Literature Review Assignment
Requirements: Your Review of the Literature should have no fewer than eight credible sources (no Wikipedia or textbooks), at least six of which should be scholarly (peer reviewed) articles and may be primary or secondary (remember that book reviews, introductions, and editorials in scholarly journals are not peer reviewed! ). You may exceed the eight source minimum as long as there are six scholarly sources. The remaining two sources may be popular, trade/professional, scholarly or any combination of these categories. Your Literature Reviews should also include correct in-text citations and a “References” (APA) page at the end for full citations of your sources (without annotations).
Grading: The entire Literature Review assignment is worth 60 points, up to 5 of which will be earned by completion of a preliminary in-class synthesis activity.
Objective: To gain mastery over your research material by carefully organizing,
synthesizing, and evaluating sources with a view to future possibilities for your topic, whether they are your recommendations for best practices or ideas for future research. Thus, the Literature Review is not an end in itself, but should be seen as a means of gathering important information so that you may answer the question: What should happen next to solve a problem, add to research efforts, or improve current practices? Your grant proposals will be the vehicle for advancing your ideas.
Audience: Academic. Avoid contractions and personal pronouns whenever possible.
Student Learning SLO-4, Inquiry: Articulate and refine a research question (which you did Objectives to narrow down your topic).
SLO 5, Inquiry: Follow ethical principles (no plagiarism of any kind—remember your tutorial!)
SLO 6, Inquiry: Situate the scholarly inquiry [and inquiry process] within a broader context. The “broader context” here is simply your synthesis and
evaluation of your sources that generated your own focused “scholarly inquiry” to answer your research question.
SLO 7, Inquiry: Apply appropriate scholarly conventions during scholarly
inquiry/reporting (think about the differences between humanities and science conventions that we saw in Bazerman and Madigan et al.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
For this assignment you will not be writing summaries of your sources as you did for the annotated bibliography. Instead, you will compose a review that does the following:
• Discovers conflicts, contradictions, and variables among the authors’ ideas/methods/evidence;
• Reveals gaps in the research to identify a possible direction for your own conclusions/recommendations/ideas for research;
• Demonstrates the relationships between your sources which will enable you to organize them into categories (category titles will appear as subheadings in your review); methodologies, definitions, results, etc. should be compared when possible. Avoid summing up sources without making connections between them. The examples in our readings and sample literature reviews should be helpful in that they will show how to set up categories and demonstrate very strong relationships between the sources. We will also have an in-class exercise using a grid to plot out these relationships. In your review language such as “Like Jones, or “While Smith believes _________, Jones argues that__________” show that you are not only examining individual authors but also viewing the scholarly field for your issue as a whole by making these connections.
• Provides your own critique of sources as you review them, including in the conclusion which should include a brief overview of positions presented, as well as your take on the overall significance of others’ findings that could contribute to your own recommendation(s) or possible future research project.
Also, avoid excessive quoting (no block quotes!); while a few are fine, it is important to realize that the ability to put a complex argument into your own words demonstrates a deeper understanding of the material than just quoting significant passages.
Careful reading of your sources will make their synthesis easier as categories will suggest themselves. For example, individual sources for the topic of HIV/AIDS categories might mention the current state of the disease, geographic distribution of those affected, various treatments, and prevention; make notes on each time your authors make a point that falls into one of those categories.
Summary of Guidelines and Hints for Writing the Rough Draft:
1. You will begin with an introduction that should indentify the topic area in broad terms, and then narrow it down to your particular interest in the subject and state your research question. For example, bacteria are becoming increasingly drug resistant with consequences for all living things. Then you could mention some of these threats before saying something like “one source is the excessive amounts of preventative antibiotics administered to animals raised for human consumption.” Your research question might be something like “Are there alternatives to using antibiotics to prevent disease in livestock?” It is also important to stress why your topic is important (statistics are a useful way to draw attention to the significance of your issue) and to whom (so what? who cares?). A “road map” at the end outlining your categories will help to prepare the reader for what you are about to say.
2. If there are differences in definitions of key terms among your sources, point them out early in the review.
3. Each category/subheading should contain a synthesis of its authors’ points and, when possible or appropriate, your own response to the person(s)’ ideas, methods, etc. Remember that noting that an article was “easy” or “hard” to read is not a critical comment. If you deem one study or theory is of particular importance, say so and why you think so (it is bigger, more recent, had a better methodology which included_______), etc.
4. Mark boundaries!! Remember Harris’ chapter and be very careful that you clearly indicate where your sources and your own comments begin and end. Not doing so can, at the very least, be confusing, and at the worst it is plagiarism.
5. Cite all sources carefully, both in-text and on the References page. Sloppy citations will cost points.
6. Be aware of the publication dates of your sources. Galvan suggests a 5-year range for scholarship in the sciences; if you have earlier studies you may certainly use them, but let the reader know you are aware of the difference and defend its use, e.g., although study X was published in 1999, all subsequent studies have adopted some of the authors’ results.
7. As suggested above, your conclusion should sum up your reaction to the research, but also point to your own questions, conclusions, or recommendations on the topic.
Hint: Some suggestions you’ve heard before: Read each article at least twice!! And take notes!! I can’t emphasize these points enough. I love trees, but printing out on-line articles and making notes in the margins, as well as underlining key passages, will make your lives much easier. If you like to keep notes on index cards, all the better. I have referred to the following for some of this assignment:
Galvan, J.L. (2009). Writing literature reviews. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|