Note: It is really fun to discover or rediscover obscure but interesting researchers. Unfortunately, not every good researcher or scholar gets recognition, and some important work is forgotten after a few decades or sooner. Including a discovery like that in your lit review can make it livelier and more interesting to read. Just be careful not to slip into another genre. After all, you are not a historian of research, but a researcher. However, if you rediscover someone really interesting, you become an instant authority on that forgotten researcher, and others will really appreciate. References edit, deci, Edward. (1971) Effects of Externally mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation, journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18/1: 105-115.
The, literature review : a step-by-Step guide for Students
All intellectual history is related, all is built on top of previous knowledge. So, it does not make sense to key invest a lot of time in tracing the intellectual roots of your research inspiration. However, almost any problem or issue is associated with just a few most important names. For example, if you are writing about learning motivation, there is no need to cover a whole gamut of motivational theories from Freud to skinner (unless your research directly looks at different approaches to learning motivation). However, you would not want to miss, for example, the pioneering work of Edward Deci (1971) or Mark lepper (1973). How do you find those two? Use all of these ways: Ask your adviser or other more experienced researchers. If they work in exactly the same sub-field as you, those names might be just at the top of their heads, or in their bibliography files. Take a look at relevant textbooks and handbooks, and see who the authors cite in the appropriate section. Those are the names you need to look. Read any contemporary research on the subject; in most cases, the foundational names will favourite be referred to at the beginning of each paper.
Keep in mind that any problem and pdf any solution can be framed in many different ways. Various fields and subfields have generated their own languages and bodies of evidence. While you cannot afford to ignore relevant evidence, you should choose a specific theoretical language to use and move forward. How do you track down foundational research? Edit, for any research project, one can identify "foundational" literature. Who first introduced the key concepts you are using? Who first drew attention to the set of problems and issues you are dealing with? Who contributed significantly to the development of your sub-field(s)? You do not need to go all the way back to Plato.
Adolescent attitudes to schooling, hispanic youth pdf and learning motivation, family dynamics in Hispanic households and school. Dropout causes and Hispanics etc. Each of these will be more or less relevant. You need to find "home" in the research literature, and understand which conversation or conversations you want to be a part. Then adopt these people's language, and read about their research in depth. It is perfectly all right, and often very beneficial, to bring together two or more research strands, or bring a different theoretical perspective into an existing research. This is how many new ideas are born. However, make sure to avoid being in too many places at the same time. Three different research traditions is probably a maximum you can afford to investigate.
One has to have a more or less complete conceptual framework before engaging in extensive lit review work. You need to know the key concepts you are going to use, in their relationships to each other. Having a hypothesis, however vague, is also very important. A hypothesis serves as a set of working criteria for dividing literature in two groups: relevant to your work, or not relevant. You cannot just read in search of interesting stuff beyond the very beginning stages of your work. The exploratory stage should be completed by the end of the first semester of your doctoral program, or before you even enter. You also need to have some pilot literature investigation, just to know what do we know about whatever the problem you are investigating. For example, if you want to write about Hispanic adolescent's attitudes toward schooling, you may survey several literature strands at the same time, then focus your research question, and only then do a proper literature review.
Guidelines for writing a literature review
Therefore, you should probably begin with how you selected the literature for review, how did you go about reviewing, and what is the main claim/thesis. For example: "The parameters of my research described in the previous chapter, dictated the scope of this reit literature review. Three main scholarship traditions contributed to development of the conceptual framework and methodology. My aim here is to show that the three traditions exist largely independent of each other, although they consider similar phenomena. School of thought was able to achieve., but does not have a good grasp.
The other tradition, represented. Was able to provide important data on the phenomenon that interests me, but its conceptual weakness prevented it from extending research into the areas. I will consider all three traditions simultaneously, and organize the chapter by themes, rather than chronologically.". How do you know which field(s) to review? Edit, this is not such a trivial tax question as one might think.
A good lit review may have some of the following: It tells a story. The author takes the body of literature as a research field, and looks for patterns, themes, at how it develops; where are its strength and what has been a blind spot, and why. The lit review is a research of research, so it should have a point or a thesis. Hopefully, the story you tell in lit review (the thesis of it) confirms that your dissertation is both grounded in a previous research and meets a need, or fills a gap. Before starting to write, ask yourself two questions: What conversation(s) am I joining, and Why do(es) the conversation(s) need my research? A good lit review also reads like a story.
It is clearly organized, has a strong voice, and does not sound like an encyclopedia entry, wikipedia excluded. A review in most cases needs to touch up on foundational literature, just to situate, or position itself in scholarly traditions. It is especially important for field that are fragmented, divided, and controversial (which is most of educational fields). A good review will include the "buzz" - what is hot in contemporary research, if it is relevant, of course. And most importantly, you need to make sure you're not reinventing the wheel, and are not missing something very relevant just because it is called something else, that is, uses different terminology. To strengthen your literature review you may want to consult Machi mcevoy's The literature review (2008) or Glatthorn joyner's Writing the winning Thesis or Dissertation(2005). The lit review chapter should be organized as a mini-research where the subject is the body of literature you are reviewing.
Essay writing Service From Vetted Writers
A laundry list of names and summaries of what they have said make terrible lit reviews. If you read dissertations 1, you may find a fair portion of terrible lit reviews. Do not draw comfort from that; just because apple someone slipped dates through the cracks does not mean you should settle for a poor review. Those are very hard and boring to write and even harder and "boringer" to read. This is a secret to good experience in your doctoral program: work on something you have a passion for, and that can hold your interest. Try to do a good job, and the job won't seem to be daunting. To cope with a big challenge, enjoy it! If you try several takes, and still find that you hate writing and reading research, think of a career change.
Okay, now to the focus of resume this chapter, the why. The literature review is the shell encompassing the seed of the dissertation. Although your study topic is your own, it is contained within the great and not so great works of your field. Without these works, your study does not have the sustainability to take on a form and progress to idiom, structure, or craft. At the surface (the wordsmithing, eloquent prose, etc.) your research study may appear to be similar to the masters those researchers that have published their work in journals, book chapters, etc. (Picture an apple, ripe, heavy with juice, providing sustenance to the body of research read and used by many to understand the field.) But, without the literature review, your dissertation would remain hollow in essence, thus unable to feed the field so-to-speak. Therefore, what purpose, if any, would it really serve? (The analogy used for this section was adapted from Scott McCloud's book, understanding Comics, copyright 1993, harperCollins Publishers.). What makes a good lit review edit, first, let's talk about what makes a terrible lit review.
is much debate regarding whether first or third person is used. The debate about this seems to be influenced by the methodology used (qualitativefirst person, quantitativethird person though this is not consistent, and may be more influenced by the recommendations from your committee more than anything else. Next is the structure of the piece, where this is all put together. Your research questions and methodology determine a lot of the expected structure due to particular ways that the statistics must be written up, and/or the descriptive language used in the write-up of qualitative research. Very closely related to your structure, is the craft of your writing. Whether you write in first or third person, your writing should hold the interest of your readers throughout all sections of the dissertation. Finally, we've reached the skin of the apple, the surface. This is the wordsmithing, the refining of eloquent language, the grammatical correctness, the scrupulous editing that is essential for the professionalism expected of the dissertation.
This applies to theoretical work in fields such as Philosophy of education, or Curriculum Theory. Most of empirical research projects will include a lit review of one sort or another, usually in chapter ii, immediately following the chapter on conceptual framework and hypothesis. If you tend to think in analogies, consider this one which could be applied to any writing (or art) endeavor. In this case we'll use this as applied to writing a dissertation. First, picture the cross section of an apple. The seeds will represent the ideas/purpose for the dissertation, which of course assignment should be the research question(s). The area immediately around the seeds, the core, should be the form. This form is relatively set in stone by your university, usually explained in some kind of graduate student handbook. Basically, the form consists of a number of chapters delineated for specific purposes.
Quickly Improve your Handwriting with These fantastic Resources
Contents, why do dissertations always have a lit review? Edit, a doctoral dissertation is both a piece of original scholarship, and an assessment tool. In other words, your committee must make sure that anyone who receives a doctoral degree from our program, is a competent scholar. A competent scholar not only knows the business literature in her or his field, but also can "read up" on any subject or topic that becomes of interest. These are not trivial skills, and take years to learn. "Reading up" on a subject should be efficient, reasonably quick, but still thorough and not shallow. However, your undergraduate and masters-level training have probably provided you with a good foundation. In some fields, literature reviews look very differently, or are not distinguishable from the rest of the work.