LITERATURE REVIEW

11.01.10
Are these texts LR
◻ Gakidou, E., C. Murray and J. Frenk (2000) Defining and
◻ measuring health inequality: an approach based on the
◻ distribution of health expectancy. Bulletin of the World
◻ Health Organization 78 (1): 42–54.
◻ This article stems from a previous work by the same authors
◻ [44]. The authors propose measuring health inequality
◻ as "differences in health across individuals in the
◻ population" [8]. The approach assumes that "we should
◻ be concerned with inequality in health, whether or not it
◻ is correlated with inequality in other dimensions of wellbeing".
◻ The measure proposed is individual health expectancy-
◻ a measure that combines an individual's risks of being
◻ in a state of less than perfect health across his or her
◻ lifespan and reflects the expected number of years an individual
◻ can be expected to live in full health. The authors
◻ suggest two types of health inequality measures: 1) the
◻ differences between the individual and the mean of the
◻ population; and 2) inter-individual differences. Formulae
◻ for and illustrations of each measure are discussed.
• Murray, C., E. Gakidou, and J. Frenk (2000). Response to
• P. Braveman et al. Bulletin of the World Health Organization
• 78 (2): 234–235.
• The authors reply to Braveman, Krieger and Lynch [11]
arguing
• that their own approach to measuring health inequalities
• aims to measure the distribution of health
• expectancy across populations and that this approach is a
• necessary prerequisite for investigating the causes and
solutions
• to health inequalities [9]. They state: "if health inequality
• is measured only through social group
• differences, such as in education, health inequality that is
• not correlated to the social variable chosen will simply not

◻ Braveman, P., N. Krieger and J. Lynch (2000). Health inequalities
◻ and social inequalities in health. Bulletin of the
◻ World Health Organization 78 (2): 232–233.
◻ The authors argue that the approach to measuring inequalities
◻ life years between two groups in a society [4]. Subjects
◻ in health advocated by Gakidou, Murray and
◻ Frenk (2000) [8], which seeks to "categorize individuals
◻ only according to their health, without reference to other
◻ characteristics" 1) ignores important social determinants
◻ of health inequalities; 2) may prevent social inequalities
◻ in health from occupying an important place on the global
◻ research and policy agenda; 3) ignores ethical considerations ◻
◻ at the population level that would favor guiding
◻ resources to those with both poorer health and lower social
◻ position; and 4) may undermine current global efforts
◻ aimed at the study of the social determinants of health
◻ [11].
◻ Andersson, F. and C. H. Lyttkens (1999). Preferences for
◻ equity in health behind a veil of ignorance. Health
Economics
◻ 8(5): 369–78.
◻ The authors model individual attitudes to distributions of
are
◻ asked to place themselves behind a "veil of ignorance"
◻ which is specified in terms of uncertainty about the
various
◻ states of affairs in each society. Individuals were asked
◻ to choose between two scenarios with differing life
expectancies
◻ for different population groups in each case. The
authors found that individuals prefer societies with more
◻ equal distributions of health. However, an individual's
◻ propensity to prefer a society with improved life
expectancy
◻ for the worst off is mitigated by the cost of reducing life
◻ expectancy for the better off. This finding contradicts
◻ Rawl's prediction that when placed behind a veil of
ignorance,
◻ people would always prefer to improve the situation
◻ of the worst-off in society.
• Most researchers on this topic, including Bazley & Nikolai (1975),
• Windal (1981), Jacobs et al. (1986), Dyl & Lilly (1985), base their rankings
• of academic institutions on the number of articles written in selected
• accounting publications. Recognizing differences in the quality of
• accounting journals, most studies analyzing faculty publications in
• prestigious academic journals (e.g., The Accounting Review or Journal of
• Accounting Research) consider main articles, notes, and commentaries.
• However, studies based upon data bases, [e.g., Heck et al. (1990, 1991)],
• usually credit only articles appearing in journals that list their authors'
• names in their tables of contents, thus giving no credit for notes, section
• articles, and letters to the editor appearing in most practitioner journals,
• such as The CPA Journal (CPAJ), Management Accounting (MA), and
• Journal of Accountancy (JOA). But articles based upon a review of the
• Accountant's Index (AI) [e.g., Campbell & Morgan (1987)] or of faculty
• curricula vitae [e.g., Jensen et al. (1989)] credited all classes of articles.
• Many studies accumulated all articles written in academic or professional
• journals [e.g., Koch et al. (1983), Hagerman & Hagerman (1989)] or
• developed matrices to detail the number of articles written in specific
• journals [e.g., Cummings & Clark (1988), Cerullo & Cerullo (1987),
• Windal (1981)]. Based upon a review of the literature, accounting studies
• have ranked between 15 [e.g., Bazley & Nikolai (1975), Andrews &
• Productivity of Accounting Faculty Members 435
• McKenzie (1978)] and 716 [i.e., Hasselback & Reinstein (1995a)]
• institutions; counted between four (Andrews & McKenzie, 1978) and 69
• (Bublitz & Kee, 1984) journals; listed the productivity of between 29
• (Cummings & Clark, 1988) and approximately 400 (Heck et al., 1991)
• faculty members; analyzed the publication records of between 79 (Campbell
• & Morgan, 1987) and 344 (Milne & Vent, 1989) promoted faculty
• members; and ascertained the relative journal quality based upon surveys
• from between 156 of 700 (Morris et al., 1990) to 408 of 2000 (Hall & Ross,
• 1991) respondents.
LR
◻ Neither a summary of related works nor a mere catalogue of
previous studies published in the field.
◻ LR is a well-organized critical appreciation of relevant
literaure conceptually integrated within the logic of the
proposed investigation.
◻ LR should show whether:
◻ - other researchers have studies the same or similar problems
before
◻ - From what perspectives have these studies been
conducted
◻ - whether the researchers have been theoretically or
emperically adequate
◻ - students show their strengths and weaknesses and show
the proposed research builds on what others have done and
how it fills in the current works.
◻ LR provides evidence that the researcher is
familiar with the study to be undertaken.
◻ May not be exhaustive but it must relate to the
objectives of the study
◻ Avoid presenting abstract by paragraphs.
Constructing LR
◻ Collect, scan and read the literature
◻ Group the literature according to scheme – maybe according
to type of concepts or variables used, level of analysis used…
◻ Evaluating LR the following Qs:-
◻ 1. what type of research has been done in the area
◻ 2. what research Qs have been asked (what theories have
been posed)
◻ 3. what research methods
◻ 4. what suggestions do other researchers make for further
study
◻ 5. what hs not been investigated
◻ 6. how can the proposed study add to further knowledge
LR should do the following
• Provide a context for your research
• Ensure that the research has not been done
before
• Justify your research
• Show where the research fits into the existing
body of knowledge
• Show how the specific area has been studied in
the past
• Show weaknesses in previous research
• Indicate gaps in previous research
• Show that the present study will contribute to the
knowledge in the field.
LR Process
◻ Searching –
◻ Reading
◻ Writing
◻ - Note Taking, Summaries, informal writing
(Important to include your own comments for
your notes taking – distinguish clearly between
the ideas from the text and your own
observations)
◻ - Formulating Research Questions
◻ - Locating previous research in the area
◻ - Identifying theories, terminology, concepts,
policy and methodology.
◻ - Developing categories and themes for the
reading.

◻ - Specifying title and section headings for the

literature review.
◻ Writing and revisiting drafts of your review
◻ Developing your argument: Identifying source
texts to support each step in your argument
What to think in LR
◻ What do I know about my research topic?
◻ What I am looking for in the literature is….
◻ What are the schools of thought in the
literature?
◻ The “great debates” in my area are….?

◻ This type of regular writing is a means to

establishing what you already know, identify
what further reading you need to do, clarifying
how your research links with that of others and
developing your own understanding and
Critical Reading
◻ To read critically and analytically, try to answer
the following Qs.
◻ - What is the author’s central argument or
main point…i.e what does the author want you
the reader, to accept?
◻ - What conclusions does the author reach?
◻ - What evidence does the author put forward
in support of his or her arguments and
conclusion?
◻ - Do you think the evidence is strong enough to
support the arguments and conclusions.., i.e is
◻ What is the background context in which the
text was written? Does the cultural and
historical context have an effect on the
author’s assumptions, the content and the
way it has been presented.
Importance of LR
◻ To provide a historical background for your
research.
◻ To give an overview of the current context in
which your research is situated by referring to
contemporary debates, issues and questions
in the field.
◻ To discuss relevant theories and concepts
which underpin your research
◻ To introduce relevant terminology and provide
definitions to clarify how terms are being used
in the context of your own work.
◻ To describe related research in the field and
show how your work extends or challenges
this, or addresses a gap in previous work in the
field
◻ To provide supporting evidence for a practical
problem or issue which your research is
addressing.
Plagiarism – An Academic Malpractice

◻ Ideas, words, findings of others without

acknowledging
◻ Quoting directly from the text without
acknowledging the sources
◻ Paraphrasing without acknowledging the
sources
◻ Constructing a paraphrase that closely
resembles the original in language and syntax