Maybe ph.d.-students shouldn't do literature reviews ....

412 views
317 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
412
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Maybe ph.d.-students shouldn't do literature reviews ....

  1. 1. AARHUS UNIVERSITY “MAYBE PH.D.-STUDENTS SHOULDN’T DO LITERATURE REVIEWS. IT’S A JOB FOR SENIOR RESEARCHERS …” Gina Bay AU Library, Bartholins Allé Aarhus Universitet DUNK14
  2. 2. AARHUS UNIVERSITY PROGRAM › Hvilken funktion har literature review’et (LR) i ph.d.- afhandlingen og hvilke krav stilles der til LR? › Hvilke udfordringer oplever ph.d.-studerende når de skal udforme LR? › Hvilke meningsfulde krav kan vi stille til LR i ph.d.- afhandlingen? › Perspektiver 2
  3. 3. AARHUS UNIVERSITY GRUNDLAG › Litteraturen om LR: › Data fra 24 evalueringer (fra i alt 38 deltagere) 3
  4. 4. AARHUS UNIVERSITY FUNKTION › Hvad siger litteraturen om LR’ets funktion? 4
  5. 5. AARHUS UNIVERSITY FUNKTION How to- › “… the literature review is where you show that you are both aware of and can interpret what is already known and where eventually you will be able to point out the contradictions and gaps in existing knowledge.” (Jesson et al. 2011, s.10) › “… it ensures the researchability of your topic before ‘proper’ research commences …” (Hart 1998, s.13) 5
  6. 6. AARHUS UNIVERSITY FUNKTION Bedømmelses- › ”… in most disciplines a significant section of a thesis will be devoted to the literature to position the study within the discipline or field.” (Holbrook et al 2007, s.342) Debat- › ”It sets the broad context of the study, clearly demarcates what is and what is not within the scope of the investigation and justifies those decisions.” (Boote & Beile 2005, s.3) 6
  7. 7. AARHUS UNIVERSITY DISKUSSION Hvad er literature review’ets primære funktion i en ph.d.-afhandling? 7
  8. 8. AARHUS UNIVERSITY MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THE COURSE: “Maybe Ph.D. students shouldn’t do literature reviews. It’s a job for senior researchers. But it is great with an overview of how “fuzzy” information retrieval actually is. Really informative.” 8
  9. 9. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV › Hvad siger litteraturen om krav til LR? 9
  10. 10. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV TIL KOMPETENCER How to- › “time management, organization of materials, computer use, information handling, on-line searching and writing.” (Hart 1998, s.5) › ”… to do a good systematic review takes time, resources and ideally more than one researcher.” (Jesson et al. 2011, s.109) › Debat ”To review the literature … is a very complex task. That requires the integration and application of a variety of skills and knowledge that few individual faculty members have mastered.” (Boote & Beile 2005, s.11)10
  11. 11. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV TIL KOMPETENCER Bedømmelses › “- at forholde sig til kilder, kvalificere og indplacere og afgrænse eksplicit … - at foretage en grundig, begrundet litteratursøgning og udvælgelse/inddragelse” (Rienecker & Stray Jørgensen 2013, s.28) How to- › “Systematic searching of the social science literature requires a range of search techniques including citation searching, reference list checking and contact with experts.” (Papaioaannou et al. 2009, s.114)11
  12. 12. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV 12 Lovitts 2007, s.54
  13. 13. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV TIL LR Debat › “A literature review that meets high standards … indicates that the doctoral candidate has a thorough, sophisticated understanding of a field of study”. (Boote & Beile 2005, s.9) › “I claim that relevance … and not comprehensiveness or thoroughness, is the most essential characteristic of a good dissertation literature review.” (Maxwell 2005, s.28) › ”As the candidate better understands the literature, his or her notion of relevance may shift or change entirely.” (Boote & Beile 2006, s.34) 13
  14. 14. AARHUS UNIVERSITY KRAV TIL LR How to › As with any systematic review, subject searches needed to be thorough, sensitive and transparent. (Papaioaannou et al. 2009, s.115) 14
  15. 15. AARHUS UNIVERSITY INFORMATION RETRIEVAL & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT › Ph.d-skolen, BSS: 250 studerende – 7 programmer › Opstart F2013 – efter drøftelse med Ph.d.-skolen Ikke-obligatorisk – ingen ects – sprog: engelsk “Tværfagligt” – deltagere fra alle programmer Tre lektioner + workshop  Systematisk emneordssøgning,  Kvalitetsvurdering af kilder,  Vidensorganisering – Reference-software › 38 deltagere – 24 har evalueret 15
  16. 16. AARHUS UNIVERSITY TEMATIKKER – FRA EVALUERINGER ›Kompleksitet informationsressourcer mængder overblik ›Diversitet brug af IT 19: highly/very relevant 3: relevant/pretty relevant
  17. 17. AARHUS UNIVERSITY MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THE COURSE: “This is a bit of a wasp’s nest that I didn’t know existed: all the different databases vs search engines vs publishers etc. Basically I have only searched through Proquest – but now I can see that the basis of this method isn’t good enough.”
  18. 18. AARHUS UNIVERSITY THIS I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT: ›“I have been on more than one search course, however I have still problems in making my search so specific that I am not totally overwhelmed by articles etc.” ›“….I still have some troubles with searching as I experience that my search strategies offer more articles than it is possible to read in a whole life”
  19. 19. AARHUS UNIVERSITY THIS I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT: “How to actually organize the review process. Even though it is not possible to do the optimal search, writing down how the search was carried out might be quite challenging then.”
  20. 20. AARHUS UNIVERSITY THIS I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE: ›“That there would be a tool like Refworks which can save me a lot of time and boring work in the future” ›“I checked out Mendeley after it was mentioned on the course – it is an amazing tool!”
  21. 21. AARHUS UNIVERSITY THIS YOU SHOULD GIVE LESS PRIORITY TO: “From my point of view the reference tool part but I have a feeling others who are not familiar with this might like this part to get more priority.”
  22. 22. AARHUS UNIVERSITY GRUPPEARBEJDE: Hvilke krav kan vi meningsfuldt stille til et godt literature review i en ph.d.- afhandling? 22
  23. 23. AARHUS UNIVERSITY PERSPEKTIVER › Vejleders rolle? Rapporten: ”Kvalitet i ph.d.-forløb”, AU 12 % får omfattende vejledning 40% får nogen vejledning 49% får ingen vejledning › Samarbejde med informationsspecialister? › Er der brug for mere viden om hvad der forventes af ph.d.-studerende mht. LR?
  24. 24. AARHUS UNIVERSITY LITTERATUR * Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. *Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2006). On "literature reviews of, and for, educational research": A response to the critique by joseph maxwell. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 32-35. * Brabazon, T. (2007). The university of google: Education in the (post) information age. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. * Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review : Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publications. * Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 337-356. * Holbrook, AP (2007) Dalliance or intimate relationship?: Evidence of what contributes to successful use of the literature in a doctorate, Proceedings of the Postgraduate -State of the Art and the Artists - Conference, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa (2007) [E3] * Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review : Traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE. * Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. K. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta- analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. 25. AARHUS UNIVERSITY LITTERATUR * Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit : Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Sterling, Va.: Stylus Pub. *Maxwell, J. A. (2006). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A commentary on boote and beile's "scholars before researchers". Educational Researcher, 35(9), 28-31. * Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Wong, R. (2010). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27(2), 114-122 * Ridley, D.,Dr. (2012). The literature review : A step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE. * Rienecker, L., & Stray Jørgensen, P. (2013). Hvordan kan kriterier for ph.d.- bedømmelser danne grundlag for ph.d.-uddannelse? : Pædagogiske perspektiver af en analyse af 41 ph.d.-bedømmelser fra et humanistisk fakultet. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, Årg. 8, nr. 15 (2013) * Rienecker, L. (2013). Informationssøgning om universitetspædagogiske emner. In L. Rienecker, P. Stray Jørgensen, J. Dolin & G. H. Ingerslev (Eds.), Universitetspædagogik (pp. 457-467). København: Samfundslitteratur. * Seldén, L. (1999). Kapital och karriär : Informationssökning i forskningens vardagspraktik. Borås: VALFRID.
  26. 26. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SLOWING DOWN …? ›“I created a scaffold for learning which slowed down the research process, creating time for reflection and planning” (Brabazon 2007, s.31) ›“Narrowing down a topic can be difficult and can take several weeks or even months, but it does mean that the research is more likely to be completed.” (Hart 1998, s.13)
  27. 27. AARHUS UNIVERSITY TAK FOR NU … Kontaktoplysninger Gina Bay Bibliotekar, MBU, AU Library, Bartholins Allé Part of School of Business and Social Sciences Aarhus Universitet E-mail: gb@sam.au.dk

×