The document provides guidance on conducting a literature review. It discusses the purpose of a literature review in demonstrating familiarity with a research field and contextualizing one's own research. It also covers developing a theoretical/contextual framework, critically analyzing sources, and structuring a literature review. Key aspects include justifying arguments, making comparisons, and demonstrating knowledge of a field through references. When reviewing sources, it is important to consider reliability, contradictions with other evidence, and identifying subjective language.

1. The Literature Review
Critical reading & writing
Independent Study Module
2014-15

2. Session aims:
• Develop your research and professional enquiry skills (links to Module
Learning Outcomes K&U 1, 2 and 4 and S,Q &A 3 and 4:
• What do we want you to learn:
– a structure for reviewing your reading
– some ideas of writing critically

3. Purpose of a literature review
• You as a researcher engaging with the field
• Contextualises where your research fits:
contextual framework
• Demonstrates you are familiar with the field
• Demonstrates your scholarship ability to
reflect, evaluate and write critically and
analytically
(Sharp 2012. p.27-28)

4. Theory & theoretical frameworks
• ‘a set of interrelated abstract propositions about human affairs and
the social world that explain their regularities and relationships’
(Brewer 2000, p.192)
• ‘theory at the lowest level can be an ad hoc classification system,
consisting of categories which organise and summarise empirical
observations’ (Bowling 2002, p.139).
• ‘It can be a taxonomy which is a descriptive categorical system
constructed to fit the empirical observations in order to describe
the relationships between categories’ (Bowling 2002, p. 140).
• Simply ‘refer(s) to the current state of knowledge in a subject
derived from the published literature – what Wolcott (1992, p. 3–
52) described as ‘theory first’ rather than ‘theory after’. ‘ (Bell 2010,
p.105)
Paraphrased from Bell 2010. p.105

5. Theoretical/ contextual Framework
Example:
• In design and technology why are pupils in key stage 2 more creative than
those in key stage 3?
What are the theories behind this question?
• Creativity is important in D&T
• Creativity is more evident in key stage 2 (KS2) than key stage 3 (KS3)
• Potentially in a drop in achievement in D&T between KS2 & KS3
What is the context?
• Design and Technology lessons
• Year 6 in key stage 2 and year 7 in key stage 3
Concepts/ definitions:
• Creativity
• Creativity in D&T – what does it look like
• Role of the teacher in developing pupils’ creativity
(Hardy 2004)

6. Theoretical/ contextual Framework
Example:
• How are gifted and talented pupils engaged in design and
technology?
What are the theories behind this question?
• It is important for G&T pupils to be engaged in D&T
• G&T pupils need to be engaged in ways which are different to other
pupils
• G&T pupils are not currently been engaged in D&T
What is the context?
• Design and Technology lessons
• Key stage 3 or key stage 4 – TBD
Concepts/ definitions
• Gifted and talented
• Engagement: in learning? In lessons? In careers? In options?

7. Your theoretical framework
Your title/ question/ aim:
•
What are the theories behind this question?
•
•
•
What is the context?
•
•
Concepts/ definitions
•
•

8. No clear concepts?
• When acceptable conceptual definitions are not
available, concept synthesis o concept analysis
needs to be performed in order to develop the
definition
e.g. social media in A&D or AfL in D&T
Possible concept:
• Social media: which ones are used in A&D and
why?
• AfL in practical D&T lessons – the purpose and
how is it used?

9. Critical review of the literature
Use references to:
• Justify and support your arguments
• Allow you to make comparisons with other
research;
• Express matters better than you could have done;
• Demonstrate your familiarity with your field of
research.
(Blaxter 1996 in Bell 1999. p.92)

10. Theory in bins
Theory building relies on a few general constructs that
subsume a mountain of particulars. Terms such as ‘stress’ or
‘role conflict’ are typically labels we put on bins containing a
lot of discrete events and behaviours. When we assign a label
to a bin, we may or may not know how all the contents of the
bin fit together, or how this bin relates to another. But any
researcher, no matter how inductive in approach, knows
which bins to start with and what their general contents are
likely to be. Bins come from theory and experience and
(often) from the general objectives of the study envisioned.
Laying out those bins, giving each a descriptive or inferential
name, and getting some clarity about their interrelationships
is what a conceptual framework is all about.
Miles and Huberman 1994 (in Bell 2010, p. 106 )

11. Critical reading
• Don’t just take notes
• How reliable a source is this?
• Does this fit with what you already know?
• Does it contradict other evidence?

12. Practical task: Subjectivity &
Objectivity
Using the paper you have brought in try and
identify words that make it emotive and/or
opinionated in the literature review section,
perhaps underlining these words.
(Adapted from Judge, Jones and McCreery 2009)
This task helps you identify words which show the
author/s opinion and therefore how they have used
their reading to support their views.

13. What critical thinking/ analysis/writing
reveals about you
• willing to question your views;
• open to the ideas and views of others;
• just because something is in print does not mean it is true;
• able to give your (positive and negative) judgments;
• able to explore the implications of the evidence/literature;
• self-confident enough to explore the evidence presented;
• honest in facing your own biases/prejudices;
• flexible in considering alternatives and opinions;
• willing to reconsider and revise views where honest
reflection suggests that change is warranted.
(Judge, Jones and McCreery 2009. p.44)

14. Reviewing your writing
Wisker, 2009
Personal writing Academic writing
Emotional Logical
Can be intuitive Uses reasoning
Active voice: ‘I find that…’ Passive voice: ‘It was found that…’
Anecdotal Uses evidence
Subjective Objective
Tangents may be important Keeps to logical sequence

15. Critical review of a peer reviewed
journal article
• A short critical review should have a brief introduction,
simply providing the subject of the research and the
author, and outlining the structure you will be using.
• The simplest way to structure a critical review is to
write a paragraph or two about each section of the
study in turn. Within your discussion of each section,
you should first sum up the main points such as the key
findings, or methodology used, to show your
understanding.
• After this, you could present the strengths and
weaknesses, as you see them, of the section, with an
explanation of your thinking, and evidence.

16. Critical questions when reading
• Why am I reading this?
• What are the authors trying to do in this writing?
• What are the authors saying that is relevant to what I want
to find out?
• How convincing is what the authors are saying?
• In conclusion - what can I make of this?
• Code:
– A return for more detailed analysis
– B an important general text
– C of minor importance
– D not relevant
(Wallace and Wray 2011, p.41)

17. Critical review of a peer reviewed
journal article
• You should point out the strengths of the study to show you
are aware of their importance, as in:
– ‘These results are consistent with the aims of the research...’
– ‘The findings are clearly presented using diagrams and a graph...’
– ‘The discussion consistently relates the key findings to research discussed
earlier...’
• When you identify weaknesses, you should use a cautious,
objective style. You can use such phrases as:
– ‘This sample seems fairly small in view of...’
– ‘It might have been helpful to provide more details of...’
– ‘There is no explanation for the absence of any literature after 2003. It would
have been useful to know why this was the case.’
Adapted from Queen Margaret University 2012

18. References
BELL, J., 1999. Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and social
science. 3rd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
BELL, J., 2010. Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education, health and
social science. 5th ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
HARDY, A., 2004. Questioning styles: observations of differences in practice at key stage 2 and key stage
3. In: Design and Technology Conference Sheffield, 2004. DATA.
JUDGE, B., MCCREERY, E. and JONES, P., 2009. Critical Thinking Skills for Education Students. [online].
SAGE Publications. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=298000 (Accessed 13 January 2013)
QUEEN MARGARET UNIVERSITY, 2012. Planning a Critical Review. Available from:
http://www.qmu.ac.uk/ELS/docs/Critical%20review.pdf (Accessed 13 January 2013)
SHARP, J., 2012. Success with your education research project [online]. Learning Matters. Available
from:http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9781844456031
(Accessed 13 January 2013)
WALLACE, M. and WRAY, A., 2011. Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. London: SAGE
WISKER, G. 2009. The undergraduate research handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.