A literature review may have a set of objectives to achieve, yet it seems that problem formulation, from which evolves the research question, is the prime objective. What are your expert views?
Literature review has many benefits such as
Yes, dear Mahamed. I believe problem statement is the prime objective of a literature review. The main objective of a scientific research is to solve problems.
Problem detection and statement is the core of any scientific research. Usually we start the research from problem statement till results and recommendations.
Yes, problem formulation is the core of the study. It becomes the basis of objectives and further, basis of literature review. Through literature review, we generate hypotheses and accordingly apply statistical tools to test the hypotheses. And then go further.
Problem formulation is only one of the objectives. it is hard to define the prime objective as literature review is important in many aspects.
A literature review goes beyond the search for information and includes the identification and articulation of relationships between the literature and field of research. The basic purposes remain constant:are to:
- Provide a context for the research
- Ensure the research hasn't been done before
- Show where the research fits into the existing body of knowledge
- Enable the researcher to learn from previous theory on the subject
- illustrate how the subject has been studied previously
- Highlight flaws in previous research
- Outline gaps in previous research
- Show that the work is adding to the understanding and knowledge of the field
- Help refine, refocus or even change the topic
http://library.queensu.ca/webedu/grad/Purpose_of_the_Literature_Review.pdf
Practically, literature review can be problem formulation when a new research question is raised from the review, nevertheless, literature review can also be problem solving such as in the case of systematic literature review with or withour meta-analysis which is used to solve a prior research question. More practically, in a scientific article, the Introduction section contains literature review for the purpose of problem formulation; and simultaneously the Discussion section's literature review is to tackle some pertinent issues. Different purposes simultaneously in a same article.
By literature review, dear Mohamed, I assume you mean "review of previous literature" on a given research subject. In that case, an author would have to justify his own study by showing that without it, knowledge would be deficient. This involves citing the previous literature on which his study depends, while showing what gaps it leaves in knowledge, and how his own research will fill those gaps (in summary form). So I do not see problem formulation as the prime objective of a review of previous literature. The problem should have been formulated already BEFORE the research has taken place. The review of literature must show to what degree the problem has been solved, and how the new research solves unresolved issues.
Dear Nelson,
In the early stages of defining the research topic, literature review can be used to refine, refocus or even change the topic. A researcher can begin with a broad idea and narrow it down after review of literature.
I am teaching a graduate course "seminar and research methodology" and I follow the question with great interest :)
Literature review helps the researcher to discern where and how the problem s/he is studying fits into the existing literature. And, how far s/he understands what has already been done by others. Reader of that work can make out whether s/he understood the issues correctly or whether s/he has committed mistakes in identifying the issues. It also provides a good context to the research concerned, besides the problem formulation.
If problem statement is the prime objective of a literature review, where lies the true difference between a (brief) review presented in the introduction of a focused article presenting new data/results, and a classical review paper only focusing on what has been published?
Dear Behrouz,
Unless you are creating a new discipline-- and many of us researchers never have this rare experience--, you are dealing with old problems. None of us-- I sincerely believe-- begins from zero in our research. On the other hand, none of us wants to repeat problem-solving already performed by previous researchers. So you can tell your students that their research is almost always situated between zero (no previous research on a subject) and infinity (the solution to all research problems on that subject). Everything that is not a solution is a problem. By the way, I too have given a graduate seminar on research methodology. Good luck on your course!
Dear Nelson,
sincerely, I don't mind to replicate research to look for external validity of research findings published by other teams. I think that replication is essential in good science practice, perhaps one of the take home messages in a seminar on research methodology
Dear Marcel,
In the field of structural optimization, we have replicated the results of other articles for benchmark problems. Most times, our results do much but in a few cases, we have found various errors (most probably an honest mistake and not intentional fraud). You may find the attached link (Why is Replication so Important?) interesting.
http://honestuniverse.com/2012/12/30/why-is-replication-so-important/
formulating review objectives never comes from empty back ground or experience in the field. Novice in research always has to have mentor to guide them from well equipped personal in research. However, those who climb the ladder from 9 step fall. We need to start from the first step and build on that step another until we reach a threshold that is sufficient to formulate review objectives in the field.
Dear Marcel,
Life is short. Replication of previous research diminishes time. If I had 30 hour days I would not have enough time to do all the research I intend.
Commonly a literature review is part of a proposal to look at what has been done in the field before, so you can contribute new research or build on what has gone before. It is commonly required when you are submitting a proposal for a grant, approval in an academic course, or if you are pitching a book to a publisher.
Literature review gives basics as well as thorough understanding to define a research problem.
Even I too feel replication is needed in certain cases...as sometimes the published works from literatures are not working. To complete a research problem perfectly it becomes essential to do replication to some extent .
Dear Mohamed, You partially correct about the purpose of literature review, but there are other reasons too. Good points were discussed already. The main reasons for writing a review are proof of knowledge, a publishable document, and the identification of a research family.
Besides, I would like to mention two more reasons not mentioned above:
1) Once a topic has been selected by the the researcher, he/she should become familiar with the literature, with what has been done generally in the area, and with the Prior art (background art or state of the art) He or she should develop a comfortable knowledge base without spending an too much time on minute details or chasing obscure references.
2) it provides a framework for relating new findings to previous findings in the discussion section of a dissertation.
Dear Nelson,
I try to make a distinction between personal motivations and the general interest of science practice. Replication is crucial, but then the question is when replication should stop.
We are talking about *science*? Well - without *some kind of* replication - there is *no* science. And any findings are not just *obscurities* and potentially nothing but coincidences, accidents, mistakes, misjudgements and so on. While this does not mean the such *findings* can not be enjoyable - or indeed even interesting - typically within the world of science - we tend to refer to such *findings* as forms of artistic inspiration and not so much as *science*. Obviously - this artistic explorations can still be valuable from some point of view.
Literature Review is about creating a foundation for *choice* for the researcher. The choice is between two main aspects of research:
1) to be able to choose *what* to do - in the context of what has been done before.
2) to be able to choose *how* to do something - again in the context of how things have been done before.
So *the problem formulation* is either about *where you want to go* or *how you want to walk. No matter what is done - any *contribution* is related to either *doing some thing* or - *doing in some way*. IN both cases we can choose to *confirm* (or disprove) previous work and findings *or* we can choose to move beyond previous findings (use them as a starting-point).
Yes, formulating or conceptualising that a problem exit should be the beginning or prime purpose for literature review. The literature will assist to establish the problem. It will also help to establish the gap; and underscores the main themes that will help you provide the roadmap for the study. Through the problem conceptualisation and establishment from literature review, proper aim and objectives of the work is set out as well as the research questions. The research question, aim and objective and through methodological literature review, a particular research philosophy, approach, strategy, method and analytical procedure can be position for the study. It is also the problem that the study is aimed at addressing at the end. So, conceptualising, identifying, and establishing the problem is vital to all literature review for a study.
Problem formulation in Engineering Design
Engineering design is the process of devising system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation.
Therefore the literature survey should encompass all the objectives that establish the designing process.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a229268.pdf
Yes literature review help you decide to what gap you will fill by your research idea, what others achieved and what is missing and how possible you can tickle your problem.
The literature review is one of the easiest ways to cut corners in an investigation. It consists of the review and reconstruction work already done by others and is intended to detect, obtain and consult the literature and other materials that may be useful to the purposes of the study, and to extract and gather relevant and necessary information regards our research problem.
Based on the above we define the theoretical framework that serves many functions in an investigation, among which are the following:
1 Helps prevent mistakes that have been made in other studies.
2 provides guidance on how to have the test done. Indeed, to go to
background, we can realize how you have been treated a specific research question: what types of studies have been made , what kind of subjects, how they have collected the data, what places have done, what designs have been used.
3 extends the horizon of the study guide for the researcher to focus on your problem avoiding deviations from the original approach.
4 leads to the establishment of hypotheses or assumptions that must later be tested in reality.
5. inspires new lines and areas of research
6 provides a framework for interpreting the study results.
This review is selective; considering that each year is published in many parts of the world lot of journal articles, books and other kinds of materials in different areas of knowledge, it is important to select the relevant and latest information. However, it should not be inferred that all published materials are appropriate or reliable sources of information. Errors that may contain subjective results or incompetence collector or researcher should be used primarily as a guide for original second sources and, whenever possible, proceed to check the first regarding the necessary data.
I think formulating the gap in the selected topic and providing the research need for future are the two basic requirements of literature review.
I agree that lit review should lead to formulating strong argument, research problem, and identifying areas that require further examination (i.e., justification of the current study).
Problem Formulation
More specialized or distinct that it seeks to acquire knowledge which is practical and instrumental and closely related to the problems of intervention. It can provide concepts and theories that contribute to design and development, which is at the heart of intervention research. The concepts and theories may include the characteristics of specific clients, the practices of certain types of agencies, or behavioral patterns in individual families with troubled children
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/marson/intervention-research.html
My thinking is that the first and most important point about literature review is to encourage the researcher to cover as much of what has already been done in the specific problem area as possible. It will expose the researcher to a variety of ways of approaching the question and also help clarify the question and the specific approach to it being adopted.
Following previous responses about importance of replication in science, here are 2 good articles from Nature about the replication and reproducibility of results:
No research paper can ever be considered to be the final word, and the replication and corroboration of research results is key to the scientific process.
In studying complex entities, especially animals and human beings, the complexity of the system and of the techniques can all too easily lead to results that seem robust in the lab, and valid to editors and referees of journals, but which do not stand the test of further studies.
http://www.nature.com/news/announcement-reducing-our-irreproducibility-1.12852
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/reproducibility/
Problem formulation cannot be the prime objective of a literature review. Problem is Independent but the causation is dependent on variables. Literature Review is to search and find the "For & Against" available researches which crystallizes a path to search, thereby reducing the search towards "Re-invention of Wheel"
A literature review features what has gone before in the subject. As such, it provides the background or context for the research problem to be investigated. But typically, one already has the problem in mind and then does the literature review to show what else has been done on the problem.
Dear Gini nicely gave the essence of doing literature review. Here I summarize the importance of it (based on the attached document):
An outline for preparing a literature review suitable for desertification (and with minor modification for articles) is given in the attached document..
It’s all very abstract, literature review I suppose is about a real story. The only method I used for the review of ‘De Trein der Traagheid’ (One Night, a Train) was my intuition.
I just combined 2 information sources:
A. In another book of Daisne 'Lago Maggiore' I read something about a train, the war, The South of France.
B. I had found a paper about a train journey, during the war to the South of France at home.
Out of A and B I reconstructed the idea of the book and explained it in a docudrama, which is nearly finished.
'The problem' was that I thought that nobody did understand the idea which was general accepted as magic-realism.
My solution is that I found that the book was written on the train from Brussels to Ghent and that at half past six p.m. the author started dreaming about a train he had to find during the war, in the South of France, to bring the Belgian soldiers home.
It’s a very complicated story because nearly no information is given, no cities, 3 personages are in fact one and same person; the student, the docent and the professor.
The lady of the restaurant became later in the book a nurse, and the relation between the nurse, the student and the docent is a central theme.
The personages didn't understand each other in the book; nobody had been observed that after looking into each other eyes, the nurse and the docent did understand each other very well and they spoke fluently...
It's hard to tell that the problem became before the solution. It was rather that I first felt the solution and just afterwards have seen the problem.
Please answer the question I asked about paradigm shifts (Thomas Kuhn, Professor of philosophy of science). Basically he argues that scientific progress advances from those who think out of the box.
Yes, everything happens within the ruling theory of science. Without knowing Kuhn, everyone knows this rule. There is only one box.
This is also interesting for the mood shift, in one mood someone can be a hard scientist is another mood he can be a great artist.
For my book ‘Who is paying the muse’ I worked together with 2 biologists who were also poet and visual artist. The method of synchronicity was working out wonderful.
Dear Kamal, I'va read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions twice but thanks for summarising it from wikipedia. How does Kuhn's thesis relate to literature reviews in research? There may only be one box but you can think out of it.
Finding the research gap in the past researches and a clear direction from the future research which aimed at filling the existing gap on the topic are the objectives of a literature review.
The literature review is a critical look at the existing research with following purposes:
- To provide background information
- To establish importance of research topic
- To demonstrate familiarity
- To “carve out a space” for further research
Filling the gap is a good objective; constructing a bridge between in and out the box.
I think literature cannot longer be locked up in the box, labelled with a theory. Within the box literature is suffocating.
Selecting on quality would made it possible to bring literature in contact with the ideas of the quantum physics. In a way that the author creates an own spacetime dimension, impregnated with a certain creation of mood which engage the reader to experience the same trip.
In accepting this connection, by the property of nonlocality, noncausality, probability, synchronicity and the uncertainty principle, literature could be accepted as belonging in and out the box at the same time.
In this way the research of art could be experienced in total freedom and in a wider perspective where the universe is unlimited. Neuroscience should be more interested in the oeuvre of writers for the study of mood fluctuations in relationship with creativity.
The world of literature would get a new face.
Agreed to the objectives of doing Literature Review put forward by the previous scholars. I also observe some researchers / students also perform literature (on journal articles / conference proceedings / PhD theses etc.) to:
1) collect research instrument / survey questionnaire (for those doing quantitative correlational research) - so that they can borrow / adapt for their own research
2) explore what are the new research opportunities from the existing literature's limitations & recommended future research
3) know how to write references be it a specific reference or referencing styles like APA, Harvard, MLA, AMS, IEEE etc.
4) evaluate any latest research similar to what they are researching so that they don't re-invent the wheel or how to adjust / differentiate their research
Literature is screening the soul, not only of individuals, partly invented, but the soul of society as a whole. It is searching an equilibrium between opposite poles.
Daisne brought often together the ideal world and the reality. He brought in also the element of the deus ex machina at the end. Which he called the magic-realism to keep the rationality at bay.
The prime objective of the literature review is specifying the problem, assessed on the basis of the Research Gap found, to be pursued.
My point of view is that the literature review puts your contribution in perspective with previous research. The literature review lets you describe in which narrow subject your contribution lies, but what you will do, and what you do not concentrate on. To some degree, the literature review is like driving on a test site with a new, untested car - you drive along a track, while trying to avoid cones placed in your way. So you steer away from those cones, finding your own way. The cones of course are the previous literature, and your steering is the phrasing of your literature review. You mention in a clear and lucid way which literature you base your own contribution on, and if need be you also describe what difference you make compared to the most important recent literature.
Hi Micheal,
The analogy you use clears the maze as to what the literature review should do for a researcher. I find you very clear in that respect.
Thanks for sharing.
Dear Mohamed Benmerikhi
The main objective of the review of the literature is not initially the formulation or approach of the problem, since it can be elaborated with preliminary information resulting from an investigation of the medical literature in an exploratory way.
- Once the conceptual framework and scientific antecedents have been updated through the documental research procedure, it is necessary to know if there are real knowledge gaps in the preliminary problem, initially formulated with little information.
- Once this is done, the research problem is better defined, and the question is formulated or written, after the research is justified, in an interrogative way or as a question, so that the tentative answer is the conjecture or formulation of the General Hypothesis of Work .
- Through the above procedure, the Problem Statement and the subsequent formulation of the Investigation Question can be said to be "Intelligent and Original."
regards
Jose Luis
Estimado Mohamed Benmerikhi
El objetivo principal de la revisión de la literatura no es inicialmente la formulación o planteamiento del problema, pues éste se puede elaborar con información preliminar resultado de indagación de la literatura médica en forma exploratoria.
- Una vez actualizado el marco teórico conceptual y antecedentes científicos mediante el procedimiento de investigación documental, se precisa si existen verdaderos huecos de conocimiento en el problema preliminar, formulado inicialmente con escasa información.
- Hecho ésto, a continuación se define mejor el problema de investigación y se plantea o redacta, previa justificación de la investigación, de forma interrogativa o como pregunta, a fin de que la respuesta tentativa sea la la conjetura o formulación de la Hipótesis General del trabajo.
- Mediante el procedimiento anterior, el Planteamiento del Problema y la subsecuente formulación de la Pregunta de Investigación, se puede afirmar que es "Inteligente y Original".
Saludos
José Luis
hi Mohamed Benmerikhi ,
Yes, of course, the literature review linked with the chapter one, that included both research question and research objective. The other part, need to talk in chapter one about the gaps of study. Furthermore, the literature review needs to refer to variables of your research that included independent variable along with dependent variables. Moreover, the literature review needs to answer all the questions in chapter one.
I think that the first objective of a literature review is to help the researcher to know the area of focus better, the way in which it has struck previous researchers, and what their efforts have yielded. The researcher should be able, as a result, to establish if there is something worth a new effort in the hunch that led her/him to the area, whether this is part of what previous researchers have worked on, and to what extent the problems have been aired. With this the researcher can sharpen the problem presentation and formulate the thesis more effectively.