Activity 2.3.1: Literature review as background vs research

Literature Reviews As Part Of Primary Research

In primary research, a literature review serves to contextualize the study, more specifically, to situate the research question and methodology within the contextual, historical and/or developmental evidence (Steward, 2004). This type of literature review also aims to identify and give a comprehensive overview of the key concepts, theories, language, and debates while critically analysing existing evidence. The review progresses from a broad and general appraisal to a more specific examination of the most pertinent issues in relation to the topic (Bolderston, 2008). At the end of the review, the reader should have clarity about what is known and the relevant gaps (which the planned research aims to fill) that have been identified. In this manner, it shares many similarities with the ‘process’ of a literature review as research (Bruce, 1994 as cited in Steward, 2004). However, the depth of the critical appraisal and analysis is not as substantial compared to a literature review as a research approach.

The significant difference with this type of literature review is its product, it should justify/rationalise the research question and methodology. It should support the rationale for the study and guide the reader toward understanding the gaps in current knowledge that the research aims to address.

Literature Reviews As Secondary Data Analysis Research Projects

On the other hand, a literature review conducted as a standalone research project, often termed a secondary data analysis research project, entails a more exhaustive and systematic examination of existing literature (Steward, 2004). These reviews begin with a specific research question or focus inquiry, aiming to synthesise and analyse diverse evidence from various sources, including published and grey literature. They also need to be well structured conducted within appropriate confines and rigour (Bolderston, 2008; Wee & Banister, 2016). Such reviews usually employ qualitative thematic analysis to identify important themes and debates, offering new forms of understanding grounded in the synthesis of existing research (Bolderston, 2008; Steward, 2004). The process involves justifying the choice of data, explaining search methodologies, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critically appraising the quality of evidence. The goal is to offer a unique and critical interpretation of the literature, presenting balanced perspectives (not just affirming evidence) and highlighting historical developments and controversies.

Wee and Banister (2016) argue that a key differentiator of literature reviews as a project is their scope and added value. The added value that this type of literature review could bring is in analysing a range of paper types (conceptual, theoretical, methodological) as well as case study and practice-based reviews. They can also be synthetic, critical, innovative (proposing new conceptual frameworks) or bring together different approaches. The most important added value however is a distinct message and interpretation of the material used (Wee & Banister, 2016).

Ultimately, both types of literature reviews contribute to advancing knowledge within a particular field by providing comprehensive insights, identifying gaps, and informing future research directions.

References

Bolderston, A. (2008). Writing an effective literature review. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 39(2), 86-92.

Steward, B. (2004). Writing a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(11), 495-500. Wee, B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper? Transport reviews, 36(2), 278- 288.