Review of Related Literature

Review of Related Literature

 

Written by L.R.Gay, Geoffrey E. Mills and Peter Airasian  in Educational Research. Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Perason. pp. 80-81


Having happily found a suitable topic, the beginning researcher is usually raring to go. Too often the review of related literature is seen as a necessary evil to be completed as fast as possible so that one can get on with the "real research." This perspective reflects a lack of understanding of the purposes and importance of the review and a feeling of uneasiness on the part of students who are not sure how to report the literature. Nonetheless, the review of related literature is as important as any other component of the research process and can be conducted quite painlessly if approached in an orderly manner. Some researchers even find the process quite enjoyable!

I. Definition
The review of related literature involves the systematic identification, location, and analysis of documents containing information related to the research problem. The term is also used to describe the written component of a research plan or report that discusses the reviewed documents. These documents can include articles, abstracts, reviews, monographs dissertations, books, other research reports, and electronic media effort.

II. Purpose
The major purpose of reviewing the literature is to determine what has already been done that relates to your topic. This knowledge not only prevents you from unintentionally duplicating another person's research, but it also gives you the understanding and insight you need to place your topic within a logical framework.

Previous studies can provide the rationale for your research hypothesis, and indications of what needs to be done can help you justify the significance of your study. Put simply, the review tells you what has been done and what needs to be done.

Another important purpose of reviewing the literature is to discover research strategies and specific data collection approaches that have or have not been productive in investigations of topics similar to yours. This information will help you avoid other researchers' mistakes and profit from their experiences. It may suggest approaches and procedures that you previously had not considered. For example, suppose your topic involved the comparative effects of a brand new experimental method versus the traditional method on the achievement of eighth-grade science students.

III. Scope
The review of literature may reveal 10 related studies that found no differences in achievement. Several of the studies, however, may suggest that the brand-new method is more effective for certain kinds of students than for others. Thus, you may reformulate your topic to involve the comparative effectiveness of the brand-new method versus the traditional method on the achievement of a subgroup of eighth-grade science students: those with low aptitude.

Being familiar with previous research also facilitates interpretation of your study results. The results can be discussed in terms of whether and how they agree with previous findings. If the results contradict previous find ings, you can describe differences between your study and the others, providing a rationale for the discrepancy. If your results are consistent with other findings, your report should include suggestions for the next step; if they are not consistent, your report should include suggestions for studies that may resolve the conflict.

Beginning researchers often have difficulty determining how broad their literature reviews should be. They understand that all literature directly related to their topics should be reviewed; they just don't know when to quit! They have trouble determining which articles are "related enough" to their topic to be included. Unfortunately, no formula can be applied to solve the problem; you must base your decisions on your own judgment and the advice of your teachers or advisors.

IV. General Guidelines
The following general guidelines can assist you:
1. Avoid the temptation to include everything you  find in your literature review. Bigger does not mean better. A smaller, well-organized review is definitely preferred to a review containing many studies that are only tangentially related to the problem.

2. When investigating a heavily researched area, review only those works that are directly related to your specific problem. You'll find plenty of references and should not have to rely on less related studies. For example, the role of feedback in learning has been extensively studied in both non-human animals and human beings, for verbal learning and nonverbal learning, and for a variety of different learning tasks. Focus on those using similar subjects or similar variables—for example, if you were concerned with the relation between frequency of feedback and chemistry achievement, you would probably not have to review feedback studies related to non-human animal learning.

3. When investigating a new or little-researched problem area, review any study related in some meaningful way to your problem. You'll need to gather enough information to  develop a logical framework for the study and a sound rationale for the research hypothesis. For example, suppose you wanted to study the effects of an exam for non English speaking students on GPA. The students must pass the exam to graduate. Your literature review would probably include any studies that involved English as a second language (ESL) classes and the effects of culture-specific grading practices as well as studies that identified strategies to improve the learning of ESL students.

In a few years, there will probably be enough research on the academic consequences of such an exam on non-English speaking students to permit a much more narrowly focused literature review. A common misconception among beginning researchers is that the worth of a topic is directly related to the amount of literature available about it. This is not the case. For many new and important areas of research, few studies have been published; the effects of high-stakes testing is one such area. The very lack of such research oftenincreases the worth of its study.

On the other hand, the fact that a thousand studies have already been done in a given problem area does not mean there is no further need for research in that area. Such an area will generally be very well developed, and subtopics that need additional research will be readily identifiable.