What we are talking about here is the writing of the

review. We assume that you have made sense of the

literature, and that you know the role of the literature
and its place in your thesis. Below are links to other
sections covering these aspects.
You will doubtless write your literature review several
times. Since each version will serve a different
purpose, you should not think you are writing the same
thing over and over and getting nowhere. Where you
may strike trouble is if you just try to take whole
sections out of an earlier version and paste them into
the final version which, by now, has to be differently
conceived.
In practical terms, it is necessary to have an overall
picture of how the thread runs through your analysis of
the literature before you can get down to actually
writing a particular section. The strategy which writers
use as a way to begin the literature review is to proceed
from the general, wider view of the research you are
reviewing to the specific problem. This is not a formula
but is a common pattern and may be worth trying.
Let's look at an example taken from the first pages of a
literature review. This shows us the progression from
general to specific and the beginning of that thread
which then continues through the text leading to the
aims.
Despite the undisputed success of
quantum mechanics, many important
fundamental problems and questions
remain unanswered (see for example
X, 1973): the measuring process
cannot be satisfactorily described in
QM formalism; there are great
mathematical stumbling blocks to
attempt to make QM consistent with
the assumptions of special relativity;
.., just to name a few.
[This is basically an introductory section, which
starts with a statement of the problem in very

broad terms, alerting us to the fact that not

everything is rosy, and proceeds to sketch in
specific aspects.]
Without doubt, one of the most widely
discussed of these is [this closes
in on what the focus of the problem
is] Like most fundamental issues in
physics, this question leads to
challenges at several levels of
thought. At the philosophical level
this issue poses questions about . At
the physical level we are forced to
examine . At the mathematical
level many questions are raised about
the completeness and logical
consistency .
[The text moves on to specify issues at various
levels. Although the focus is sharper, the
coverage at the same time opens out.]
An important instance in which all of
these challenges converge occurs with
the concept of 'angle' in the
description of quantum systems
[Thus the text has set up the situation where all
aspects of the problem--theoretical, practical,
etc.--are brought together.]
Whatever the pattern which fits your work best, you
need to keep in mind that what you are doing is writing
about what was done before. But, you are not simply
reporting on previous research. You have to write about
it in terms of how well it was done and what it
achieved. This has to be organised and presented in
such a way that it inevitably leads to what you want to
do and shows it is worth doing. You are setting up the
stage for your work.
For example, a series of paragraphs of the kind:
"Green (1975) discovered .";
"In 1978, Black conducted
experiments and discovered that .";
"Later Brown (1980) illustrated this in
";
demonstrates neither your understanding of the

literature nor your ability to evaluate other people's

work.
Maybe at an earlier stage, or in your first version of
your literature review, you needed a summary of who
did what. But in your final version, you have to show
that you've thought about it, can synthesise the work
and can succinctly pass judgement on the relative
merits of research conducted in your field. So, to take
the above example, it would be better to say something
like:
"There seems to be general agreement
on x, (for example, White 1987,
Brown 1980, Black 1978, Green
1975) but Green (1975) sees x as a
consequence of y, while Black(1978)
puts x and y as . While Green's
work has some limitations in that it
., its main value lies in ."
Approaching it in this way forces you to make
judgements and, furthermore, to distinguish your
thoughts from assessments made by others. It is this
whole process of revealing limitations or recognising
the possibility of taking research further which allows
you to formulate and justify your aims.
Making sense of the literature.
Making sense of the literature - first pass.
Making sense of the literature - second pass.
Making sense of the literature - final pass.
I have made several attempts at beginning to
write my literature review but I keep changing
it. Is there a 'correct' or proper way to organise it?
Seeking, receiving and handling feedback.
Strategies for getting the best feedback possible.

Overcoming reluctance to seek feedback.

Apparently I have to write a research proposal.
What do I need to do?
Why do I have to have a literature review
Keeping your research focused.
Writing a proposal.
What style of writing is expected?
Use of the personal pronoun.
Active vs passive voice.
The use of tenses.
Tackling the writing of drafts.
Working on a section.
Revising and editing.
Revision.
Editing.
Some writing tips.