REPORT TOPIC: Literature Reviews: Finding and Reviewing Research Evidence

Literature review and writing form the basis of every academic research and
writing, and it is most significant and indispensable to every academic research work
[ CITATION Moh19 \l 1033 ]. It is designed to familiarize the readers of the essay with key
findings from various studies. It is designed to provide contextual knowledge the reader
will need in order to understand the findings and their significance; the literature review
allows the reader to enter into conversation about a topic in his/her field by getting
acquainted with what others are saying so he/she can extend the conversation they
begun. (Foss, 2017, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019)

Figure 1. The literature review process

Source: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/research-techniques/literature-reviews/evaluate

A. Basic Issues and Challenges Relating to Literature Reviews

 The process of carrying out academic literature review and writing has
theoretically and practically been confusing, boring, messy, and time,
energy and resource consuming, especially to inexperienced and short
time researchers, and postgraduate students in particular with limited time
(Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019).
 As it requires ample time and energy, many academics and researchers
do not like review/writing academically because of several factors as:
feeling of inaction while starting the work; being fixed or choked-up at
some point while writing; inferiority, nervousness and shyness before
other writers (Fawcett, Waller, Miller, Schwieterman, Hazen & Overstreet,
2014; Murray & More, 2006:28-29, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed,
2019).
 It demands multiple engagements which have to do with searching for
materials from various sources, carefully choosing the relevant ones and
obtaining the specifically required information or data, critical thinking
about the literature, re-wording and summarising the relevant parts, and
then making appropriate citations which are in themselves systematic
(Pautasso, 2013, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019).
 There is little to proper understanding of how to practically plan and
embark on a proper and successful literature review and writing in relation
to the various contexts and disciplines for which the writing is intended
 (Pan, 2016, as cited in Mohammed and Ahmed 2019). There is a wide
gap between reviewing, writing an appropriate literature and the practical
process and contextual needs of same, especially among academics
(Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019).
 Many researchers, reviewers and writers of literature end up re-writing
stories, unfocused on their subjects of concern, and either concocting
what others have done, or making it garbage in and out of others’ works
(Robbins, Judge & Vohra, 2011:581, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed,
2019).
 Many of the difficulties in writing comprehensive and standard literature
review stem from fear to critically read, criticise and write the review,
failure to diligently commit time and adhere to ethics review. Thus, many
reviews end up not critical, but mere descriptive or narrative which affect
the quality of reviews (Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019).
 Subjectivity and bias, and lack of comprehensiveness
- Argumentative review of literature focuses on specifically chosen works
so as to back up or dispute a result; provide a divergent position on the
literature/result; and provide an avenue for both intellectual and
philosophical forum. There are, however, tendencies for subjectivity in the
end and while making and presenting summaries of the reviews and
findings. [ CITATION Moh191 \l 1033 ]
- Selection bias (where included studies are not representative of the
evidence base) and a lack of comprehensiveness (an inappropriate
search method) can mean that reviews end up with the wrong evidence
for the question at hand. [ CITATION Nea201 \l 1033 ]
- Both the risk of bias in included studies and risk of bias due to missing
results may be influenced by conflicts of interest of study investigators or
funders (Cochrane, 2020).
 Lack of relevance when limited stakeholder engagement can produce a
review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers. [ CITATION
Nea201 \l 1033 ]
 The exclusion of grey literature and failure to test for evidence of
publication bias can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions.
[ CITATION Nea201 \l 1033 ]
 Traditional reviews often lack appropriate critical appraisal of included
study validity, treating all evidence as equally valid (Haddaway, 8
common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them, 2020).
 Inappropriate synthesis (e.g. using vote-counting and inappropriate
statistics) can negate all of the preceding systematic effort. Vote-counting
(tallying studies based on their statistical significance) ignores study
validity and magnitude of effect sizes. (Haddaway, 8 common problems
with literature reviews and how to fix them, 2020)

B. Locating Relevant Literature for a Research Review

How to Search for Related Literature: Guides to determine if reviewed literature is

related to one’s study [ CITATION Ali14 \l 1033 ]
1. It is about the same research problem.
2. It involves the same population.
3. It has at least one common variable with one’s study.

Plan your search strategy [ CITATION Uni \l 1033 ]

 1. Plan your search
o Identify the main concepts and keywords on your topic. Think about
synonyms for the keywords and variant spellings.
2. Choose where and how to search
o Choose the right system or database to find information on your topic.
o Subject guides of Universities (if available) list the key databases and
journals for different areas or topics.
o Learn how to focus your search in databases to find relevant results.

For any really relevant article or resource, check

o The reference list for more relevant articles
o The author/s - have they published other articles on this topic?
o What keywords are used to describe the topic. Add those keywords to
your search.
o Who has cited the article. What they have written may be relevant to your
topic.

3. Do quick preliminary searches to see the kind of literature available and the
terminology used on your topic.

For in-depth research [ CITATION Uni \l 1033 ]

For in-depth research you may need to use special methods to find as much
as you can on your topic:
1. Cited reference searching - Identify key journal articles on your topic and then
find articles that cite those key articles to find more relevant literature.
2. Grey literature - Find information not available via traditional channels of
publishing and distribution, such as conference proceedings, government reports
and technical reports.
3. Search alerts - Alerts set up in databases or journals notify you when new results
are published that match your saved search.

It is also very important for a reviewer to be prepared for purchase of some

specific articles either online or hard copy of the review (Murray & More, 2006, as cited
in Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019).

C. Evaluating and Analyzing the Evidence

Evaluate the information you have found. When conducting your searches you
may find many references that will not be suitable to use in your literature review.
1. Skim through the resource - a quick read through the table of contents, the
introductory paragraph or the abstract should indicate whether you need to read
further or whether you can immediately discard the result.
2. Evaluate the quality and reliability of the references you find.

Critically evaluating information resources is an essential skill for students

undertaking academic research.  This guide provides some starting points for
evaluating and assessing the information you have found. The techniques apply
to both internet resources and more traditional formats such as journals,
newspapers, magazines and books. [ CITATION Uni \l 1033 ]

Table 1 Information reliability and usefulness for research

 Points to consider LEAST likely to be reliable May be reliable MOST likely to be reliable
Library Search or database
Where did you find the On the web e.g.
Library Search with peer reviewed or
information? via Google, Facebook etc
scholarly filter on
The author’s
qualifications/
Who is the author
No author details are credentials/ professional My lecturer has
(individual or
provided affiliations are given; recommended this author
organization/association)?
contact information is
available
Biased towards particular
Intended audience General public Academics or scholars
groups
Designed to sell
something; present one
Purpose viewpoint; written on behalf Reports on research Presents research findings
of a religious or political
group
A systematic and rigorous
Depth of coverage Superficial overview Evidence of analysis
discussion and analysis
Spelling or grammatical Facts and figures
Accuracy Peer reviewed or refereed
errors;  obvious omissions supported by evidence
Organized logically and
Inflammatory or
clearly presented;
sensational; low level or Organized logically and
Writing style Language used may
inappropriate for your clearly presented
require some subject
discipline
knowledge to understand
Focus on my topic is
Relates to aspects of my
appropriate for my needs;
Relevance Too basic or too advanced  topic e.g. location, group
meets the marking criteria
or focus
for my assessment
How up to date is it? The
importance of timeliness No date information
Published or updated
depends on your subject available; published or
Published or updated in recently; published in the
area e.g. Health or updated more than 5 years
the last 5 years time frame my lecturer
medicine requires current ago; newer editions or
requires
information; literature or art revisions exist
may not
In-text references and
A reference list of
No reference list; Reference List/Bibliography
recognizably reliable
Does it have a bibliography references are out-of-date; of scholarly sources
sources is provided
or reference list? or the references are not (journal articles,
e.g. Australian Bureau of
scholarly or reliable books, conference papers)
Statistics
is provided
An academic publisher
which uses a peer review
Who published it? Unknown A reputable publisher
process (Check the
publisher’s website)
Source:
https://web.library.uq.edu.au/research-tools-techniques/search-techniques/evaluate
information-you-find

Table 2 Extra indicators to consider for websites

 Points to consider: LEAST likely to be reliable May be reliable MOST likely to be reliable
.edu  or .ac  is an  educational
institution;
.net is a  private business
What kind of website is it? .gov is a government site;
or association (Check
Look at the URL or .com is a  commercial site .org is an organisation (Not
the About us information
address all .org sites are the official
on the site)
sites. Check the About
us information on the site)
Last updated date is old; Last updated information is
Is the website maintained?  
many broken links recent; all the links work
Layout of the website Amateurish User-friendly User-friendly and professional
What country does the site
come from?
This may affect the
relevancy of the
information, depending on Website originates from a
Based in a country that will be
your topic. Look at the URL country that will not be  
relevant to my topic
or address for the country relevant for my topic
code, such as .fr for
France, .au for Australia.
View a list of country
codes. 
Source:
https://web.library.uq.edu.au/research-tools-techniques/search-techniques/evaluate
information-you-find

D. Preparing a Written Literature Review

Basics of Planning & Preparation for Literature Review/Writing: (Machi &

McEvoy, 2016, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019)
1. securing a conducive atmosphere – quiet, secluded and serene environment;
2. procuring working materials – writing, photocopying, drawing and other
relevant materials;
3. be mentally prepared for the task;
4. organising the task before commencing the review; and
5. set and adhere to a timeline for the task and make adjustments where
appropriate.

To review related literature, the research must: [ CITATION Ali14 \l 1033 ]

1. summarize the problem, the method used, the findings and conclusion;
2. distinguish the present study from the one reviewed; and
3. state how the present study differs from the reviewed one.

Guides to Literature Review (Galvan & Galvan, 2017).

There are numerous guides to literature review. However, the following
generally apply to most contexts of reviews:
1. Identify the research area, and problem or question.
2. Clearly state out the importance of the research topic or question at hand.
3. Identify and discuss the various literatures related to the research topic or
area.
4. Arrange and classify the selected and relevant literatures into clear and
orderly form for easy access and consultation.
5. Make only a necessary and meaningful selection of the texts and references.
 6. Where there are replications of previous studies, such should be clearly
stated and appropriate citations to such be made for concise review. It is
worthy to note, here, that journals most often carry review articles which serve
as the specific studies on specific researchable topics and more often provide
updated/current data on the topics of interest

Ten (10) rules of a comprehensive literature review: (Pautasso, 2013, as cited in

Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019)

1. appropriately defining the topic for audience (examiners, panel, public,

supervisors, etc.) to read, examine or benefit from the literature;
2. continuous searching for the materials to be reviewed;
3. preparation for and making of notes while reading the sorted literature;
4. selecting the suitable type of review to be carried out;
5. making sure that the review is centred on the topic but with a wider
perspective;
6. being consistent and critical in the review process;
7. making a logical structure of the review to ensure organisation of the review;
8. making use of feedback so as to ensure accuracy and exactness;
9. inclusion of the reviewers own objective contributions; and
10. using current literature materials to ensure relevance and validity.

Similarly, review writing especially at postgraduate level and publication

purposes should very much avoid grammatical, typographical errors and other
communication impediments as this degrades the author and portrays a bad image of
the work (Shortliffe, 2016, as cited in Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019). The literature review
should also not be limited to ordinary sense, but how, when and where something is
written; the methods used in examining the research problem and writing; the specific
theorisations in the study; sources of the used literatures and acknowledgements;
presentations of other data such as figures and charts (Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019). It
is also important for the reviewer to keep comprehensive records of all activities and
specifically related materials on a research (Murray & More, 2006, as cited in
Mohammed & Ahmed, 2019).

E. Critiquing Research Literature Reviews

Literature review plays does more than just reporting and stating the conclusions
and or findings of other studies, but also examines and analyses how such reports and
conclusions are reached through spotting the research questions and exploring what
works have been done and what have not been, but need to be done (Mohammed &
Ahmed, 2019).

Critiquing the literature involves looking at the strength and weaknesses of the
paper and evaluating the statements made by the author/s. For example, the University
of Queensland makes use of critical appraisal tools designed to be used when reading
research. These are called Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists
which include tools for Qualitative studies, Systematic Reviews, Randomised Controlled
Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies
and Clinical Prediction Rule.

Critical thinking, Reading, Writing and Analysis

The extent of critique is determined by the places and background of the

scholar’s education and aim at assessing the level at which an author is able to
effectively justify presented claims or findings (Wallace & Wray, 2016:20, as cited in
Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019). They added that critical reader and reading, are both
centred on evidences provided and contained in the presented work; logical flow of the
author’s arguments to the conclusion of the work; correlation and relation between the
author’s and other authors assertions; correlation and relation between author’s
assertions and those of readers, audience on evidences and the knowledge presented;
manifest and latent indications of the author’s assumptions and ethics. Critical thinking,
reading, writing and analysis are thus integral parts of literature review.

It is essential that a reviewer should study the material beyond ordinary reading,
thinking, writing and analysing it. These are traits that would ensure deep study,
understanding and objective analysis of the reviewed literature. Critical thinking in
literature review has to do with being inquisitive to know about and more of a thing,
being skeptical by raising questions about things, independence in thinking and not
depending on or just following others, being honest to oneself and the review thinking in
order to ascertain and measure facts. Furthermore, in critical reviewing and thinking,
certain behaviours have to be held, which include persistence and commitment to the
review tasks, patience in the process of the thinking and review, focusing on targeted
issue until the aim is achieved, collegiality so as to disseminate and exchange ideas
while at the same time noting feedbacks and also evaluating the work for further
improvement and strengthening. (Machi and McEvoy, 2016, as cited in Mohammed and
Ahmed, 2019)

Critical writing means the writer’s ability to convince the readers and or audience
to understand and agree with his assertions through effective passage of convincing
grounds (Wallace & Wray, 2016: 20, as cited in Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019). To
critically analyse a literature, there has to a careful examination of the major and
constituting ideas and also criticising the existing and current literatures to explore how
effective the existing literature under study depicts the issue, question or research topic
(Torraco, 2005, as cited in Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019). It also involves the task of
breaking the research topic into some key notes on the problem or topic’s original
background, basic and key concepts, interrelations among the concepts and research
methods adopted (Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019). This is meant to ensure that the
reviewer redesign the topic for clear conception, understanding and good evaluation.
This also helps to expose the weaknesses and strength – consistencies and
inconsistencies, omissions, deficiencies and gap in the literature in relation to the topic
(Torraco, 2005).

A critical review of literature additionally examines how well the author presents
and defends positions; the definite methods used and their suitability for the study;
apparatus for collection, analysis and reporting of data and main findings; and whether
the findings of the reviewed literature are worthy of academic and or specific
contribution and value (Mohammed and Ahmed, 2019).

References:

(n.d.). Retrieved from The UK’s premier:

https://15writers.com/5-common-mistakes
literature-reviews/

Alicay, C. B. (2014). Research Methods and Techniques. Quezon City: Great Books
Publishing.
Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. Chapter 7:
Considering bias and
conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J,
Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane
Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated
September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available
from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

Haddaway, N. (2020, October 19). 8 common problems with literature reviews and how
to fix them. Retrieved from LSE Impact Blog:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/10/19/8-common-problems-
with-literature-reviews-and-how-to-fix-them/

Library, T. U. (2020, November 10). Evaluate information you find. Retrieved from
https://web.library.uq.edu.au/: https://web.library.uq.edu.au/research-tools-
techniques/search-techniques/evaluate-information-you-find

Mohammed, I. S., & Ahmed, M. (2019). Problems of Academic Literature Review and
Writing: The Way Forward. ResearchGate, 10-26.

University of Queensland. (n.d.). Evaluate information you find. Retrieved from

https://web.library.uq.edu.au/: https://web.library.uq.edu.au/research-tools-
techniques/search-techniques/evaluate-information-you-find