Research Literature Review Mistakes | Evaluating Literature Review

 

Research Literature Review Mistakes

To assist the reviewer in avoiding mistakes in conducting a literature review, the most common mistakes in reviewing the literature are that the researcher:

1.  does not clearly relate the findings of the literature review to the researcher's own study; 
2.  does not take sufficient time to define the best descriptors and identify the best sources to use in reviewing literature related to one's topic; and 
3.  relies on secondary sources rather than primary sources in reviewing the literature.
4.  accepts the findings and interpretations of another researcher as valid without critically examining all aspects of the research design and analysis; 
5.  fails to report the search procedures used in the literature review; 
6.  reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them using chi-square or meta-analytic methods; and 
7.  fails to consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations when synthesizing quantitative lit.

Evaluating  Literature Review

A literature review is evaluated using a five-category rubric. Coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric 

Category: 1. Coverage

Criterion: A. Justified criteria for inclusion and exclusion from review

1. Did not discuss the criteria for inclusion or exclusion
2. Discussed the literature included and excluded
3. Justified inclusion and exclusion of literature

Category: 2. Synthesis

Criterion: B. Distinguished between what has been done in the field and what needs                           to be done

1. Did not distinguish what has and has not been done before
2. Discussed what has and has not been done
3. Critically examined the state of the field

Criterion: C. Placed the topic or problem in the broader scholarly literature

1. Topic not placed in broader scholarly literature
2. Some discussion of broader scholarly literature
3. Topic clearly situated in broader scholarly literature

Criterion: D. Placed the research in the historical context of the field

1. History of a topic not discussed
2. Some mention of the history of the topic
3. Critically examined the history of the topic

 Criterion: E. Acquired and enhanced the subject vocabulary

1. Key vocabulary not discussed
2. Key vocabulary defined
3. Discussed and resolved ambiguities in definitions

Criterion: F. Articulated important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic

1. Key variables and phenomena not discussed
2. Reviewed relationships among key variables and phenomena
3. Noted ambiguities in literature and proposed new relationships

Criterion: G. Synthesized and gained a new perspective on the literature

1. Accepted literature at face value
2. Some critical use of literature
3. Offered new perspective

 Category: 3. Methodology

Criterion: H. Identified the main methodologies and research techniques that have                             been used in  the field, and their advantages and disadvantages

1. Research methods are not discussed
2. Some discussion of research methods used to produce claims
3. Critique research methods

 Criterion: I. Theories and ideas related to research methodologies.

1. Research methods are not discussed
2. Some discussion of the appropriateness of research methods to warrant claims
3. Critique the appropriateness of research methods to justify claims

 Category: 4. Significance

Criterion: J. Rationalized the practical significance of the research problem

1. The practical significance of the research is not discussed
2. Practical significance is discussed
3. Critique the appropriateness of research methods to support claims

 Criterion: K. Rationalized the scholarly significance of the problem

1. The scholarly significance of the research is not discussed
2. Scholarly significance is discussed
3. Critique the scholarly significance of research

 Category: 5. Rhetoric

Criterion:  L. Was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review

1. Poorly conceptualized, haphazard
2. Some coherent structure
3. Well-developed, coherent

 Also Read: Quantitative Literature Review

Share This:

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin Whatsapp Whatsapp

About Kanwal Jabeen