Which of the Following Describes a Literary Review

What this handout is about

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offering insights into the form and structure of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You've got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and become ready to issue a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" equally you foliage through the pages. "Literature review" done. Right?

Wrong! The "literature" of a literature review refers to whatsoever collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the dandy literary texts of the world. "Literature" could be annihilation from a set up of regime pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly manufactures on the handling of a torn ACL. And a review does non necessarily mean that your reader wants you to requite your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, so?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular field of study area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a sure time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, simply it commonly has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. Information technology might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with quondam interpretations. Or information technology might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and suggest the reader on the virtually pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review unlike from an academic research paper?

The principal focus of an bookish research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is probable to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you apply the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, yet, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without calculation new contributions.

Why do nosotros write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to behave inquiry, literature reviews can give you an overview or deed as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and latitude of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews as well provide a solid background for a inquiry paper's investigation. Comprehensive noesis of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyhow?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, only mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they establish a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Permit's get to it! What should I practice earlier writing the literature review?

Clarify

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

Roughly how many sources should you lot include?
What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources past discussing a common theme or issue?
Should you evaluate your sources?
Should you provide subheadings and other groundwork data, such equally definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your surface area of interest or in the bailiwick and read them to become a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your ain research or means to organize your final review. Yous can simply put the word "review" in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or fifty-fifty thousands of manufactures and books on about areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier information technology will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a skilful survey of the cloth. Your teacher will probably not expect you to read everything that'southward out at that place on the topic, but yous'll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in heed that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/.

And don't forget to tap into your professor's (or other professors') knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: "If you had to read just ane book from the xc'southward on topic X, what would it exist?" Questions such as this help you to find and make up one's mind quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is equally current as possible. In the sciences, for case, treatments for medical issues are constantly changing co-ordinate to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. Withal, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may exist what is needed, considering what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a sure fourth dimension period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your subject expects. Y'all tin too 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

Detect 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 listing your sources and get into item virtually each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely only selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Practise they present ane or different solutions? Is in that location an aspect of the field that is missing? How well practice they present the fabric 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.

Convey information technology to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), just you do need to tell readers what to expect. Effort writing a uncomplicated statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current tendency in treatment for congestive middle failure combines surgery and medicine.
More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject area worthy of bookish consideration.

Consider organization

You've got a focus, and yous've stated information technology clearly and directly. At present what is the virtually constructive style of presenting the information? What are the most of import topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what social club should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

Start, cover the basic categories

Just like virtually academic papers, literature reviews also must incorporate at to the lowest degree three basic elements: an introduction or background data department; the trunk of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to terminate the paper. The following provides a cursory clarification of the content of each:

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such every bit the cardinal theme or organizational pattern.
Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more than information on each).
Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you take drawn from reviewing literature then far. Where might the word go on?

Organizing the trunk

One time you accept the basic categories in place, so you lot must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the trunk of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help yous come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the post-obit scenario:

You've decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you've just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really existent. You starting time with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980's. Only these manufactures refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look upward a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales take been portrayed in other forms of fine art, such every bit in Alaskan poesy, in French painting, or on whale os, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to practice. This makes you wonder virtually American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, then you lot find some bookish manufactures 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 higher up according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk well-nigh the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, and so the book on sperm whales in other fine art (1968), and finally the biological science articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. Simply there is relatively no continuity amongst subjects here. And find that fifty-fifty though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are almost other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

Past publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, so, only if the order demonstrates a more of import tendency. For instance, you could club a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such every bit the history of whaling. And so your review would take 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 contempo studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, fifty-fifty though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized effectually a topic or event, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an of import factor in a thematic review. For example, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon engineering science, it volition notwithstanding be organized chronologically. The only deviation hither between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon engineering.Just more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological society. For case, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed every bit "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 arroyo differs from the two above in that the focusing gene commonly does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or author. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences betwixt the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French fine art work. Or the review might focus on the economic bear upon of whaling on a community. A methodological scope volition influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.
One time y'all've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be like shooting fish in a barrel to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would take 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 lot might demand to add together boosted sections that are necessary for your study, merely do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is upwards to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections y'all might desire 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 thought 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 mode in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes just peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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

Begin composing

One time yous've settled on a full general pattern of arrangement, you're ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

Withal, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to consummate sentences that required them to make full in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as "writer," "pedestrian," and "persons." The students were asked to draw whatsoever image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.iii men to each adult female in the masculine "generic" condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased status. Thus, while ambience sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist linguistic communication amplified the outcome. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense," Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the case above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic enquiry newspaper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to evidence that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select but the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you lot cull to mention should chronicle direct to the review's focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not employ any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some brusk quotes here and in that location are okay, though, if y'all want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills practice quote certain terms that were coined by the author, non mutual knowledge, or taken directly from the written report. Only if you find yourself wanting to put in more than quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources inside each paragraph equally well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate of import features of Hamilton's study, but then synthesize information technology past rephrasing the report'southward significance and relating information technology to their own work.

Continue your own vocalization

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your vox (the writer's) should remain front and middle. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, only they nonetheless maintain their ain voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their ain ideas and their ain words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is non your own, exist sure to stand for the author'southward information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either direct refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil'southward. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism.

Revise, revise, revise

Typhoon in hand? Now you're ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the textile, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other bookish forms of writing, rewrite or rework the linguistic communication of your review so that you've presented your information in the most concise way possible. Be certain to apply terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that y'all've documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, run into our handout on revising drafts.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive listing of resources on the handout's topic, and we encourage you to practise your own research to discover additional publications. Please practice not employ this listing as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial. Nosotros revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris Thou., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers, sixth ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Caryatid Guide to Writing in the Disciplines. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You'll E'er Write. Berkeley: Ten Speed Printing.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Salary Handbook, 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers, 11th ed. London: Pearson.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs iv.0 License.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial utilise if y'all use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, Academy of Northward Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Souvenir

waltonofas1980.blogspot.com

Source: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/