7 steps in Week 1 (1.6 + 1.

7)

Defining terms/

What is a literature review not?

You may or may not have read many literature reviews before, so it’s worth beginning with what a
literature review is, and what it is not. This may or may not be obvious. First of all – the key words.

‘Literature’ in this context refers to scholarly publications, not literary art. And we’re talking here about
a body of texts on a particular topic – a collection of publications - not a single book. The collection to be
discussed by a reviewer might include books, government reports and media broadcasts where relevant,
but it will mainly be made up of research articles, which are published in peer-reviewed academic
journals.

‘Review’ in this context means extended written discussion of publications, not just summarising them.
A scholarly review of literature might be conducted on any topic that is researched and written about -
what matters is that the reviewer appraises various sources of information, and discusses them.

‘The’ literature does not mean everything published on a topic, but a selection. Carefully selecting
publications worth discussing in relation to a research project is a key part of the reviewer’s task, and
involves broad reading and tough choices. Defining what is in and out of the collection to be discussed is
hard work, and will be done differently by each reviewer. Not only is ‘the’ literature different for
everyone, the approach and scope of reviews can vary enormously. What a literature review should look
like depends on the level of study, the academic discipline, and/or the publication context.

A review of literature on a technical or medical topic might be approached very differently from a review
of literature on a humanities topic. An undergraduate level literature review assignment is very different
in scope and purpose to a literature review chapter in a PhD thesis… which is different from the
literature review phase of a published journal article… which is different from a stand-alone published
review article. The size, complexity and style of a literature review can vary greatly according to the
norms of particular disciplines, and the time and space allocated to the task. But while there are great
differences between the various types of literature review we might consider, there are enough things in
common between the various types for us to be able to talk about them all as belonging to a
recognisable genre, and to give some general guidance on how to approach this kind of task.

Conversation starter

What discipline are you reading in?

Have you noticed any patterns in the way researchers review their literature in your field?
© University of Wollongong

8 steps in week 1 (1.8)

Learning from experience

Reviewing the literature on any topic can be interesting, satisfying…and confusing.

Academics across all disciplines are constantly reading and thinking about literature reviews – by
students and peers. They are keen observers of how researchers at various levels of experience write
about published research. As you listen to these observations, think about how a literature review might
be shaped differently by each particular discipline and course it is written for.

Have you read many literature reviews?

What is the context for the literature review you want to write?

How long does your literature review need to be?

© University of Wollongong

Week 1, 1.9

Expectations and common problems

Talking openly about expectations is the best policy.

Everyone doing research of any kind is expected to read and critically discuss the previously published
research on their topic, but the processes involved in this are not always made explicit. Very often it’s
just assumed that researchers know what to do, and that writing about others’ research is a simple,
straight forward process. Actually, many research students get into deep trouble when there’s silence
around this, because fear and shame set in, preventing them from asking simple, basic and essential
questions.

Those of us who teach literature reviewing and talk often and openly about it with researchers across
the disciplines encounter quite a range of expectations, experiences and beliefs about the processes of
finding information, analysing it and writing about it in an academic style - it all depends on context and
experience. When we investigate the experience of research writing, some interesting patterns emerge
– not only in what is regarded as normal in different disciplines, but also in the types of problems writers
experience when they start doing this kind of writing for the first time.
A key finding in this area of educational research over the past decade or so is that the literature review
tends to be experienced as the most difficult part of a research project, especially at PhD level. It has
also become clear that as the number and diversity of students engaging in research rises, the need for
explicit discussion and instruction in this area has become more important and in demand.

One of the most common problems that readers of literature reviews notice is a tendency to want to
display and prove how very much they have read. This may lead to impressively long bibliographies, but
that can evidence poor selection and discussion of sources. What supervisors, examiners and general
readers prefer to see is careful selection of sources that show you recognise what is most important,
and what you think about those publications that you have decided are most relevant and valuable to
the particular question you are aiming to answer in your study.

Rather than a simplistic listing of previous research on the topic, what supervisors and critical readers
want to see is a carefully considered digest of how the various studies out there might relate to each
other and to your new investigation. Readers of any literature review want to be given a clear focus and
‘synthesis’ in the presentation of existing research – they want you to offer something they haven’t had
opportunity or energy to do themselves, namely, think seriously about those publications, understand
what is brilliant about them, and what they have not paid attention to, and what might yet be known
about the topic. So while the job of a literature reviewer begins with broad reading, it quickly moves on
into careful selection and critical analysis. It describes what others have done, but it also has to explain
what the casual reader might miss. A proper review prioritises and interprets the reading material it
presents. It’s intellectually satisfying, for both the writer and readers of the review. Easier said than
done!

Another common problem in student writing about published research is a tendency to shy away from
serious critique, and to misunderstand what ‘criticism’ means in academic contexts. Being ‘critical’ of the
literature is not a matter of finding fault. It is often a matter of finding value in what has been done by
others. Being critical means asking questions, and discovering the relevance, value and limitations of
previous studies. It’s careful, informed appraisal, aiming to identify what is most useful from past studies
for the new study being proposed or presented. It’s a matter of carefully explaining how the work of
others informs the new research project’s vision and planning. It’s about proper analysis of previous
publications – in terms of their findings and their method of creating and analyzing data, and their
theoretical perspective.

Other problems that research supervisors observe in draft research writing have to do with the need to
keep up to date with the literature, to move beyond the comfort zone of an already familiar intellectual
environment, to understand how various researchers relate to each other, and to design a literature
review for the reader. These various concerns inform the rest of this course.

Conversation starter

 Are you clear or confused about the size and shape of your own literature review?

 How long do you think your literature review will take you to complete?
And what do you think? (1.15)

A long and complex conversation…

Some people imagine a literature review as a logical presentation of factual information. Others see it as
a long, complex, and interesting conversation with published peers – a relaxed engaging dialogue that
moves in various directions, rich with learning. Others think of it more as a debate or TV talk show,
where different ideas are explained and defended, and questions are answered. Others imagine it more
like an orchestra or choir, where many different voices are directed by a strong conductor, who brings
everyone together into a coherent symphony. There are probably many other ways of visualising the
literature review too.

Conversation Starter

• How do you imagine a literature review? Why?