NOTE: THIS ASSIGHNMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN 4 HOURS, AND IF YOU CAN NOT DO IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME DO NOT WASTE MY TIME PLZ

1. Find models. To get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review, find literature reviews in your topic area (or in the discipline) written by others (note: you can use two of them in your review. You can simply put the word "review" in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources that you already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

2. Narrow your topic and find a focus. There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read to get a good survey of the material. A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves (as you did in the annotated bibliography). This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together and pick one. The following questions may be useful:

· Do they present one or different solutions?

· Is there an aspect of the field that is missing?

· How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory?

· Do they reveal a trend in the field or a raging debate?

3. Consider whether your sources are current enough. Use information that is as current as possible. For example, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period.

4. Construct a working thesis statement. Use the focus that you have found to construct a thesis (claim) statement. Two sample thesis statements for literature reviews are as follows:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine.

More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

5. Think about organization by answering the following questions:

a. What is the most effective way of presenting your narrowed topic and thesis statement?

b. What topics and subtopics are important to include, and in what order should you present them?

c. Develop an organization for your review at both a global (whole paper) and local (sub-section down to paragraph) levels.

Organization:

1. First, cover the basic categories. Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.

· Introduction : This section gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

· Body : This section contains your discussion of sources and is organized chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (for more information, see below).

· Conclusions/Recommendations : Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

2. Body Organization. Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

You have decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you have just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980's. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

a. Chronological. If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

b. By publication . Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

c. By trend . A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

d. Thematic . Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology. However, more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

e. Methodological . A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French artwork. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you have decided on one method from the above five (a-e) organizational methods for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They ought to arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes you might need to add additional sections that are necessary but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

· Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

· History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

· Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles.

· Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil 143). Hamilton (64) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as "writer," "pedestrian," and "persons." The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine "generic" condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense," Women and Language19:2.

Use evidence. In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective. Choose only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review's focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Summarize and synthesize. Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here restate important features of Hamilton's study, but then they synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice. While the literature review presents others' ideas, the writer's should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills claim.