Dissertations & Major Project Writing

1. An LDU short course presentation Dissertations & Major Project Writing Week 2 of 5: Research skills, ‘surveying the literature’ & the ‘literature review’ Robert Walsha, LDU City campus, Calcutta House, CM2-22

2. Dissertations & Major Project Writing week 2 This week’s topics: • Research skills, methods & methodology: • critical analytical research: effective information gathering; • critical reflection; • keeping a research journal. • ‘Surveying the literature’: understanding & undertaking effective literature reviews

3. critical analytical research • It’s all about asking questions! • Note-taking strategies for success; • Skim-reading, chapter/index searching, etc • Using the margins; • Note-taking for context; • Photocopying as a tool / highlighting; • Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps for keeping focus of key issues & their relationships with one another; also for establishing clear structural approaches;

4. critical analytical research • Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps … Example of a mind-map

5. Climate Classification GB234 / 03/04/02 I. System of Climate Classification Koppen A. Invented by Vladimir Koppen, botanist. Saw biological activities as function of climate characteristics What did he do? B. Created climograph; displays mo'ly temp. and precip. On 1 Why important? graph Define C. Main concern was make it simple: rel'ship between climograph. How potential evap and amt of mois rec'd at any geo. location do you calculate Give example II. Arctic Climates: ET + EF. E avg. mo'ly temp<50 List and define E ET: avg. temp. warm'st mo. 50F + < 32F climates Characteristics *tundra or continental sub arctic ET? EF? EF: avg. temp. in warm'st mo. <32F *ice cap or arctic Define Humid Dry III. Humid Dry Boundary Boundary How HBD A. Marks maj. diff. between humid + dry climate regime. calculated? Example? B. Must know how boundary calculated Summary: Koppen was a botanist who invented a system of climate classification. He believed that characteristics of climate determined biological activities (such as ????) o classify climates he developed the climograph, which displays variables of mo'ly temp. and precip. We are looking at the relationship between potential evaporation and amt. of moisture rcvd at a particular geographical location. E-type climates are locations where avg. mo. Temps are less than 50F. precip. is rcvd. But comes as snow. ET climates are tundra or continental sub-arctic. Warmest mo. temps of 50-32F. EF climates are ice cap or arctic. Warmest mo. = below 32F. critical analytical research • ‘Cornell’ system, to facilitate questioning, critical pro-active note-taking (Source unknown)

6. critical analytical research • Note-taking strategies for success (cont.); • Attention to detail with quotation marks (avoiding risk of unintended plagiarism); • Once beyond initial researching stages: keep separate notes for separate parts of your dissertation / project (e.g., one set of notes per chapter / section); • Or try recording your notes (MP3 recorders, etc).

7. critical analytical research • Critical analytical research/note-taking: the importance of asking questions ‘as you go’: • Look for central ‘themes’ ~ ‘It will be argued…’; • Skim reading to identify potentially relevant passages; • Be selective about information you record: • Seek to discern: (i) analysis (ii) description.

8. critical analytical research • Constantly question: • ‘is this relevant?’ ‘is it information I (might) need?’ • ‘have I fully understood what the author is saying?’ • ‘Is it “argument”?’ ‘If so, is the source a “messenger” or “originator”?’ If messenger, where are the ideas coming from?

9. critical analytical research • Constantly question: • ‘What are the issues here?’ • The ‘who’ ‘what’ ‘where’ ‘how’ ‘why’ ‘when’ questions; • Be inquisitorial, not adversarial, in asking questions about the author(s) interpretations: • ‘Is the author correct, or is there a flaw in their argument’?

10. critical analytical research • Preconceptions? • Does date of publication influence the author’s evaluation? • What about place of publication? • Any bias or personal attachment? • Do they have a stake in the subject they are writing about? • Is the information accurate, or are there errors?

11. critical analytical research • Have subtleties been missed? Has any fundamental perspective been missed? • ‘Is there a reason why the information may have been presented in the way it has?’ • Does the nature of the source affect the way it is written and the judgements that are made? • ‘Why was the work written?’ What was the intended audience? • How does it ‘fit’ with argument located elsewhere? Are there similarities? Differences? … and how compatible?

12. critical analytical research • And ask questions about the author’s evidence: • ‘Do the sources/research approaches used by the writer affect the way he/she writes?’; • ‘Is the evidence well-presented, and are the conclusions drawn the appropriate ones?’ • Has the writer relied on primary or secondary material?; • Is there anything ‘new’ about the evidence utilised?;

13. critical analytical research • Finally: • ‘What is really being said here?’ • ‘Are there any points the author might be seen to have inadvertently missed (or deliberately avoided)?’

14. critical reflection • Reflection ‘as you go’: assessing significance, relationships between things you have learnt; identifying argument, noting your view of strength & compatibility of arguments, etc. • Also: ‘post-study reflection’ can be helpful in this process.

15. Keeping a research journal

16. Keeping a research journal • Is there a requirement for keeping a research journal or log? • If yes, maintain this on a daily basis … • … make as in-depth/ critical as possible … • … evidence especially useful for discussion in any ‘research methods’ section.

17. Keeping a research journal • Even if no requirement: a research log can: • Improve your introducing of the topic, your ability to convey exactly what you are interested in/looking for; • improve the focus & coherency of your information gathering, aiding critical reflection as your research develops … and so benefit the focus/coherency of your end project

18. literature reviews • The purpose of a ‘literature review’; • What the literature review should show: • understanding of the debate related to topic; • where the different explanations/ interpretations/ theories/ suggestions/ ideas originate … • … plus their relative contribution;

19. literature reviews • any difficulties and problems within the literature or in wider assumptions that will require investigation; • any misconceptions/ misunderstandings • Variations of literature review (over)

20. literature reviews

21. literature reviews

22. literature reviews • What types of source should I mention in my literature review? • Being selective about sources & information included;

23. literature reviews • The importance is identifying the nature & purpose of the source … • Academic? Non-academic? If, ‘non’, what? • ‘messenger’ or ‘originator’ of information? • Intent? To inform? To persuade?

24. literature reviews • Important: determine the nature of ‘what it is saying’ (or not, as the case may be): e.g., • new idea/argument/research/approach? • a reinterpretation?/an adaptation? • A synthesis? • … and ‘what it represents’: e.g., • In terms of academic understandings? Popular understandings? Misunderstandings? • Old? New? Unusual? Orthodox? Representative? Unrepresentative? views • … and ‘how it relates’ to the knowledge.

25. Is it a primary or secondary source*? No Yes journal article Is it a primary or secondary source*? Primary biography Secondary Secondary Primary published diaries, letters, memoirs, company reports, findings of official enquiries, etc. magazine or newspaper article, trade/ industry publication, other various other secondary survey / thematic title, with at least 1 relevant chapter edited anthology, with at least 1 relevant chapter monograph core / basic subject text Is it academic*? literature reviews Identify the nature of the source

26. Primary Deciding what to include Drop it! No Include it! Yes Published diaries, letters, memoirs, company reports, findings of official enquiries, etc. Has its publication contributed to understandings of – or had influence upon – the topic, directly or indirectly? literature reviews

27. Secondary Deciding what to include Yes No How does the source comment on the literature? … it may provide clues for your own review! No Yes No Does it contain original thinking? Does it survey the existing literature? Does it contain original research? literature reviews … plus! make note of any new sources to check out.

28. Secondary (Cont.) No Deciding what to include Does it contain original thinking? No Yes Yes Include it! Assess the worth & significance of the author’s adaptation Yes Decide whether it’s worth citing the source as a recent adherent to the view. No No Can the author’s interpretation be linked with any existing tradition or similarity of thinking? Does the author in any way adapt/ modify the existing arguments? Does it contain original research? literature reviews

29. Secondary (Cont.) No Deciding what to include Does it contain original thinking? No Yes Double check before dropping! Yes No Further reading may help clarify this! Not Sure? Yes No Can the author’s interpretation be linked with any existing tradition or similarity of thinking? So, you perceive the author’s interpretation as departing from existing understandings? Does it contain original research? literature reviews

30. No Secondary (Cont.) Deciding what to include Not Sure? Yes Why not? Are the arguments spurious? Have the findings been challenged elsewhere? Does the argument deserve greater attention? Include it, addressing these points! Yes Include it, linking it with other sources it inspired No Was the argument influential? I.e., have others taken up this line of explanation/ thinking since? So, you perceive the author’s interpretation as departing from existing understandings? literature reviews

31. Secondary (Cont.) No Deciding what to include Does it contain original thinking? No Yes Include it! Yes No Drop it! Does it contain original research? Does the work contribute anything else worth mentioning? For example, does it typify popular assumptions, popular fixations? Does it perpetuate over-simplifications or prevailing mis-understandings? literature reviews

32. Wider related Topic (for useful context) Precise topic of investi-gation literature reviews • How general or exact-topic-specific? Trajectories of Lit Reviews

33. 1 2 Wider topic/ context Main Topic Main Topic Wider topic/context literature reviews Example 2: Not much written on your topic? Start on context / bigger picture / related studies, concentrating on parallels, but crucially commenting on (relative) lack of research/published material on your precise topic Example 1: Lots of literature on your topic? Start on context / bigger picture / essential related research; move swiftly to your precise topic … Trajectories of Lit Surveys

34. literature reviews • Keeping the literature review within bounds; • Should I review books I’ve not read? • How should I structure my review?

35. literature reviews • Do I ‘criticise’ or merely ‘present’ the literature? • Final tip: see how the academics do it themselves!