Literature ReviewsPlanning and Writing Them1You’ve.docx

Literature Reviews
Planning and Writing Them
1
You’ve done the hard part!
You did your secondary research with your annotated
bibliography
Now, take that research and compile it into a cohesive, useful
narrative that explains the “conversation” around the topic
you’re going to be looking into
2
What is a lit review?
Lit reviews usually are at the beginnings of research articles
Summarize the “conversation” on the subject and establish why
your study is important
Look at Zakreski article, Greene article – see in the beginning
of their articles, they summarize and explain what others have
had to say about the topic
Your annotated bib should easily transition into what will be the
first part of your paper, the literature review.

Duggar has lots of citations; 16 in her bib. She talks about lots
of different ideas here to lay the groundwork for what she is
going to do
Greene has fewer, but has more to say about them
3
Three functions of a lit review
Your literature review will become the first part of your
research paper. Thus, it should do three things:
Include a short introduction that defines or identifies the
general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an
appropriate context for reviewing the literature (this is called
establishing a territory)
Synthesize other research on the topic, explaining what is
known about it
Conclude by stating what is missing, what is controversial, what
is not yet known, or what needs to be resolved in the discussion.
This will provide the transition later to your own study and your
research questions (this is called “establishing a niche”)
4
How do I write it?
Your literature review should synthesize all the information
from your annotated bibliography
You can organize the information chronologically
You can organize the information by topic

by least-most recent studies or vice versa; clump everything by
what was found, what
5
How do I write it, con’t
Your lit review should have an intro, body, and conclusion
This is not true of ALL lit reviews, but it is a good general rule
to follow
The intro will serve at the intro to your paper
The body will establish the “conversation”
The conclusion will serve to transition your paper into a
discussion of your study
The body can (and probably should) have multiple paragraphs,
based on how you’ve organized it
6
About the conclusion
In the conclusion, you want to establish why your study is
important
You need to somehow point out a gap in the knowledge, a
question you have about other research, or a counter-point you
want to raise
If you can’t prove that your study authentically adds to the
conversation, then you really shouldn’t be doing the research
Leads to your methods section

7
Example lit reviews
See the link on Isidore on the “Info on Lit Reviews” page,
“Example Lit Review”
From York College in New York –
web.York.cuny.edu/~washton/student/Org-
Behavior/lit_rev_eg.pdf
Also see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/994/04/
(link on page)
8
THE END
Lit Review Thoughts
Putting it together
• Look at all your research in your annotated bib.
What are the “big ideas” that pop out
from this research?
• Can you state each of those ideasin a

sentence or so? These could become your
headings.
• What parts from what articles contribute to those
ideas? Are thereparticular quotes or
paragraphs that reinforce the ideasor give an
overview to them? These could become
parts of your lit review.
• Did you organize your research, or just kind of
pasteit all together?
• Does each section have distinct paragraphs? They
should. Your lit review should NOT BE
one long paragraph, or even two.
General thoughts
1. Avoid sentence fragments
What is a sentence? What makes a
sentence? Why is this a fragment?:
Even further in depth, to specifically compare
how women’s dependency on men
in romance novels have evolved from the throughout
the years
2. Avoid weakor ambiguous phrases
Romance novels have been a popular genre of
books among women for hundreds of
years.

The correlation between romance novels of around
the 1950s to the present have some
similarities but also many differences.
In modern countries entertainment plays a major
role in our day-to-day lives.
3. Use citations
Cite every quote and paraphrase and summary
Put citations at the end of each sentence (Smith
24).
No dates, no article titles(unless thereare
multiple articles by the same author)
4. Avoid random capitalizations
“The author talks about Her Study”
5. Make titlesuseful and consistent
“Past Research,” not just “Past”
“Who reads romance novels?” not just “Readers” or
“Romancenovels”
If you are going to capitalize, capitalize every
word more than 4 letters

Don’t capitalize:
conjunctions – and, or, but
articles – the, an, a
shortprepositions – of, on, in, to, by
6. Avoid adverbs: really, extremely, very,specifically
7. Avoid slang: a couple, kind of
8. Avoid first person in lit review (you may need to
use first person in results section)
9. Don’t narrate or comment personally on studies
“First I found this article, then it led me to
that article…” -- unnecessary
Bad: “This study was good, but the author is
not credible enough.” – can phrase another
way:
Better: “Although this study was very well
researched, thereare no studies available
from academicsthat specialize in this field.”

Writing a Short Literature Review
William Ashton, Ph.D.
York College, CUNY
A student began a short literature review on the stigma of the
mentally ill and
perceptions of dangerousness. Working through PsychArticles
she found three
likely articles. When she read each, she wrote a paragraph
description of each:
Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003). The impact of contact on
stigmatizing
attitudes towards people with mental illness. Journal of Mental
Health, 12,
271-289.
Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental
illness,
perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in a telephone
survey. They
found that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally ill
individuals
increased, participants were both less likely to perceive a target
mentally ill
individual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely

to desire social
distance from the target. This relationship remained after
controlling for
demographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity,
education,
income and political conservatism. They also found that any
type of contact –
with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a
contact in a public
place – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of
dangerousness of the
target in the vignette.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P.,
Uphoff-Wasowski, K.,
White, K., & Kubiak, M.A. (2002). Challenging two mental
illness stigmas:
Personality responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 28,
293-309.
Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski,
White and
Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies to investigate the strength
of the theoretical
relationship between stigma and personality responsibility, and
stigma and
dangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited two models to account
for stigmatizing
reactions. In the first model, labeled personal responsibility,
personality
responsibility influences both the level of pity and anger

displayed toward mental
patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence
helping behavior.
In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived
dangerousness
influences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the
avoidance of the
mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan etal. (2002), administered a
questionnaire to
216 community college students. This questionnaire contained
items which
would allow the examination of the two models. The results of
a path analysis
indicated that while both models fit the data, the results for the
dangerousness
model seemed far more consistent with the data. Their second
study was an
attempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met
with either an
educational group or a mental patient. During the meetings,
either myths about
the personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental
patients were
discussed and debunked. While education yielded some
positive results, contact
with mental patients produced stronger results.
Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear
and loathing: The

role of ‘disturbing behavior’ labels, and causal attributions in
shaping
public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of
Health and
Social Behavior, 41, 208-223.
Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of
descriptions of
the targets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the
behavior, the
target’s perceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’
sociodemographic
characteristics. Twenty percent of the participants labeled a
target described with
depressed symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared
with 54% for those
described with schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal
troubles); 37% would
be unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for the
schizophrenic and
21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed
person would do
violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the
normal troubles).
Next she decided upon the order of the paragraphs in the paper:
Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of
descriptions of the
targets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the
behavior, the target’s

perceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’
sociodemographic
target described with
depressed symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared
with 54% for those
described with schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal
troubles); 37% would
be unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for the
schizophrenic and
21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed
person would do
violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the
normal troubles).
Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental
illness,
perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in a telephone
survey. They
found that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally ill
individuals
increased, participants were both less likely to perceive a target
mentally ill

individual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely
to desire social
distance from the target. This relationship remained after
controlling for
demographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity,
education,
income and political conservatism. They also found that any
type of contact –
with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a
contact in a public
place – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of
dangerousness of the
target in the vignette.
White and
Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies to investigate the strength
of the theoretical
relationship between stigma and personality responsibility, and
stigma and
dangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited two models to account
for stigmatizing
personality
responsibility influences both the level of pity and anger

displayed toward mental
patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence
helping behavior.
In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived
dangerousness
avoidance of the
mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan etal. (2002), administered a
questionnaire to
items which
a path analysis
dangerousness
study was an
with either an
educational group or a mental patient. During the meetings,
either myths about

the personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental
patients were
positive results, contact
with mental patients produced stronger results.
She carefully chose the order of the paragraphs so she could
talk about: (1) that
people respond to the mentally ill with fear and rejection, (2)
contact reduces both
rejection and fear and (3) how to best arrange the contact to
reduce stigma.
Now she added introductory and concluding sentences,
paragraph hooks and
short transition paragraphs to help the flow of ideas.
Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people respond to the
mentally ill
with feelings of fear and rejection. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch
(2000) examined
the effects of descriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal
attributions about the
source of the behavior, the target’s perceived dangerousness,
labeling and
participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty percent
of the
participants labeled a target described with depressed symptoms

as having a
mental illness (as compared with 54% for those described with
schizophrenic
symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% would be unwilling
to interact with
the depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and 21% for
normal troubles);
and 33% felt that the depressed person would do violence to
others (61% for the
schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles). Thus, a
common respond to the
mentally ill are rejection and fear of violence.
While, based upon research, the common response to a
mentally ill person
is to fear violence, diagnosed mental patients commit violence
at the same rates
as non-diagnosed people (Martin, et al., 2000). Public
perceptions may not match
reality due to the public’s lack of contact with the mentally ill.
Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with the mentally
ill and the

stigma of mental illness, perceptions of dangerousness and
social distance in a
telephone survey. They found that, as a participant’s own life
contact with
mentally ill individuals increased, participants were both less
likely to perceive a
target mentally ill individual in a vignette as physically
dangerous and less likely
to desire social distance from the target. This relationship
remained after
controlling for demographic and confound variables, such as
gender, ethnicity,
education, income and political conservatism. They also found
that any type of
contact – with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work
contact, or a contact in
a public place – with mentally ill individuals reduced
perceptions of
dangerousness of the target in the vignette. Thus, according to
Alexander and
Link (2003), any contact with the mentally ill is associated with
reduced fear and
rejection. However, since this study was observational in
nature, we cannot know

if contact reduces fear or having lower fear increased contact.
White and
Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies examining the causal
processes in contact,
fear and rejection. Corrigan et al. posited two models to
account for stigmatizing
beliefs about
personality responsibility influences both the level of pity and
anger displayed
toward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and
anger influence
helping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness,
perceived
dangerousness influences fear of mental patients, which in turn
influences the
avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002) administered a
questionnaire to
items which

a path analysis
dangerousness
study was an
with either an
educational group or with a mental patient. During the
meetings, myths about the
personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental
patients were
positive results
regarding fear and rejection, contact with mental patients
produced stronger
results. Thus, Corrigan et al. demonstrated that contact causes
less rejection and
fear.
In the final stage, she needs to write an introductory and
concluding paragraph.
She wrote the concluding paragraph first. In this paragraph she
needs to
overview the paper and make a conclusion.

It appears that the mentally ill are rejected because of the
public’s fear of the
mentally ill. At least one-third of the people sampled in one
study said that they
would both reject socially and fear violence from someone
displaying behaviors
associated with different mentally illnesses. Other research
discovered that this
rejection is associated to lack of contact with the mentally ill
and that as contact
increased, fear of the mentally ill decreased. The direction of
the relationship
between fear and rejection seems to be that fear (possibly based
upon myths
about mental illness) causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it
appears that
exposing these myths as myths increases the acceptance of the
mentally ill and
that staged contact with a mentally person to expose myths has
an even more
powerful effect.
Now she needs to say something about the research methods.

Caution must be advised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and
Alexander and Link’s
(2003) studies and the first study of Corrigan et al. (2002) were
based upon paper
and pencil methodologies. And while Corrigan et al.’s (2002)
second study
involved staged presentations, it was conducted in a college
setting with a college
sample. Future research should replicate these findings in more
natural settings
with different populations.
The student then brought her draft to me. After I read it I asked
her about the first
sentence of her conclusion. I asked her if she could phrase it as
a clear and
strong statement. She did:
The rejection of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s belief
in myths about the
dangerousness of the mentally ill and exposing those myths can
reduce rejection.
Now she needs to write the Introduction. With an introduction,
begin broad and
narrow down to the thesis statement. The thesis statement is the
last sentence in
the introduction and the first sentence in the conclusion.

The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One of those
challenges is the
stigmatization they face. Stigmatization is social rejection;
they are rejected by
people because of the label they carry or that their behaviors
clearly indicate that
they belong to a certain labeled group. Stigmatization of the
mentally ill is caused
by the public’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the
mentally ill and
exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization.
Here’s how her whole paper looked:
Myths of violence 1
Myths of violence and the stigma of mental illness12

Suzie Student
York College, CUNY
1 For the text of an APA article, use Courier or New Times
Roman font at 12 pts.
2 Before the page number is the Page Header (sometimes called,
Key Words) the first few words
of your title.
Myths of violence 2
Myths of violence and the stigma of mental illness3
The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One of
those challenges is the stigmatization they face.
Stigmatization is social rejection; those stigmatized are
rejected by people because of the label they carry or that their
behaviors clearly indicate that they belong to a certain labeled
group. Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by the
public’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentally
ill and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization.
Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people respond

to the mentally ill with feelings of fear and rejection.
Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000)4 examined the effects of
descriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal attributions about
the source of the behavior, the target’s perceived
dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographic
target described with depressed symptoms as having a mental
illness (as compared with 54% for those described with
schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37%
would be
unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for the
schizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that
the depressed person would do violence to others (61% for the
3 before the text begins, repeat the title, centered.
4 the first time you cite an article, list all of the authors’ names.
Myths of violence 3
schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles). Thus, a
common

respond to the mentally ill are rejection and fear of violence.
While, based upon research, the common response to a
mentally ill person is to fear violence, diagnosed mental
patients commit violence at the same rates as non-diagnosed
people (Martin, et al., 2000)5. Public perceptions may not
match
reality due to the public’s lack of contact with the mentally
ill.
Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with the
mentally ill and the stigma of mental illness, perceptions of
dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. They
found that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally
ill individuals increased, participants were both less likely to
perceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette as
physically dangerous and less likely to desire social distance
from the target. This relationship remained after controlling
for demographic and confound variables, such as gender,
ethnicity, education, income and political conservatism. They
also found that any type of contact – with a friend, a spouse, a

family member, a work contact, or a contact in a public place –
with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of
dangerousness of the target in the vignette. Thus, according to
5 the second (etc) times you cite an article, you can use et al. if
the article has more than 2
authors
Myths of violence 4
Alexander and Link (2003), any contact with the mentally ill is
associated with reduced fear and rejection. However, since this
study was observational in nature, we cannot know if contact
reduces fear or having lower fear increased contact.
White and Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies examining the
causal processes in contact, fear and rejection. Corrigan et
al. posited two models to account for stigmatizing reactions.
In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, beliefs
about personality responsibility influences both the level of

pity and anger displayed toward mental patients. Additionally,
the variables of pity and anger influence helping behavior. In
the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived
dangerousness
avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002) administered a
questionnaire to 216 community college students. This
questionnaire contained items which would allow the
examination
of the two models. The results of a path analysis indicated
that while both models fit the data, the results for the
dangerousness model seemed far more consistent with the data.
Their second study was an attempt to manipulate variables in
the
models. Participants met with either an educational group or
with a mental patient. During the meetings, myths about the
Myths of violence 5
personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental

patients were discussed and debunked. While education yielded
some positive results regarding fear and rejection, contact with
mental patients produced stronger results. Thus, Corrigan et
al. demonstrated that contact causes less rejection and fear.
Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by the
public’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentally
ill and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization. At
least one-third of the people sampled in one study said that
they would both reject socially and fear violence from someone
displaying behaviors associated with different mentally
illnesses. Other research discovered that this rejection is
associated to lack of contact with the mentally ill and that as
contact increased, fear of the mentally ill decreased. The
direction of the relationship between fear and rejection seems
to be that fear (possibly based upon myths about mental illness)
causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it appears that exposing
these myths as myths increases the acceptance of the mentally
ill and that staged contact with a mentally person to expose

myths has an even more powerful effect. Caution must be
advised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and Alexander and
Link’s
(2003) studies and the first study of Corrigan et al. (2002)
were based upon paper and pencil methodologies. And while
Corrigan et al.’s (2002) second study involved staged
Myths of violence 6
presentations, it was conducted in a college setting with a
college sample. Future research should replicate these findings
in more natural settings with different populations.
Myths of violence 7
References6
Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003). The impact of contact on
stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness.
Journal of Mental Health, 12, 271-289.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P.,

Uphoff-Wasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M.A. (2002).
Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personality
responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin,
28, 293-309.
Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear
and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’ labels, and
causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward
people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41, 208-223.
6 references begin on a new page.
Literature Review Information
What is a Review of the Literature?
Imagine yourself having come from a meeting in which a
complex debate took place. You want to tell a group of friends
about the meeting, and to do so you need to describe the
conversation. You will explain the important ideas that got
covered, who made various points, and why they made them.
When you’re finished, your friends will have a good sense of
how the conversation went, and they’ll feel able to jump into
the same discussion and make their own points.
This is exactly what reviews of literature do. They appear, in

one form or another, in virtually every academic article,
recounting what has already been said in the conversation as
well as what has been left out of the conversation, so that
readers can understand where the writer is going to jump in. Lit
reviews describe what is considered known and unknown about
a given issue. They synthesize the arguments that have already
taken place, and create a space or a “niche” for the current
writer to make her argument by demonstrating that no one has
made it and why it needs to be made to carry on the
conversation.
A review of the literature is a step up in complexity from the
annotated bib. The annotated bib separately summarized each
source. The review of the literature is a synthesis of those
sources, comparing and contrasting relevant points. An
important distinction between the annotated bib and the lit
review is that annotations are arranged by *author* whereas the
lit review is arranged by *points.* Thus, the lit review will
explain what is known about important aspects of your topic,
focusing mainly on points rather than researchers. For example
a main sentence in a lit review would put emphasis on the topic
this way:
“Rhetorical reading is an important skill for college-level
students (Haas; Flower; Jones).”
Note that the researchers’ names generally come last, while the
main point is stressed first.[footnoteRef:1] After this sentence
you might briefly describe the studies undertaken by these three
authors and explain how the studies found similar or different
things, but the focus should be on the main point that all three
share—or on a point about which they disagree. [1: This is
called “non-integral citation.” Citations in academic articles are
non-integral 68% of the time. The only discipline that more
commonly uses integral citation is philosophy (Hyland,
Disciplinary Discourses, p. 24).]

At the end of the review of the literature, you will need to
establish a niche for your own research. Here is where you say,
“That is what we know about topic X. What we don’t know
is…” You can establish a niche for yourself in four ways:
counter-claiming (“Jones says X is true, but I disagree”),
indicating a gap (“We know about X, but we do not know about
Y), question-raising (“We know X is true, but why is it true?”),
or continuing a tradition (“Jones and Smith did excellent work
and I would like to build on it by…”)
What are the Characteristics of a Good Lit Review?
Your literature review will become the first part of your
research paper. Thus, it should do three things:
1. Include a short introduction that defines or identifies the
general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an
appropriate context for reviewing the literature (this is called
establishing a territory).
2. Synthesize other research on the topic, explaining what is
known about it.
3. Conclude by stating what is missing, what is controversial,
what is not yet known, or what needs to be resolved in the
discussion. This will provide the transition later to your own
study and your research questions (this is called establishing a
niche).
In addition, a good lit review will:
· Be driven by and related directly to the thesis or research
question you are developing.
· Include only sources related to your topic, and discuss only
relevant points from those sources.
· Identify areas of controversy or discrepancy, if those are
relevant to your study.
· Group sources according to common denominators such as
conclusions of authors, findings, etc.

· Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as
little detail as each merits according to its comparative
importance in the literature, remembering that space (length)
denotes significance.
You can use headings as necessary.

Literature ReviewsPlanning and Writing Them1You’ve.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Literature ReviewsPlanning and Writing Them1You’ve.docx

Similar to Literature ReviewsPlanning and Writing Them1You’ve.docx (18)

More from smile790243

More from smile790243 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Literature ReviewsPlanning and Writing Them1You’ve.docx