2011 MBBS Honours Literature Review Structure & Content II . Year 3 Honours Workshop 3C A/Prof Di Eley, MBBS Research Coordinator. MEDI3009 – Scientific Literature Review (marks to MEDI 3009 only) Related to your project’s research question .
Literature Review Structure & Content II
Year 3 Honours Workshop 3C
A/Prof Di Eley, MBBS Research Coordinator
List-like writing that lacks synthesis
Smith (2003) investigated X and found Y. Jones (2000) looked at B and found C. Adams (1995) verified that M causes N..... ..
Like giving the reader one piece of a jigsaw puzzle at a time.
You must put all the "pieces of the jigsaw puzzle" together and then describe the resulting picture to the reader.
Point out what parts of the picture are clear, what parts are fuzzy, and what parts are missing altogether.
Then identify the goal of your research i.e. bring one of the "fuzzy areas" into "sharper focus", to "fill in one of the holes", or to "develop the picture into new directions"
Not being sufficiently critical
The purpose of a literature review is not just to summarise what is currently known about a topic.
Also to provide a detailed justification for your research.
Ultimately your review should be in the form of an argument.
Develop the argument by pointing out "holes" in the jigsaw puzzle that need filling or "fuzzy" parts that need clarifying.
Then frame this within the context of your research and research question as being a promising line of investigation
Two primary ways to cite the work of others authors
Information prominent – focus on the information provided & the information is given primary importance.
"For viscoelastic fluids, the behaviour of the time-dependent stresses in the transient shear flows is very important (Boger et al., 1974)."
Author-prominent - the author's name is given more emphasis. It serves as the subject of the sentence, followed by the citation and then the information.
"Close (1983) developed a simplified theory using an analogy between heat and mass transfer." (strong)
"Several authors have suggested that automated testing should be more readily accepted (Balcer, 1989; Stahl, 1989; Carver and Tai, 1991)." (weak)