Academic Phrases for Writing Literature

Review Section of a Research Paper

 September 14, 2017

https://www.ref-n-write.com/trial/research-paper-example-writing-literature-review-section-
academic-phrasebank-vocabulary/

The literature review should clearly demonstrate that the author has a good knowledge of the
research area. Literature review typically occupies one or two passages in the introduction section.
A well-written literature review should provide a critical appraisal of previous studies related to the
current research area rather than a simple summary of prior works. The author shouldn’t shy away
from pointing out the shortcomings of previous works. However, criticising other’s work without
any basis can weaken your paper. This is a perfect place to coin your research question and justify
the need for such a study. It is also worth pointing out towards the end of the review that your study
is unique and there is no direct literature addressing this issue. Add a few sentences about the
significance of your research and how this will add value to the body of knowledge.

The literature review section of your research paper should include the following:

 Previous literature

 Limitations of previous research

 Research questions

 Research to be explored

Academic Phrases, Sentences & Vocabulary

 1. Previous literature:
The literature review shows that __
Previous research showed __
Seminal contributions have been made by __
A series of recent studies has indicated that __
Several theories have been proposed to __, some focusing on __, others on __
There has been numerous studies to investigate __
This has been used in several studies to assess __
Previous studies have shown __
Several studies suggest that __
This has also been explored in prior studies by __
Prior research suggests that __
Previous studies have emphasized __
The majority of prior research has applied __
Most early studies as well as current work focus on __
For instance, the following studies were conducted on __
Studies of __are well documented, it is also well acknowledged that __
A number of authors have recognized __
Some authors have also suggested that  __
Some authors have driven the further development of __
This has been discussed by a great number of authors in literature.
For example, research has provided evidence for __
The authors bring some information about the background of the problem, __
As has been previously reported in the literature, __
A large number of existing studies in the broader literature have examined __
The literature review shows that __
There exists a considerable body of literature on  __
In short, the literature pertaining to __ strongly suggests that __
Over time, an extensive literature has developed on __
This section presents a review of recent literature on __
This paper begins with a short review of the literature regarding the __
Several methods are reported in the literature to address this issue.
There is a wide choice of __ available in the literature.
This section reviews the literature related to __
It was reported in literature that __
A recent study by __ concluded that __
In the light of reported __ it is conceivable that __
The method introduced by __ has the advantage that __
One method employed by __ is __
A more comprehensive description can be found in __
For example, recent research suggests that __
This was successfully established as described by __
The author employed a __ methodology which prescribes the use of __

2. Limitations of previous research:

A number of questions regarding __ remain to be addressed.
A closer look to the literature on __, however, reveals a number of gaps and shortcomings.
This question has previously never been addressed because__
Most studies have relied on __
Previous studies by __ cannot be considered as conclusive because __
Previous studies have almost exclusively focused on __
This has been previously assessed only to a very limited extent because __
In the present studies __ were constrained to __
In previous studies were limited to __
Although results appear consistent with prior research, they appear inconsistent with __
These are previously unstudied because __
As far as we know, no previous research has investigated __
Moreover, although research has illuminated __ no study to date has examined __
Despite decades of research, this continues to be debated among __
This section points out some of the problems encountered in the extant research.
Although there are many studies, the research in __ remains limited.
However, the existing research has many problems in representing __
The literature on __ is less consistent
Historically, there has been a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding __
This approach remains briefly addressed in the literature.
These are rarely analyzed in the literature as __
There are key questions and notions that are still not discussed in the literature __
This is not clearly presented in the literature because __
This paper addresses the need for __, so far lacking in the scientific literature.
To fill this literature gap, this paper identifies __
Only a few works in literature demonstrate __
Although studies have been conducted by many authors, this problem is still insufficiently explored.
To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined __
However, the existing research has many problems in __
Therefore, important issue in the literature is __
However, we argue that previous literature suffers from certain weaknesses: __
Previous research can only be considered a first step towards a more profound understanding of __
The previous studies reveal that __ are usually the most problematic to __

3. Research questions:
More specific research questions will be introduced and investigated in __
A further question is whether __
Finally, another promising line of research would be __
The study addresses several further questions on __
Some of the interesting questions in this context are __
In order to address the questions outlined above, we report here __
These questions are of central interest as much recent research in __
Furthermore, __ is arguably an important question to be addressed.
The question now is how __ can be used to explain __
Study addresses the research question __
In order to properly address this question, we __
An important question associated with __ is __
A critical open question is whether __
A still unsolved question is whether __
This remains an open question as __
This question has previously never been addressed because __
This study offers a test of __ research question
Study addresses the research question __
Even in general __ research strategies is needed to explain __
The researcher should be interested here in __
Many questions remain unanswered __
There are some potentially open questions about the validity of __
The question that then naturally arises is __
The question then becomes how best to define__
This was an important question to study as __
4.Research to be explored:
A more systematic and theoretical analysis is required for __
As the authors note earlier, more work is necessary to__
Additional studies to understand more completely the key tenets of __ are required.
The unexpected findings signal the need for additional studies to understand more about __
This paper addresses __, so far lacking in the scientific literature.
A new approach is therefore needed for __
One of the tough challenges for all researchers in this domain is __

Language of the literature review

https://www.anu.edu.au/students/academic-skills/research-writing/literature-reviews/
language-of-the-literature-review
Literature reviews

 » Purpose of traditional literature reviews

 » Placement of traditional literature reviews
 » Structuring a literature review
 » Language of the literature review
 » Systematic literature reviews
 » Grounded theory literature reviews

The language that you use in a literature review is important for informing readers where you stand
on relevant debates on your topic or issue. In a writer-responsible academic culture, it is your job to
lead readers to the meanings and conclusions that you want them to make. Since literature reviews
can involve complex ideas and various bodies of literature, it is necessary to be explicit about how
the the studies that you cite are connected to each other and are relevant for your own research, and
how the ideas introduced are relevant for developing your argument. You can achieve this by using
language that clearly indicates your position and strengthens your voice in relation to others'.

In your introduction, you should make it clear what the purpose of the literature review is, as in the
following.

Sample introduction 1

This chapter reviews some of the epidemiological literature on the high prevalence of
non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) among Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander People, and on the aetiology of diabetes in these communities. After
examining the differing accounts of aetiology, the chapter examines the interventions
that the literature suggests. The aim of the chapter is to define the kinds of
intervention that will have the most beneficial impact. Answers to these questions are
found in accounts of both cause and action. The features of cause and action
identified here form the basis of the evaluation of the case study X in chapters three
and four.

Note how the author explains the purpose of the literature review ("The aim of the chapter is to
define the kinds of intervention that will have the most beneficial impact"). The author also
generally identifies the literature review's key message ("Answers to these questions are found in
accounts of both cause and action"). In your own introduction, you could go into more detail about
your argument. For example, consider the introduction below, which explains the key points more
directly.

Sample introduction 2

Recent advances in numerical and computational technology and the increasing

concern about optimal production of hydrocarbon fluids have given rise to an
upsurge of interest in reservoir connectivity. Two key problems in the understanding
of reservoir connectivity are the inference of the shapes and the interconnectedness
of the sedimentary bodies, and the numerical solution of the partial differential
equations describing the behaviour of the fluids. These two problems are the main
points addressed in this review.

To see how other people in your field write literature reviews in a thesis, check out the ANU Digital
Thesis Collection to find other theses, and ask your supervisor to show you some past samples.

Example 3:    LANGUAGE AND GENDER: A brief Literature Review

Here is an example of a Literature review, on the subject of Language & Gender. It

was written by Alastair Pennycook, as an example for his students.

TASK: 1. Work out

• the comparison the writer establishes in the review
• the sequence to his review (why that sequence?)
• what the writer's own perspective is
2. Note
• the use the writer makes of each of the sources he refers to
how, in his language particularly, he avoids a "black and
• white", right/wrong type of judgement of the positions he
reviews

LANGUAGE AND GENDER: A brief Literature Review

http://www4.caes.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/examples/litex3.htm

With the general growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly surprising that the
relationship between language and gender has attracted considerable attention in recent years. In an
attempt to go beyond "folklinguistic" assumptions about how men and women use language (the
assumption that women are "talkative", for example), studies have focused on anything from
different syntactical, phonological or lexical uses of language to aspects of conversation analysis,
such as topic nomination and control, interruptions and other interactional features. While some
research has focused only on the description of differences, other work has sought to show how
linguistic differences both reflect and reproduce social difference. Accordingly, Coates (1988)
suggests that research on language and gender can be divided into studies that focus on dominance
and those that focus on difference.

Much of the earlier work emphasized dominance. Lakoff's (1975) pioneering work suggested that
women's speech typically displayed a range of features, such as tag questions, which marked it as
inferior and weak. Thus, she argued that the type of subordinate speech learned by a young girl
"will later be an excuse others use to keep her in a demeaning position, to refuse to treat her
seriously as a human being" (1975, p.5). While there are clearly some problems with Lakoff's work
- her analysis was not based on empirical research, for example, and the automatic equation of
subordinate with `weak' is problematic - the emphasis on dominance has understandably remained
at the Centre of much of this work. Research has shown how men nominated topics more,
interrupted more often, held the floor for longer, and so on (see, for example, Zimmerman and
West, 1975). The chief focus of this approach, then, has been to show how patterns of interaction
between men and women reflect the dominant position of men in society.

Some studies, however, have taken a different approach by looking not so much at power in mixed-
sex interactions as at how same-sex groups produce certain types of interaction. In a typical study of
this type, Maltz and Borker (1982) developed lists of what they described as men's and women's
features of language. They argued that these norms of interaction were acquired in same-sex groups
rather than mixed-sex groups and that the issue is therefore one of (sub-)cultural miscommunication
rather than social inequality. Much of this research has focused on comparisons between, for
example, the competitive conversational style of men and the cooperative conversational style of
women.

While some of the more popular work of this type, such as Tannen (1987), lacks a critical
dimension, the emphasis on difference has nevertheless been valuable in fostering research into
gender subgroup interactions and in emphasizing the need to see women's language use not only as
‘subordinate’ but also as a significant subcultural domain.

Although Coates' (1988) distinction is clearly a useful one, it also seems evident that these two
approaches are by no means mutually exclusive. While it is important on the one hand, therefore,
not to operate with a simplistic version of power and to consider language and gender only in
mixed-group dynamics, it is also important not to treat women's linguistic behaviour as if it existed
outside social relations of power. As Cameron, McAlinden and O'Leary (1988) ask, "Can it be
coincidence that men are aggressive and hierarchically-organized conversationalists, whereas
women are expected to provide conversational support?" (p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a
great deal more research that

 is based on empirical data of men's and women's speech;

 operates with a complex understanding of power and gender relationships (so that women's
silence, for example, can be seen both as a site of oppression and as a site of possible
resistance);
 looks specifically at the contexts of language use, rather than assuming broad gendered
differences;
 involves more work by men on language and gender, since attempts to understand male uses
of language in terms of difference have been few (thus running the danger of constructing
men's speech as the ‘norm’ and women's speech as ‘different’);
 aims not only to describe and explain but also to change language and social relationships.

References
Cameron, D., F. McAlinden and K. O'Leary (1988). "Lakoff in context: the social
and linguistic
function of tag questions."  In J. Coates and D. Cameron (op. cit.). pp.
74-93.
Coates, J. and D. Cameron (Eds.) (1988) Women in their speech communities.
Harlow: Longman.
Coates, J. (1988). Chapter 6: "Introduction." In J. Coates and D. Cameron (op. cit.)
pp. 63-73.
Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row
Maltz, D.N. and R.A. Borker (1982). "A cultural approach to male-female
miscommunication."
In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge U.P.
Tannen, D. (1987). That's not what I meant. London: Dent.
Zimmerman, D. & C. West (1975) "Sex roles, interruptions and silences in
conversation"
In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.) Language and sex: difference and
dominance. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Comments - on Stance, Style and Perspective

Commentary on "Language & gender: a brief literature review"
Interpreting an author's style and stance

This text shows different aspects of how the writer (P.) uses language. We use 3 devices to
comment on these features:

underlining marks expressions which seem to take more of a tentative line of speculation or
question-posing, rather than asserting more definite positions.
bold face indicates the author's use of `stance' markers (i.e. more overtly suggesting his own
perspective or position);

italicised text marks the commentary on all aspects of what the writer is doing (including the
significance of (some of) the bolded or underlined features).

Task: In addition to the above, consider:

 What function each of the citations has in the writer’s review,

 How the writer achieves balance between perspectives by, e.g., conceding a point in order to
make a stronger point (using ‘while’ & ‘although’)
 Other ways the writer avoids making black & white statements about the different views

LANGUAGE AND GENDER: A brief critical review

With the general growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly surprising that the
relationship between language and gender has attracted considerable attention in recent years [P.
starts by linking the significance of the subject to wide interest and attention - leading into a review
of that "literature"). In an attempt to go beyond "folklinguistic" assumptions about how men and
women use language (the assumption that women are "talkative", for example), studies have
focused on anything from grammar and vocabulary to aspects of conversation analysis, such as
topic naming and control, interruptions and other interactional features (This introduces the detailed
object of study, before going on to talk about perspective or theory). While some research has
focused only on the description of differences, other work has sought to show how linguistic
differences both reflect and reproduce social difference ["While" is typically used to concede a
point, before making the point the author favours - which focus do you think the author favours ?].
Accordingly, Coates (1988) suggests that research on language and gender can be divided into
studies that focus on dominance and those that focus on difference [Notice: 1. P. is not saying that
the subject can be divided, but that "research" on the subject can be divided; 2. it’s not his division,
but Coates’ division - we’ll see this becomes important later on, 3. Why P. has placed dominance &
difference in that order].

Much of the earlier work emphasized dominance [The language here points to the reason for
dominance being discussed first ("earlier work") - always have a good reason for sequencing any
classification you make - usually either by time sequence or importance]. Lakoff's (1975)
pioneering work [adjective of approval, also implying it’s among the earliest work] suggested that
women's speech typically displayed a range of features, such as tag questions [e.g. "isn’t it ?"],
which marked it as inferior and weak. Thus, she argued that the type of subordinate speech learned
by a young girl "will later be an excuse others use to keep her in a demeaning position, to refuse to
treat her seriously as a human being" (1975, p.5). While there are clearly some problems with
Lakoff's work - her analysis was not based on empirical research [this is a negative feature,
suggesting lack of direct observation of language behaviour, & largely speculation], for example,
and the automatic equation [suggests over-generalisation] of subordinate with ‘weak’ is
problematic [this is a useful expression, signalling you will now follow up with a statement of why
you find it problematic]- the emphasis on dominance has understandably [approving] remained at
the centre of much of this work [again, the ‘while’ clause admits problems, but the main clause -
P.’s view - suggests that, on balance, the work has been valuable]. Research has shown how men
nominated topics more, interrupted more often, held the floor for longer, and so on (see, for
example, Zimmerman and West, 1975) [ P. balances Lakoff’s theoretical generalisations with
reference to some empirical studies]. The chief focus of this approach, then, [this device (… , then,
…)signals a summing up] has been to show how patterns of interaction between men and women
reflect the dominant position of men in society.

Some studies, however, have taken a different approach [this stresses the approach or perspective
rather than a black and white disagreement] by looking not so much at power in mixed-sex
interactions as at how same-sex groups produce certain types of interaction. In a typical study of
this type [a useful way of taking one reference to represent many others], Maltz and Borker (1982)
developed lists of what they described as men's and women's features of language. They argued that
these norms of interaction were acquired in same-sex groups rather than mixed-sex groups and that
the issue is therefore one of (sub-)cultural miscommunication rather than social inequality. Much of
this research has focused on comparisons between, for example, the competitive conversational
style of men and the cooperative conversational style of women. While some of the more popular
work of this type, such as Tannen's (1987), lacks a critical dimension, the emphasis on difference
has nevertheless been valuable [this parallels the concession made in the previous paragraph
about Lakoff’s work] before in fostering research into gender subgroup interactions and in
emphasizing the need to see women's language use not only as `subordinate' but also as a significant
subcultural domain.

Although Coates' (1988) distinction is clearly a useful one [more concession, but at a broader
level - the whole division suggested by Coates is given the same treatment - "while it’s useful, it has
its limitations"], it also seems evident that these two approaches are by no means mutually
exclusive [this is the key point P. makes - criticising simplistic & "dichotomous" black and white
arguments]. While it is important on the one hand, therefore, not to operate with a simplistic
version of power and to consider language and gender only in mixed-group dynamics, it is also
important not to treat women's linguistic behaviour as if it existed outside social relations of
power [this is the key to the whole literature review - THIS is the writer’s position. The ‘While
clause balances the main clause, which cautions the more recent ‘difference’ movement against
committing the same fault as the ‘dominance’ theorists]. Cameron, McAlinden and O'Leary (1988)
ask [authority often evoked in this manner to reinforce writer's favoured stance], "Can it be
coincidence that men are aggressive and hierarchically-organized conversationalists, whereas
women are expected to provide conversational support?" (p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a
great deal more research [by pointing to the need for more research' plus offering a 5-point set of
recommendations, P. argues for change & turns this into a truly "critical" review in the sense of
arguing for change] that

1. Is based on empirical data of men's and women's speech; [arguing against broad
generalisations that are not grounded on observation]
2. Operates with a complex understanding of power and gender relationships (so that
women's silence, for example, can be seen both as a site of oppression and as a site
of possible resistance); [arguing against over-simplification & "black & white"
arguments]
3. Looks specifically at the contexts of language use, rather than assuming broad
gendered differences; [cautioning against making universal statements, holding that
sociological or linguistic observations are invariably specific to particular contexts
or cultures]
4. Involves more work by men on language and gender, since attempts to understand
male uses of language in terms of difference have been few (thus running the danger
of constructing men's speech as the ‘norm’ and women's speech as ‘different’);
[suggesting difference not be seen as "deviance" from a norm]
5. Aims not only to describe and explain but also to change language and social
relationships. [this is what makes this review "critical" in social theoretical terms -
suggesting how we can promote change in our academic and social practices].

For a more sustained and in-depth exploration of stance and perspective in this author's work, see
his recent book:

Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:

Longman.