literature review table

literature review table

The Importance of Literature Review in Research

1. Introduction

“A literature review is not simply a chronological catalog of all your sources, but an evaluation. It pulls the previous research together and explains how it connects to the research proposed, explaining how it informs the topic. It is not a series of annotations (like an annotated bibliography). Galvan outlines a very clear, step-by-step approach that is very useful to use as you write your review. I have integrated some other tips within this guide, particularly in suggesting different technology tools that you might want to consider in helping you organize your review. In the sections from Step 6-9, what I have included is the outline of those steps exactly as described by Galvan. I also provide links at the end of this guide to resources that you should use in order to search the literature and as you write your review.”

2. Purpose and Objectives

The main goal of the research studies is where information study contributes to the basic understanding of some issue or it provides guidance to others solution of the problem. The main purpose of the literature review work is to show the competencies of the researcher, his skills of understanding the complex issues and build the model and the most important is to identify the problem or issues. Quality work always the outcome on hard work with sincerity of effort. It is usually based on the original result and deals with a new problem or. Literature Review helps in refining the research problem it is due to the process of conducting the literature review researcher improves his understanding and reviews new ideas. Literature Review provides a theoretical framework of the topic it is in terms of the research to be conducted. This goes to the understanding of the detailed knowledge of the subject based on the previous work done, which is usually a time taking process but is one of the significant tasks as it gives a base and understanding of what actually the research is based on. through this review it helps in the identification of the variable and a way to understand and analyze it in more appropriate way which would give the right results on the topic.

3. Key Findings from Literature Review

With reference to the key findings from the literature review, which acted as the secondary data as well, show the importance of the topic to look for the research. Review helped the research in understanding the topic further and fathom the modes of application of facilitation. Literature review acts as a base for your research and justifies the need as to why are we actually focusing on this topic. Literature review here was a base; the topic is already well established in the west and the developed nations. It is in the process of improving the health care that they have started using these facilitation tools, the same needs to be evaluated in terms of the developing nations and it is well known that the health status is poorer in developing nations compared to the developed ones. This actually acts as a paradox because it is known that a good health status is directly related to the use of technology, something which they cannot afford. So the facilitation tools if proven cost effective can act as a bridge to fill this gap in health status between the developed and the developing nations. This entire rationale was devised by an expertise in this field but has never been documented. So according to the MRC guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions, the appropriate facilitation, exploration was deemed necessary and the topic is exact reflection of the same. Since the facilitation tools have been found effective in various aspects but never been evaluated on a NHS patient using an RCT, the literature was searched for the possible outcomes expected by implementing these tools, something which can act very useful in the later stage when our research actually gets implemented. This entire understanding provided a clear requirement and justification for our research. The topic is based on a realist methodology or an evaluation of the cause and effect by implementing the facilitation tools, on a NHS patient using an RCT. Without a literature review we would have directly used these tools on a patient but the outcomes can be unexpected and perhaps adverse. So possible evaluation of the same is necessary and the discursive knowledge from the experts is something that we will be able to document. The future of these facilitation tools is already discussed with a concerned NHS IT manager on a possible positive result from our research which can act as a platform for implementation of these tools. This entire accumulated information is what provided the context, for a work package assignment on a French University to do a pilot using these facilitation tools, a best observed result for exact implementation of facilitation. The understanding from all the above discussion was actually divided into pieces throughout the past one year and gathered into exact form just a month back. So the whole lot of literature reviewed was catalogued and stored in to various separate key word documents concerning the specific aspects. This act of dispersion and aggregation constituted a vast amount of tacit knowledge, something which will not be abundant with primary data. All the above discussion very well showed the importance of the topic to the research and the wealth of information that it gained from the literature review. A week long illness now and shifting focuses to the recovery and rehabilitation, our research was stalled due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic and an advice to focus our findings more towards the usability and ROI of these facilitation tools. Step one was a systematic appraisal of the recent literature to address and changes in the preparation and procurement of facilitation tools. Our exact topic had not been reviewed and so this still acts as a rough summary to justify this blog to the stance that we will carry out further investigations later.

4. Implications for Research

The insubstantial level of current method awareness is unfortunate, because as revealed by responses to the third research question, researchers are not averse to the idea of using alternative methods, and are conscious of the difficulties and bias concerns associated with the review process. Awareness of such difficulties is a key motivator towards wanting to improve standards and will hopefully act as a stimulus for researchers to seek information on methodology. A further encouraging sign is that the respondents felt that their reviews often fall short of the ideal standard, leaving much room for improvement. With increasing demands being placed on researchers to document a thorough and auditable method of review, there may come a tipping point where the traditional method no longer suffices. However, the lack of incentive to change in absence of stringent quality requirements is a major issue and it may take an adverse event such as a rejected paper to instigate a method change for some. An ideal scenario would be to provide researchers with the education and resources needed to improve without the necessity of learning from mistakes.

Researchers have indeed hinted at the limited knowledge of literature review methods’ value, and its implications for information systems (IS) research. In a bid to answer the first research question which sought to assess current literature reviewing practice, most researchers are found wanting when asked about their use of a specific methodology to conduct the literature review. This was also an outcome from the second research question, which appraised the level of awareness of alternative methods for reviewing literature. These findings are to an extent not unexpected, given that most computer science or IS researchers will have had little or no training in the methods which crossover from social sciences. Consequently the default method is to use what has been termed a ‘naïve narrative’ review. While this may be an adequate method for researchers experienced in the area under scrutiny, to convey the current state of knowledge to their peers, it is all too easy for the novice researcher to be drowned in a vast sea of information with little achievement in terms of developing new understanding. In such cases, having a methodology to guide the review will be invaluable, yet the inexperienced researcher will be unlikely to know where to start.

5. Conclusion

It is no real surprise that many OHS projects have failed to involve effective stakeholder communication and make any real changes to the OHS matter in question. This usually ends in unsuccessful research outcome and failure to implement any changes to the OHS matter at hand. The RMIT University lead lighting OHS research project is an ideal example of this. After having a plague of problems that hindered the research process, the researchers sought external consultation, only to find that the changes to be made were too costly and little progress had been made on the initial OHS issues.

Based on the available material and resources, undertaking the literature review has elucidated the importance and relevance of internal and external communication. This essay has looked at the different areas of the communication process and these theoretical approaches to communication. The positivist and interpretive research contrasting research styles has also been explored within these communication contexts. Throughout these communication areas, various examples of how these have affected research into OHS have been given. This has highlighted how these communication issues have impacted upon research methodologies and OHS research outcomes. A major communication theory involved in these issues is the stakeholder theory. Stake who? Well that’s the problem.