Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
15
7021EDN
Week 3
The T word
two approaches to doing 7021 research
Two approaches
small
rapid
limited
A "straight" literature review
systematic
other??
pragmatic
OR
reviewing the literature to examine local policy or curriculum documents
Autoethnography
When researchers do autoethnography, they retrospectively and selectively write about epiphanies that stem from, or are made possible by, being part of a culture and/or by possessing a particular cultural identity. However, in addition to telling about experiences, autoethnographers often are required by social science publishing conventions to analyze these experiences. As Mitch ALLEN says, an autoethnographer must:
Autoethnography
"look at experience analytically. Otherwise [you're] telling [your] story—and that's nice—but people do that on Oprah [a U.S.-based television program] every day. Why is your story more valid than anyone else's? What makes your story more valid is that you are a researcher. You have a set of theoretical and methodological tools and a research literature to use. That's your advantage. If you can't frame it around these tools and literature and just frame it as 'my story,' then why or how should I privilege your story over anyone else's I see 25 times a day on TV?" (personal interview, May 4, 2006) [8]
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). doi:10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589
http://rookieresearcher.wikidot.com/autoethnography
Other options
There is no shortage of academic papers in education and the social sciences generally that do not look like reviews but always rely on published material to make an argument.
Other?
If you have a nagging question and can be sure it has not been addressed in the literature and you have the background/expertise to work on it ....
Let's talk
Thinking further about literature reviews
Three points:
- Two caricatures or "extremes" of reviewing the literature
- Searching
- Dealing with the t-word, theory
Two extremes of literature reviews
expert
Two caricatures
rule-based
authorship vs contractual
Mary Dixon-Woods (2016)
Dixon-Woods, M. (2016). Systematic Reviews and Qualitative Studies. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 379-394). London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Expert
Expert
In our underwater basket weaving (UBW) example
A person who has engaged with the research literature on UBW for a very long time.
Someone who knows the history of the field
They can thoroughly map the whole field, from studies of automated, to hands-underwater, to scuba diver, to ... including the cultural traditions of UBW practitioners and communities... and across all of the research approaches, from underwater to video capture to ....
Someone who knows the key players, papers and sites
The review then draws on this person's scholarly expertise in the field. The expertise comes from a long period of engagement with the literature.
Rule-based
If the quality of the review can't be guaranteed by the scholarly expertise of the reviewer then
following and documenting a sequence of steps which are governed by explicit rules will render the study:
Rule-based
- comprehensive
- not biased
- transparent
- accountable in terms of process
Quality
Largely judged by how well the procedures of the review process have been followed
Quality
Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005)
https://pixabay.com/en/question-question-mark-help-2309042/
Classic SR
uses an explicit protocol
addresses a formal highly explicit question
defines in advance the eligibility criteria for studies to be included
is explicit about methods used to locate studies
Classic SR
filters publications for inclusion against pre-established criteria
formal appraisal to assess quality of each included document
explicit methods to combine studies
Dixon-Woods (2016)
Issues with SR
MacLure (2005)
Systematic review, I suggest below, is a backward-looking business. It construes research knowledge as static, transparent and compliant with disciplinary boundaries. It assumes that evidence can be extracted intact from the texts in which it is embedded, and ‘synthesized’ in a form that is impervious to ambiguities of context, readers’ interpretations or writers’ arguments (i.e., bias)
Issues with SR
The language used to describe and justify systematic review is a mix of old-style scientific positivism (systematicity, reliability, rigour, replicability) and the now-familiar rhetoric of the ‘audit culture’ (transparency, quality assurance, standards)
Systematic reviewers often set out to map fairly small fields with secure fences, and do not expect to look over the hedge
Sources
Sources
Dixon-Woods, M. (2016). Systematic Reviews and Qualitative Studies. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 379-394). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hammersley, M. (2001). On 'systematic' reviews of research literatures: A 'narrative' response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 542-554. doi:10.1080/01411920120095726
MacLure, M. (2005). ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 393-416. doi:10.1080/02680930500131801
Search
How do people doing reviews search?
Search
Google Scholar has a lot of search options
searching, search terms and your research question
Greenhalgh & Peacock
Greenhalgh & Peacock
A review of how papers were located to carry out systematic reviews
"Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts."
More search options here:
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal, 331(7524), 1064-1065. doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
See: http://rookieresearcher.wikidot.com/7021-search
Google Scholar
A reminder about routine searching and the use of Boolean operators
""
-
()
NEAR
OR
AROUND(X)
+
http://reskitchen.wikidot.com/google-routine
Advanced Search
Searching
Scoping
Try a couple of your key terms and see what comes up
Add some more terms, exclude some others that you noticed in your scoping
try different phrases
On searching
search again
Yes
No
Am I getting papers that look as if they address my question?
Keep an eye out for pearls
The T word
Theories, models & metaphors
Theories about the L word
Theory & your review
Theories, models & metaphors
Theories, models & metaphors
Models are analogies. This is like that.
Theories attempt to explain
A climate model’s equations are a model
The greenhouse effect is a theory about warming
"Theories are attempts to discover the principles that drive the world; they need confirmation, but no justification for their existence. Theories describe and deal with the world on its own terms and must stand on their own two feet. Models stand on someone else’s feet. They are metaphors that compare the object of their attention to something else that it resembles. Resemblance is always partial, and so models necessarily simplify things and reduce the dimensions of the world."
Derman, E. (2011). Models behaving badly : why confusing illusion with reality can lead to disaster, on Wall Street and in life (1st ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-build-a-metaphor-to-change-people-s-minds
Learning theories
Richard Millwood's map:
http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LNV3H2J9-HWSVMQ-13LH/Learning%20Theory.cmap
Theory & reviews
You need to scan for words like theory and model
Theory & reviews
If a particular theory appears to be common across your papers you'll need to spend some time coming to terms with it
Or, you might, if you are comfortable with a particular theory use it to reframe what you have found