Reviews the chronological development of research in this area an approach that is useful at times, but not always the best. Then discusses how the next researchers tried to address these problems. One should not assume the results obtained from studies using stories and word lists as stimuli can be generalised to forensic contexts. Repeats 6 for another sub-topic. It may therefore be advantageous to also investigate the effects of co-witness information using Natural Discussion Groups as this methodology has high ecological validity.
However, few studies have used this methodology, and those that have, have yielded mixed findings. Therefore, future investigation using the Natural Discussion Group methodology would be helpful to better understand the effects of discussion on memory. Theoretical Explanations of Memory Conformity 1. Establishes a reason for this chapter and states the purpose. In this section, relevant cognitive and social theories are discussed in order to 1 explain the occurrence of memory conformity and 2 describe factors that influence memory conformity.
Thought went into the choice of order. There was some comparison between later and earlier explanations and the synthesised conclusions that can be drawn. Supporting evidence … This suggests that the misinformation effect may be due at least partially to memory impairment, rather than just biased guessing. Sums up what has been learned from the review of the four current theoretical explanations.
Identifies which explanations are likely to be valid in explaining the results of experiments conducted for this thesis. Aims to resolve theoretical uncertainties. Discusses methodological issues in achieving aim. Introduces another question of interest and reviews what has been found so far. For example, … This section of the literature review examines factors influencing whether or not a person is likely to conform that are 1 in the situation, and 2 within the individual.
Relevance to thesis is made clear. Should you evaluate your sources? Find models Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review.
Narrow your topic There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material.
Consider whether your sources are current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies.
Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects.
You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not. Strategies for writing the literature review Find a focus A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time.
As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory?
Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.
Here are a couple of examples: The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information?
What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc. And in what order should you present them? The following provides a brief description of the content of each: Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically see below for more information on each. Where might the discussion proceed? Organizing the body Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper.
Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do.
This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel. 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 , then the book on sperm whales in other art , and finally the biology articles s and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus. By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend.
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, , and Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 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.
But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. 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.
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. 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. 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?
What should I do before writing the literature review? Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically see below for more information on each. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Do they present one or different solutions? More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.
Why do we write literature reviews? Provided broad motivation for interest in the area. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions. Thought went into the choice of order.