During the data analysis stage of my research, I realise that not all the collected data can be discussed with the earlier literature I reviewed before collecting the data. Some of the collected data can however be discussed with other found literature (which were not in the literature review). I don't want to go back to the literature review to add this newly found literature as that will be strenuous and also disrupt the limited word count. However, I make use of this new literature to discuss the data. Now, my question is "Does this violate the rules of research methods?" What does the 'research methods literature' say about this?
In practice you will often discover new literature that will be helpful, so do include it. And research is strenuous, so that's not an excuse.
In practice you will often discover new literature that will be helpful, so do include it. And research is strenuous, so that's not an excuse.
Always try to add updated literature to your research as this strength your discussion and express your ability to keep your knowledge up to date.
I think I do agree with the above comments and would like to add that the exclusion of the new found literature may later be claimed as a lack of knowledge of already existing work in the area, which could further mean that the work you come up with may not have identified a gap that it aimed to close.
Literature review is an extensive work itself. The most part of the research is based on its literature support. Therefore, by the time data are at hand, you will always find some new articles popping up in your area. It is always recommended to update literature review until it goes into publication or submitted elsewhere. In addition to what other scholars have already said, sometimes your data might illustrate something opposite to popular literature findings. Then you have no option but to recheck your literature review where you might (almost always) find results similar to yours to defend and interpret your new findings. In that case, updating literature is the inevitable option, not a choice. Thanks.
I agree. This is actually a nice opportunity to reference the literature in the context of your new results which is always more relevant than listing papers
One expects to encounter new information and perspective during the analysis phase of research. This includes literature review and data review. The new information may be hypothesis generating and cause rejection or modification of the original hypothesis. Assuming the original literature search matched the original hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required. Rejection or modification requires extending or modifying the investigation for the new hypothesis. You can neither ignore the data nor the literature. You must use all the data.
Word restriction is unfortunate. If the word length cannot be met, seek another venue or consider breaking it into two publications.
You can always add new academic resources even after you have written off your literature review section. Suppose, after conducting the literature review, you hit upon another useful source, say SOURCE A. You can always use this source in some other section subsequent to the literature review. In the case of research methodology, you can add another section called "Discussion" or "Further Discussion." Then you can add RESOURCE A herein, that is, new resources can be appended in subsequent sections like those after data collection or data coding.
In practice you will often discover new literature that will be helpful, so do include it
- Badges
- Science topic