Literature Review 1000 words

What makes a poor literature review?

It's easy to write a bad literature review and difficult to write a good one. The main mistake that a lot of people make is to write a literature review that looks like this:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Until recently many researchers have shown interest in the field of coastal erosion and the resulting beach profiles. They have carried out numerous laboratory experiments and field observations to illuminate the darkness of this field. Their findings and suggestions are reviewed here.

JACHOWSKI (1964) developed a model investigation conducted on the interlocking precast concrete block seawall. After a result of a survey of damages caused by the severe storm along the coast of USA, a new and especially shaped concrete block was developed for use in shore protection. This block was designed to be used in a revetment type seawall that would be both durable and economical as well as reduce wave run-up and overtopping, and scour at its base or toe. It was proved that effective shore protection could be designed utilising these units.

HOM-MA and HORIKAWA (1964) studied wave forces acting on the seawall which was located inside the surf zone. On the basis of the experimental results conducted to measure wave forces against a vertical wall, the authors proposed an empirical formula of wave pressure distribution on a seawall. The computed results obtained by using the above formula were compared well with the field data of wave pressure on a vertical wall.

SELEZOV and ZHELEZNYAK (1965) conducted experiments on scour of sea bottom in front of harbour seawalls, basing on the theoretical investigation of solitary wave interaction with a vertical wall using a Boussinesque type equation. It showed that the numerical results were in reasonable agreement with laboratory experimental data.

Here are some of the questions a literature review SHOULD answer:

1. What do we already know in the immediate area concerned? 2. What are the most important studies in this area? 3. What are the key concepts, theories and issues in this area? 4. What are the relationships between these key concepts, theories and issues? 5. What are the main debates? 6. Where are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in our knowledge and understanding? 7. What needs further research? 8. What evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited? 9. What contribution to knowledge can the present study be expected to make?

Try answering these questions after reading the above review:

• Which of the questions does this literature review answer? • Which of them doesn’t it answer? • What system has the writer used to organise the literature review? • Briefly summarise what’s wrong with this literature review.

Answers:

Which of the questions does this literature review answer?

This literature offers a summary of previous research, so it does answer the first question. It simply tells the reader what was discovered in previous research.

Which of them doesn't it answer?

This literature review doesn't answer any of the questions from 2 to 9. It doesn't evaluate the research it summarises, nor does it show the relationships between the different theories, views and approaches it describes.

Which method has the writer used to organise the literature review?

The writer has organised this literature review around the researchers and has presented it chronologically (arranging the work by when it was published). Notice that by organising it around the researchers (the summaries are listed after the names of the people who did the research) and not around the research (around key concepts) the writer emphasises the people and not their work. There are no themes shown, and no sense of how all the different studies relate to each other.

Is it a good literature review? Why?

We don't believe that it is a good literature review. It only gives a summary of previous research; it does not use the literature to explain more about his own research problem. Also, it is not critical: after we read it we still do not know which theories or findings are important, which are inconclusive and what the shortcomings are. The main problem with this literature review is that it does not show how previous research relates to the writer's own research problem, or the relationship between different research already carried out. Given the organisation the writer has used, this literature review could not be effective because there is little scope for showing relationships, drawing comparisons or making evaluations.