TM6014 Research Methodology

1. TM6014 Research Methodology Lecture 3 Literature Review

2. Definition Literature survey is the documentation of a comprehensive review of the published and unpublished work from secondary sources of data in the areas of specific interest to the researcher (Uma Sekaran 2003)

3. DEFINITIONS OF LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY OF PAST RESEARCH RELATED TO THE RESEARCH TO BE CONDUCTED BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY PUBLISHED IN SCHOLARLY JOURNAL A DISCUSSION ON SEVERAL QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE RESEARCH TO BE CONDUCTED

4. PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW EXPLORE ISSUES, THEORIES IN SCHOLARLY WRITINGS AND PROVIDE EXPLANATION, SUMMARY AND CRITICAL EVALUATION ON PREVIOUS RESEARCH AN ACCOUNT ON WHAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED ON A CERTAIN TOPIC BY RECOGNIZED AND AUTHORITATIVE SCHOLARS/EXPERTS CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON A SEGMENT OF A PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE THROUGH CLASSIFICATION, SUMMARY, COMPARISION OF PAST RESEARCH , THEORITICAL ARTICLES AND LITERATURE

5. PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW TO KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN KNOWN OR UNKNOWN/RESEARCHED. TO DEVELOP EXPLANATION ON CERTAIN PHENOMENA, STATE-OF- THE ART TO IDENTIFY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONCEPTS AND HYPOTHESIS

6. PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW TO LEARN HOW OTHER RESEARCHERS DEFINE WORDS, CONCEPTS AND IDENTIFY HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE STUDIED TO IDENTIFY SOURCES OF DATA USED BY EARLIER RESEARCHERS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS OR PROJECTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE RESEARCH DONE BY OTHER RESEARCHERS

7. WHY WRITE A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE? • The literature review is a critical look at the existing research that is significant to the work that you are carrying out. • It is not a summary.   • It needs to evaluate these work, show the relationships between different work, and show how it relates to your work.

8. WHY WRITE A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE? • You need to select what parts of the research to discuss (e.g. the methodology), • Show how it relates to the other work (e.g. What other methodologies have been used? • How are they similar? How are they different?) • Show how it relates to your work (what is its relationship to your methodology?).

9. A LITERATURE REVIEW MUST DO THESE THINGS……Dena Taylor (Director, health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto • BE ORGANIZED AROUND AND RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE RESEARCH QUESTION YOU ARE DEVELOPING ICT IN TEACHING & LEARNING IMPACT OF ICT SOCIALIZATION OF ICT AMONG STUDENTS RESEARCH ON SOCIALIZATION OF ICT DIGITAL DIVIDE

10. A LITERATURE REVIEW MUST DO THESE THINGS……Dena Taylor (Director, health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto • SYNTHESIZE RESULTS INTO A SUMMARY OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT KNOWN

11. A LITERATURE MUST DO THESE THINGS……Dena Taylor (Director, health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto • IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONTROVERSY IN THE LITERATURE

12. A LITERATURE MUST DO THESE THINGS……Dena Taylor (Director, health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto • FORMULATE QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER RESEARCH • What are the problems or questions that my literature review • will help identify • Am I looking for theories, methodologies, quantitative or • qualitative research? • What is the scope of my literature review? • Is my literature search comprehensive? • Have I analysed the literature that I have read, critically? • Have I referred to research that is contradictory from • my perspectives

13. What are the key sources? What are the key theories concepts and ideas? What are the major issues and debate about the topic? What are the epistemological and ontological grounds for the discipline? Literature search and review on your topic What are the main questions and problems that have been addressed to date? What are the political standpoints? What are the origins and definitions of the topic? How is knowledge on the topic structured and organized? How have approaches to these questions increased our understanding and knowledge? Some of the questions the review of the literature can answer

14. Ask these questions while your are developing your literature review: • What do you already know about the subject? Major works? • Is there any gap in the knowledge of a particular subject • Has the author formulated any problem • statements/issues? • What is the orientation of the research? • What is the theoritical framework of the author?

15. Ask these questions while your are developing your literature review: • Is there further research by other researchers? • Who are the personalities in the topic to be researched? E.g: Bloom, Dewey, Martin….. • Is the analysis accurate and relevant? • What is the strength and weakness of the research? • How is the article or book related to your research question? • What is the methodology/ methods/ issues/problems that earlier researchers identified and how they can give impact to your project?

16. HOW CAN I WRITE A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW? • Remember the purpose : • you are not writing a literature review just to tell your reader what other researchers have done. • Your aim should be to show why your research needs to be carried out, how you came to choose certain methodologies or theories to work with, how your work adds to the research already carried out, etc.

17. HOW CAN I WRITE A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW? • Read with a purpose: • you need to summarize the work you read • you must also decide which ideas or information are important to your research (so you can emphasize them), and which are less important and can be covered briefly or left out of your review. • You should also look for the major concepts, conclusions, theories, arguments etc. that underlie the work, and look for similarities and differences with closely related work.

18. HOW CAN I WRITE A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW? • Write with a purpose: • your aim should be to evaluate and show relationships between the work already done • Is Researcher Y's theory more convincing than Researcher X's? • Did Researcher X build on the work of Researcher Y? • and between this work and your own. • you should carefully plan how you are going to organize your work.

19. Identify key landmark studies: key sources and authors • There are various types of research being carried out in the field of information system development methodology. It ranges from the application of methodologies (Sakthivel, 1992; Avison et al, 1992), movement of methodologies (Fitzgerald, 1999; Avgerou C, 1993; Lycett et al., 1997), the use of methodologies (Westrup, 1993), application of in-house software development methodologies (SDM’s) and commercial SDM’s (Hardy et al., 1995; Jenkins et al, 1984) and issues in methodologies (i.e. the influences, problems, unanswered questions) (Fitzgerald, 1995; Livari, 1998; Wynekoop et al., 1995). There are also researches being carried out concerning the methodology itself and the changes in methodology (Wynekoop et al., 1997).

20. Filling the research gap • Although literature abounds with the focus on the development of new methodologies and framework for the selection and comparison of methodologies, methodologies are still extensively untested, despite their growth (Russo et al., 1995). Nevertheless, there are a handful of research which consolidate on the empirical study of the use of methodologies in specific countries (Rahim et al., 1997; Edward, 1989a; Edward, 1989b; Edward, 1989c; Selamat et al., 1994; Fitzgerald, 1997; Fitzgerald, 1996b, Russo et al., 1995). However all of these researches tend to focus on the usage of methodologies outside of Asia. Most of these researches were carried out in the UK and US region, while only one was carried out in Brunei.

21. Previous approaches and methodologies • Research accomplished by Edward (1989a, b, c) had emphasised on the usage of SSADM in the private and public sectors in UK. The research concentrate on discovering whether the users of SSADM feel that the requirements of the methodology had been fulfilled. It had also determines whether the practitioners of methodology had welcome SSADM. As a result it was found that SSADM is a methodology that provides guidelines and rule for the development of systems and it had been used in a few of the public and private sectors in UK.

22. Planning a literature search

23. Choose topic Stages Sources Outcomes encyclopedias dictionaries text books library catalogue (OPAC) Initial mapping of the topic area. A search vocabulary of concepts. Provisional list of key authors/works. Background information and ideas search. Begin mapping topic. Focus topic and analyse information needs. subject librarians guides to the literature Identification of sources of information and guides to the literature. Identification of articles, reports, work in progress. Lists of monographs/text books/anthologies. Lists of dissertations, from theses and conference papers. abstracts indexes electronic sources bibliographies (BNB) dissertation abstracts conference proceedings Detailed search of sources. Construct initial bibliographies. review journals indexes to reviews citation indexes Secondary evaluations of the literature. Identification of reviews of items. Citation map of the topic. Flow chart of the literature search

24. Indexing (million) Search engines No 3,083 Google 1 2 AlltheWeb 2,112 3 AltaVista 1,000 4 WiseNut 1,500 3,000 5 Hotbot 6 MSN Search 3,000 7 Teoma 500 8 NLResearch 125 9 Gigablast 150 INTERNET:Capabilities of search engines

25. GUIDE TO LITERATURE SEARCH SEARCH PROCEDURES • OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) • LOCAL DATABASES (LOCAL DIGITAL LIBRARIES ) • EXTERNAL DATABASES SUBSCRIBED BY LIBRARY • - PROQUEST • - INSPEC • - SPRINGER THE LINK • - CSA, LISA • - CITESEER • - ELSEVIER SCIENCE DIRECT • - PATENT DATABASES • - COLLECTION OF COMPUTER SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES • BIBLIOGRA PHY/ REFERENCES FROM EARLIER PUBLICATIONS • WEB SITES OF AUTHORS

26. Mapping and analysing ideas Mapping a topic • To acquire sufficient knowledge of the subject to develop the necessary understanding of the methodology and research techniques, • To comprehend the history and diffusion of interest in the topic, • To undertake an analytical evaluation of the main arguments, concepts and theories relevant to the topic in order to synthesize from the analysis an approach or thesis that is unique, that is your work.

27. Mapping and analysing ideas • Feature maps

28. 1.Write down aims for the review. 4. Summarise main points, especially your conclusion Plan 2. Draft appropriate structure. Use sectioning to arrange material relevant to your points. 3.Allocate appropriate evidence to sections Prewriting Pre-writing: structuring your review Building up first draft Writing a final draft

29. Pre-writing Arrange your materials in three basic blocks • Summary of existing work on the topic: different ways in which the topic has being studied (methods and methodology), issues different authors have highlighted . Identify different terms & concepts. • Critical evaluation of previous work : assess the methodologies employed, strengths and weaknesses. • General and specific conclusion about work done to date on the topic: overall direction of the work, identify gaps, fallacies and failures in previous work in order to show the legitimacy of your own approach

30. An Authoritative model for structuring literature review Introduce your framework as an effort to build your knowledge taxonomy Category 1 – Explain the researches in this category + how + why they are important to the area being studied Category II -- Explain the researches in this category + how + why they are important to the area being studied Explain your research and how it can improve and be of impact to the above researches

31. ? How can you show knowledge areas from historical, geographic and theoritical aspects? What are the main categories that you have identified from you readings? Can the categories be organized according to time, geographic, theories? Construct you framework and integrate the results/analysis from your readings into the framework. Introduce your framework as an effort to build your knowledge taxonomy*

32. Area of research: The most suitable method for teaching of OO programming through distance learning. Teaching Method OO Programming Distance Learning

33. Writing literature review Risk taking behaviors and organizational outcomes Give a review of the relevant research. Simultaneouly, identify the problem to be studied. A vast body of knowledge exist regarding risk taking behaviours in decision making. Some studies have shown that the context that surrounds the decision maker exerts an influence on the extent of risk the individual is prepared to take (Shapira, 1995). Other studies (Shanker 1997 and Velcher 1998) indicate that the position of the risk taker account significantly for the variance in risk taking behaviour and ultimately to the performance of the organisation. (Uma Sekaran 2003)

34. Writing literature review Risk taking behaviors and organizational outcomes Give a review of the relevant research. Simultaneouly, identify the problem to be studied. Schwartz (2001) has argued that the results of the research done using subjects to participate in activities in a lab setting, show different results compared to those found in research done in organisational setting. MacCrimmon and Wehrung (1995) suggest that differences in the measurement tools used in research studies account to the differences in the findings of managerial risk attitudes. (Uma Sekaran 2003)

35. Literature review involves 4 stages: • I : Formulate problem statements – the proposed topic and the issues that are related. • II: Classify previous research according to categories • III: Discussions on similarities and differences between researches • IV: Conclusion • Which research is the best research from the aspect of argumentation? • Which research is the best research that gives opinions that are most convincing? • Which research gives the most contribution in the development of the area studied?

36. Conclusion When you come to do your literature review you need to check that the review: • Shows a clear understanding of the topic • All key landmark studies have been cited and most discussed • States clear conclusion about previous research using appropriate evidence • Shows the variety of definitions and approaches to the topic area • Reaches sound recommendations using coherent argument that is based on evidence • Shows a gap in existing knowledge