Problem formulation (for the literature review)

The focus shifts to problem formulation once the appropriate type of review has been identified. The reviewer decides what questions the literature review will answer and establishes explicit criteria to govern the inclusion or exclusion of an article from the review in this step. It is important to distinguish between literature review questions (those that can be answered by reviewing secondary research) and empirical research questions (those that can only be answered through primary research). The empirical research question is derived primarily from a review of the literature.

A problem's formulation begins with the formulation of the questions that will guide the literature review. The review's goal and focus should have a significant impact on these questions. For example, if the review's goal is to integrate research findings, a relevant research question might be: What is the effect of intervention X on outcomes Y and Z based on previous literature? If the goal is to critically examine previous research methods, questions such as: What research methods have been used to investigate phenomenon X in the past? What are the flaws in the methodology of those methods? If the focus of the literature review is on theories and the goal is to identify key issues, a legitimate research question could be: What are the key theories that have been used to explain phenomenon X? At this point, it is prudent to look for literature reviews that may have already addressed these or similar questions.

The second step in problem formulation is to define the inclusion and exclusion criteria explicitly. In other words, decide which articles will be included in the review and which will be excluded. The review's focus, goals, and scope all have an impact on the specific criteria. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in a review of research on the use of student response cards are shown below.

The quantitative synthesis included studies that met all of the following criteria:

1. The study reported means and standard deviations for each condition or provided enough information to calculate means and standard deviations.
2. The independent variable was the use of write-on response cards, preprinted response cards, or both.
3. During the control condition, single-student voluntary oral responding (i.e., hand raising) was used.
4. The study reported findings on at least one of the following dependent variables: participation, quiz achievement, test achievement, or behavioral disruption intervals.
5. The report was written entirely in English.
6. Data from one study did not overlap with data from another.
7. The studies made use of repeated-measures methodologies.
8.  To avoid overrepresentation of a particular set of data, only the study with the most comprehensive reporting was included for separate studies that used the same data (e.g., a dissertation and a journal article based on the same dataset).

The criteria for inclusion/exclusion should be explicit and comprehensive enough that any article that comes to light could be included or excluded solely based on those criteria. Furthermore, the criteria should be detailed enough that two people, given the same set of articles, would identify nearly the same subset of articles. In fact, when reviewing an entire dissertation or thesis, researchers frequently recruit other individuals to test the reliability of the inclusion/exclusion system, then compare the resulting subsets to reveal inconsistencies and revise the criteria accordingly.

Developing a valid set of inclusion/exclusion criteria will almost certainly necessitate extensive trial and error pilot testing. Frequently, ambiguities in the criteria result in articles being omitted inadvertently. Recursively pilot-testing the criteria takes time, but it is much less time consuming than starting over after much data has been painstakingly collected and analysed.

Share This:

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin Whatsapp Whatsapp

About Kanwal Jabeen