Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation
Volume 14
Volume 14, 2009
Article 13
2009
A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
Justus Randolph
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Randolph, Justus (2009) "A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review,"
Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation
: Vol. 14 , Article 13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74
Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/13
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UMass
Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
A peer-reviewed electronic journal.
Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation. Permission is granted to distribute this article for nonprofit, educational purposes if it is copied in its
entirety and the journal is credited.
Volume 14, Number 13, June 2009 ISSN 1531-7714
A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
Justus J. Randolph
Walden University
Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to derail a dissertation. This article summarizes
some pivotal information on how to write a high-quality dissertation literature review. It begins with a
discussion of the purposes of a review, presents taxonomy of literature reviews, and then discusses the
steps in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature review. The article concludes with a
discussion of common mistakes and a framework for the self-evaluation of a literature review.
Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to
derail a dissertation. If the literature review is flawed, the
remainder of the dissertation may also be viewed as
flawed, because “a researcher cannot perform significant
research without first understanding the literature in the
field” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). Experienced thesis
examiners know this. In a study of the practices of
Australian dissertation examiners, Mullins and Kiley
(2002) found that,
Examiners typically started reviewing a
dissertation with the expectation that it would
pass; but a poorly conceptualized or written
literature review often indicated for them that
the rest of the dissertation might have
problems. On encountering an inadequate
literature review, examiners would proceed to
look at the methods of data collection, the
analysis, and the conclusions more carefully.
(Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 6)
Given the importance of literature reviews in both
dissertations and journal articles, it may be surprising
that so many of them are faulty. Boote and Beile (2005)
claim that “the dirty secret known by those who sit on
dissertation committees is that most literature reviews
are poorly conceptualized and written” (p. 4). Further,
dissertations and theses are not the only types of
publications that suffer from poor literature reviews.
Many literature reviews in manuscripts submitted for
publication in journals are also flawed—see Alton-Lee
(1998), Grante and Graue (1999), and LeCompte,
Klinger, Campbell, and Menck (2003).
Given that so many literature reviews are poorly done, it
is surprising there is not more published information on
how to write a literature review. Boot and Beile (2005)
write,
Doctoral students seeking advice on how to
improve their literature reviews will find little
published guidance worth heeding. . . . Most
graduate students receive little or no formal
training in how to analyze and synthesize the
research literature in their field, and they are
unlikely to find it elsewhere. (p. 5)
Not only is there a lack of published information to
guide writers of literature reviews, the labor intensive
process of writing one compounds the problem. Gall,
Borg, and Gall (1996) estimate that completion of an
acceptable dissertation literature review will take
between three and six months of effort.
The purpose of this guide is to collect and summarize
the most relevant information on how to write a
dissertation literature review. I begin with a discussion of
the purposes of a review, present Cooper’s (1988)
Taxonomy of Literature Reviews, and discuss the steps
in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature
review. A discussion of common mistakes and a
1
Randolph: A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
Published by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 2009
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 2
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
framework for the self-evaluation of literature reviews
concludes the article.
Purposes for Writing a Literature Review
Conducting a literature review is a means of
demonstrating an author’s knowledge about a particular
field of study, including vocabulary, theories, key
variables and phenomena, and its methods and history.
Conducting a literature review also informs the student
of the influential researchers and research groups in the
field. Finally, with some modification, the literature
review is a “legitimate and publishable scholarly
document” (LeCompte & colleagues, 2003, p. 124).
Apart from the above reasons for writing a review (i.e.,
proof of knowledge, a publishable document, and the
identification of a research family), the scientific reasons
for conducting a literature review are many. Gall, Borg,
and Gall (1996) argue that the literature review plays a
role in:
• delimiting the research problem,
• seeking new lines of inquiry,
• avoiding fruitless approaches,
• gaining methodological insights,
• identifying recommendations for further
research, and
• seeking support for grounded theory.
Hart (1998) contributes additional reasons for reviewing
the literature, including:
• distinguishing what has been done from what
needs to be done,
• discovering important variables relevant to the
topic,
• synthesizing and gaining a new perspective,
• identifying relationships between ideas and
practices,
• establishing the context of the topic or problem,
• rationalizing the significance of the problem,
• enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary,
• understanding the structure of the subject,
• relating ideas and theory to applications,
• identifying the main methodologies and research
techniques that have been used, and
• placing the research in a historical context to
show familiarity with state-of-the-art
developments. (p. 27)
Another purpose for writing a literature review not
mentioned above is that it provides a framework for
relating new findings to previous findings in the
discussion section of a dissertation. Without establishing
the state of the previous research, it is impossible to
establish how the new research advances the previous
research.
Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
An effective method to begin planning a research review
is to consider where the proposed review fits into
Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. As
shown in Table 1, Cooper suggests that literature
reviews can be classified according to five
characteristics: focus, goal, perspective, coverage, organization,
and audience. In Table 1, each characteristic is listed on
the left, with the levels of the characteristics on the right.
In the paragraphs that follow, each of these literature
review characteristics are described in more detail.
Focus
The first characteristic is the focus of the review. Cooper
(1988) identifies four potential foci: research outcomes,
research methods, theories, or practices or applications.
Literature reviews that focus on research outcomes are
perhaps the most common. In fact, the Educational
Resources Information Center (1982, p. 85) defines a
literature review as an “information analysis and
synthesis, focusing on findings and not simply bibliographic
citations, summarizing the substance of the literature
and drawing conclusions from it” (italics mine). The
Educational Resources Information Center suggests
that, in terms of a developing a research rationale, an
outcomes-oriented review may help identify a lack of
information on a particular research outcome, thus
establishing a justifiable need for an outcome study.
Methodological reviews concentrate on research
methods—Cooper’s second focus category. In a
methodological review, research methods in the chosen
field are investigated to identify key variables, measures,
and methods of analysis and inform outcomes-oriented
research. The methodological review is also helpful to
identify methodological strengths and weaknesses in a
body of research, and examine how research practices 2
Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, Vol. 14 [2009], Art. 13
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/13
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 3
Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review
differ across groups, times, or settings. Methodological
reviews, combined with outcome reviews, may also
identify ways in which the methods inform the
outcomes. A methodological review may also lead to
sound rationale that can justify proposed dissertation
research, if it turns out that the previous research has
been methodologically flawed.
Table 1. Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
Characteristic Categories
Focus Research outcomes
Research methods
Theories
Practices or applications
Goal Integration
(a) Generalization
(b) Conflict resolution
(c) Linguistic bridge-building
Criticism
Identification of central issues
Perspective Neutral representation
Espousal of position
Coverage Exhaustive
Exhaustive with selective citation
Representative
Central or pivotal
Organization Historical
Finally, literature reviews can be focused on practices or
applications. For example, a review might concentrate
on how a certain intervention has been applied or how a
group of people tend to carry out a certain practice. In
terms of a research rationale, this fourth type of review
can help establish a practical need not currently being
met.
While a dissertation review typically has a primary focus,
it may also be necessary to address all or some of the foci
mentioned above. For example, a review with an
outcomes-oriented focus would likely also deal with the
methodological flaws that might affect an outcome. An
outcomes-oriented review may also deal with theories
related to the phenomenon being investigated and
introduce the practical applications of the knowledge
that will ultimately be gained from the dissertation.
Goal
The goal of many reviews is to integrate and generalize
findings across units, treatments, outcomes, and settings;
to resolve a debate within a field; or to bridge the
language used across fields. Meta-analysis, for example,
is an often-used review technique in which the primary
goal is to integrate quantitative outcomes across studies.
In other reviews the goal may be to critically analyze
previous research, identify central issues, or explicate a
line of argument within a field.
Randolph: A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
