Literature Reviews that Flop

I have consulted with many Ph.D. students who have adopted the strategy that hard work should pay off. The idea is that if they show their committee that they are thoroughly familiar with the details of all the studies that are relevant to their dissertation they should pass. The idea is to demonstrate that they have located, cited, analyzed and understood each and every relevant study.

Here is how this strategy plays out.  The student first locates the studies. Once started – it becomes easier because you can chase down all the research cited in the studies already located. By way of example, let’s say that 25 studies have been found.

The next step of this process is to take several hours to thoroughly read and study one study at a time.  On day one the first study is described and written up and included in the literature review chapter.  The study description can consume anywhere from a half page to several pages.

The following day you take a second study and follow the same process. A description of the second study is added to the description of the first study. You now have written several pages  of your literature review.

Continue with this strategy day after day – adding the results of one study at a time. At the conclusion of 25 days you have as many as 50 pages of text for your literature review.

If length counts for anything you are in good shape. But let’s now look at what you really have for all your work.

Your chapter reads as follows:

  • Humpty Dumpty found a significant result but he used a lousy measure of the construct.
  • Donald Duck’s results were inconclusive. It was a good study but the sample size was small.
  • Mickey Mouse  found a significant result, but in the opposite direction. He studied ducks. As we all know ducks are not representative of human behavior.

And so forth and so on.  You can find a flaw with any study. Anyone reading this chapter begins to think – what is the bottom line. Reading a chapter written in this fashion is always very boring.  A reader does not have to wait for the conclusion of the chapter to know how the final paragraph will read:

Some studies found a positive result, Some studies were inconclusive. Some studies found a negative result. Therefore, more research is needed.

Why is this literature review a flop? Your committee members has just read 50 pages of detail with no clear resolution of what any of your discussion means. They are bored stiff. They still have 4 chapters to review. Nothing was learned.

You have not placed your study in the context of the existing literature. Rather, you have simply proven that you worked really hard. Great. Now you have to figure out how your study fits in the context of what other researchers have found.

Robert Rodgers, Ph.D.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.