This presentation discusses research skills and conducting a literature review. It covers taking effective notes through questioning texts, mind maps, and keeping a research journal. Literature reviews survey existing work on a topic and show understanding of debates, theories, and ideas. They can be structured by issue or report experimental results. Sources should be selected based on their nature, intent, ideas, and relationships to the topic. The literature review sets the context and identifies what has and hasn't been researched about the specific topic of investigation.

1. An LDU short course
presentation
Dissertations & Major Project
Writing
Week 2 of 5:
Research skills,
‘surveying the literature’
& the ‘literature review’
Robert Walsha, LDU City campus, Calcutta House, CM2-22

2. Dissertations & Major Project
Writing week 2
This week’s topics:
• Research skills, methods & methodology:
– critical analytical research: effective
information gathering;
– critical reflection;
– keeping a research journal.
• ‘Surveying the literature’: understanding &
undertaking effective literature reviews

3. critical analytical research
• It’s all about asking questions!
• Note-taking strategies for success;
– Skim-reading, chapter/index searching, etc
– Using the margins;
– Note-taking for context;
– Photocopying as a tool / highlighting;
– Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps for
keeping focus of key issues & their
relationships with one another; also for
establishing clear structural approaches;

4. critical analytical research
– Spider/flow diagrams or mind-maps …
Example of a mind-map

5. critical analytical research
Climate Classification
GB234 / 03/04/02
I. System of Climate Classification
– ‘Cornell’ system, to facilitate Koppen A. Invented by Vladimir Koppen, botanist. Saw biological
activities as function of climate characteristics
questioning, critical pro-active
What did he do? B. Created climograph; displays mo'ly temp. and precip. On 1
Why important? graph
Define C. Main concern was make it simple: rel'ship between
note-taking
climograph. How potential evap and amt of mois rec'd at any geo. location
do you calculate
Give example
II. Arctic Climates: ET + EF. E avg. mo'ly temp<50
List and define E ET: avg. temp. warm'st mo. 50F + < 32F
climates
Characteristics *tundra or continental sub arctic
ET? EF?
EF: avg. temp. in warm'st mo. <32F
*ice cap or arctic
Define Humid Dry III. Humid Dry Boundary
Boundary
How HBD A. Marks maj. diff. between humid + dry climate regime.
calculated?
Example? B. Must know how boundary calculated
Summary: Koppen was a botanist who invented a system of climate classification.
He believed that characteristics of climate determined biological activities (such as
????) o classify climates he developed the climograph, which displays variables of
mo'ly temp. and precip. We are looking at the relationship between potential
(Source unknown) evaporation and amt. of moisture rcvd at a particular geographical location. E-type
climates are locations where avg. mo. Temps are less than 50F. precip. is rcvd. But
comes as snow. ET climates are tundra or continental sub-arctic. Warmest mo.
temps of 50-32F. EF climates are ice cap or arctic. Warmest mo. = below 32F.

6. critical analytical research
• Note-taking strategies for success (cont.);
– Attention to detail with quotation marks
(avoiding risk of unintended plagiarism);
– Once beyond initial researching stages: keep
separate notes for separate parts of your
dissertation / project (e.g., one set of notes
per chapter / section);
– Or try recording your notes (MP3 recorders,
etc).

7. critical analytical research
• Critical analytical research/note-taking: the
importance of asking questions ‘as you
go’:
– Look for central ‘themes’ ~ ‘It will be
argued…’;
– Skim reading to identify potentially relevant
passages;
– Be selective about information you record:
– Seek to discern: (i) analysis (ii) description.

8. critical analytical research
• Constantly question:
– ‘is this relevant?’ ‘is it information I (might)
need?’
– ‘have I fully understood what the author is
saying?’
– ‘Is it “argument”?’ ‘If so, is the source a
“messenger” or “originator”?’ If messenger,
where are the ideas coming from?

9. critical analytical research
• Constantly question:
– ‘What are the issues here?’
• The ‘who’ ‘what’ ‘where’ ‘how’ ‘why’
‘when’ questions;
• Be inquisitorial, not adversarial, in
asking questions about the author(s)
interpretations:
– ‘Is the author correct, or is there a flaw in
their argument’?

10. critical analytical research
– Preconceptions?
– Does date of publication influence the
author’s evaluation?
– What about place of publication?
– Any bias or personal attachment?
– Do they have a stake in the subject they are
writing about?
– Is the information accurate, or are there
errors?

11. critical analytical research
– Have subtleties been missed? Has any
fundamental perspective been missed?
– ‘Is there a reason why the information may
have been presented in the way it has?’
– Does the nature of the source affect the way it
is written and the judgements that are made?
– ‘Why was the work written?’ What was the
intended audience?
– How does it ‘fit’ with argument located
elsewhere? Are there similarities?
Differences? … and how compatible?

12. critical analytical research
• And ask questions about the author’s
evidence:
– ‘Do the sources/research approaches used by
the writer affect the way he/she writes?’;
– ‘Is the evidence well-presented, and are the
conclusions drawn the appropriate ones?’
– Has the writer relied on primary or secondary
material?;
– Is there anything ‘new’ about the evidence
utilised?;

13. critical analytical research
• Finally:
– ‘What is really being said here?’
– ‘Are there any points the author might be
seen to have inadvertently missed (or
deliberately avoided)?’

14. critical reflection
• Reflection ‘as you go’: assessing
significance, relationships between things
you have learnt; identifying argument,
noting your view of strength &
compatibility of arguments, etc.
• Also: ‘post-study reflection’ can be helpful
in this process.

15. Keeping a research journal
• Is there a requirement for keeping a
research journal or log?
• If yes, maintain this on a daily basis …
• … make as in-depth/ critical as possible …
• … evidence especially useful for
discussion in any ‘research methods’
section.

16. Keeping a research journal
• Even if no requirement: a research log
can:
– Improve your introducing of the topic, your
ability to convey exactly what you are
interested in/looking for;
– improve the focus & coherency of your
information gathering, aiding critical
reflection as your research develops … and
so benefit the focus/coherency of your end
project

17. literature reviews
• The purpose of a ‘literature review’;
• What the literature review should show:
– understanding of the debate related to topic;
– where the different explanations/
interpretations/ theories/ suggestions/ ideas
originate …
– … plus their relative contribution;

18. literature reviews
– any difficulties and problems within the
literature or in wider assumptions that will
require investigation;
– any misconceptions/ misunderstandings
• Variations of literature review (over)

19. literature reviews
A B
Lit. Review
Issue-structured Experiment/survey/
options
(arts-humanities results-led
(placing)
model) (i.e., scientific-model)
1. … as part of X ? (too large for

Introduction intro?)
2. … as separate
section  
following Intro?
3. … ‘as-you-go’ X: need for a distinct Lit
(i.e. dealing with Review section at start;

topic-by-topic in main chapters focus on
main chapters) own research results

20. literature reviews
A B
Lit. Review Issue-structured Experiment/survey/
options results-led
(arts-humanities model) (i.e., scientific-model)
Function Introductory Introductory +
If part of Introduction
Lit. reviews tend to be
section, may be
more detailed, as
anything from a
subsequent chapters
paragraph upwards;
centre on own
If a separate section,
experiment or survey
would need to be
results
larger

21. literature reviews
• What types of source should I mention in
my literature review?
• Being selective about sources &
information included;

22. literature reviews
• The importance is identifying the nature &
purpose of the source …
– Academic? Non-academic? If, ‘non’, what?
– ‘messenger’ or ‘originator’ of information?
– Intent? To inform? To persuade?

23. literature reviews
• Important: determine the nature of ‘what it is
saying’ (or not, as the case may be): e.g.,
– new idea/argument/research/approach?
– a reinterpretation?/an adaptation?
– A synthesis?
• … and ‘what it represents’: e.g.,
– In terms of academic understandings? Popular
understandings? Misunderstandings?
– Old? New? Unusual? Orthodox? Representative?
Unrepresentative? views
• … and ‘how it relates’ to the knowledge.
Deciding what to include .. And what not (see slides / separate handout)

24. literature reviews
• How general or exact-topic-specific?
Trajectories of
Lit Reviews
Wider related Precise topic
Topic (for of investi-
useful context) gation

25. literature reviews
Example 1: Lots of literature on your topic? Start
on context / bigger picture / essential related
Trajectories
research; move swiftly to your precise topic … of
1 Lit Surveys
Main
Topic
Wider
topic/context

26. literature reviews
2 Trajectories of
Wider topic/
Lit Surveys
context
Main
Topic
Example 2: Not much written on your topic? Start on
context / bigger picture / related studies, concentrating
on parallels, but crucially commenting on (relative) lack
of research/published material on your precise topic

27. literature reviews
• Keeping the literature review within
bounds;
• Should I review books I’ve not read?
• How should I structure my review?
• Do I ‘criticise’ or merely ‘present’ the
literature?
• Final tip: see how the academics do it
themselves!