Which of the Following Is a Common Mistake That Weakens a Literature Review?

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it'southward no elementary task. Here at Grad Passenger vehicle, we've reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this postal service, we'll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes, so that you tin can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

1. Over-reliance on low-quality sources
2. A lack of landmark/seminal literature
3. A lack of electric current literature
4. Description instead of integration and synthesis
5. Irrelevant or unfocused content
6. Poor chapter structure and layout
7. Plagiarism and poor referencing

Error #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

1 of the most mutual bug nosotros see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on depression-quality sources. This includes a wide collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, stance pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a weblog post doesn't automatically mean it is low-quality. However, it's (more often than not) unlikely to exist equally academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) equally a journal commodity, then you need to be a lot more than sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. Every bit a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn't rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles, ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a loftier H alphabetize. You tin can also describe on books written by well-established field of study matter experts. When considering books, endeavor to focus on those that are published by academic publishers, for case, Cambridge Academy Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can as well depict on government websites, provided they accept a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. Every bit with any other source, be wary of whatsoever government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

As I mentioned, this doesn't mean that your literature review can't include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content accept their place, especially when setting the context for your written report. For example, you may want to cite a drove of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. Nonetheless, your cadre arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn't rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we run across in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic. Landmark literature (sometimes too referred to as seminal or pivotal piece of work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of swell importance or influence within a detail discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of inquiry "on the map", so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is almost commonly that either the educatee isn't aware of the literature (because they oasis't sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they experience that they should just present the most up to appointment studies. Whatever the cause, it'due south a problem, every bit a good literature review should ever acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how practice you find landmark literature?

Well, yous tin usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the scattering of manufactures with loftier citation counts. They'll likewise be the studies almost usually cited in textbooks and, of form, Wikipedia (only please don't use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when yous're piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics, fifty-fifty if just briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a potent literature review.

Error #3: A lack of electric current literature

Every bit I mentioned, it'due south incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a stiff literature review should too incorporate the current literature. It should, ideally, compare and contrast the "classics" with the more up to date inquiry, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, yous don't want to burn down precious discussion count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that'south one of your research aims, of course), but you lot should at to the lowest degree admit any key differences between the sometime and the new.

But, how do you notice electric current literature?

To find electric current literature in your research area, you tin again utilise Google Scholar by simply selecting the "Since…" link on the left-paw side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair bargain longer.

Then, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more upwardly to engagement research. Past doing this, y'all'll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and electric current.

Error #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it'southward a very common i. In fact, it's probably the near common consequence we meet in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is but a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed "he said, she said". This is incorrect. A good literature review needs to get beyond only describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to bear witness how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don't fit together, and which pieces are missing. In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It'southward seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the "truth" is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A stiff literature review is a counterbalanced one, with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a articulate view of the electric current state of knowledge.

A expert analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The diverse findings and arguments from each slice of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge. Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood accept pieces that don't fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It's seldom a pretty puzzle!

Past the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature, information technology should be clear what'due south missing – in other words, the gaps exist in the current enquiry. These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed report. In other words, your written report will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle slice (or go two pieces to fit together).

And so, when you're crafting your literature review chapter, call up that this affiliate needs to go well beyond a bones clarification of the existing enquiry – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Fault #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common error nosotros see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content. Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, "so what?"

Then, how do yous decide what's relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions. Recollect, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will assist you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions. Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates direct to those three components.

Let's expect at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of inquiry relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

• The benefits of high employee delivery
• The different types of commitment
• The impact of commitment on corporate culture
• The links between delivery and productivity

While all of these chronicle to employee commitment, they're non focused on the research aims, objectives and questions, as they're not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may withal exist useful in helping yous justify your topic, so they'll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

And so, equally you piece of work through your literature review, always circle back to your enquiry aims, objective and enquiry questions and use them equally a litmus test for article relevance.

Fault #vi: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the all-time content tin can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured. Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are hard for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land upwards with a poor structure is that they commencement writing their literature review chapter without a program or construction. Of course, as we've discussed before, writing is a form of thinking, so y'all don't need to plan out every detail before you commencement writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before yous hit the keyboard.

So, how should you lot structure your literature review?

Nosotros've covered literature review structure in detail previously, so I won't go into information technology here. Nevertheless, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three cadre sections:

1. The introduction section – where y'all outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
2. The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing inquiry. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
3. The decision department – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your written report.

Some other reason that students land upward with a poor structure is that they get-go writing their literature chapter prematurely. In other words, they offset writing before they've finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, equally it e'er results in all-encompassing rewriting, which takes a lot longer than just doing information technology one step at a time. Over again, it's completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts ingather up during the writing procedure, but you should complete your cadre reading before you start writing.

Long story curt – don't showtime writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and probable will) evolve equally you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point.

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This i is by far the about unforgivable literature review fault, as it carries 1 of the heaviest penalties, while it is so easily avoidable.

All too ofttimes, nosotros encounter literature reviews that, at outset glance, expect pretty skillful. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it chop-chop becomes credible that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they've reviewed and put information technology into their own words.

"But, the original author said it perfectly…"

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is "simply perfect" and y'all can't discover a ameliorate way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, y'all can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, yous need to put things into your ain words.

The skillful news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in signal 3), you lot shouldn't run into this issue as well frequently, equally you'll naturally be writing near the relationships betwixt studies, not just about the studies themselves. Recall, if y'all can't explain something simply (in your ain words), yous don't actually sympathise information technology.

A related issue that nosotros see quite often is plainly onetime-fashioned poor referencing. This can include citation and reference formatting problems (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or only a straight out lack of references. In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you lot are effectively claiming the work as your ain, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, simply plagiarism is a serious form of bookish misconduct and could price you lot a lot more than than just a few marks.

Then, when you're writing up your literature review, remember that yous need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You besides need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models y'all depict on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We've covered a lot of ground in this mail service. Let's speedily epitomize on the vii virtually common literature review mistakes.

1. Over-reliance on low-quality sources
2. A lack of landmark/seminal literature
3. A lack of current literature
4. Description instead of integration and synthesis
5. Irrelevant or unfocused content
6. Poor affiliate structure and layout
7. Plagiarism and poor referencing

If you accept any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a annotate beneath and we'll exercise our all-time to answer. If you'd like to get 1-on-ane assistance with your literature review, volume a free initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

shieldswassied1955.blogspot.com

Source: https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/

Share this post