limitations of literature based dissertation

About the LSE Impact Blog
Comments Policy
Popular Posts
Recent Posts
Subscribe to the Impact Blog
Write for us
LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 318 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our mailing list and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

limitations of literature based dissertation

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Problem	Solution
Lack of relevance – limited stakeholder engagement can produce a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers	Stakeholders can be identified, mapped and contacted for feedback and inclusion without the need for extensive budgets – check out best-practice guidance
Mission creep – reviews that don’t publish their methods in an a priori protocol can suffer from shifting goals and inclusion criteria	Carefully design and publish an a priori protocol that outlines planned methods for searching, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis in detail. Make use of existing organisations to support you (e.g. the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence).
A lack of transparency/replicability in the review methods may mean that the review cannot be replicated – a central tenet of the scientific method!	Be explicit, and make use of high-quality guidance and standards for review conduct (e.g. CEE Guidance) and reporting (PRISMA or ROSES)
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	Carefully design a search strategy with an info specialist; trial the search strategy (against a benchmark list); use multiple bibliographic databases/languages/sources of grey literature; publish search methods in an a priori protocol for peer-review
The exclusion of grey literature and failure to test for evidence of publication bias can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions	Include attempts to find grey literature, including both ‘file-drawer’ (unpublished academic) research and organisational reports. Test for possible evidence of publication bias.
Traditional reviews often lack appropriate critical appraisal of included study validity, treating all evidence as equally valid – we know some research is more valid and we need to account for this in the synthesis.	Carefully plan and trial a critical appraisal tool before starting the process in full, learning from existing robust critical appraisal tools.
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.	Select the synthesis method carefully based on the data analysed. Vote-counting should never be used instead of meta-analysis. Formal methods for narrative synthesis should be used to summarise and describe the evidence base.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit: Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Dissertations & projects: Literature-based projects

Research questions
The process of reviewing
Project management
Literature-based projects

On these pages:

“As a general rule, the introduction is usually around 5 to 10 per cent of the word limit; each chapter around 15 to 25 per cent; and the conclusion around 5 per cent.” Bryan Greetham, How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation

This page gives guidance on the structure of a literature-based project. That is, a project where the data is found in existing literature rather than found through primary research. They may also include information from primary sources such as original documents or other sources.

How to structure a literature-based project

The structure of a literature-based dissertation is usually thematic, but make sure to check with your supervisor to make sure you are abiding by your department’s project specifications. A typical literature-based dissertation will be broken up into the following sections:

Abstract or summary

Acknowledgments, contents page, introduction, themed chapters.

Bibliography/Reference list

Use this basic structure as your document plan . Remember that you do not need to write it in the order it will finally be written in.

For more advice on managing the order of your project, see our section on Project Management.

If you use the template provided on our Formatting page, you will see that it already has a title page included. You just need to fill in the appropriate boxes by typing or choosing from the drop-down-lists. The information you need to provide is:

Type of assignment (thesis, dissertation or independent project)
Partial or full fulfilment information
Subject area
Your name (and previous qualifications if applicable)
Month and year of submission

This may not always be required - check with your tutor.

It is independent of the rest of the report - it is a mini-report, which needs to make sense completely on its own.
References should not be included.
Nothing should appear in the abstract that is not in the rest of the report.
Usually between 200-300 words.
Write as a single paragraph.

It is recommended that you write your abstract after your report.

Contents page with list of headings and page numbers

If you choose not to use the template, then you will need to go through the document after it is written and create a list showing which heading is on which page of your document.

Purpose: To thank those who were directly involved in your work .

Do not confuse the acknowledgements section with a dedication - this is not where you thank your friends and relatives unless they have helped you with your manuscript.
Acknowledgments are about courtesy, where you thank those who were directly involved in your work, or were involved in supporting your work (technicians, tutors, other students, financial support etc).
This section tends to be very brief , a few lines at the most. Identify those who provided you with the most support, and thank them appropriately.
At the very least, make sure you acknowledge your supervisor!!

Purpose: To state the research problem and give a brief introduction to the background literature, provide justification for your research questions and explain your methodology and main findings.

Explain what the problem you will be addressing is, what your research questions are, and why they will help address the issue.
Explain (and justify) your methodology - where you searched, what your keywords were, what your inclusion and exclusion criteria were,
Define the scope of the dissertation, explaining any limitations.
Lay out the structure of the dissertation, taking the reader through each section and providing any key definitions.
Very briefly describe what your main findings are - but leave the detail for the sections below.

It is good practice to come back to the introduction after you have finished writing up the rest of the document to ensure it sets the appropriately scene for subsequent sections.

Should you have a separate literature review chapter?

Not usually , as your project is basically a big literature review, it isn't necessary to have a separate chapter. You would normally introduce background literature in your introduction instead.

However, if your supervisor suggests a separate chapter then it could go at this point, after the main introduction (which would then not include background literature).

For more advice on writing a literature review see the Literature Review pages on this guide.

Purpose: To present the themes you have identified in your research and explain how they contribute to answering your research questions

You will typically have 3-5 themed chapters. Each one should contain:

An introduction to the theme - what things it means and what it incorporates.
How the theme was addressed within the literature - this should be analytical not just descriptive.
A conclusion which shows how the theme relates to the research question(s).

Ensuring your themed chapters flow

Choosing the order of your theme chapters is an important part of the structure to your project. For example, if you study History and your project covers a topic that develops over a large time period, it may be best to order each chapter chronologically. Other subjects may have a natural narrative running through the themes. Think about how your reader will be able to follow along with your overall argument.

Although each chapter must be dedicated to a particular theme, it must link back to previous chapters and flow into the following chapter. You need to ensure they do not seem like they are unrelated to each other. There will be overlaps, mention these.

Some literature-based projects will focus on primary sources. If yours does, make sure primary sources are at the core of your paragraphs and chapters, and use secondary sources to expand and explore the theme further.

Purpose: To present the conclusion that you have reached as a result of both the background literature review and the analysis in your thematic chapters

A conclusion summarises all the points you have previously made and it should not include any evidence or topics you have not included in your introduction or themed chapters. There should be no surprises.

It should be about 5-10% of your word limit so make sure you leave enough words to do it justice. There will be marks in the marking scheme specifically allocated to the strength of your conclusion which cannot be made up elsewhere.

Some conclusions will also include recommendations for practice or ideas for further research. Check with your supervisor to see if they are expecting either or both of these.

Reference list

It is good practice to develop a reference list whilst writing the project, rather than leaving it until the end. This prevents a lot of searching around trying to remember where you accessed a particular source. If using primary sources, it also allows you to monitor the balance between primary and secondary sources included in the project. There is software available to help manage your references and the university officially supports RefWorks and EndNote.

For more advice on reference management, see our Skills Guide: Referencing Software

Transcriptions
Correspondence
Ethical approval forms

If you have information that you would like to include but are finding it disrupts the main body of text as its too cumbersome, or would distract from the main arguments of your dissertation, the information can be included in the appendix section. Each appendix should be focused on one item.

Appendices should not include any information that is key to your topic or overall argument.

<< Previous: Structure
Next: Scientific >>
Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 1:09 PM
URL: https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations
Login to LibApps
Library websites Privacy Policy
University of Hull privacy policy & cookies
Website terms and conditions
Accessibility
Report a problem

Limitations of the literature – A guide to a sticky problem

One of the more difficult tasks set for a Masters and especially PhD student is to identify limitations in the literature under review. Postgraduate students are required not only to “tell” (repeat what an author/s say) but to critically engage the literature being reviewed. This work typically appears in a separate chapter in the thesis or dissertation under the title Literature Review. To help you, here are 10 typical examples often used to identify limitations in a particular body of literature—with a caveat—using education examples.

1. The sample size is too small and therefore not representative of the phenomenon being studied This is fine but be aware of the fact that a single case study (e.g. the leadership practices of a non-traditional principal) is completely acceptable in a qualitative study. Here depth makes up for spread (representivity) for the purpose of the study is different e.g. an ethnographic case study of one principal.

2. The context is limiting and therefore not representative of all This too is acceptable e.g. a study of subject competency levels of 10 science teachers in rural Limpopo province. However, always specific WHAT it is about the context that is limiting e.g. nothing about science teachers in urban areas. A common mistake is to say ‘that study was done in America’ but that is not helpful in itself. What is it about the American context that might not be applicable in the Southern African context?

3. The study is dated as in out-of-date e.g. 1985 This is important as a criticism except in the case of historical studies or in reference to a classical piece of work that set the standard for understanding a particular problem. For example, Michael Apple’s 1979 Ideology and Curriculum might be dated but it is the landmark criticism in the politics of curriculum and often deserves referencing as a launching pad for more recent studies.

4. The period of observation was too short This is valuable especially in the qualitative study of classrooms where the researcher visits a history class of 10 teachers once and then jumps to make major findings and conclusions from a 40-minute lesson per teacher. This is a common problem with qualitative research in education in South Africa—the lack of extended engagement in the field.

5. The theoretical framework or theory is limiting A researcher might be using a particular theory to explain events e.g. a behaviorist account of learner discipline where you believe that a constructivist account offers more insight into why learners misbehave in classrooms. The onus is still on you to explain why the rival theory is ‘better’ than the one used.

6. The methodological approach is inappropriate for the question posed A study uses a self-reporting questionnaire completed by teachers to determine their competency levels in mathematics teaching. You could argue that direct observation of actual teaching is a much more direct measure of teaching competency in mathematics since teachers might overestimate their own levels of competency in the subject (by the way, there is research to back you up with such a claim)

7. The research question or instrument(s) is biased A study that asks ‘why teachers are incompetent’ or ‘the students are lazy’ already assumes the fact ahead of the inquiry itself. The research question can and should be posed in an open-ended manner to allow for more than one outcome. In the controversial SU study on Coloured women’s cognitive abilities and health styles it was found that the measuring instrument used was found in other studies to be flawed. And the study of code-switching in a Grade 6 language classroom would clearly show bias if the researcher was competent in English alone—unless, of course, this deficiency is remedied in the study design.

8. The study does not differentiate between subjects or contexts A report might give the results of a study for academic performance in Grade 12 economics in the National Senior Certificate, which is fine, but does not differentiate between the results of the former white schools and those of black schools thereby concealing variable performance and, for the sake of reform, where exactly added support might be needed.

9. The literature reviewed does not cover the subject at all or from a particular perspective The conclusion that ‘there is no research on topic X’ is a common one among students and often wrong. The fact that you have not yet found literature on topic X does not mean that such references do not exist. However, there are instances in which the case can and should be made that topic X appears to be understudied given the literature reviewed. Hint: always check with your supervisor and other experts whether the ‘not yet researched’ claim is justified. More plausible are studies which critique a dominant perspective on a subject and offer a new lens on the same issue (see point #5) above.

10. The study is based largely on opinion and uses primarily secondary sources This is a very valid criticism of many articles posing as research studies where the evidence is often anecdotal (not ‘thick descriptions’ as anthropologists like to point out) and drawing on other opinion pieces rather than solid research on the topic.

REMEMBER: THESE NOTES ARE NOT ABOUT HOW TO IDENTIFY LIMITATIONS IN LITERATURE REVIEWED FOR YOUR STUDY. IT IS NOT ABOUT LISTING THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR STUDY IN THE COURSE OF WRITING UP A RESEARCH PROPOSAL OR THE THESIS ITSELF, EVEN THOUGH THIS COULD HELP YOU DEFEND SELF-IDENTIFIED LIMITATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH.

The upsides to a pandemic: from jobs to teaching, it’s not all bad news

Let’s face facts, the 2020 school year is lost. so what to do, you may also like, corrupted: a study of chronic dysfunction in south..., learning under lockdown – 100 student voices, ten elements of a good literature review, ten rules for turning a dissertation into a....

This was very helpful to me.

Truly helpful. So much valuable information on this site that’s worth spreading across all social media platforms.

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

be thorough,
use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

the major achievements in the reviewed field,
the main areas of debate, and
the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Dissertations - Skills Guide

Where to start
Research Proposal
Ethics Form
Primary Research

Literature Review

Methodology
Downloadable Resources
Further Reading

What is it?

Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature review. In this section we discuss literature reviews for the whole dissertation.

What are the benefits of a literature review?

There are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. The advantages of conducting a literature review include accessibility, deeper understanding of your chosen topic, identifying experts and current research within that area, and answering key questions about current research. The disadvantages might include not providing new information on the subject and, depending on the subject area, you may have to include information that is out of date.

How do I write it?

A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is:

Introduction (including methodology)

This particular example is split into 6 sections, however it may be more or less depending on your topic.

Literature Reviews Further Reading

<< Previous: Primary Research
Next: Methodology >>
Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330

How might literature-based studies work better for academics, students and librarians?

In this guest blog post, Darren Flynn, Academic Liaison Manager, Library and Learning Services at the University of Northampton, talks about assigned systematic reviews in a higher education and allied health setting. This post is an expansion of Darren’s thoughts that he first expressed in a Twitter thread .

Over recent years it’s become increasing common for student final projects and dissertations to undertake an entirely literature-based study. Particularly in health courses, these often take the form of scaled-down systematic reviews where students independently formulate a topic and research question, develop, test and execute a search strategy then sift, appraise and synthesise a selection of secondary research. From a practical point of view, this form of project has distinct advantages over empirical research: it allows students to research topics not otherwise feasible, presents fewer (though not no) ethical barriers and is less circumscribed by logistical, temporal and geographic barriers. From an information literacy perspective it can represent an effective capstone; bringing together multiple strands and skills developed over an academic programme into a single project. Because of this, as an information literacy professional, I was and am supportive both in conceptual and practical senses of the shift towards this type of project.

However, this support comes with a range of specific caveats. Literature-based studies present particular challenges to the different stakeholders (students, supervisors and librarians) involved that require addressing if such projects are to be successful. In this post (an expansion of a Twitter thread ) I hope to share my thoughts and experiences gleaned from my past role as an academic liaison librarian supporting allied health subjects both in terms of direct support to students and in liaison work with academics setting and supervising these projects. The following does not constitute a formal policy or approach, nor a set of “dos and don’ts” but rather a set of considerations that might be made in when approaching these kinds of projects and developing services and practices to support them.

As outlined above, there are good pedagogic and practical reasons for using literature-based studies as dissertation projects. These do not however preclude a critical assessment of the reasons underlying the shift towards them as an assessment method. Literature-based studies should not be implicitly or explicitly thought or described as easier or less labour-intensive options than traditional empirical studies. Even when falling short of a full systematic review, these types of project typically require many hours of work and great effort to complete, they can be frustrating, non-linear and require the development of new skills not usually attempted over the course of a typical undergraduate programme. What’s more, the dependence on published literature alone can introduce significant limits on what research questions can be asked and how they may be answered.

Literature-based studies should neither be thought of as an expedient means of reducing staff time (such as supervisor contact time) or physical resources (such as labs). The resource needs of these studies are significant though different, generally requiring input from libraries and librarians to enable them to work efficiently. Academics considering their use should assess the resource requirements in consultation with their librarian, and if necessary, actively advocate for the levels of investment necessary.

In discussing the rationale for literature-based studies we should also consider what the cognitive and conceptual reasons are for completing one. Generally, most academics I’ve spoken to accept that work produced will not meet the standard of a systematic review and it is likely that any outcomes will represent only a partial synthesis of available evidence on a topic. We may accept these limitations and equate them with those of the a typical undergraduate or taught postgraduate empirical study wherein the sample is likely too small and/or unrepresentative to provide for reliable results etc. The learning objective of completing a study though is demonstrating an understanding of the process and gaining first-hand experience of managing a small-scale project. The same logic may be applied to literature-based studies: the point is what students do with the papers they find, are they able to demonstrate the skills of evidence-appraisal and synthesising results to answer a question. Whether or not a search is particularly well-structured or comprehensive might therefore be seen as inconsequential and thus whether or not librarian support is available of relatively minor importance. In theory this approach may appear both logical and pragmatic, however in practice is extremely problematic. Even when the search strategy is not a direct concern in assessment it is in effect foundational to the success of the rest of the project. Without an effective search strategy, students face either not locating all or enough relevant and usable studies (undermining their synthesis and conclusions) or spend many frustrating hours scouring results lists that reach into the 1,000s. Expert and experienced support therefore is a necessary prerequisite for these assessments, even where the component concerned [search strategy] may not be directly assessed.

Terminology

Up to this point I have avoided the thorny issue of the terminology we might use to describe these types of projects, so far using the term literature-based studies as a catch-all term that is benign by virtue of its ambiguity. It is important to acknowledge explicitly that a systematic review is a specific, definable and recognisable research methodology that is highly unlikely to be undertaken by students below PhD-level study. Typically an undergraduate or taught postgraduate student might adopt some of the methods of a systematic review in their project (devising inclusion/exclusion criteria, developing a search strategy etc.) and may also be required to include some of the documentation of a systematic review (reporting of search terms, screening diagrams etc.) but the inclusion of aspects or processes does not make the term systematic review applicable: the whole remains greater than the sum of its parts. The distinction may appear overly-pedantic but misapplication of the term systematic review is wrong both conceptually (by undervaluing the methodology) and practically; a student who thinks they are doing an SR searching for support materials will find information that will run from daunting to terrifying. A librarian supporting the students completing these projects cannot give appropriate advice if they do not have an awareness of the actual type of study the student has been set.

Therefore if we believe accurate terminology matters, we need a suitable term that both describes the project’s specific requirements and is distinct from an systematic review. In my practice the term “systematised literature review” was used to express that: 1) The project was literature-based, 2) The purpose was to review and synthesise literature and 3) That it used some systematic methods of an systematic review without adopting the full methodology. Alternative terms I’ve come across include pragmatic systematised literature review, systematic-style literature review or a documented literature review.

Delimiting a systematic review-style project

If we accept that most projects set for students that are described as systematic reviews are not, we necessarily need to explicitly delimit them for students and set out clear expectations. In a typical systematic review, any papers located that are relevant and conform to inclusion/exclusion criteria must be included. In a student project this is often impractical and inequitable; projects with the same wordcount where one student synthesises three papers and another ten papers cannot be fairly compared against an identical marking scheme. Guidelines are therefore needed as to how many papers are necessary to complete the assessment but in addition advice on what students should do if they exceed the recommended number; do students include the most recent, best quality, the most homogenous selection? Academics should also consider what types of study may be included, is grey literature acceptable? Are pilot studies? What are acceptable time bounds (if any), studies from previous five, ten, fifteen years? When considering originality (i.e. any existing reviews on the same topic) what is an acceptable time period since publication? Must students only use papers published since the last review? Is there an expectation for students to use non-English language publications and if so, how might students translate them? If a student is fluent in additional languages can they use studies published in that language? Will students be expected to gain access to materials the library doesn’t have access to, and if so, does the library offer a free document supply service?

Making such a list of questions can appear deliberately obstructive and captious but these are questions students will inevitably ask and they have the right to expect a definitive and consistent answer. Not having a such boundaries in place and transparently shared risks inequitable treatment based on the subjective judgement of a supervisor or a librarian answering in the moment.

It should, but doesn’t always, go without saying that academics planning on using literature-based dissertation projects must engage with the library/their librarian. We would rightly recognise the flaw in setting lab-based assessments without informing laboratory technicians and equally not consulting the librarian responsible for the subject area given their role in supplying and supporting the necessary inputs for these types of projects. In terms of liaison several key discussions are necessary. Librarians need a clear understanding of the scope of the projects and their requirements: what specifically are students being asked to do, what processes and documentation are expected and what are the timescales between project commencement and completion. This information is rarely efficiently conveyed by students themselves and it is a dispiriting experience for all parties when a student needs help but the librarian cannot offer any for fear of giving inaccurate information. From an academic’s point of view they need to know what services and levels of support and input is the librarian able to provide: will this be limited to a single taught session, are research consultations available, how are these booked and what is the expected wait time for these, is there an enquiry service, how might they refer students to additional training. More generally, academics need an awareness of librarian capacity to support these projects given they may be responsible for multiple subject areas setting similar projects. While a literature searching session will often suffice for many students and the more straightforward topics, the nature of systematic review-style projects is that many students will require additional advice and support to check the viability of a project, design a search strategy and to adapt general principles covered in a taught session to the specifics of their project. Moreover, the experience of attending a literature searching session can generate rather than lessen the need for students to seek individual guidance as they realise the potential complexity of the task at hand. In addition to direct student support [by liaising with librarians] supervisors can derive further benefits such as exemplar search strategies outlining effective search strings, guidance on effective assessment of searches and providing support materials that can be shared with students.

On academic liaison I would finally add the need to develop high levels of trust between professionals with different spheres and levels of expertise. A cognitive shift is required by some project supervisors that in regard to some aspects of a systematic review-style project (e.g. scoping a project, developing search strategies) their expertise is generally significantly lower than a librarian’s and they may need to defer and refer as necessary to support students appropriately. A common experience I had as a health librarian was meeting with students to discuss a potential research question which had been provisionally approved by a supervisor (on the basis of its relevance to the programme and an assumption that literature on the topic was extant) but was patently unviable as a project once an initial scoping search was completed (too few published papers, existing recent review etc.) These scenarios contained the potential for conflict; ethically I felt bound to advise the student to adapt or change the topic but doing so could undermine a colleague. For the most part this was managed through strong trust relationships between myself and academics but particularly in the context of high reported levels of imposter syndrome amongst librarians, academics should be explicit in their support of librarians’ judgement in advising students approaching a literature-based study.

Darren Flynn – @patchedelbows

Do you have a question or comment? Feel free to leave a comment on this post to start a conversation!

Do you have a case study that you would like to share? Why not showcase this on the ILG blog? See our guidelines for further information on submissions.

When your school is closed… you have to be creative

Guest post: Why we need critical digital literacy to participate in democracy

1 thought on “how might literature-based studies work better for academics, students and librarians”.

Thanks Darren, this is a really thought provoking blog. As an NHS librarian, I’m often approached by our clinical staff who are undertaking studies and asked to help with systematic reviews. There’s no existing relationship for me with their supervisors, so it can be really difficult to carefully try to reset expectations, or to educate the student so they can confidently go back to their supervisor with what they’ve found. There can be a disconnect for us also because the students aren’t necessarily undertaking their course with a local university.

Librarian capacity for support is also a really good point here; primarily my post is to support patient care queries and it can be difficult to make time for our staff who are also students. We always try! I just don’t think that the people setting the assignments take this into account.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and paper or dissertation topic , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. It should not be a second results section.

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

Summary : A brief recap of your key results
Interpretations: What do your results mean?
Implications: Why do your results matter?
Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarize your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about discussion sections.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasize weaknesses or failures.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. To speed up the process you can use a summarizer to quickly get an overview of all important findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported—aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

The results indicate that…
The study demonstrates a correlation between…
This analysis supports the theory that…
The data suggest that…

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
Contextualizing your findings within previous research and theory
Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organize your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

In line with the hypothesis…
Contrary to the hypothesized association…
The results contradict the claims of Smith (2022) that…
The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is y .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

These results build on existing evidence of…
The results do not fit with the theory that…
The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between…
These results should be taken into account when considering how to…
The data contribute a clearer understanding of…
While previous research has focused on x , these results demonstrate that y .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalizability is limited.
If you encountered problems when gathering or analyzing data, explain how these influenced the results.
If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

The generalizability of the results is limited by…
The reliability of these data is impacted by…
Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm…
The methodological choices were constrained by…
It is beyond the scope of this study to…

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done—give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

Further research is needed to establish…
Future studies should take into account…
Avenues for future research include…

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

Anchoring bias
Halo effect
The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
The placebo effect
Nonresponse bias
Deep learning
Generative AI
Machine learning
Reinforcement learning
Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

Your interpretations : what do the results tell us?
The implications : why do the results matter?
The limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a results section | tips & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Home » Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Dissertation Methodology

In any research, the methodology chapter is one of the key components of your dissertation. It provides a detailed description of the methods you used to conduct your research and helps readers understand how you obtained your data and how you plan to analyze it. This section is crucial for replicating the study and validating its results.

Here are the basic elements that are typically included in a dissertation methodology:

Introduction : This section should explain the importance and goals of your research .
Research Design : Outline your research approach and why it’s appropriate for your study. You might be conducting an experimental research, a qualitative research, a quantitative research, or a mixed-methods research.
Data Collection : This section should detail the methods you used to collect your data. Did you use surveys, interviews, observations, etc.? Why did you choose these methods? You should also include who your participants were, how you recruited them, and any ethical considerations.
Data Analysis : Explain how you intend to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., depending on the nature of your study.
Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your study. For instance, you could discuss measures taken to reduce bias, how you ensured that your measures accurately capture what they were intended to, or how you will handle any limitations in your study.
Ethical Considerations : This is where you state how you have considered ethical issues related to your research, how you have protected the participants’ rights, and how you have complied with the relevant ethical guidelines.
Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations of your methodology, including any biases and constraints that might have affected your study.
Summary : Recap the key points of your methodology chapter, highlighting the overall approach and rationalization of your research.

Types of Dissertation Methodology

The type of methodology you choose for your dissertation will depend on the nature of your research question and the field you’re working in. Here are some of the most common types of methodologies used in dissertations:

Experimental Research

This involves creating an experiment that will test your hypothesis. You’ll need to design an experiment, manipulate variables, collect data, and analyze that data to draw conclusions. This is commonly used in fields like psychology, biology, and physics.

Survey Research

This type of research involves gathering data from a large number of participants using tools like questionnaires or surveys. It can be used to collect a large amount of data and is often used in fields like sociology, marketing, and public health.

Qualitative Research

This type of research is used to explore complex phenomena that can’t be easily quantified. Methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations. This methodology is common in fields like anthropology, sociology, and education.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research uses numerical data to answer research questions. This can include statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s common in fields like economics, psychology, and health sciences.

Case Study Research

This type of research involves in-depth investigation of a particular case, such as an individual, group, or event. This methodology is often used in psychology, social sciences, and business.

Mixed Methods Research

This combines qualitative and quantitative research methods in a single study. It’s used to answer more complex research questions and is becoming more popular in fields like social sciences, health sciences, and education.

Action Research

This type of research involves taking action and then reflecting upon the results. This cycle of action-reflection-action continues throughout the study. It’s often used in fields like education and organizational development.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research involves studying the same group of individuals over an extended period of time. This could involve surveys, observations, or experiments. It’s common in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine.

Ethnographic Research

This type of research involves the in-depth study of people and cultures. Researchers immerse themselves in the culture they’re studying to collect data. This is often used in fields like anthropology and social sciences.

Structure of Dissertation Methodology

The structure of a dissertation methodology can vary depending on your field of study, the nature of your research, and the guidelines of your institution. However, a standard structure typically includes the following elements:

Introduction : Briefly introduce your overall approach to the research. Explain what you plan to explore and why it’s important.
Research Design/Approach : Describe your overall research design. This can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain the rationale behind your chosen design and why it is suitable for your research questions or hypotheses.
Data Collection Methods : Detail the methods you used to collect your data. You should include what type of data you collected, how you collected it, and why you chose this method. If relevant, you can also include information about your sample population, such as how many people participated, how they were chosen, and any relevant demographic information.
Data Analysis Methods : Explain how you plan to analyze your collected data. This will depend on the nature of your data. For example, if you collected quantitative data, you might discuss statistical analysis techniques. If you collected qualitative data, you might discuss coding strategies, thematic analysis, or narrative analysis.
Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your research. This might include steps you took to reduce bias or increase the accuracy of your measurements.
Ethical Considerations : If relevant, discuss any ethical issues associated with your research. This might include how you obtained informed consent from participants, how you ensured participants’ privacy and confidentiality, or any potential conflicts of interest.
Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations in your research methodology. This could include potential sources of bias, difficulties with data collection, or limitations in your analysis methods.
Summary/Conclusion : Briefly summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps answer your research questions or hypotheses.

How to Write Dissertation Methodology

Writing a dissertation methodology requires you to be clear and precise about the way you’ve carried out your research. It’s an opportunity to convince your readers of the appropriateness and reliability of your approach to your research question. Here is a basic guideline on how to write your methodology section:

1. Introduction

Start your methodology section by restating your research question(s) or objective(s). This ensures your methodology directly ties into the aim of your research.

2. Approach

Identify your overall approach: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain why you have chosen this approach.

Qualitative methods are typically used for exploratory research and involve collecting non-numerical data. This might involve interviews, observations, or analysis of texts.
Quantitative methods are used for research that relies on numerical data. This might involve surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis.
Mixed methods use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3. Research Design

Describe the overall design of your research. This could involve explaining the type of study (e.g., case study, ethnography, experimental research, etc.), how you’ve defined and measured your variables, and any control measures you’ve implemented.

4. Data Collection

Explain in detail how you collected your data.

If you’ve used qualitative methods, you might detail how you selected participants for interviews or focus groups, how you conducted observations, or how you analyzed existing texts.
If you’ve used quantitative methods, you might detail how you designed your survey or experiment, how you collected responses, and how you ensured your data is reliable and valid.

5. Data Analysis

Describe how you analyzed your data.

If you’re doing qualitative research, this might involve thematic analysis, discourse analysis, or grounded theory.
If you’re doing quantitative research, you might be conducting statistical tests, regression analysis, or factor analysis.

Discuss any ethical issues related to your research. This might involve explaining how you obtained informed consent, how you’re protecting participants’ privacy, or how you’re managing any potential harms to participants.

7. Reliability and Validity

Discuss the steps you’ve taken to ensure the reliability and validity of your data.

Reliability refers to the consistency of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve piloted your instruments or used standardized measures.
Validity refers to the accuracy of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve ensured your measures reflect the concepts they’re supposed to measure.

8. Limitations

Every study has its limitations. Discuss the potential weaknesses of your chosen methods and explain any obstacles you faced in your research.

9. Conclusion

Summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps to address your research question or objective.

Example of Dissertation Methodology

An Example of Dissertation Methodology is as follows:

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

This chapter details the methodology adopted in this research. The study aimed to explore the relationship between stress and productivity in the workplace. A mixed-methods research design was used to collect and analyze data.

Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The rationale for this approach is that while quantitative data can provide a broad overview of the relationships between variables, qualitative data can provide deeper insights into the nuances of these relationships.

Data Collection Methods

Quantitative Data Collection : An online self-report questionnaire was used to collect data from participants. The questionnaire consisted of two standardized scales: the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to measure stress levels and the Individual Work Productivity Questionnaire (IWPQ) to measure productivity. The sample consisted of 200 office workers randomly selected from various companies in the city.

Qualitative Data Collection : Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants chosen from the initial sample. The interview guide included questions about participants’ experiences with stress and how they perceived its impact on their productivity.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative Data Analysis : Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey data. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between stress and productivity.

Qualitative Data Analysis : Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo software. This process allowed for identifying and analyzing patterns and themes regarding the impact of stress on productivity.

Reliability and Validity

To ensure reliability and validity, standardized measures with good psychometric properties were used. In qualitative data analysis, triangulation was employed by having two researchers independently analyze the data and then compare findings.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. They were informed about the purpose of the study, their rights as participants, and the confidentiality of their responses.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is its reliance on self-report measures, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias. Moreover, the sample was drawn from a single city, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Where to Write Dissertation Methodology

In a dissertation or thesis, the Methodology section usually follows the Literature Review. This placement allows the Methodology to build upon the theoretical framework and existing research outlined in the Literature Review, and precedes the Results or Findings section. Here’s a basic outline of how most dissertations are structured:

Acknowledgements
Literature Review (or it may be interspersed throughout the dissertation)
Methodology
Results/Findings
References/Bibliography

In the Methodology chapter, you will discuss the research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and any ethical considerations pertaining to your study. This allows your readers to understand how your research was conducted and how you arrived at your results.

Advantages of Dissertation Methodology

The dissertation methodology section plays an important role in a dissertation for several reasons. Here are some of the advantages of having a well-crafted methodology section in your dissertation:

Clarifies Your Research Approach : The methodology section explains how you plan to tackle your research question, providing a clear plan for data collection and analysis.
Enables Replication : A detailed methodology allows other researchers to replicate your study. Replication is an important aspect of scientific research because it provides validation of the study’s results.
Demonstrates Rigor : A well-written methodology shows that you’ve thought critically about your research methods and have chosen the most appropriate ones for your research question. This adds credibility to your study.
Enhances Transparency : Detailing your methods allows readers to understand the steps you took in your research. This increases the transparency of your study and allows readers to evaluate potential biases or limitations.
Helps in Addressing Research Limitations : In your methodology section, you can acknowledge and explain the limitations of your research. This is important as it shows you understand that no research method is perfect and there are always potential weaknesses.
Facilitates Peer Review : A detailed methodology helps peer reviewers assess the soundness of your research design. This is an important part of the publication process if you aim to publish your dissertation in a peer-reviewed journal.
Establishes the Validity and Reliability : Your methodology section should also include a discussion of the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your measurements, which is crucial for establishing the overall quality of your research.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Limitations of the Study
Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Independent and Dependent Variables
Glossary of Research Terms
Reading Research Effectively
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Applying Critical Thinking
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Research Process Video Series
Executive Summary
The C.A.R.S. Model
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tiertiary Sources
Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Qualitative Methods
Quantitative Methods
Insiderness
Using Non-Textual Elements
Common Grammar Mistakes
Writing Concisely
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Generative AI and Writing
USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
Bibliography

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE : If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
Explain why each limitation exists;
Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

<< Previous: 8. The Discussion
Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

IMAGES

Limitations of literature based dissertation by sheliaklce
21 Research Limitations Examples (2024)
How To Write The Research Limitations Section Of Your Masters
How to structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation
Literature Based Dissertations: What are they? How are they structured
Limitations of literature review papers.

VIDEO

Analysing your data for your dissertation
Lesson 4: Research-Phrases to use in Writing the Research Methodology #researchtips
Literature Library Based Dissertations
A Ph.D. Seminar on Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research
Office Hours with Dr. Guy
Narrow your dissertation topic down

COMMENTS

8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution, we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them. Problem. Solution. Lack of relevance - limited stakeholder engagement can ...
Dissertations & projects: Literature-based projects
The structure of a literature-based dissertation is usually thematic, but make sure to check with your supervisor to make sure you are abiding by your department's project specifications. ... Define the scope of the dissertation, explaining any limitations. Lay out the structure of the dissertation, taking the reader through each section and ...
Limitations of the literature
This work typically appears in a separate chapter in the thesis or dissertation under the title Literature Review. To help you, here are 10 typical examples often used to identify limitations in a particular body of literature—with a caveat—using education examples. 1. The sample size is too small and therefore not representative of the ...
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Literature Based Dissertation
Chapter 1 - Introduction. Begin your literature-based dissertation with a compelling introduction that sets the context for your research. Clearly state the purpose and significance of your study, along with your research objectives and research questions. Emphasise the gap or problem your dissertation aims to address and explain how a thorough ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An ...
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
substandard reviews. Eight problems, eight solutions. In the following section, we use recent exam ples of literature reviews. published in the field of conservation and envir onmental science. to ...
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...
PDF Structure of a literature-based dissertation
The key to a good dissertation is structure, which needs to be logical and coherent. The reader needs to be able to follow your argument throughout. A generic layout for a literature-based dissertation is given below; each section has particular content you are expected to include. Individual courses may require a specific structure, for ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
Literature Review
Literature Review. What is it? Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature ...
PDF DOING A LITERATURE 3 REVIEW
Literature reviews undertaken as part of a thesis invariably focus on the topic that relate to the main research questions that have been raised and highlight the inﬂ uential conceptual or empirical studies that have been conducted in the ﬁ eld. As indicated above, a literature review demonstrates knowledge about the extant
Dissertation Literature Review: Key Steps and Best Practices
A literature review is a comprehensive and critically assessed summary of existing research focused on a specific topic or question.Unlike other types of literature reviews, the dissertation literature review requires depth and context, serving as an extensive examination of scholarly works, including articles, books, theses, and other authoritative sources.
Systematic reviews: Brief overview of methods, limitations, and
CONCLUSION. Siddaway 16 noted that, "The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what the literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory" (p. 747). To that end, high quality systematic reviews are explicit, rigorous, and reproducible. It is these three criteria that should guide authors seeking to write a systematic review or editors ...
How might literature-based studies work better for academics, students
We may accept these limitations and equate them with those of the a typical undergraduate or taught postgraduate empirical study wherein the sample is likely too small and/or unrepresentative to provide for reliable results etc. ... go without saying that academics planning on using literature-based dissertation projects must engage with the ...
Theses and dissertations: pros and cons of the traditional and
In order to expedite the writing and assessment of theses, institutions and graduate programs in several countries, including Brazil, are choosing to allow candidates who have published papers on their masters or doctorate research topics to replace the thesis chapters by these articles, headed by an introduction, conclusion and review of scientific literature.
Advantages and disadvantages of literature review
According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field. Creation of new body of knowledge. One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge.
What's the deal with literature based dissertations?
The structure of a literature based dissertation will look different from a research dissertation. Here's how it's laid out. You have an Introduction followed by a series of different chapters - each exploring a particular theme or area around your topic or question. After that comes a Discussion in which you draw all that together, and a ...
How to Write a Discussion Section
Table of contents. What not to include in your discussion section. Step 1: Summarize your key findings. Step 2: Give your interpretations. Step 3: Discuss the implications. Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations. Step 5: Share your recommendations. Discussion section example. Other interesting articles.
Dissertation Methodology
In a dissertation or thesis, the Methodology section usually follows the Literature Review. This placement allows the Methodology to build upon the theoretical framework and existing research outlined in the Literature Review, and precedes the Results or Findings section. Here's a basic outline of how most dissertations are structured: Title Page
Limitations of the Study
Possible Limitations of the Researcher. Access-- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described.Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.

Neal Haddaway

About the author

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

How common is academic plagiarism?

Dissertations & projects: Literature-based projects

On these pages:

How to structure a literature-based project

Abstract or summary

Should you have a separate literature review chapter?

Ensuring your themed chapters flow

Reference list

Limitations of the literature – A guide to a sticky problem

The upsides to a pandemic: from jobs to teaching, it’s not all bad news

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Acknowledgments

Funding Statement

Dissertations - Skills Guide

Literature Review

Literature Reviews Further Reading

How might literature-based studies work better for academics, students and librarians?

Terminology

Delimiting a systematic review-style project

Related Posts

When your school is closed… you have to be creative

Guest post: Why we need critical digital literacy to participate in democracy

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Author: M Rahman

Related Posts

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation Methodology

Types of Dissertation Methodology

Structure of Dissertation Methodology

How to Write Dissertation Methodology

Example of Dissertation Methodology

Where to Write Dissertation Methodology

Advantages of Dissertation Methodology

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of...

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

Structure and Writing Style

Writing Tip

Another Writing Tip

Yet Another Writing Tip

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS