{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Writing the First Draft - Ch 9 Galvan

Writing the First Draft - Ch 9 Galvan - Chapter 9...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft Up to this point, you have searched for literature on the topic of your review, made careful notes of specific details of the literature, and analyzed these details to iden- tify patterns, relationships among studies, gaps in the body of literature, as well as strengths and weaknesses in particular research studies. Then, in Chapter 8, you reorgan— ized your notes and developed a detailed writing outline as you prepared yourself to be- gin to write your literature review. In other words, you have already completed the most difficult steps in the writing process: the analysis and synthesis of the literature and the charting of the course of your - argument. These preliminary steps constitute the intellectual process of preparing a litera- ture review. The remaining steps—drafting, editing, and redrafting—will now require you to translate the results of your intellectual labor into a narrative account of what you have found. The guidelines in this chapter will help you to produce a first draft of your litera— ture review. The guidelines in Chapter 10 will help you to develop a coherent essay and avoid producing a series of annotations, and Chapter 11 presents additional guidelines that relate to style, mechanics, and language usage. ‘/ Guideline 1: Begin by identifying the broad problem area, but avoid global statements. Usually, the introduction of a literature review should begin with the identifica- tion of the broad problem area under review. The rule of thumb is, “Go from the general to the specific.” However, there are limits on how general to be in the beginning. Con- sider Example 9.1.]. As the beginning of a literature review on a topic in higher educa- tion, it is much too broad. It fails to identify any particular area or topic. You should avoid starting your review with such global statements. Example 9.1.1 Beginning of a literature review in education that is too broad: Higher education is important to both the economy of the United States and to the rest of the world. Without a college education, students will be unprepared for the many advances that will take place in this millennium. Contrast Example 9.1.1 with Example 9.1.2, which is also on a topic in education but clearly relates to the specific topic that will be reviewed: reduction of alcohol con- sumption by undergraduates. 81 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft Example 9.1.21 Beginning of a literature review on education that is sufficiently specific: {The] high rate of alcohol—related crimes, accidents, and other problem behaviors on college campuses has led school administrators to implement a range of initia- tives designed to reduce undergraduate drinking (Abbey, 1991; Scott, Schafer, & Greenfield, 1999...). ‘/ Guideline 2: Early in the review, indicate why the topic being reviewed is important. As early as the first paragraph in a literature review, it is desirable to indicate Why the topic is important. The authors of Example 9.2.1 have done this by pointing out that , their tOpic deals with a life-or-death issue. Example 9.2.12 Beginning of a literature review indicating the importance of the topic: Considering that more than 48,762 people have died while waiting for an organ transplant in the United States from 1993 through 2002, the need to increase the number of available organs is not difficult to defend (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS]...2004). Furthermore, although the number of individu~ als on the organ waiting list in 1993 was 33,014, the number of men, women, and children awaiting a lifesaving transplant procedure was 80,000 at the start of 2003 (DHHS et al., 2004). Moreover.. .. Of course, not all issues are of as much universal importance as the one in Exam- ple 9.2.1. Nevertheless, the topic of the review should be of importance to some group(s), and this should be pointed out, as in Example 9.2.2, which establishes the importance of understanding how educators’ attitudes on dyslexia affect students. Example 9.2.23 Beginning of the second paragraph of a literature review in which the importance of the topic, for students with dyslexia, is pointed out: Students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia (reading disability) report that the attitudes of educators profoundly affect the way they perceive themselves as well as their success in school and iife (Helendoorn & Ruijssenaars, 2000...). m,— I Novak, K. 13., & Crawford, L. A. (2001). Perceived drinking norms, attention to social comparison infor- mation, and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 4’6, 18m32. 2 Siegel, J. T., Alvaro, E. M., & Jones, S. P. (2005). Organ donor registration preferences among Hispanic populations: Which modes of registration have the greatest promise? Health Education & Behavior, 32, 242—252. 3 Wadlington, E. M., & Wadlington, P. L. (2005). What educators really believe about dyslexia. Reading Improvement, 42, ISM-33. 82 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft ‘/ Guideline 3: Distinguish between research findings and other sources of information. If you describe points of view that are based on anecdotal evidence or personal opinions rather than on research, indicate the nature of the source. For instance, the three statements in Example 9.3.1 contain key words (e.g., “speculated”), which indicate that the material is based on personal points of view (not research). Example 9.3.1 Beginnings of statements that indicate that the material that follows is based on personal points of view (not research): “Doe (2004) speculated that. . “It has been suggested that. .. (Smith, 2004).” “Black (2004) related a personal experience, which indicated that... Contrast the statements in Example 9.3.1 with those in Example 9.3.2, which is for introducing research—based findings in a literature review. Example 9.3.2 Beginnings of statements that indicate that the material that follows is based on research: “In a statewide survey, Jones (2004) found that. . .” “Hill’s (2004) research in urban classrooms suggests that... .” “Recent findings indicate that.... (Barnes, 2003; Hanks, 2004).” If there is little research on a topic, you may find it necessary to review primarily re that expresses only opinions (without a research base). When this is the ease, consider making a general statement to indicate this situation before discussing the litera— ture in more detail in your review. This technique is indicated in Example 9.3.3. literatu Example 9.3.34 Statement indicating a lack of research: ...the ERIC database contains. . .more than 500 ERIC documents, journal arti— cles, and monographs devoted to the topic of block scheduling. However, only ten of those documents focus on block scheduling in the context of the school media center, and none report findings based on designed research studies... Of the reports that do exist, most are anecdotal in nature. Lincoln (1999), Ready (1999), and Richmond (1999) all give their personal eXperiences with the impact of block scheduling on their library media centers. Each one discusses... ‘5 Huffman, S., Thurman, 0., & Thomas, L. K. (2005). An investigation of block scheduling and school library media centers. Reading Improvement, 42, 345. 83 ”Man. ‘ . ... i t l ; Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft ‘/ Guideline 4: Indicate why certain studies are important. If you believe a particular study is important, state clearly why you think so. For instance, the authors of Example 9.4.1 identify a study as “one of the largest studies in the field,” thereby indicating its importance. Example 9.4.15 States why a study is important (in this case, “one ofthe largest studies ’9: Big Brothers/Big Sisters may be the best—known volunteer mentoring program in the United States, matching at—risk youth with adult mentors. In one of the largest studies in the field (Tierney & Grossman, 1995), 995 youth who asked to be matched with a Big Brother/Big Sister during 1992—1993 were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a mentoring group or a control group (the latter youth were - put on the 18—month waiting list). Both groups were interviewed... A study may also be important because it represents a pivotal point in the devel— opment of an area of research, 'such as a research article that indicates a reversal of a prominent researcher’s position or one that launched a new methodology. These and other characteristics of a study may justify its status as an important study. When a study is especially important, make sure your review makes this clear to the reader. ‘/ Guideline 5: If you are commenting on the timeliness of a topic, be specific in describing the time frame. Avoid beginning your review with unspecific references to the timeliness of a tepic, as in, “In recent years, there has been an increased interest in...” This beginning would leave many questions unanswered for the reader, such as: What years are being referenced? How did the writer determine that the “interest” is increasing? Who has be- come more interested, the writer or others in the field? Is it possible that the writer be- came interested in the topic recently while others have been losing interest? Likewise, an increase in a problem or an increase in the size of a pepulation of in- terest should be specific in terms of numbers or percentages and the specific years being referred to. For instance, it is not very informative to state only that “The number of peo— ple of Hispanic origin probably will increase in the future.” The authors of Example 9.5.1 avoided this problem by being specific in citing percentages and the time frame (italics and bold added for emphasis). Example 9.5.16 Names a Specific timeline: According to the US. Census Bureau (2001), there are an estimated 32.8 million people of Hispanic origin living in the United States. Projections indicate this 5 Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, 8., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring pro- gram on at—risk youth. Adolescence, 3 7, 7 l 7434. 6 Sharma, R, & Keri, S. B. (2002). Suggestions for psychologists working with Mexican American indi- viduals and families in health care settings. Rehabilitation Psychology, 47, 2304239, 84 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft number will increase from about I 0% of the US. population in 1990 to 14% or 15% by the year 2020, making this group one of the four largest ethnic groups in this country (Garcia & Marotta, 1997). Baruth and Manning (1999) wrote that Mexican Americans accounted for 61% of the total Hispanic population. Ap- proximately half of the. .. ‘/ Guideline 6: If citing a classic or landmark study, identify it as such. Make sure that you identify the classic or landmark studies in your review. Such studies are often pivotal points in the historical development of the published literature. In addition, they are often responsible for framing a particular question or a research tra- dition, and they also may be the original source of key concepts or terminology used in of its kind) study is cited. Example 9.6.17 Identifies a landmark study: The first content analysis (emphasis added) of gender biases in magazine adver~ tisements was published by Courtney and Lockeretz (1971). Those authors found that magazine advertisements reflected four general stereotypes: (l) “A woman’s place is in the home,” (2) “Women do not make important decisions or do impor— tant things,” (3) “Women are dependent and need men’s protection,” and (4) “Men regard women primarily as sex objects; they are not interested in women as people.” ‘/ Guideline 7: If a landmark study was replicated, mention that and indicate the results of the replication. As noted in the previous guideline, landmark studies typically stimulate additional research. In fact, many are replicated a number of times, using different groups of par- ticipants or by adjusting other research design variables. If you are citing a landmark on Example 9.6.1. Example 9.7.1 Points at replications: Since the time of this study, a number of other content analyses have replicated these results (emphasis added) (Belkaoui & Belkaoui, 1976; Busby & Leichty, 1993; Culley & Bennett, 1976; England, Kuhn, & Gardner, 1983; Lysonski, 1983; Sexton & Haberman, 1974; Venkatesan & Losco, 1975; Wagner & Banos, 1973). W 7 Neptune, D., & Pious, S. (1997). Racial and gender biases in magazine advertising. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 21, 627~644. 85 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft During the past 40 years, only one of the stereotypes found by Courtney and Lockeretz (1971) has shown evidence of amelioration: the image of women as homebound. As women have entered the workforce in growing numbers, adver- tisements have increasingly shown them in work settings outside the home (Busby & Leichty, 1993; Sullivan & O’Connor, 1988). ‘/ Guideline 8: Discuss other literature reviews on your topic. If you find an earlier published review on your topic, it is important to discuss it in your review. Before doing so, consider the following questions: How is the other review difi’erentfiom yours? Is yours substantially more current? Did you delimit the topic in a different way? Did you conduct a more comprehensive review? Did the earlier reviewer reach the same major conclusions that you reached? Did you reach the same major conclusions as the earlier reviewers? How worthy is the other review of your readers’ attention? What will they gain, if anything, by reading it? Will they encounter a different and potentially helpful perspective on the problem area? What are its major strengths and weaknesses? ‘/ Guideline 9: Refer the reader to other reviews on issues that you will not be discussing in detail. If you find it necessary to refer to a related issue that cannot be covered in depth in your review, it is appropriate to refer the reader to other reviews, as in Example 9.9.1. Needless to say, your review should completely cover the specific topic you have chosen. It is not acceptable to describe just a portion of the literature on your topic (as you de~ fined it) and then refer the reader to another source for the remainder. However, the tech- nique illustrated in Example 9.9.1 can be useful for pointing out literature that may be of interest to the reader but will not be reviewed in detail in the review you are writing (ital— ics and bold added for emphasis). Example 9.9.18 Refers readers to other sources for details: Throughout the 20th century, interest in the psychological impact of trauma has peaked during and after wartime, with the first major study of combat-related psychological sequelae (then called phystoneurosts) published in 1941 by A. Kardiner (see Kalb, 1993, for a more detailed accounting). Dealing with survi— vors of World War II prisoner-of—war camps brought some insight. . .. 8 Deer, E. J., Best, S. R., Lipsey, T. L, & Weiss, D. S. (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 52—73. 86 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft \/ Guideline 10: Justify comments such as “no studies were found.” If you find a! gap in the literature that deserves mention in your literature review, explain how you arrived at the conclusion that there is a gap. At the very least, explain how you conducted the literature search, which databases you searched, and the dates and other parameters you used. You do not need to be overly specific, but the reader will ex— pect you to justify your statement about the gap. . To avoid misleading your reader, it is a good idea early in your review to make statements such as the one shown in Example 910.1. This will protect you from criticism if you point out a gap when one does not actually exist. In other words, you are telling your reader that there is a gap based on the use of a particular search strategy. Example 9.10.19 Describes the strategy for searching literature: We used five methods to locate relevant studies. First, we reviewed reference lists from previously published reviews of self-concept development (Demo, 1992; Harter, 1982, 1998; Wylie, 1979) and from two recent meta-analyses of gender differences in self~esteem (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999; Major, Barr, Zubek, & Babey, 1999). Second, we searched the PsycINFO and ERIC databases for articles published between 1887 (the earliest entry in the PsycINFO database) and June 2002, using the keyword “self-esteem” paired with each of the following keywords: “age differences,” “change,” “consistency,” “continuity,” “deveIOp- ment,” “literature review,” “longitudinal,” “meta-analysis,” and “stability.” Third, we paired the keyword “self—esteem” with every journal title that contained a pre— viously identified article (from the keyword search). Fourth, we searched PsycINFO using the names of common self-esteem scales as the keyword (e.g., Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Self-Esteem Inventory, Pieranarris Self-Concept Scale). These keyword searches resulted in 9,410 citations (7,150 were from peer- reviewed journals). Fifth, we searched for relevant articles by reviewing the refer- ence lists of the articles identified in the PsycINFO and ERIC searches that met the inclusion criteria. J Guideline 11: Avoid long lists of nonspecific references. In academic writing, references are used in the text of a written document for at least two purposes. First, they are used to give proper credit to an author of an idea or, in the case of a direct quotation, of a specific set of words. A failure to do so would consti- tute plagiarism. Second, references are used to demonstrate the breadth of coverage given in a manuscript. In an introductory paragraph, for example, it may be desirable to include references to several key studies that will be discussed in more detail in the body of the review. However, it is inadvisable to use long lists of references that do not specifically relate to the point being expressed. For instance, in Example 9.11.1, the long list of non- specific references in the first sentence is probably inappropriate. Are these all empirical 9 Trzesniewski, K. ll, Donnellan, M. 13., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self—esteem across the life Span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 205—220. 87 Chapter 9 Guidelines for Writing a First Draft studies? Do they report their authors’ speculations on the issue? Are some of the refer- ences more important than others? It would have been better for the authors to refer the reader to a few key studies, which themselves would contain references to additional ex— amples of research in that particular area, as illustrated in Example 9.11.2. Example 9.11.1 F irst sentence in a literature review (too many nonspecific references): Numerous writers have indicated that children in single—parent households are at greater risk for academic underachievement than children from twouparent house- holds (Adams, 1999; Block, 2002; Doe, 2004; Edgar, 2000; Hampton, 1995; Jones, 2003; Klinger, 1991; Long, 1992; Livingston, 1993; Macy, 1985; Norton, 1988; Pearl, 1994; Smith, 1996; Travers, 1997; Vincent, 1994; West, 1992; West- erly, 1995; Yardley, 2004). ‘ Example 9.1 1.2 An improved version of Example 9.11.1: Numerous writers have suggested that children in single-parent households are at greater risk for academic underachievernent than children from two—parent house- holds (e.g., see Adams, 1999, and Block, 2002). Three recent studies have pro— vided strong empirical support for this contention (Doe, 2004; Edgar, 2000; Jones, 2003). Of these, the study by Jones is the strongest, employing a national sample with rigorous controls for.. .. Notice the use of “e.g., see...,” which indicates that only some of the possible references are cited for the point that the writers “have suggested.” You may also use the Latin ab~...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern