Using the Literature

Answers to the questions we asked you!

Click on the to go back to the questions.

Which of the questions does this literature review answer?

This literature offers a summary of previous research, so it answers question 1. It simply tells the reader what was discovered in previous research.

Which of them doesn't it answer?

This literature review doesn't answer any of the questions from 2 to 10. It doesn't evaluate the research it summarizes, nor does it show the relationships between the different theories, views and approaches it describes.

Which method has the writer used to organize the literature review?

The writer has organized this literature review around the researchers, and has presented it chronologically (arranging the work by when it was published). Notice that by organizing it around the researchers (the summaries are listed after the names of the people who did the research) and not around the research (e.g. around key concepts) the writer emphasizes the people and not their work.

Is it a good literature review? Why?

We don't believe that it is a good literature review. It only gives a summary of previous research but it does not use the literature to explain more about the writer's own research problem. Also, it is not critical: after we read it we still do not know which theories or findings are important, which are inconclusive, what the shortcomings are, etc.

The main problem with this literature review is that it does not show how previous research relates to the writer's own research problem, or the relationship between different research already carried out. Given the organization the writer has used, this literature review could not be effective literature review because there is little scope for showing relationships, drawing comparisons, or making evaluations.

Back to the Writing up Research homepage

The Basics of Good Writing

How to reference

References (for works cited in Writing up Research)

Useful writing links