4). Further,
dissertations and theses are not the only types of
publications that suffer from poor literature reviews.
Many literature reviews in manuscripts submitted for
publication in journals are also flawed—see Alton-Lee
(1998), Grante and Graue (1999), and LeCompte,
Klinger, Campbell, and Menck (2003).
Given that so many literature reviews are poorly done, it
is surprising there is not more published information on
how to write a literature review. Boot and Beile (2005)
write,
Doctoral students seeking advice on how to
improve their literature reviews will find little
published guidance worth heeding. . . . Most
graduate students receive little or no formal
training in how to analyze and synthesize the
research literature in their field, and they are
unlikely to find it elsewhere. (p. 5)
Not only is there a lack of published information to
guide writers of literature reviews, the labor intensive
process of writing one compounds the problem. Gall,
Borg, and Gall (1996) estimate that completion of an
acceptable dissertation literature review will take
between three and six months of effort.
The purpose of this guide is to collect and summarize
the most relevant information on how to write a
dissertation literature review. I begin with a discussion of
the purposes of a review, present Cooper’s (1988)
Taxonomy of Literature Reviews, and discuss the steps
in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature
review. A discussion of common mistakes and a
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
Page 2
framework for the self-evaluation of literature reviews
concludes the article.
•
identifying the main methodologies and research
techniques that have been used, and
Purposes for Writing a Literature Review
•
placing the research in a historical context to
show familiarity with state-of-the-art
developments. (p. 27)
Conducting a literature review is a means of
demonstrating an author’s knowledge about a particular
field of study, including vocabulary, theories, key
variables and phenomena, and its methods and history.
Conducting a literature review also informs the student
of the influential researchers and research groups in the
field. Finally, with some modification, the literature
review is a “legitimate and publishable scholarly
document” (LeCompte & colleagues, 2003, p. 124).
Apart from the above reasons for writing a review (i.e.,
proof of knowledge, a publishable document, and the
identification of a research family), the scientific reasons
for conducting a literature review are many. Gall, Borg,
and Gall (1996) argue that the literature review plays a
role in:
•
delimiting the research problem,
•
seeking new lines of inquiry,
•
avoiding fruitless approaches,
•
gaining methodological insights,
•
identifying recommendations for further
research, and
•
seeking support for grounded theory.
Hart (1998) contributes additional reasons for reviewing
the literature, including:
•
distinguishing what has been done from what
needs to be done,
•
discovering important variables relevant to the
topic,
•
synthesizing and gaining a new perspective,
•
identifying relationships between ideas and
practices,
•
establishing the context of the topic or problem,
•
rationalizing the significance of the problem,
•
enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary,
•
understanding the structure of the subject,
•
relating ideas and theory to applications,
Another purpose for writing a literature review not
mentioned above is that it provides a framework for
relating new findings to previous findings in the
discussion section of a dissertation. Without establishing
the state of the previous research, it is impossible to
establish how the new research advances the previous
research.
Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
An effective method to begin planning a research review
is to consider where the proposed review fits into
Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. As
shown in Table 1, Cooper suggests that literature
reviews can be classified according to five
characteristics: focus, goal, perspective, coverage, organization,
and audience. In Table 1, each characteristic is listed on
the left, with the levels of the characteristics on the right.
In the paragraphs that follow, each of these literature
review characteristics are described in more detail.
Focus
The first characteristic is the focus of the review. Cooper
(1988) identifies four potential foci: research outcomes,
research methods, theories, or practices or applications.
Literature reviews that focus on research outcomes are
perhaps the most common. In fact, the Educational
Resources Information Center (1982, p. 85) defines a
literature review as an “information analysis and
synthesis, focusing on findings and not simply bibliographic
citations, summarizing the substance of the literature
and drawing conclusions from it” (italics mine). The
Educational Resources Information Center suggests
that, in terms of a developing a research rationale, an
outcomes-oriented review may help identify a lack of
information on a particular research outcome, thus
establishing a justifiable need for an outcome study.
Methodological reviews concentrate on research
methods—Cooper’s second focus category. In a
methodological review, research methods in the chosen
field are investigated to identify key variables, measures,
and methods of analysis and inform outcomes-oriented
research. The methodological review is also helpful to
identify methodological strengths and weaknesses in a
body of research, and examine how research practices
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
differ across groups, times, or settings. Methodological
reviews, combined with outcome reviews, may also
identify ways in which the methods inform the
outcomes. A methodological review may also lead to
sound rationale that can justify proposed dissertation
research, if it turns out that the previous research has
been methodologically flawed.
Table 1. Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
Characteristic Categories
Focus
Research outcomes
Research methods
Theories
Practices or applications
Goal
Integration
(a) Generalization
(b) Conflict resolution
(c) Linguistic bridge-building
Criticism
Identification of central issues
Neutral representation
Perspective
Espousal of position
Coverage
Exhaustive
Exhaustive with selective citation
Representative
Central or pivotal
Organization
Historical
Conceptual
Methodological
Audience
Specialized scholars
General scholars
Practitioners or policymakers
General public
From “Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of
Literature Reviews,” by H. M. Cooper, 1988, Knowledge in Society,
1, p. 109. Copyright by Springer Science + Business Media.
Reprinted with permission of Springer Science + Business
Media.
A review of theories, Cooper’s third focus, can help
establish what theories already exist, the relationships
between them, and to what degree the existing theories
have been investigated. A theoretical review is
appropriate if, for example, the dissertation aims to
advance a new theory. In terms of the research rationale,
a theoretical review can help establish a lack of theories
or reveal that the current theories are insufficient,
helping to justify that a new theory should be put forth.
Page 3
Finally, literature reviews can be focused on practices or
applications. For example, a review might concentrate
on how a certain intervention has been applied or how a
group of people tend to carry out a certain practice. In
terms of a research rationale, this fourth type of review
can help establish a practical need not currently being
met.
While a dissertation review typically has a primary focus,
it may also be necessary to address all or some of the foci
mentioned above. For example, a review with an
outcomes-oriented focus would likely also deal with the
methodological flaws that might affect an outcome. An
outcomes-oriented review may also deal with theories
related to the phenomenon being investigated and
introduce the practical applications of the knowledge
that will ultimately be gained from the dissertation.
Goal
The goal of many reviews is to integrate and generalize
findings across units, treatments, outcomes, and settings;
to resolve a debate within a field; or to bridge the
language used across fields. Meta-analysis, for example,
is an often-used review technique in which the primary
goal is to integrate quantitative outcomes across studies.
In other reviews the goal may be to critically analyze
previous research, identify central issues, or explicate a
line of argument within a field.
A dissertation review often has multiple goals. If the
dissertation is solely a review, the author may be
primarily interested in integration, but it also may be
necessary to critically analyze the research, identify
central issues, or explicate an argument. However, if a
dissertation author is using the literature review to justify
a later investigation, the goal will place more emphasis
on critically analyzing the literature, perhaps to identify a
weakness and propose to remedy that weakness with
dissertation research. Either way, the author must
integrate reviews to present the reader with the big
picture. Without integration, the map of the research
landscape would be as large as the research landscape
itself.
Perspective
In qualitative primary research, review authors often
decide to reveal their own preexisting biases and discuss
how those biases might have affected the review. Or, as
is often the case in quantitative primary research, authors
can attempt to take a neutral perspective and present the
review findings as fact. The perspective taken depends
largely on whether the review is conducted in the
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
quantitative or qualitative traditions. Since secondary
research (i.e., review research) methods parallel primary
research methods, it makes sense for the author of a
qualitative review to follow the qualitative tradition and
reveal biases and the author of a quantitative review to
follow the quantitative tradition and claim a neutral
position. This decision will be dictated by the particular
case.
Coverage
Deciding how wide to cast the net is a critical step in
conducting a review. Cooper proposes four coverage
scenarios. In an exhaustive review, the reviewer promises to
locate and consider every available piece of research on a
certain topic, published or unpublished. However,
finding every piece of research could take more time
than is available. The key to the exhaustive review is to
define the population in such a way that it is bounded
and the number of articles to review is manageable.
Cooper (1988) calls this an exhaustive review with selective
citation. For example, the reviewer might choose only to
look at articles published in journals, but not conference
papers; however, a theoretical reason to exclude
conference papers is advised.
A third coverage approach is to consider a representative
sample of articles and make inferences about the entire
population of articles from that sample. However,
random sampling is far from foolproof. A perhaps more
certain approach is to gather evidence that demonstrates
that the representative sample is actually representative.
The most sound approach may be to do both.
Cooper’s fourth article selection approach is to take a
purposive sample in which the reviewer examines only the
central or pivotal articles in a field. The key here is to
convince the reader that the selected articles are, in fact,
the central or pivotal articles in a field, and just as
importantly that the articles not chosen are not central or
pivotal.
Organization
There are many formats in which to organize a review.
Three of the most common are the historical format, the
conceptual format, and the methodological format. In the
historical format the review is organized chronologically.
Clearly, this is preferred when the emphasis is on the
progression of research methods or theories, or on a
change in practices over time.
A second common organizational scheme is built
around concepts. For example, the review may be
organized around the propositions in a research
Page 4
rationale or, in a theoretically-focused review, organized
according to the various theories in the literature. Finally,
the literature review can be organized methodologically,
as in an empirical paper (i.e., introduction, method,
results, and discussion). In some cases, it may be most
effective to mix and/or match these organizational
formats. For example, the reviewer might begin with an
introduction, define the method, and present the results
in a historical or conceptual format, then move on to the
discussion of results. This organizational format is often
used in meta-analytic reports.
Audience
The final characteristic of Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of
Literature Reviews is audience. For a dissertation, the
supervisor and reviewers of the dissertation are the
primary audience. The scholars within the field that the
dissertation relates to are the secondary audience. Avoid
writing the dissertation literature review for a general,
non-academic audience. What constitutes a good book is
probably not what constitutes a good dissertation, and
vice versa.
How to Conduct a Literature Review
Take a look at the list below. Does it look familiar? It
could be a step-by-step guide on how to conduct
primary research, but in fact it describes the stages of
conducting a literature review (see Cooper, 1984).
1. Problem formulation
2. Data collection
3. Data evaluation
4. Analysis and interpretation
5. Public presentation
If one thing must be realized about conducting and
reporting a literature review it is that the stages for
conducting and reporting a literature review
parallel the process for conducting primary
research. With a few modifications, what one knows
about conducting primary research applies to
conducting secondary research (i.e., a literature review).
The key components are (a) a rationale for conducting
the review; (b) research questions or hypotheses that
guide the research; (c) an explicit plan for collecting data,
including how units will be chosen; (d) an explicit plan
for analyzing data; and (e) a plan for presenting data.
Instead of human participants, for example, the units in
a literature review are the articles that are reviewed.
Validity and reliability, the same issues that apply to
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
Page 5
Table 2. The Research Stages in Conducting a Literature Review
Research stage
Stage
Analysis and
Problem formation Data collection Data evaluation
Characteristics
interpretation
Research
questions asked
Primary function
in review
What evidence
should be
included in the
review?
Constructing
definitions that
distinguish
relevant from
irrelevant
studies.
Procedural
1. Differences in
differences that
included
create variation in operational
review conclusion definitions.
2. Differences in
operational
detail.
Sources of
1. Narrow
potential invalidity concepts might
in review
make review
conclusions
conclusions less
definitive and
robust.
2. Superficial
operational
detail might
obscure
interacting
variables.
What
procedures
should be used
to find relevant
evidence?
What retrieved
evidence
should be
included in the
review?
Determining
which sources
of potentially
relevant sources
to examine.
Applying
criteria to
separate “valid”
from “invalid”
studies.
Differences in
the research
contained in
sources of
information.
1. Differences
in quality
criteria.
2. Differences
in the influence
of non-quality
criteria.
1. Accessed
1. Nonequality
studies might be factors might
qualitatively
cause improper
different from weighting of
the target
study
population of formation.
studies.
2. Omissions in
2. People
study reports
sampled in
might make
accessible
conclusions
studies might be unreliable.
different from
target
population of
people.
What procedures
should be used to
make inferences
about the
literature as a
whole?
Synthesizing valid
retrieved studies.
Public presentation
What information
should be included in the
review report?
Applying editorial
criteria to separate
important from
unimportant
information.
Differences in the Differences in guidelines
rules of inference. for editorial judgment.
1. Rules for
distinguishing
patterns from
noise might be
inappropriate.
2. Review-based
evidence might be
used to infer
causality.
1. Omission of review
procedures might make
conclusions
irreproducible.
2. Omission of review
findings and study
procedures might make
conclusions obsolete.
From “Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews,” Review of Education Research, 1984, 52, pg. 293. Copyright
1984 by Sage Publications. Reprinted with permission of Sage Publications.
primary research, also apply to secondary research. And,
as in primary research, the stages may be iterative and
not necessarily completed in the order presented above.
Table 2, from Cooper (1984), is a framework to guide
the completion of the four research stages of a literature
review. On the left, the table identifies the general
characteristics of each research stage: the research
questions asked, the primary functions of each stage, the
procedural differences that may lead to differing
conclusions, and the potential sources of invalidity at
each stage. For each of the characteristics, the remaining
columns of the table pose key questions to guide the
rev…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment