2 – The Literature Review
Now that you got the green light to go ahead with the project, the next step is to dig into past research, and all sorts of published material, to learn as much as possible on your topic, and the best way to measure your variables.
All papers have a literature review. If the paper is exploratory, the literature review section will be thin, as no prior research has been done. This is ok and expected. If, however, the project is explanatory, the literature review might be very long, up to 50 pages, since you are trying to advance research in a field where much has been done before you.
YOU MUST ATTRIBUTE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE TO ITS RESPECTFUL AUTHOR.
It is a question of honour and logic. Science hinges on the values of transparency, and cooperation. Without honest attribution of other people’s contributions, who would want to work hard on a scientific project? Why give away the credit to anyone else? Attributions are clunky, and long. But they are essential.
To save on space, literature reviews are often very concise. To be short, write short.
Format
Start the section with a qualification of how much knowledge exists on this topic. Mention how detailed your review of the literature will be. Explain how the literature fits into the rest of the project. State your research question.
Organize the paragraphs in order of ideas – or types of findings – you wish to discuss.
Cite the last name of the source every time you add a piece of information. Compare findings from sources in the same paragraph. They can oppose each other, or complement. It’s more than OK to have 3-4 sources cited in the same paragraph. Don’t present a series of book reviews, in the order you read them.
Example (fake sources)
Literature Review
Louis-Joseph Papineau is a very well documented topic of Canadian history. A short search on a popular academic research engine (JStor) came up with 5,432 articles published only in the past 10 years. This project does not aim to present an exhaustive review of the literature. We will concentrate on a handful of documents. Our aim is to present a balanced view of Papineau’s achievements. This will help the author design smarter interview questions. Our objective is to establish the relevance of Papineau’s name being used as a major boulevard landmark in East-End Montreal.
According to a pro-Patriote historian, Papineau was a beloved orator of great intelligence (Bergeron, 1971). This is corroborated by others, such as Jackson (2003). In French Quebec Papineau’s memory is longstanding, as can be testified by the popular expression “La Tête à Papineau” (Papineau’s Head), attributed to the smartest people in society.