And the purpose is to situate your study in the field – that is, to establish a space for the work you are going to do – and to find concepts and approaches that are helpful, that you can build on. It is also important to understand key debates and differences in the field so that you can position yourself in relation to them. The literature review thus typically discusses a field of knowledge production and key concepts and lines of argument within it. The literature review is not finished in the first year of doctoral study, and the ways in which texts are used to develop a research proposal in year one may not be the same as their use in the final thesis text when the findings and argument are known. But whether it’s early or later literature work, there is always noting to do. There is one major maxim about noting – it’s not rewriting the book or the article. That’s a waste of time and it misses the point. So what’s the point then? Let’s imagine you have a text that you have just read. It’s important to understand first of all what the writer is claiming and arguing. You should be able to explain to someone else in a very short space of time what the text is about. Putting the text away, and then saying/writing a few sentences means that you have to summarise and synthesise what you’ve read, as well as translate it into your own words. This process of making sense of the text, of interpreting it, is important not only for your immediate understanding, but also for the ways in which you can use this understanding to make your own arguments later. So the first step in noting is to write the argument and the claim of the paper in no more than three to four sentences. This requires a bit of disciplined thinking. But the sentences don’t have to be perfect, they just need to work for you. And, because the articles you read for your literature review are going to be related to your study in some way, it is also helpful to note how. So, some questions to consider are: (1) Is the text located in the same field, or another one? This is important because you may want to argue that part of your contribution is to bring understandings from another field into your own, or that you are doing interdisciplinary research. (2) What aspect of your topic does the text address? This is important to know because if you are going to argue that your research fills a space you want to have a clear idea of what is already there and how your work might be different. Its significance lies in the particular contribution. (3) What definition is offered of the topic? It is often the case that there are differing understandings of what appears to be the same thing, so being able to define what you take to be the meaning of the topic – and why – and who else uses this definition, if anyone – is important. (4) If the text is in the same or a different field, what concepts and language are brought to bear on the topic that might be helpful to you? It is not possible for any research to do everything, and so we all build on others’ work. We refer to this borrowing through citations: these are the textual signposts to the things that we take as building blocks for our own research. (5) What kind of text is this? Is it theory building? A think piece? A meta-study or systematic review? An empirical piece of work? How does this kind of research connect with your study? It may be that this is a piece of research which uses the same kind of approach that you are thinking about. If empirical, then you will want to take note of the epistemological tradition, the methodology, site, methods and sample because it may be that this is where the difference in what you are doing can be located. It may be that you want to work in a different empirical tradition altogether, using an approach unlike this one, in which case you need to know how your work will differ. But it may be that this is work that you want to build on. If it is a meta-study or a systematic review, is the conclusion helpful in creating the space for your study? Or will any of the categorizations of the field or the research traditions be helpful to you either to argue for the space for your work or perhaps to develop your research design? If it is theory building, what does this approach allow the writer to see and say? What is included and excluded? How might this be helpful to you, and/or how might it help create the warrant for your study? (6) What categorisations are offered? What are the key concepts and framings that are used? Are any of these useful in your work? Will you need to present some kind of critique of any of them in your literature review? Can these categorisations be expressed as key words? (7) What connections does this text make? Are there new literatures in the reference list that you need to look at? Does the text offer new insights for your research? It is important when answering these – and other questions that you may want to ask of a text – that you do not write reams. It is possible – desirable even – to write three or four sentences about the overall argument or claim, and then write a small number of phrases in answer to any of questions (1)–(7). These can simply be bullet points. Both the sentences and bullets can be entered into any of the digital referencing systems – they are then searchable and retrievable even after years. I am still searching for and finding notes I entered in Endnote some fifteen years ago. Crucially, once you have these kinds of systematic notes you can then group the articles in different ways. Texts can for example be clumped together around definitions, different aspects of the topic – we might call these themes in the literature – methods, theoretical approaches or epistemological traditions. In the next blog I want to talk some more about the process of grouping – or making patterns of – your noted texts.

How to write a literature review

What is a literature review? The aim of a literature review is to show your reader (your tutor) that you have read, and have a good grasp of, the main published work concerning a particular topic or question in your field. This work may be in any format, including online sources. It may be a separate assignment, or one of the introductory sections of a report, dissertation or thesis. In the latter cases in particular, the review will be guided by your research objective or by the issue or thesis you are arguing and will provide the framework for your further work. It is very important to note that your review should not be simply a description of what others have published in the form of a set of summaries, but should take the form of a critical discussion, showing insight and an awareness of differing arguments, theories and approaches. It should be a synthesis and analysis of the relevant published work, linked at all times to your own purpose and rationale. According to Caulley (1992) of La Trobe University, the literature review should: • compare and contrast different authors' views on an issue • group authors who draw similar conclusions • criticise aspects of methodology • note areas in which authors are in disagreement • highlight exemplary studies • highlight gaps in research • show how your study relates to previous studies • show how your study relates to the literature in general • conclude by summarising what the literature says The purposes of the review are: • to define and limit the problem you are working on • to place your study in an historical perspective • to avoid unnecessary duplication • to evaluate promising research methods • to relate your findings to previous knowledge and suggest further research A good literature review, therefore, is critical of what has been written, identifies areas of controversy, raises questions and identifies areas which need further research.

Structure of the literature review The overall structure of your review will depend largely on your own thesis or research area. What you will need to do is to group together and compare and contrast the varying opinions of different writers on certain topics. What you must not do is just describe what one writer says, and then go on to give a general overview of another writer, and then another, and so on. Your structure should be dictated instead by topic areas, controversial issues or by questions to which there are varying approaches and theories. Within each of these sections, you would then discuss what the different literature argues, remembering to link this to your own purpose. linking words are important. If you are grouping together writers with similar opinions, you would use words or phrases such as:

similarly, in addition, also, again More importantly, if there is disagreement, you need to indicate clearly that you are aware of this by the use of linkers such as: however, on the other hand, conversely, nevertheless At the end of the review you should include a summary of what the literature implies, which again links to your hypothesis or main question.

Writing the review You first need to decide what you need to read. In many cases you will be given a booklist or directed towards areas of useful published work. Make sure you use this help. With dissertations, and particularly theses, it will be more down to you to decide. It is important, therefore, to try and decide on the parameters of your research. What exactly are your objectives and what do you need to find out? In your review, are you looking at issues of theory, methodology, policy, quantitive research, or what? Before you start reading it may be useful to compile a list of the main areas and questions involved, and then read with the purpose of finding out about or answering these. Unless something comes up which is particularly important, stick to this list, as it is very easy to get sidetracked, particularly on the internet. A good literature review needs a clear line of argument. You therefore need to use the critical notes and comments you made whilst doing your reading to express an academic opinion. Make sure that: • you include a clear, short introduction which gives an outline of the review, including the main topics covered and the order of the arguments, with a brief rationale for this. • there is always a clear link between your own arguments and the evidence uncovered in your reading. Include a short summary at the end of each section. Use quotations if appropriate. • you always acknowledge opinions which do not agree with your thesis. If you ignore opposing viewpoints, your argument will in fact be weaker.

Your review must be written in a formal, academic style. Keep your writing clear and concise, avoiding colloquialisms and personal language. You should always aim to be objective and respectful of others' opinions; this is not the place for emotive language or strong personal opinions. If you thought something was rubbish, use words such as "inconsistent", "lacking in certain areas" or "based on false assumptions"! (See Guide 1.21) When introducing someone's opinion, don't use "says", but instead an appropriate verb which more accurately reflects this viewpoint, such as "argues", "claims" or "states". Use the present tense for general opinions and theories, or the past when referring to specific research or experiments: Although Trescothick (2001) argues that attack is the best form of defence, Boycott (1969) claims that … In a field study carried out amongst the homeless of Sydney, Warne (1999) found that … And remember at all times to avoid plagiarising your sources. Always separate your source opinions from your own hypothesis. making sure you consistently reference the literature you are referring to. When you are doing your reading and making notes, it might be an idea to use different colours to distinguish between your ideas and those of others. (See Guide 1.13). Top of page

Final checklist Here is a final checklist, courtesy of the University of Melbourne: Selection of Sources

Have you indicated the purpose of the review? Are the parameters of the review reasonable? Why did you include some of the literature and exclude others? Which years did you exclude? Have you emphasised recent developments? Have you focussed on primary sources with only selective use of secondary sources? Is the literature you have selected relevant? Is your bibliographic data complete? Critical evaluation of the Literature

Have you organised your material according to issues? Is there a logic to the way you organised the material? Does the amount of detail included on an issue relate to its importance? Have you been sufficiently critical of design and methodological issues? Have you indicated when results were conflicting or inconclusive and discussed possible reasons? Have you indicated the relevance of each reference to your research? Interpretation

Has your summary of the current literature contributed to the reader's understanding of the problems? Does the design of your research reflect the methodological implications of the literature review? Note