MASTER 2 LITERATURE AND CIVILIZATION

COURSE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INSTRUCTOR: DR CHEIKH

LITERATURE REVIEW
Suppose you have to write a review of the literature. You take a book of poetry or a novel, sit in
your chair, and prepare to give each page a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" as you read. completed
"literature review", right?....Wrong! The term "literature" in a literature review can refer to any body of
information about a subject, not just the canonical works of literature. Whatever you want to call it,
"literature" may be anything from a collection of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in
Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader
wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review demonstrates your ability to research; it also showcases your expertise on your
chosen topic. By including a literature review in your project or thesis, you are also providing your
reader with the most prevalent theories and studies on your topic, evaluations and comparisons of these
studies, and gaps there may be in the literature. This helps your reader understand your project/thesis
better. It also makes you a more credible and reliable author.

A literature review is a review or discussion of the current published material available on a

particular topic. It attempts to synthesize and evaluate the material and information according to
the research question(s), thesis, and central theme(s). In other words, instead of supporting an
argument, or simply making a list of summarized research, a literature review synthesizes and
evaluates the ideas of others on your given topic. This allows your readers to know what is being
said about your given topic, how these sources compare with one another, and what gaps there
are in the research.

Organization Type Explanation Usage

Organized by publication date or Use this type if sequential order of events is

Chronological
history of topic important

Use this type to limit the scope of research

By trend Organized by periods of time
to (a) certain literary period(s)

Use this type to go from general topic

Organized by topic or issue, may still involve
Thematic themes to more specific (e.g., education to
chronology or an order of importance
higher education to writing centers)
 Organized not by the content of lit review
Use this type if the methods of the
Methodological material, but on the methods of the researcher/
researchers/writers are the most important
writer

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the
materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk
about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in
1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles
(1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively
no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales
in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects
that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the
sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have
subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine
whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would
combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in
the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the
progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a
thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the
harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will
still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a
“thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the
harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from
chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might
examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include
how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors
misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within
each section according to the point made.

• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing
factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the
“methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological
approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American,
British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on
a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the
 review or the way in which these documents are discussed.
Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you
need to include in the dissertation should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your
organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for
each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate
to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your
study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the
body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to
consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature
review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary
to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a
chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature
review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that
your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you
further your research as a result of the review?

Summary, Synthesis, and Evaluation

Remember, to summarize means to recap the important information of the source; whereas, to
synthesize means to re-organize, re-shuffle, or re-interpret that information and involves finding
connections and relationships among your sources. Synthesizing research shows an awareness of
how research from different articles can be intertwined. Additionally, to evaluate means to
assess the worth of something. This means that while you are synthesizing the information of a
certain resource, be sure to also include an evaluation of that resource.

Examples of Summary, Synthesis, and Evaluation

Topic: Communication styles between married men and women

Sources:

• Booth-Butterfield, M. & Frisby, B.B. (2012). The “how” and “why” flattering between marital
partners. Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 465-480.
• Frisby, B.N. (2009). “Without flattering, it wouldn’t be a marriage”: flattering between relational
partners. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 10(1), 55-60.
 • Horan, S.M. & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of
affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 394-413.

A literature review is composed of three parts:

• Introduction
o Keep it brief: most commonly only a paragraph long, but can go up to 1.5 pages.
o Introduce the larger subject.
o Narrow that larger subject into your manageable topic.
o Explain the significance of the topic.
o Formulate research question(s).
o Explain the scope of your coverage (what criteria was used to include or exclude
studies and why).
o Lay out the organization of the review (forecasting statements).
• Body
o Provide some background information (e.g. definition of concepts, historical
perspective(s) on the issue, etc.).
o Group the research according to themes, trends, approaches, etc.
o Summarize individual items with as much detail as merited (determined by its
comparative significance within your overall paper).
o Weave citations/descriptions of the literature with your analysis and show the
reader how this connects to your overall research question(s).
o Point out any methodological flaws, gaps in research, or inconsistencies in theory
and findings.
• Conclusion
o Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of
knowledge under review.
o Point out any gaps in the published literature and discuss areas or issues pertinent
to future study. A literature review is composed of three parts:
• Introduction
o Keep it brief: most commonly only a paragraph long, but can go up to 1.5 pages.
o Introduce the larger subject.
o Narrow that larger subject into your manageable topic.
o Explain the significance of the topic.
o Formulate research question(s).
o Explain the scope of your coverage (what criteria was used to include or exclude
studies and why).
o Lay out the organization of the review (forecasting statements).
• Body
o Provide some background information (e.g. definition of concepts, historical perspective(s) on the
issue, etc.).
o Group the research according to themes, trends, approaches, etc.
o Summarize individual items with as much detail as merited (determined by its comparative
significance within your overall paper).
o Weave citations/descriptions of the literature with your analysis and show the reader how this
connects to your overall research question(s).
o Point out any methodological flaws, gaps in research, or inconsistencies in theory and findings.
• Conclusion
o Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under
review.
o Point out any gaps in the published literature and discuss areas or issues pertinent to future study.

Activity
Read the following sources carefully. Then, in a paragraph that summarizes, synthesizes, and
evaluates the information from these two sources, write on the topic of media affecting
presidential elections.

Source 1:

The advent of television in the late 1940’s gave rise to the belief that a new era was opening in public
communication. As Frank Stanton, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System, put it: “Not even
the sky is the limit.” One of the great contributions expected of television lay in its presumed capacity
to inform and stimulate the political interests of the American electorate. “Television, with its
penetration, its wide geographic distribution and impact, provides a new, direct, and sensitive link
between Washington and the people,” said Dr. Stanton. “The people have once more become the
nation, as they have not been since the days when we were small enough each to know his elected
representative. As we grew, we lost this feeling of direct contact—television has now restored it.” As
time has passed, events have seemed to give substance to this expectation. The televising of important
congressional hearings, the national nominating conventions, and most recently the Nixon-Kennedy
and other debates have appeared to make a novel contribution to the political life of the nation. Large
segments of the public have been given a new, immediate contact with political events. Television has
appeared to be fulfilling its early promise.

(Excerpt from Campbell, Angus. “Has Television Reshaped Politics?” In Encyclopedia of

Television/ Museum of Broadcast Communications, vol. 1, ed. Horace Newcomb. New York:
Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005.)

Source 2:

April 20, 1992: Not a historic date perhaps, but a suggestive one. It was on this date [while
campaigning for President] that Bill Clinton discussed his underwear with the American people
(briefs, not boxers, as it turned out). Why would the leader of the free world unburden himself like
this? Why not? In television’s increasingly postmodern world, all texts—serious and sophomoric—
swirl together in the same discontinuous field of experience. To be sure, Mr. Clinton made his
disclosure because he had been asked to do so by a member of the MTV generation, not because he
felt a sudden need to purge himself. But in doing so Clinton exposed several rules connected to the
new phenomenology of politics: (1) because of television’s celebrity system, Presidents are losing
their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess
rock singers and movie stars; (2) because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel
they know their Presidents as persons and hence no longer feel the need for party guidance; (3)
because of the medium’s archly cynical worldview, those who watch politics on television are
increasingly turning away from the policy sphere, years of hyper-familiarity having finally bred
contempt for politics itself.

(Excerpt from Hart, Roderick P., and Mary Triece, “U.S. Presidency and Television.” Available
at http://www.museum.tv/debateweb/html/equalizer/essay_usprestv.htm.)