University Research Methods & Professional Skills: Literature Review

This report provides a detailed guide to conducting and writing effective literature reviews, a crucial component of academic research. It defines a literature review as a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a topic, emphasizing the importance of understanding previous research to provide context, background, and relevance to a research problem. The report outlines the structure, including an overview, categorization, and comparison of different works, and emphasizes the importance of critical evaluation, considering factors such as author credentials, objectivity, and persuasiveness. Different types of literature reviews, such as argumentative, integrative, historical, methodological, systematic, and theoretical, are discussed. The report also covers the stages of developing a literature review, including problem formulation, literature search, data evaluation, and analysis, as well as the criteria for selecting sources, including currency and chronological order. The report also provides guidelines for the writing process, such as supporting arguments with evidence, being selective, using quotes sparingly, synthesizing sources, and proper referencing. The report concludes with an example of a literature review on the determinants of minimum wage in Canada, demonstrating the application of the discussed principles.

Student’s Last Name 1
Research Methods & Professional Skills
By (Name)
Course
Professor
University
Date

Student’s Last Name 2
Introduction
Many academic scholars and researchers struggle when developing literature reviews.
For some, they do not follow the guidelines and criteria of developing a good literature review
leaving gaps in the dissertation they are working on. A literature review can be defined as a
comprehensive outline of all the theories and knowledge on a particular topic, up to the time of
carrying out the research. When working on a research topic, the first step involves carrying out
relevant research on the available topic to gain an insight on the previous work published about
the topic (Ramdhani, A Ramdhani, M, and Amin, 2014, pp.52. This ultimately translates to the
literature review when one is developing the research paper. A literature review looks into books,
journals, online resources, articles, and other relevant sources, and in so doing, it provides a
description, evaluation, and summary of the previous content about the topic (He and Brown,
2013, pp.10). It is developed in order to provide an overview of the information ones has
gathered from various sources about a particular topic, while demonstrating to the readers the
depth of your research and how it fits into the broader field of study. A literature review is a key
pillar on which the idea of the research stands. It enables the researcher to provide a background,
context, and relevance of the research problem one is exploring.
When developing a literature review, it is critical to think of knowledge as having three
layers. The first is the primary studies that need to be conducted regarding the topic. Secondly,
one should consider the reviews of the topic that either summarizes the topic or offer a new
interpretation of the original content (Bronstein and Kovacs, 2013, pp.358). The third layer is the
opinions, interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions that are informally shared and become
part of the researched field. This third layer is the one often regarded in the literature review
although it has a minimal connection to the primary studies and secondary reviews. From this,

Student’s Last Name 3
the researcher can establish several approaches and forms of literature reviews. The
argumentative review explores literature for the purpose of supporting or refuting it (Okoli, C.,
2015, pp.37). This review establishes a contrarian viewpoint. One critical disadvantage of this
kind of literature review is that it can result in bias when used in making summary claims.
Integrative review critiques, reviews and synthesizes a literature topic in an integrative manner to
develop new frameworks and perspectives regarding a topic (Bocken, Short, Rana and Evans,
2014, pp.500. The body of studies in this kind of reviews addresses identical hypothesis and is of
the same standard as the primary research. Historical review, on the other hand, examines
research done through a period of time, starting from when the issue was first conceptualized and
emerged in literature (Bavdekar and Save, 2015, pp.45). Historical review traces the evolution of
an issue. It places the research within the context of history, and show developments as well as
the likely direction the research may take in the future. The methodological review provides an
understanding of different phenomena such as data collection and analysis technique, and
research approaches (Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa, 2014, pp.3030). It enables the researcher to
gain an insight on a wide array of knowledge, including practical documentation to use in the
fieldwork in epistemological and ontological consideration, qualitative and quantitative
integration, data collection, interviewing and data analysis. It highlights the ethical issues that the
researcher needs to consider when caring out data collection and the overall research (Mancini,
et al., 2014, pp.478). Systematic review focus on empirical questions on a very specific level. It
is often stipulated in the cause and effect manner for example, ‘to what extent does a
phenomenon relate to another.’ Theoretical reviews examines the theories that have accumulated
regarding the research field under review (Bjerke and Renger, 2017, pp.126). It points out at the

Student’s Last Name 4
already existing theories, the relationship between them, to what extent they have been
investigated, and how can new hypotheses be tested.
In developing a literature review, the following criteria should be followed. First, the
overall structure should include; an overview of the subject, theory, and issues under
investigation, and the objectives of the literature review. The review should be divided into
reviews, categories, and themes. Additionally, there should be comparing and contrasting
different works. The researcher should conclude by outlining which works should be best
considered in the argument, in making the best understanding and contribution to the area of
research. It is important for the researcher to carry out a critical evaluation of the work that is to
be included in the literature review (Torraco, 2016, pp.410). The researcher should consider
provenance by checking the credentials of the author, and whether the arguments are supported
by evidence. Objectivity should also be factored in the evaluation by analyzing the perspective of
the author and establishing contrary data has been considered all the information is biased to
prove the viewpoint of the author. Persuasiveness checks for convincing theses of the author will
value outlines whether the conclusion is convincing or not (Hei and David, 2015, pp.140). The
researcher should then choose the type of review that he wants to discuss. This is after outlining
the type of information sources that are available. In choosing the type of review, one should
consider the research topic. It is also important to establish whether to carry out a mini or a full
review based on factors such as the type of audience one is targeting (Pickering and Byrne, 2014,
pp.540). For example, if the audience are busy people with strict schedules, the researcher should
opt for a mini-review by summarizing key points (Paré, Trudel, Jaana and Kitsiou, 2015,
pp.190). The development of the literature review should follow four critical stages. The first
stage is the problem formulation which outlines the topic to be studied. Literature search

Student’s Last Name 5
involves finding relevant materials for the subject, the third stage is data evaluation that
determines the literature that makes a significant contribution to the particular researched topic.
In the analysis and interpretation, the researcher should discuss the findings and conclusions
regarding the pertinent literature. The topic of research should be narrow to limit the number of
sources the researcher to read and in order to obtain a good survey of the relevant resources.
Specific topics enable the researcher to focus only on manageable issues and counters ambiguity.
Another key criterion to consider is whether the sources are current. Some of the disciplines such
as sciences require the information to be as current as possible (Hunker, Gazza, and
Shellenbarger, 2014, pp.342). However, social sciences disciplines require historical reviews in
order to establish how perspectives have changed over time and compare the development of
new theories with the old ones. A good literature review should follow a chronological order
when arranging the order of events. This allows the research to be built on previous research. For
example, research that follows the order of happening on the emergence of world economies
after the world wars (Wolfswinkel, Furtmueller and Wilderom, 2013, pp.49). Thematic literature
reviews should be on a particular issue or topic rather than the progression occasioned by time.
However, the researcher should not rule out the time factor entirely. For example, a review of the
advent of technology in politics could focus on online political rhetoric. The difference between
thematic and chronological approach is that the former emphasizes the approach while the latter
focuses on time progression. After the researcher has decided on the organization method to use,
it becomes easy to figure out what to include in the paper.
In the writing up process, the following additional criteria should be considered by the
researcher. The researcher should support his arguments with evidence. The literature review is
just like any other document. The researcher should include examples and evidence when

Student’s Last Name 6
interpreting his resources (Panadero and Jonsson, 2013, pp.130). The researcher should also be
selective by considering the most important points to highlight in the review. The information
should form a direct correlation to the research problems or the research questions the researcher
has developed. A good literature review should only use quotes when need be. The researcher
should not use direct quotes in place of summary or literature representation (Svejvig and
Andersen, 2015, pp.282). Additionally, it is important to synthesize and summarize the sources
within the paragraph. A good literature review should retaliate key points and rephrase them by
linking their importance to the topic under study (Wisdom, Riley and Myers, 2015, pp.1722). A
good literature review should present the ideas of other writers but ultimately, the ideas of the
researcher should remain front and center. For example, a researcher can refer to various theories
by other writers but retaliate his own stand when ending the paragraph. Lastly, in paraphrasing
the content of author writers, it is important for the researcher to represent the opinions and
information accurately through paraphrasing and ensures proper referencing by using both in-
text citation and references at the end of the document.
Series, G.S., From Vaughan Dickson and Tony Myatt,“The Determinants of Provincial
Minimum Wages in Canada,” Journal of Labor Research 23 (2002), 57-68.
https://egrs.jcu.edu.au/workshops/international-bridging-program/workshop-notes/literature-
review-examples
This literature review focused on factors that determine minimum wage in Canada. The
researcher has narrowed the topic to a specific area which in this case is the determinants of the
minimum wage in Canada. This literature review has, therefore, identified a specific area of
investigation. The researcher has put his topic without using too many wordings. The researcher
in this literature review has also established the importance of the problem area. For example, he

Student’s Last Name 7
has used the United States as a point of reference and retaliated the result back to his country of
study which is Canada. He has also cited how the United States categorizes minimum wage as
federal phenomena rather than a state problem. Additionally, he has cited the method of research
used to collect data which is the cross-sectional studies. In this review, the researcher has
critically established the thematic area of study as stipulated in the criteria. The literature review
also follows a historical review organization model by establishing how the laws on minimum
wage have been addressed over the years. For example, the researcher has examined the data
pool going back to eight years between the period of 1975 to 1982 (Series, Dickson and Myatt,
2002, pp.57). He has tried to connect this happening with the current situation happening at the
country of study during the period when the research was carried out. The literature review,
however, does not follow the criteria of current sources. The sources used in the research goes
back to the 20th century. However, this being social science research, the historical approach
shows the perspectives used by the early states in countering minimum wage. The researcher has
used the early sources to form a correlation with the current way of handling the problem under
review, which is the issue of a minimum wage. Another criteria applied by the researcher is the
use of evidence to support his arguments. For example, the researcher has pointed out at key
findings done by authors from the sources he has used. The researcher has also used selection to
pick important statements from his sources. Most of the statements are specific by analyzing the
current model of factors in minimum wage used in the United States and correlating them to
Canada. Additionally, most of the sources are results of findings from previous researches and
this builds a research objective for his thematic topic. The researcher has effectively paraphrased
key concepts from his sources and avoided the use of quotes. Additionally, the literature review
has acknowledged the work of other authors through proper referencing. The ideas of the

Student’s Last Name 8
researcher have been well elaborated especially in the penultimate and the final paragraph. He
has well linked the finding from his sources to his topic of study. However, the researcher has
failed to mention gaps and existing limitations in the study. Lastly, the researcher has applied
consistently referencing both in-text and at the end of the document.
Bjelland, I., Dahl, A.A., Haug, T.T. and Neckelmann, D., 2002. The validity of the
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. Journal of psychosomatic
research, 52(2), pp.69-77. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.457.6433&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The introduction of this review has failed to incorporate the findings from other sources
to form the thematic topic. Although the review narrows down to the screening and identification
of mental disorders, it does not give an accurate background to the purpose of the study. The
review has not made use of the historical review as there is no other author perspective regarding
the topic under discussion. However, the review is systematic as it follows only the outlined
topic and how it was developed. For example, the author has pointed out how the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was developed in 1983 (Bjelland, Dahl, Haug and
Neckelmann, 2002, pp.68). The author has also not displayed any information about whether the
source is current. There are no dates or time indicators in the introduction of the review.
However, the review is clear on what the studies are based on. The researcher has well outlined
the intended purpose of the research. Even though there is not any information connecting the
review to past studies in the area, the reader can well understand the direction the research is
taking (Reeves, Boet, Zierler and Kitto, 2015, pp.310). The event is well arranged
chronologically, right from when the scale was first developed in 1983, to when it was used. The
researcher has also supported his data by using numerical evidence. The researcher is also

Student’s Last Name 9
selective on his topic by focusing on a specific part which is the purpose of the HADS scale.
There is also a good summary of the findings in the conclusion part. The researcher has well-
articulated and integrated his points that form the basis of the research. The author has well
retaliated the purpose of the research at the end of the introduction. The researcher has not used
quotes in the introduction and he has well paraphrased his hypotheses. However, the researcher
has failed to properly acknowledge the sources from which he has gotten his information in the
introduction. There are proper summarization and synthesis of key points in the introduction.
The statement s are well connected and move from general findings to specific.
Conclusion
When writing a literature review, it is important for the researcher to makes use of several
literally sources and articles. It requires skills to be able to arrange and collate several articles
and pick a critical point that will form the basis of the research. This point act as the links
between previously done works and the topic the researcher is researching on. There is no agreed
way to pick on the sources but it is critical to for the researcher to ensure that the formulation and
developing of the literature review follow certain guidelines and criteria. The researcher should
be specific on the topic, use current resources, be clear with the hypothesis, use evidence to
support the arguments, and paraphrase and acknowledge the authors among other criteria. These
criteria ensure the research project meets the high standards of academic writing. The above
criteria give an insight to the reader on the purpose of the research. The audience is able to get a
background approach to similar research carried out before. The conclusion paragraph of the
literature review should outline the summary of the findings and analyses the overall state of the
research. Additionally, the researcher may explain gaps that exist in the study area and suggest
topics for future research.

Student’s Last Name 10
Bibliography
Bavdekar, S.B. and Save, S., 2015. Writing case reports: contributing to practice and
research. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(4), pp.44-48.
Bjelland, I., Dahl, A.A., Haug, T.T. and Neckelmann, D., 2002. The validity of the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. Journal of psychosomatic
research, 52(2), pp.69-77.
Bjerke, M.B. and Renger, R., 2017. Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation
and program planning, 61, pp.125-127.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production, 65, pp.42-56.
Bronstein, L.R. and Kovacs, P.J., 2013. Writing a mixed methods report in social work
research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), pp.354-360.
Galati, G. and Moessner, R., 2013. Macroprudential policy–a literature review. Journal of
Economic Surveys, 27(5), pp.846-878.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H., 2014, January. Does Gamification Work?-A Literature
Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In HICSS (Vol. 14, No. 2014, pp. 3025-3034).
He, H. and Brown, A.D., 2013. Organizational identity and organizational identification: A
review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization
Management, 38(1), pp.3-35.

Student’s Last Name 11
Hei, K.C. and David, M.K., 2015. Basic and Advanced Skills They Don't Have: The Case of
Postgraduates and Literature Review Writing. Malaysian Journal of Learning and
Instruction, 12, pp.131-150.
Hunker, D.F., Gazza, E.A. and Shellenbarger, T., 2014. Evidence-based knowledge, skills, and
attitudes for scholarly writing development across all levels of nursing education. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 30(4), pp.341-346.
Mancini, M.C., Cardoso, J.R., Sampaio, R.F., Costa, L., Cabral, C. and Costa, L.O., 2014.
Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
(BJPT). Brazilian journal of physical therapy, 18(6), pp.471-480.
Okoli, C., 2015. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature
review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, pp. 32-47.
Panadero, E. and Jonsson, A., 2013. The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment
purposes revisited: A review. Educational research review, 9, pp.129-144.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.C., Jaana, M. and Kitsiou, S., 2015. Synthesizing information systems
knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), pp.183-199.
Pickering, C. and Byrne, J., 2014. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature
reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research &
Development, 33(3), pp.534-548.
Ramdhani, A., Ramdhani, M.A. and Amin, A.S., 2014. Writing a Literature Review Research
Paper: A step-by-step approach. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 3(1), pp.47-
56.

Student’s Last Name 12
Reeves, S., Boet, S., Zierler, B. and Kitto, S., 2015. Interprofessional education and practice
guide no. 3: evaluating interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(4),
pp.305-312.
Series, G.S., From Vaughan Dickson and Tony Myatt,“The Determinants of Provincial
Minimum Wages in Canada,” Journal of Labor Research 23 (2002), 57-68.
Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: A structured literature
review with a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(2), pp.278-290.
Torraco, R.J., 2016. Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore
the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), pp.404-428.
Wisdom, J.P., Riley, H. and Myers, N., 2015. Recommendations for writing successful grant
proposals: an information synthesis. Academic Medicine, 90(12), pp.1720-1725.
Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E. and Wilderom, C.P., 2013. Using grounded theory as a
method for rigorously reviewing literature. European journal of information systems, 22(1),
pp.45-55.