Lesson Proper for Week 7

CHAPTER 2
THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Introduction
The traditional picture of a researcher is one who stays in the library all day, voraciously devouring
books, journals and magazines. In some sense, this picture describes the initial step that a researcher
does in finding a problem. The researcher reads about the topic he has chosen to write on to determine
what other authorities say about it; he searches over the studies on the topic to see what results had
been obtained and under what condition these were obtained. He makes a summary of these literature
and then he synthesizes the results to provide a stronger basis for his study.

2.1 Functions of the Review:

Literature and studies are said to be related to present study when such:

1. Resemble the content of the present investigation;

2. Resemble the methodology and sampling plan of the [resent study; and
3. Use the same of factors or variables as the present study.

It is the researcher’s responsibility to establish that a literature or study is related to the present
investigation. The review of related literature and studies serves several functions among these are.

1. The review establishes the baseline information about the topic interest.
2. The review pinpoints the strengths and weaknesses of the studies conducted on the topic.
3. The review leads the researcher on the correct procedure to be followed for more accurate results.
4. The review highlights the importance of the investigation.

The review establishes baseline information about the topic of interest since the researcher is
able to trace the chronological stages that other researchers have undergone in developing the
topic. It is led to trace the roots from the very beginning to the present. There are practices in other
schools to disallow studies conducted over ten years ago to be part of this chapter. The author believes
that this should not be the case since the researcher must in fact establish the origin of his problem which
may have taken place a hundred year ago. The researchers must carefully note the progress done on the
topic and explicitly mention the same in this review.
The review of related literature and studies and conducted by the researcher will also identify the
strengths and weaknesses of other studies. For instance, he may be able to identify the weaknesses
in research design, sampling plans or quantitative analysis performed on data sets in previous studies
which ought not to be repeated in the present investigation.
Consequently, after conducting a thorough review of related literature and studies, the researcher
should be able to formulate the correct procedure to be followed for more accurate results. For
instance, if he finds out that an experimental design lacks control, then the researcher may opt to devise
appropriate control measures to strengthen design of his investigation.
Finally, the review highlights the important of the present investigation through the sheer volume
of students conducted on the topic. An unimportant study will die out quickly but a study of relative
importance will continue to spark in the interest in the academe over the years. The researcher should
therefor attempt to elucidate the importance of this investigation in the course of reviewing past studies.

2.2. Reviewing a Literature

A literature is an article written by an authority on a topic. Related literature usually explains the
concept of being investigated, perhaps elucidate the variables or factors that relate to this concept.
However, this literature is usually not based on empirical data. Empirical means originating in or based
on observation or experience.
Due to the nature or related literature, the researcher must be carefully reviewed the contents of
these pieces of information. The example below clearly explains what one authority says about the topic
may not be the same as the other authority. They are contrasting in terms of their ideas.
“Peters (1993) claims that job-related stress can enhance productivity up to a certain point. There is,
however, a threshold point beyond which stress becomes a harmful factor in one’s productivity. On the
other hand, Saunders (1992) averred that in his experience as a clinical psychologist, stress always
produce a negative effect on one’s productivity.”
Related literature also identifies the origin of the problem at hand as the next example illustrates:

“The idea of using the sample mean as a measure of central tendency has a long-standing history. It is an
almost automatic reaction for people confronted with a mass of data to add the set of members and divide
the total number of observations. Gauss (1700), however demonstrated that the sample mean indeed
satisfies optimality criterion when the original observations are normally distributed.”

2.3 Reviewing the Study:

Related studies in contrast to related literature are works based on empirical data. In reviewing
related studies one must take careful note of the: problem, the methodology including the sampling plan,
the instruments used, the findings and conclusions. The researcher reviews such studies by commenting
on the research design used given the problem statement. At the end of the researcher’s review, how the
study is being reviewed relates to the present investigation and identifies similarities and differences with
the present study. In reviewing related studies, the researcher carefully notes the following points:

1. The researcher’s motivation for conducting the study

2. The statement of the problems;
3. The variables involved in the study including their quantification;
4. The research design including sampling plan utilized by the investigator;
5. The quantitative analysis employed to analyze the data; and
6. The major results and conclusions.

The researcher must establish motivation of past studies to determine at what point this particular
investigation being reviewed enters to the chronological development of the topic. Next, the researcher
scans through the problem statements, the variables involved and how these variables are quantified in
the past studies. Finally, the researcher lists down the major results and conclusions of the past studies.

2.4 Local and Foreign Studies

 The researcher reviews both local and foreign studies in order to give a balanced
presentation of the investigations being conducted in various settings. Foreign studies may have
some biased in terms of the cultural background of the respondents of the study and, therefore, there is a
need to review local studies conducted on the same topic so that the effects of the cultural differences
may be ascertained. Both local and foreign studies are normally reviewed in chronological order in order
to establish the time-order progression of the topic. A researcher should not be surprised to find out that
several researchers conducted on the same topic have different albeit, conflicting results.
Conflicting results may be observed due to the differences in the population frame utilized in a
different study. Differing results may also be observed due to difference in the research designs. One
study may have used experimental design, while other may have used the descriptive design. Finally, two
studies may use identical populations, identical instruments, identical design but differ in their statistical
treatments. It is known fact in Statistics that statistical tests do not possess a “monotone property”,
meaning that the “chi square test” could lead to a different conclusion compared to t-test. It is at this point
that the researcher must consult his statistician to determine if the statistical tests employed are “optimal”.
How to Write a Literature Review?
1. Narrow your topic and select papers accordingly - Consider your specific area of study. Think
about what interests you and what interests’ other researchers in your field. Talk to your professor,
brainstorm, and read lecture notes and recent issues of periodicals in the field. Limit your scope to a
smaller topic area (ie. focusing on France's role in WWII instead of focusing on WWII in general).
2. Search for Literature. Define your source selection criteria (ie. articles published between a
specific date range, focusing on a specific geographic region, or using a specific methodology). Using
keywords, search a library database. Reference lists of recent articles and reviews can lead to other
useful papers. Include any studies contrary to your point of view.
3. Read the selected articles and evaluate them. Evaluate and synthesize the studies’ findings and
conclusions. Note the following:
a. assumptions some or most researchers seem to make
b. methodologies, testing procedures, subjects, material tested researchers use
c. experts in the field: names/labs that are frequently referenced
d. conflicting theories, results, methodologies
e. popularity of theories and how this has/has not changed over time
4. Organize the selected papers and develop a set of subtopics. rite a one or two sentence
statement summarizing the conclusion you have reached about the major trends and developments you
see in the research that has been conducted on your subject.
5. Write the paper. Follow the organizational structure you developed above, including the headings
and subheadings you constructed. Make certain that each section links logically to the one before and
after. Structure your sections by themes or subtopics, not by individual theorists or researchers. Prioritize
analysis over description.
6. Review your work. Look at the topic sentences of each paragraph. If you were to read only these
sentences, would you find that your paper presented a clear position, logically developed, from beginning
to end? The topic sentences of each paragraph should indicate the main points of your literature review