Writing a Literature Review:
The following provides an example of a topic and how you might put the information together into a literature review.
A literature review serves three purposes:
1. It provides you (the researcher) with information about the topic.
2. It provides your audience with some background information on what previous research has found on the topic.
3. It provides an introduction and a purpose for your research (which will be your Method section).
Your literature review should focus on what previous research has found (i.e., the results).
For example, if my research topic is, the intergenerational transmission of divorce, then I will look at what previous research has already found out about the relationship between experiencing divorce as a child (i.e., your parents divorced when you were a child) and getting divorced later on in life.
When I look at the academic literature on the topic, and focus specifically on the results of previous research, I find a number of things:
1. That some children only experience short-term effects of divorce.
a. (Amato, 2000; Chase-Lonsdale & Hetherington, 2014)
2. That some children experience long-term effects of divorce.
a. (Amato, 1996; Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Greenberg & Nay, 1982; Martin, Mills, & Le Bourdais, 2005)
. There are several subtopics that I can discuss within long-term effects. Previous research tells me that:
i. Children of divorce are less likely to ma
y – (Martin et al., 2005; Segrin, Taylor, & Altman, 2005)
ii. Children of divorce are more likely to divorce –(Amato, 1996; Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Greenberg & Nay, 1982; Martin, Mills, & Le Bourdais, 2005)
iii. Children of divorce are more likely to ma
y someone who has been divorced – (Segrin et al., 2005).
3. Other factors that could influence marital trends and related research
a. Educational attainment (Turcotte, 2011)
. (White & Rogers, 2000)
When I try to identify gaps in the literature, I find that:
1. We don’t know why some people only experience short-term effects, while others experience long-term effects.
2. The methods used in previous research all rely on retrospective accounts of the experience (e.g., asking an adult what it was like to experience their parents’ divorce as a child). We know that human memory is not very reliable, so this would be a limitation of previous research.
3. The previous research all tends to be focused on the constructivist, qualitative approach. Perhaps it is time to test the theory of ‘the intergenerational transmission of divorce’, and propose a quantitative, positivist study.
Divorce is defined as the legal dissolution of a ma
iage by a court or other competent body (New Oxford American Dictionary); but it is also so much more than that. When a ma
iage ends significant life changes occur for the family unit – financial stability and relocation of the home, for example. According to the Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings (CRDP), as presented by Statistics Canada (statcan.gc.ca), approximately 70,600 divorce proceedings occur in Canada each year. In 2011, Canada was home to more than 5.5 million children aged 14 and under. Of these, an estimated 35% will be affected by divorce (CRDP).
It is no doubt that the impact of divorce on children is an important topic, as is indicated by the numerous websites, groups, articles, and studies focused on understanding and helping those involved. This is not to say that divorce necessarily has a negative impact on children – in fact, research shows that although most children experience distress following the divorce, significant adjustments are made by 2 years post-divorce (i.e., the crisis model) (Amato, 2000; Chase-Lonsdale & Hetherington, XXXXXXXXXXLong-term effects (i.e., the chronic strain model) however, do exist and have been examined extensively (Amato, XXXXXXXXXXResearch has found that adult children of divorce tend to divorce more often than children from intact households (Amato, 1996; Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Greenberg & Nay, 1982; Martin, Mills, & Le Bourdais, 2005) and are also less likely to ma
y than those coming from intact families (Martin et al., 2005; Segrin, Taylor, & Altman, XXXXXXXXXXInterestingly, adult children of divorce are more likely to be ma
ied to someone who has previously been divorced (Segrin et al., XXXXXXXXXXGiven the finding that rema
iages are at a higher of risk of divorce (Cherlin, 1978; Dupuis, 2007), those that ma
y a divorcee and whose own parents were divorced have an even greater chance of experiencing divorce.
While much of the previous research has focused on what the long-term effects of divorce are, we still do not understand why some individuals do not make significant adjustments in the short-term. Chase-Lonsdale and Hetherington XXXXXXXXXXattempted to answer this question by interviewing adults who experienced divorce as a child. Their results suggest that divorce was seen as a positive when it was expected (e.g., parents always arguing), and that these individuals had a much easier time adjusting to the change. In contrast, children who did not expect the divorce were much more likely to suffer long-term effects. This study begins to shed light on some of the potential differences, however it does suffer from some methodological issues. For example, we need to be aware of the limitations of memory (Clive & Masters, 2015) when asking participants to recall events from several years ago (in some cases up to 20 years ago).
It is also important to look at other factors that might influence marital trends. Levels of educational attainment, for example, have significantly shifted over the last two decades. The percentage of women in Canada (aged XXXXXXXXXXwho earned a university degree in XXXXXXXXXX%) doubled by XXXXXXXXXX%). In addition, the percentage of women who had not earned a high-school diploma dropped significantly from approximately 26% in 1990 to 9% in 2009 (Turcotte, XXXXXXXXXXSimilar patterns can be seen amongst males, with numbers increasing for attainment of post-secondary education (Turcotte, XXXXXXXXXXIt could be that the need for ma
iage has dissolved. Results of such research, however, tend to contradict this hypothesis, suggesting that higher levels of education increase marital stability, thereby decreasing chances of divorce (White & Rogers, 2000).
In light of these findings, it seems safe to say that the effect of divorce on children is an important research domain. Extensive research has taken place, in both young children as well as adult children of divorce. Unfortunately, a lot of research findings stand in stark contrast to one another. For example, differential effects of divorce on males versus females remain unclear. Girls have been shown to make a full-recovery within two years post-divorce, whereas boys generally continue to exhibit behavioral problems several years later (Chase-Lonsdale & Hetherington, XXXXXXXXXXSome research, however, suggests that males and females are affected equally, and that there are no clear differences (Department of Justice, XXXXXXXXXXThe same holds true for other characteristics of children, such as age at time of divorce (Department of Justice, 1997).
The purpose of the cu
ent study is to take a quantitative approach to this problem. Rather than focusing on retrospective accounts, we propose to study the attitudes that individuals cu
ently hold regarding ma
iage and divorce. Research has found that adult children of divorce have more negative attitudes towards ma
iage than those from intact families (Cui & Fincham, 2010; Riggio & Weiser, 2008) and evidence exists that adult children of divorce have relatively negative self-concepts in comparison to individuals from intact families, suggesting that children of divorce internalize the experience and make it part of their relationship schema (Amato, 2000; Parish & Taylor, XXXXXXXXXXBy utilizing an implicit association task, we will be able to measure unconscious attitudes towards divorce and compare these attitudes across participants who have experienced divorce with those that have not.
Hypothesis: Individuals who experienced divorce as a child will hold positive implicit attitudes towards the idea of divorce.
STAT 4010: Literature Review Grading Ru
ic
4 (Excellent)
3
2
1 (Poor)
Introduction:
Na
ative hook and discussion of problem to be addressed.
Topic is clearly introduced, and presented along with supporting evidence/justification for why this topic is important (na
ative hook).
Introduces relevant theories and/or concepts that underpin the research.
All relevant terminology is introduced with clear definitions.
Topic is clearly introduced but there is a lack of support/justification for why the topic is important.
Introduction of relevant theories and/or terminology is not clear or not well presented.
A topic is introduced, but it is very
oad or vague; lacking detail.
The relevance of theory and/or terminology is not immediately clear.
It is unclear what the topic of the research is; there is a lack of information/context.
It is unclear why certain theories or terminology is being discussed.
Organization:
Organized progression of literature review.
The report goes from general to specific; transitions relate to sections and/or themes.
There is a logical flow to the presentation of content.
The report goes from general to specific.
Transitions between paragraphs are not always logical.
There is a basic flow of ideas but not all sections follow a logical order, which makes it difficult to follow.
Report has no clear direction and subtopics/themes are not connected.
Content:
Coverage of previous literature.
Appropriate sources are examined and covered in depth; the author exhibits a deep understanding of the material.
Appropriate sources are included but are not covered in adequate depth; the author exhibits a basic understanding of the material.
The author demonstrates a basic understanding of the material.
The selected sources are not appropriate for the research topic/problem statement OR the selected sources do not meet criteria for scholarly literature.
The author does not demonstrate understanding of the material.
Ideas:
Synthesis of ideas
The author(s) present information in a way that highlights connections amongst sources.
The author(s) discuss the topic in the context of the
oader literature.
The author(s) attempt to highlight connections amongst sources, although these connections are not always clear to the audience.
Did not attempt to synthesize the information or discuss the topic in the
oader context of the scholarly literature.
There are no connections made amongst the sources.
The author lacks insight into the problem.
Connections across sources are lacking.
Discussions lack relevance to the topic.
4 (Excellent)
3
2
1 (Poor)
Conclusion:
Conclusion and segue into Method
A clear statement is made of why the cu
ent research proposal is important.
The author restates the research question and/or hypothesis in light of the previous literature.
There is a clear statement of how the cu
ent research proposal is different from what has already been done (i.e., identifies gaps in the literature)
One of the following elements