Masters Thesis help!

Tawny

Hi all,

Can anyone help with an example of a good literature review? I am just starting mine, and while I am fairly happy writing essays and the like, the setup of the literature review seems a little different.

I think my guidelines say about 2000 words? How do you fit in all your research into 2000 words? Does it read more like a report than an essay?

Any advice would be great!

IvyTheTerrible

A literature review is where you review the literature relating to your project. It's meant to show what has been found out about your area of research, and to show how your specific project fits into that, ie why are you asking the question you are asking? You don't need to discuss your project in the literature review. I don't know how long your review should be, your advisor would be the best one to ask.

Tawny

Thanks for the info. Do I write it like an essay or a report?

Macha

Well, I'm writing mine somewhere in between. Try to have a thread running through it so that you're not just randomly introducing points. And make sure you're not putting too much of your own opinion in so you can save that for the discussion section.

Tawny

Hi all, just wanted to say thanks for the suggestions. I ended up approaching it like a mini-essay; kinda like a very short version of what my first chapter is going to be.

I handed it in two weeks ago and have just had feedback. It was mostly positive, though I was pulled up for not referencing correctly and explaining terms like postmodernism etc.

The one thing I couldn’t understand was that my tutors main comments were around my being too brief; pretty much every point I made could have been expanded upon.

She didn’t say I should have cut anything – but my review was over the suggested word limit as it was? So how could I have expanded on points and not been way over the word limit?

JDLK

Tawny wrote: »

Hi all, just wanted to say thanks for the suggestions. I ended up approaching it like a mini-essay; kinda like a very short version of what my first chapter is going to be.

I handed it in two weeks ago and have just had feedback. It was mostly positive, though I was pulled up for not referencing correctly and explaining terms like postmodernism etc.

The one thing I couldn’t understand was that my tutors main comments were around my being too brief; pretty much every point I made could have been expanded upon.

She didn’t say I should have cut anything – but my review was over the suggested word limit as it was? So how could I have expanded on points and not been way over the word limit?

You're points may have been too generic- ie you hit your word count but didnt provide any concrete expanded insight to the review. Maybe ask the tutor for an example?

Isnt a lit review structured as a report of the authors' research design ie arent you supposed to critique how the author set out his/her purpose of their paper, explained their hypothesis, theoretical and empirical framework, sample, data collection methodology, results, analysis, conclusions, limitations and future potential studies?

Or am I thinking of something completely different?

Tawny

JDLK wrote: »

You're points may have been too generic- ie you hit your word count but didnt provide any concrete expanded insight to the review. Maybe ask the tutor for an example?

Isnt a lit review structured as a report of the authors' research design ie arent you supposed to critique how the author set out his/her purpose of their paper, explained their hypothesis, theoretical and empirical framework, sample, data collection methodology, results, analysis, conclusions, limitations and future potential studies?

Or am I thinking of something completely different?

Yeah it might have been a bit generic - and I know for a fact I made some sweeping generalisations as well, but at the end of the day I just wanted to get it done.

As for the structure - I simply did it the most logical way that I could think of. First discussed why I wanted to research this issue, then provided historical context, and then covered the other research that looked at this issue (my argument for researching my topic again is that previous research is now outdated due to political developments) so it was pretty easy to say 'this is what has been written, but it is generally out of date', and therefore justify my researching the topic.

JDLK

Tawny wrote: »

Yeah it might have been a bit generic - and I know for a fact I made some sweeping generalisations as well, but at the end of the day I just wanted to get it done.

As for the structure - I simply did it the most logical way that I could think of. First discussed why I wanted to research this issue, then provided historical context, and then covered the other research that looked at this issue (my argument for researching my topic again is that previous research is now outdated due to political developments) so it was pretty easy to say 'this is what has been written, but it is generally out of date', and therefore justify my researching the topic.

Hmmm, maybe if you were too quick to say all the research is out of date -kind of sounds like you're dismissing it. Politics is always related to history, which is always relevant to some degree, maybe you needed to be abit more diplomatic (pun) with the relevance you attached to the accepted literature.

You need to be careful with your research proposal there- you say "my argument for researching my topic again is that previous research is now outdated due to political developments"- but unless you prove that (which would probaly be a thesis in itself) then you cant really assert it- what im saying is it sounds like that youve built a thesis to bridge the gap between out of date research and modern research (or lack there of) but have you proven conclusively that the previous research is indeed "out of date" or are you assuming it. Especially in the area of politics, I mean what was the last big political innovation? Socialism? Politics isnt my strong point but isnt the polictcal spectrum pretty much between Far right and far left,- everything in between being a degre of each until centrism is achieved, and both been around for over a hundred years now?

Structure wise, you were probably ok I mean you can word it as an essay or a report as long as it covers all the relevant topics ie what has this persons research got to do with your research, and has the person followed academic research designs and contributed something significant to the subject

Im probably the one being a bit too generic now

brianthebard

Well you can say that the previous work is outdated (eg Development theory) and the work (post-development theory) that has come out since has been unable to deal with (specific issue I want to write about) sufficently because it is (insert faults here). It does have some interesting theories though (insert here) which I hope to build on and perhaps take in a new direction. I also want to analyse it using different parameters to what has gone before; taking the original issue (development theory) and applying (post feminist critique) to the situation. (brackets to be edited to suit your topic obviously).

D.S.

Your thesis is like a story - your first chapter sets up what you wanna research, your literature review sets out why the literature does NOT cover your topic adequately, your research methodology will set out how you shaped the study, the research findings will detail your results, and your final chapter should detail what you contributed to the literature and what further research should be done.

When you think of it in that context, then your literature review is a review of the relevant material in your field of study. What you need to do here is review whats out there and shape whats out there around what you want to do. You need to explain why the literature does not cover your topic in the way you want to cover it - you need to be very subtle in how you do this. The last paragraph of your literature review should sum up the literature gaps which will lead nicely into the first paragraph of your research methodology chapter where you will expand upon the literature gaps and how you propose to research them..

Hope that makes sense...(it did in my head anyway)

Tawny

JDLK wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe if you were too quick to say all the research is out of date -kind of sounds like you're dismissing it. Politics is always related to history, which is always relevant to some degree, maybe you needed to be abit more diplomatic (pun) with the relevance you attached to the accepted literature.

Yep but, getting down to what Im doing - Im assessing changes in institutions since the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. All the previous research on my topic is pre-peace process, so my research is to see if anything has changed.

JDLK

Tawny wrote: »

Yep but, getting down to what Im doing - Im assessing changes in institutions since the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. All the previous research on my topic is pre-peace process, so my research is to see if anything has changed.

That, to me, sounds like a gap analysis- ie you document how the situation is today (post GFA*), then document how it was before (pre GFA) then analyse the differences

Is that right?

If it is a gap analysis then your "before" documentation is just as important as your "after".

If you dont document the pre GFA research and use it as the basis of your "before" argument, how are you going to prove anything has changed?

*GFA= Good Friday Agreement