Identifying Problems &

Research Gap
Week 2
Metodologi Riset
Agenda
• Literature Review
• Type of Scientific Literature
• The Analysis of Literature
• The Critical Analysis of Reasoning
Exploratory Phase Search
Strategy
Discovery/ Analysis
Secondary Sources

Expert Search Group

Interview Strategy Discussions

Individual
Depth Interviews
Source: Cooper and Schindler
Integration of Secondary Data
into the Research Process

Source: Cooper and Schindler

Conducting a Literature Search
Define
Define management
management dilemma
dilemma

Consult
Consult books
books for
for relevant
relevant terms
terms

Use
Use terms
terms to
to search
search

Locate/review
Locate/review secondary
secondary sources
sources

Evaluate
Evaluate value
value of
of each
each source
source and
and
content
content

Source: Cooper and Schindler

Literature Review
• The selection of available documents (both published and
unpublished) on the topic, which contain information,
ideas, data, and evidence written from a particular
standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views
on the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated,
and the effective evaluation of these documents in relation
to the research being proposed (Hart, 1998; p. 13).
• A step by step process that involves the identification of
published and unpublished work from secondary data
sources on the topic of interest, the evaluation of this work
in relation to the problem, and the documentation of this
work.
Literature Review

Preliminary literature review

Vs
Critical Literature Review
Literature Review
• A critical literature review ensures that:
• Important variables are not left out of the study
• The research effort is positioned relative to existing
knowledge and builds on this knowledge
• The background is available to enable you to look at a
problem from a specific angle, to shape your thinking,
and to spark useful insights on the topic of your research
• A clearer idea emerges as to what variables will be
important to consider, why they are considered
important, and how they should be investigated to solve
the problem
Literature Review
• The researcher is able to introduce relevant terminology
and to provide guiding deinitions of the concepts in the
theoretical framework
• The researcher is able to provide arguments for the
relationships between the variables in a conceptual
model
• Testability and replicability of the findings of the current
research are enhanced
• The research findings are related to the findings of the
others
Sources of Literature
• Textbooks
• Academic and professional journals
• Theses
• Conference proceedings
• Unpublished manuscripts
• Reports of government departments and
corporations
• Newspapers
• The Internet
Searching for Literature
• Most libraries have the following electronic
resources at their disposal:
• Electronic journals
• Full-text databases
• Bibliographic databases
• Abstract databases
Information Sources
Indexes/
Bibliographies

Directories
Directories Dictionaries
Dictionaries

Types
Types

Handbooks
Handbooks Encyclopedias

5-12
Conducting The Literature
• Based on the specific issues of concerns (raised in
the literature) and factors (variables( identified, the
literature review needs to be done on these
variables.
• Make sure that the identified published /
unpublished papers are available (or can have
access to them) on the topic of interest.
• Gathering the relevant ones.
• Be ready to write the literature section after
finishing this step.
Writing The Literature Review
Guidelines are adapted primarily from Galvan (2006).
Galvan outlines a very clear, step-by-step approach that
is very useful to use as you write your review.
Step 1: Identify the literature that you will review
Step 2: Analyze the literature
Step 3: Summarize the literature in table or concept
map format
Step 4: Synthesize the literature prior to writing your
review
Step 5: Writing the review
Step 1: Identify the literature that
you will review
• Familiarize yourself with online databases,
identifying relevant databases in your field of study.
• Using relevant databases: Science Direct, JSTOR,
Google Scholar;

• Import your references into a separate sheet.

• Use software for managing literature

• Example: Zotero
Evaluating Information Sources
Purpose

Format
Format Scope
Scope
Evaluation
Evaluation
Factors
Factors
Audience
Audience Authority

5-17
Step 2: Analyze the literature
Once you have identified and located the articles for
your review, you need to analyze them and organize
them before you begin writing:
• Overview the articles: Skim the articles to get an idea
of the general purpose and content of the article
(focus your reading here on the abstract, introduction
and first few paragraphs, and the conclusion of each
article).
• Group the articles into categories (e.g. into topics and
subtopics and chronologically within each subtopic).
Step 2: Analyze the literature
• Take notes

1-Identify major trends or patterns: As you read a

range of articles on your topic, you should make note
of trends and patterns over time as reported in the
literature.

2- If necessarily, select useful quotes that you may

want to include in your review: Important: If you
copy the exact words from an article, be sure to cite
the page number as you will need it.
Step 2: Analyze the literature
• Take notes

3- Identify gaps in the literature:, and reflect on why these

might exist (based on the understandings that you have gained
by reading literature in this field of study). These gaps will be
important for you to address as you plan and write your review.
4- Keep your review focused on your topic: make sure that the
articles you find are relevant and directly related to your topic.

5- Evaluate your references : you have to decide at what point

you are finished with collecting new studies so that you can
focus on writing up your findings.
Step 2: Analyze the literature
Assessing the quality of recent research:
• Is the main research question or problem
statement presented in a clear and analytical way?
• Is the relevance of the research question made
transparent?
• Does this study build directly upon previous
research?
• Will the study make a contribution to the field?
• Is there a theory that guides the research?
Step 2: Analyze the literature
• Is the theory described relevant and is it explained in an
understandable, structured, and convincing manner?
• Are the methods used in this study explained in a clear
manner (description of methods)?
• Is the choice of certain methods motivated in a
convincing way (justification of methods)?
• Is the sample appropriate?
• Are the research design and/or the questionnaire
appropriate for this study?
• Are the measures of the variables valid and reliable?
Step 2: Analyze the literature
• Has the author used the appropriate quantitative
and / or qualitative techniques?
• Do the conclusions result from the findings of the
study?
• Do the conclusions give a clear answer to the main
research question?
• Has the author considered the limitation of the
study?
• Has the author presented the limitations in the
article?
Step 3: Summarize the literature
in table or concept map format
• It is recommended to build tables as a key way to help you
overview, organize, and summarize your findings of such
literature survey, thus including one or more of the tables
that you create may be helpful in your literature review.
• You can create the table that may be relevant to your review
to include:
• Definitions of key terms and concepts and
investigation.
• Data scope
• Time frame
• Research methods
• Summary of research results
Step 4: Synthesize the literature
prior to writing your review
• Consider your purpose before beginning to write.

• Consider how you reassemble your notes.

• Create a topic outline that traces your argument.

• Within each topic heading, note differences among

studies.

• Within each topic heading, look for obvious gaps or

areas needing more research.
Step 4: Synthesize the literature
prior to writing your review
• Plan to describe relevant theories.

• Plan to present conclusions and implications.

• Plan to suggest specific directions for future

research near the end of the review.

• Flesh out your outline with details from your

analysis.
Step 5: Writing the review
• Identify the broad problem area, but avoid global
statements.
• Early in the review, indicate why the topic being
reviewed is important.
• Indicate why certain studies are important
• If citing a classic or landmark study, identify it as such
• If a landmark study was replicated, mention that and
indicate the results of the replication
• Discuss other literature reviews on your topic
Step 5: Writing the review
• Refer the reader to other reviews on issues that you
will not be discussing in details.
• Avoid long lists of nonspecific references (working
papers, unpublished papers, conference papers. …
others).
• If the results of previous studies are inconsistent or
widely varying, cite them separately
• Cite all relevant references in the review section of
thesis, dissertation, or journal article.
Step 5: Writing the review
• Remember, each literature should include:
• Definitions of key terms and concepts and
investigation.
• Time frame
• Research methods
• Summary of research results
Critical Analysis of Reasoning
Critical Thinking

The process we use to reflect on, assess and judge

the assumptions underlying our own and others
ideas and efforts.
Structured Critical Reasoning
To Identify:

• The conclusions
• The evidence
• The assumptions
• The strength and weakness of each assumption
• Fallacies in logic
Structured Critical Reasoning
Step 1. Identify all the conclusions.
A conclusion is a statement or idea in a
document that the writer wants you to
accept.

• Make a list of all the conclusions in the

document.
• When looking for the conclusion, ask yourself
first “What are the issues?”
 Structured Critical Reasoning
Step 2. Look for the reasons and evidence the author uses to support each
conclusion.
There is an important distinction between reason and evidence.
• Reasons are internal evaluations that can be based on facts and data, but are not
necessarily well substantiated.
• Reasons are often put forth as evidence and it is up to the analyzer to decide if
they are valid.
• Evidence is based on external evaluations, such as facts, data, laws, observations,
case examples or research findings.
• For each conclusion make a list of all evidence that has been given that you
think supports the conclusion.
• How strong is each piece of evidence?
• Does the evidence support the conclusion?
• What evidence would cause you to reject the conclusion?
• Is there a general lack of evidence or has significant information been
omitted?
Structured Critical Reasoning
Step 3. List all major assumptions
An assumption is a belief we use to support
the evidence. Make a list of the assumptions
in each piece of evidence. Look for hidden or
unspoken assumptions.
Structured Critical Reasoning
Step 4. Evaluate all the assumptions and evidence.
Our job is to evaluate each assumption to
determine whether it is strong or weak,
whether it is relevant and whether it is valid?
During the evaluation look for contradictions
and for fallacies in the assumptions.
Structured Critical Reasoning
Step 5. Identify Fallacies in Logic
The following table gives eleven common
fallacies in logic to look for when evaluating
the assumptions used in supporting the
evidence and the conclusions
Structured Critical Reasoning
• Fallacies in logic:
• Ambiguous or vague words or phrases.
• Citing a questionable authority
• Straw Person.
• False Dilemma, i.e. Either-Or.
• Red Herring.
• Slippery Slope.
• Appeal to Popularity.
• The Perfect Solution.
• False, Incomplete or Misleading Facts or Statements.
• Causal Oversimplification.
• Hasty Generalization.
Structured Critical Reasoning
1. Ambiguous or vague words or phrases Uses
words, phrases or sentences that have multiple
interpretations or really don’t say anything.
“The model is in close agreement with the data.”
What does the word “close” mean? What is the
measure of a “close agreement?” Within 10%?
50%?
Structured Critical Reasoning
2. Citing a questionable authority Gives credibility to
someone who has no expertise in the area.
John agrees with me that consuming energy drinks is bad
for you.
What makes John an expert on the perils of drinking
energy drinks?
John could be an expert dietician studying the subject or
have no basis for knowing anything about the effects of
energy drinks on the body other than an uneducated
opinion.
Structured Critical Reasoning
3. Straw Person. Discredits an exaggerated version of an
argument.
Recent auto accidents in your neighborhood have led you
to propose to city council to place speed bumps near each
of the two intersections along Main Street to calm the
traffic flow. Opponents complain that placing speed bumps
all up and down the street is counter productive and an
unnecessary burden on drivers.
The straw person argument here is the expansion of your
proposal from “ a speed bump near each of the two
intersections” to “speed bumps all up and down the
street”. The attribution of this alternative argument
deflects the focus from your true proposal.
Structured Critical Reasoning
4. False Dilemma, i.e. Either-Or. Assumes only the
choices stated by the author are the ones that
exist.
At a recent cocktail party, the conversation has
turned to family pets, and your friend asks you
“Are you a cat or a dog person?” Your choices here
have clearly been limited to two, when in reality
there are many others: you may have no interest
in pets at all, you may be a bird person, or you
may equally enjoy cats and dogs.
Structured Critical Reasoning
5. Red Herring. Introduces an irrelevant topic to
distract the conversation from the main topic.
You call your cell phone provider to complain
about how poor your cell phone battery life is
after the recent software update and the
representative, instead of responding to your
concern, praises the providers new unlimited text
messaging plans that are due to be released in
the next month.
Structured Critical Reasoning
6. Slippery Slope. Assumes that if this fact is true then
everything else follows.
For example a father talking to his daughter on dating
a boyfriend he doesn’t like: “If you continue dating this
guy who doesn’t take his education seriously, you’ll end
up dropping out of school, you then won’t be able to
get a job, and get married too young.
Dating someone who doesn’t take education seriously
does not mean the daughter will drop out of school
herself, marry early and be unemployable.
Structured Critical Reasoning
7. Appeal to Popularity. Justifies an assumption by stating
that large groups have the same concern or that anything
favored by a large number of people is desirable.
An opinion article in a campus newspaper states that in an
all campus survey, 95% of students think that tuition
should be lowered and therefore tuition should be lowered
immediately.
The students are biased since they have to pay tuition and
are not inclined to think of the budget problems that
would be caused if the school lowered tuition for all
students.
Structured Critical Reasoning
8. The Perfect Solution. Assumes that if a part of the
problem is not satisfied or solved (even a small
part) then the entire solution should be
abandoned.
“Don’t waste your money on a home security
system, master thieves will still be able to get into
your house.”
However, many thieves may be deterred by a
security system.
Structured Critical Reasoning
9. False, Incomplete or Misleading Facts or
Statements. Presents data in such a way that it
falsely leads someone to the wrong conclusion.
“Because 90% of college students polled had no
debt, education costs are not a problem.”
It’s possible that only 10 college students were
polled, or that the poll was taken at a banquet for
scholarship students.
Structured Critical Reasoning
10.Causal Oversimplification. Explaining an event attributing
it to a single factor, when many factors are involved or by
overemphasizing the importance of a single factor.
At a party you overhear a friend tell their spouse “I had
high blood pressure at the doctor’s office today, I really
need to reduce the stress in my job.” This friend is
obviously attributing the high blood pressure reading to
job-related stress, while there may be many additional
contributing or more important factors (lack of exercise,
poor diet, genetic predisposition, white coat syndrome,
etc.)
Structured Critical Reasoning
11.Hasty Generalization. Drawing a conclusion about
a large group based on the experiences with a few
members of the group.
All engineers are introverts who would rather
relate to computers than people
Clearly there are many engineers who are
outgoing. It is very dangerous to make sweeping
generalizations regarding a group based on
limited experience.
Ethical Issues
When you summarize, add to, or challenge the work
of others, there are two important pitfalls that you
have to beware of:
• Purposely misrepresenting the work of other
authors (viewpoints, ideas, models, findings,
conclusions, interpretations, etc)
• Plagiarism: the use of another’s original words,
arguments, or ideas as though they were your own,
even if this is done in good faith, out of
carelessness, or out of ignorance
Plagiarism

Sources not cited Sources cited

• The ghost writer • The forgotten footnote
• The photocopy • The misinformer
• The potluck paper • The too-perfect
• The poor disguise paraphrase
• The labor of laziness • The resourceful citer
• The self-stealer • The perfect crime
Source
• Zikmund, William G; Barry J. Babin, Jon C.Carr and Mitch
Griffin, 2013. Business Research Method 9th Edition
South-Western, Cengage Learning
• Cooper, Donald R., and Pamela S. Schindler. 2014.
Business Research Methods. 12nd Ed. McGraw-Hill
International Edition
• Sekaran, Uma, and Roger Bougie.2010. 5th Edition
Research Method for Business – A Skill Building
Approach, John Wiley
• umich.edu/.../powerpointpicsscr/Chapter
%203%20SCR.ppt