The Art of Reviewing
What does it really mean to produce a high-quality literature review?
After finalizing your research questions, the next step is to take hold of existing literature relevant to your field or area of research. For beginners, literature review means getting familiarized with books, journal articles, etc., on a topic (Marczyc et al., 2005). Because it is essential to know what already exists in your field of inquiry, and there is rarely a chance of complete unavailability of research work in your area (Bryman, 2012). There is always some research idea or theory related to the problem that can be investigated to inform the concerned study (Merriam et al., 2016). A literature review helps you develop an argument for your research and enables you to find a “research gap,” which is why you are undertaking your research in the first place. Besides, It immensely helps formulate the research question too. Meanwhile, it is better to list all the necessary literature you will consult. Because sometimes, it may be the case that the area of concern is well researched. In that scenario, the amount of literature could be voluminous, and reviewing them can be highly time-consuming. However, today, electronic databases have made conducting literature reviews less strenuous. For example, social scientists can use PsychINFO or PsychLIT; similarly, medical researchers can look at Medline for existing literature in the field to save time.
On the other hand, determining the best time to conduct the literature review is also equally vital. The consensus is that a review should be undertaken early on in the research process to have a foundation and knowledge about the subject. Early reviewing is essential in planning a research study by identifying a potential research gap in the area. Therefore, a good literature review can save a great deal of time and energy by informing a researcher about the already researched fields so that one would not duplicate them unknowingly. However, some scholars argue that one should conduct the literature review only after collecting data to get original insights from the field, which might not be possible by going through prior literature.
At the same time, the literature review also requires participating and engaging in a dialogue with a community of researchers and scholars. Expressing similar feelings, a professor of sociology at the University of Hyderabad says, “while doing a review, one should always be in a dialogic mode because you approach particular writing with a predefined research question in mind, then your task should be to have a dialogue with the author and keep asking yourself whether this specific writing is answering your questions to even a small degree.” It is equally valid that prevailing literature can also inform how urgent or relevant a present study is to be undertaken. Being open-minded while reviewing is another crucial aspect of doing a literature review because sometimes you can be swayed by a text in a way that your reflexive and critical approach weakens. Similarly, you may completely disregard specific literature by creating an unwanted filter or lens (Yin, 2016). Before writing off any opinion, one should at least invest a fair amount of time in understanding the work. Also, critiquing a work is part of your academic development, and it helps you become an expert in your field. Similarly, reviewing also entails summarizing key ideas while showing a critical awareness. In fact, analysis and synthesis are two cores of literature review, and thus a consistent and coherent review is not possible without applying these two processes.
On the other hand, in his entry on the literature review published in the Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research (2008), Richard Race says that the concept of literature (review) is plural rather than a singular one, as there are many ‘literatures’ to be examined to produce a thorough review. He also says that qualitative research means joining an ongoing debate in a particular field of study. At the same time, it implies getting oneself familiarized with the existing corpus of literature on the study at hand. For example, if one is willing to investigate the marine fisheries, it is a prerequisite to getting hold of existing knowledge in that area. Similarly, Merriam et al. (2016) say that literature reviews can also enable a researcher to situate itself or its findings among previous literature while pointing out the exact contributions of the present study.
On the other hand, in his guide on doing qualitative research, Yin (2016) distinguishes between two types of review viz., selective and comprehensive. He says the early review should be selective rather than comprehensive. He adds that the selective review helps sharpen the preliminary considerations regarding a topic of study, methodology, data collection, etc. It also helps in identifying a potential niche for your new study. On the other hand, he says that a comprehensive literature review is warranted as it aims to bring together what is already known in a particular area and can also help bring forth controversial ideas or even trace the progress of knowledge over time about a subject.
The next vital question in the literature review is how and where to find relevant literature. With the advent of information technology (the internet), the literature review process has completely changed. But, sometimes, one might get overwhelmed by the volume of online resources. Using online resources to find relevant literature is a skill that every research student should strive to acquire. At the same time, it is also necessary to finetune a balance between traditional resources (e.g., books and journals) and information and communication technologies (ICTs). In their work, Writing Literature Review (2017), Galvan and Galvan list five types of materials that can be used for literature reviews. These are; empirical research, theoretical articles, literature review articles, articles based on anecdotal evidence, and reports on professional practices and standards. They also emphasize that one should prioritize the primary resources over the secondary ones. They argue that primary references provide first-hand insights while detailing and discussing the findings. On the other hand, the secondary sources do not say much about methodology and tend to give only a general description of the results; thus, they are often misleading and incomplete.
A literature review is an essential part of a research project and is more than a stage to be undertaken or a hurdle to be overcome (Hart 1998). Literature review enormously helps formulate a problem and informs a researcher on how to carry out the study by identifying the theoretical framework. It also underscores the dearth of research on a topic and guides further study in that area. At the same time, a thorough review also demands patience. Clarity, consistency and coherence are critical to the review process but hard to come by. Also, it is an ethical responsibility of a researcher to read every cited reference in its entirety and not just read the summary or abstract. While doing the review, it is again essential to take notes (either on a computer or in a notebook) to save precious time. All these attributes of literature review can be achieved through explicit expression by the author and explicit commitment by the reader because literature review entails reading, interpreting and analyzing arguments, synthesizing and making connections across disciplines, and using your imagination (Galvan and Galvan, 2017). Also, you may very well acquire skills and intellectual abilities that you did not know before you begin your review.
It is also important to remember that there is no perfect review. All reviews, irrespective of the topic, emanate from the reviewer’s standpoint, which makes any study partial in some ways. The history of academia confirms that reviewing and citing are also entrenched with power dynamics because authors from marginal backgrounds (e.g., blacks, women, Asian-Americans, etc.) are referred to and cited way less than the white, male, American authors (Davis and Craven 2016). Therefore, one must break these barriers to produce a reflexive review.
