Types of Literature Review - Research-Methodology


research methodology in literature

research. What exactly are objectives and what do researcher need to find out? In literature review, are researcher looking at issues of theory, methodology, policy, quantitive research, or what? Before researcher start reading it may be useful to compile a list of the main areas and questions involved, and then read with the purpose of finding. comes to a conclusion of “how to choose representative research literature”. Keywords: Literature method, Representative, Research literatures, Root, Strategies, Ways 1. Literature methodology Literature research methodology is to read through, analyze and sort literatures in order to identify the essential attribute of materials. May 10,  · Literature based research methodology hasoften been referred to in many texts as: literature reviewTo some extent this is true but the problem is that as such it has blurred the understanding between literature review as a methodology in its own right and its utilisation in the process of empirical research.

Literature Based Research Methodology

Overviews of methods are potentially useful means to increase clarity and enhance collective understanding of specific methods topics that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness. This type of review represents a distinct literature synthesis method, although to date, its methodology remains relatively undeveloped despite several aspects that demand unique review procedures.

The purpose of this paper is to initiate discussion about what a rigorous systematic approach to reviews of methods, referred to here as systematic methods overviewsmight look like by providing tentative suggestions for approaching specific challenges likely to be encountered.

The guidance offered here was derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research. The guidance is organized into several principles that highlight specific objectives for this type of review given research methodology in literature common challenges that must be overcome to achieve them. Optional strategies for achieving each principle are also proposed, along with discussion of how they were successfully implemented in the overview on sampling.

We describe seven paired principles and strategies that address the following aspects: delimiting the initial set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, research methodology in literature, accounting for inconsistent terminology used to describe specific methods topics, and generating rigorous verifiable analytic interpretations.

Since a broad aim in systematic methods overviews is to describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms, we suggest that iterative decision making at various stages of the review process, and a rigorous qualitative approach to analysis are necessary features of this review type. We believe that the principles and strategies provided here will be useful to anyone choosing to undertake a systematic methods overview.

This paper represents an initial effort to promote high quality critical evaluations of the literature regarding problematic methods topics, which have the potential to promote clearer, shared understandings, and accelerate advances in research methods. Further work is warranted to develop more definitive guidance.

The online version of this article doi While reviews of methods are not new, they represent a distinct review type whose methodology remains relatively under-addressed in the literature despite the clear research methodology in literature for unique review procedures. One of few examples to describe it is a chapter containing reflections of two contributing authors in a book of 21 reviews on methodological topics compiled for the British Research methodology in literature Health Service, Health Technology Assessment Program [ 1 ].

Notable is their observation of how the differences between the methods reviews and conventional quantitative systematic reviews, specifically attributable to their varying content and purpose, have implications for defining what research methodology in literature as systematic.

In this paper, we present tentative concrete guidance, research methodology in literature the form of a preliminary set of proposed principles and optional strategies, for a rigorous systematic approach to reviewing and evaluating the literature on quantitative or qualitative methods topics, research methodology in literature.

For purposes of this article, we have used the term systematic methods overview to emphasize the notion of a systematic approach to such reviews. The conventional focus of rigorous literature reviews i.

By contrast, the focus of overviews of research methodology in literature, including the systematic approach we advocate, is to synthesize guidance on methods topics. The literature consulted for such reviews may include the methods literature, research methodology in literature, methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports, or both.

Thus, this paper adds to previous work published in this journal—namely, recent preliminary guidance for conducting reviews of theory [ 11 ]—that has extended the application of systematic review methods to novel review types that are concerned with subject matter other than empirical research findings. Published examples of methods overviews illustrate the varying objectives they can have.

One objective is to establish methodological standards for appraisal purposes. For example, reviews of existing quality appraisal standards have been used to propose universal standards for appraising the quality of primary qualitative research [ 12 ] or evaluating qualitative research reports [ 13 ]. A second objective is to survey the methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports to establish current practices on methods use and reporting practices, which Moher and colleagues [ 14 ] recommend as a means for establishing the needs to be addressed in reporting guidelines see, for example [ 1516 ].

A third objective for a methods review is to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness within the available methods literature.

An example of this is a overview whose objective was to review the inconsistent definitions of intention-to-treat analysis the methodologically preferred approach to analyze randomized controlled trial data that have been offered in the methods literature and propose a solution for improving conceptual clarity [ 17 ]. Such reviews are warranted because students and researchers who must learn or apply research methods typically lack the time to systematically search, retrieve, review, and compare the available literature to develop a thorough and critical sense of the varied approaches regarding certain controversial or ambiguous methods topics.

While systematic methods overviewsas a review type, include both reviews of the methods literature and reviews of methods-relevant sections from empirical study reports, the guidance provided here is primarily applicable to reviews of the methods literature since it was derived from the experience of conducting such a review [ 18 ], described below.

To our knowledge, there are no well-developed proposals on how to rigorously conduct such reviews. Such guidance would have the potential to improve the thoroughness and credibility of critical evaluations of the methods literature, which could increase their utility as a tool for generating understandings that advance research methods, both qualitative and quantitative.

Our aim in this paper is thus to initiate discussion about what might constitute a rigorous approach to systematic methods overviews.

While we hope to promote rigor in the conduct of systematic methods overviews wherever possible, we do not wish to suggest that all methods overviews need be conducted to the same standard. Rather, we believe that the level of rigor may need to be tailored pragmatically to the specific review objectives, which may not always justify the resource requirements of an intensive review process.

The principles and strategies we propose in this paper are derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ]. The main objective of that methods overview was to bring clarity and deeper understanding of the prominent concepts related to sampling in qualitative research purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, etc. Specifically, we interpreted the available guidance, commenting on areas lacking clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness without proposing any recommendations on how to do sampling.

This was achieved by a comparative and critical analysis of publications representing the most influential i. The specific methods and procedures for the overview on sampling [ 18 ] from which our proposals are derived were developed both after soliciting initial input from local experts in qualitative research and an expert health librarian KAM and through ongoing careful deliberation throughout the review process.

To summarize, in that review, we employed a transparent and rigorous approach to search the methods literature, selected publications for inclusion according to a purposeful and iterative process, abstracted textual data using structured abstraction forms, and analyzed synthesized the data using a systematic multi-step approach featuring abstraction of text, summary of information in matrices, and analytic comparisons.

For this article, we reflected on both the problems and challenges encountered at different stages of the review and our means for selecting justifiable procedures to deal with them.

Several principles were then derived by considering the generic nature of these problems, while the generalizable aspects of the procedures used to address them formed the basis of optional strategies.

Further details of the specific methods and procedures used in the overview on qualitative sampling are provided below to illustrate both the types of objectives and challenges that reviewers will likely need to consider and our approach to implementing each of the principles and strategies.

For the purposes of this article, principles are general statements outlining what we propose are important aims or considerations within a particular review process, given the unique objectives or challenges to be overcome with this type of review. Thus, generic challenges give rise to principles, which in turn give rise to strategies. We organize the principles and strategies below into three sections corresponding to processes characteristic of most systematic literature synthesis approaches: literature identification and selection ; data abstraction from the publications selected for inclusion; and analysisincluding critical appraisal and synthesis of the abstracted data.

Within each section, we also describe the specific methodological decisions and procedures used in the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ] to illustrate how the principles and strategies for each review process were applied and implemented in a specific case. We expect this guidance and accompanying illustrations will be useful for anyone considering engaging in a methods overview, particularly those who may be familiar with conventional systematic review methods but may not yet appreciate some of the challenges specific to reviewing the methods literature.

The identification and selection process includes search and retrieval of publications and the development and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to select the publications that will be abstracted and analyzed in the final review.

Literature identification and selection for overviews of the methods literature is challenging and potentially more resource-intensive than for most reviews of empirical research. This is true for several reasons that we describe below, alongside discussion of the potential solutions.

Additionally, we suggest in this section how the selection procedures can be chosen to match the specific analytic approach used in methods overviews. One aspect of methods overviews that can make identification and selection challenging is the fact that the universe of literature containing potentially relevant information regarding most methods-related topics is expansive and often unmanageably so.

Reviewers are faced with two large categories of literature: the methods literaturewhere the possible publication types include journal articles, research methodology in literature, books, and book chapters; and the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reportswhere the possible publication types include journal articles, monographs, books, theses, and conference proceedings. In our systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, exhaustively research methodology in literature including retrieval and first-pass screening all publication types across both categories of literature for information on a single methods-related topic was too burdensome to be feasible.

The following proposed principle follows from the need to delimit a manageable set of literature for the review. Considering the broad universe of potentially relevant literature, we propose that an important objective early in the identification and selection stage is to delimit a manageable set research methodology in literature methods-relevant publications in accordance with the objectives of the methods overview.

We propose that reviewers are justified in choosing to select only the methods literature when the objective is to map out the range of recognized concepts relevant to a methods research methodology in literature, to summarize the most authoritative or influential definitions or meanings for methods-related concepts, research methodology in literature, or to demonstrate a problematic lack of clarity regarding a widely established methods-related concept and potentially make recommendations for a preferred approach to the methods topic in question.

For example, in the case of the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ], the primary aim was to define areas lacking in clarity for multiple widely established sampling-related topics. In the review on intention-to-treat in the context of missing outcome data [ 17 ], the authors identified a lack of clarity based on multiple inconsistent definitions in the literature and went on to recommend separating the issue of how to handle missing outcome data from the issue of whether an intention-to-treat analysis can be claimed.

In contrast to strategy 1, research methodology in literature, it may be appropriate to select the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports when the objective is to illustrate how a methods concept is operationalized in research practice or reported by authors. Such reviews are often used research methodology in literature highlight gaps in the reporting practices regarding specific methods, which may be used to justify items to address in reporting guidelines for example, [ 14 — 16 ].

It is worth recognizing that other authors have advocated broader research methodology in literature regarding the scope of literature to be considered in a review, expanding on our perspective. Suri [ 10 ] who, like research methodology in literature, emphasizes how different sampling strategies are suitable for different literature synthesis objectives has, for example, described a two-stage literature sampling procedure pp.

First, reviewers use an initial approach to conduct a broad overview of the field—for reviews of methods topics, research methodology in literature, this would entail an initial review of the research methods literature. This research methodology in literature followed by a second more focused stage in which practical examples are purposefully selected—for methods reviews, this would involve sampling the empirical literature to illustrate key themes and variations.

While this approach is seductive in its research methodology in literature to generate more in depth and interpretive analytic findings, some reviewers may consider it too resource-intensive to include the second step no matter how selective the purposeful sampling. In the overview on sampling where we stopped after the first stage [ 18 ], we discussed our selective focus on the methods literature as a limitation that left opportunities for further analysis of the literature.

We explicitly recommended, research methodology in literature, for example, that theoretical sampling was a topic for which a future review of the methods sections of empirical reports was justified to answer specific questions identified in the primary review. Ultimately, reviewers must make pragmatic decisions that balance resource considerations, combined with informed predictions about the depth and complexity of literature available on their topic, with the stated objectives of their review.

The remaining principles and strategies apply primarily to overviews that include the methods literature, although some aspects may be relevant to reviews that include empirical study reports. An important reality affecting identification and selection in overviews of the methods literature is the increased likelihood for relevant publications to be located in sources other than journal articles which is usually not the case for overviews of empirical research, where journal articles generally represent the primary publication type.

In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], out of 41 full-text publications retrieved and reviewed, only 4 were journal articles, research methodology in literature, while 37 were books or book chapters. Since many books and book chapters did not exist electronically, their full text had to be physically retrieved in hardcopy, while 11 publications were retrievable only through interlibrary loan or purchase request, research methodology in literature.

The tasks associated with such retrieval are substantially more time-consuming than electronic retrieval. Since a substantial proportion of methods-related guidance may be located in publication types that are less comprehensively indexed in standard bibliographic databases, identification and retrieval thus become complicated processes. Considering that important sources of methods guidance can be located in non-journal publication types e.

To identify books, research methodology in literature, book chapters, and other non-journal publication types not thoroughly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, reviewers may choose to consult one or more of the following less standard sources: Google Scholar, publisher web sites, or expert opinion.

In the case of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], Google Scholar had two advantages over other standard bibliographic databases: it indexes and returns records of books and book chapters likely to contain guidance on qualitative research methods topics; and it has been validated as providing higher citation counts than ISI Web of Science a producer of numerous bibliographic databases accessible through institutional subscription for several non-biomedical disciplines including the social sciences where qualitative research methods are prominently used [ 19 — 21 ].

While we identified numerous useful publications by consulting experts, the author publication lists generated through Google Scholar searches were uniquely useful to identify more recent editions of methods books identified by experts. This was because for the many books and other non-journal type publications we identified as possibly relevant, research methodology in literature, the potential content of interest would be located in only a subsection of the publication.

In this common scenario for reviews of the methods literature as opposed to methods overviews that include empirical study reportsreviewers will often be unable to employ standard title, abstract, and keyword database searching or screening as a means for selecting publications.

Considering that the presence of information about the topic of interest may not be indicated in the metadata for books and similar publication types, it is important to consider other means of identifying potentially useful publications for further screening. One approach to identifying potentially useful books and similar publication types is to consider what classes of such publications e. In the example of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], the topic of interest sampling was one of numerous topics covered in the general qualitative research methods manuals.

Consequently, examples from this class of publications first had to be identified for retrieval according to non-keyword-dependent criteria. Thus, all methods manuals within the three research traditions reviewed grounded theory, phenomenology, research methodology in literature case study that might contain discussion of sampling were sought through Google Scholar and expert opinion, their full text obtained, and hand-searched for relevant content to determine eligibility.

We used tables of contents and index sections of books to aid this hand searching. A final consideration in methods overviews relates to the type of analysis used to generate the review findings.

Unlike quantitative systematic reviews where reviewers aim for accurate or unbiased quantitative estimates—something that requires identifying and selecting the literature exhaustively to obtain all relevant data available i.

In other words, the aim in methods overviews is to seek coverage of the qualitative concepts relevant to the methods topic at hand. For example, in the overview of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], achieving review objectives entailed providing conceptual coverage of eight sampling-related topics that emerged as key domains.

The following principle recognizes that literature sampling should therefore support generating qualitative conceptual data as the input to analysis. Since the analytic findings of a systematic methods overview are generated through qualitative description and interpretation of the literature on a specified topic, selection of the literature should be guided by a purposeful strategy designed to achieve adequate conceptual coverage i.

One strategy for choosing the purposeful approach to use in selecting the literature according to the review objectives is to consider whether those objectives imply exploring concepts either at a broad overview level, in which case combining maximum variation selection with a strategy that limits yield e. In the methods overview on sampling, research methodology in literature, the implied scope was broad since we set out to review publications on sampling across three divergent qualitative research traditions—grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study—to facilitate making informative conceptual comparisons, research methodology in literature.

Research methodology in literature an approach would be analogous to maximum variation sampling, research methodology in literature. In other words, we explicitly research methodology in literature out to review and critique the most established and influential and therefore dominant literature, since this represents a common basis of knowledge among students and researchers seeking understanding or practical guidance on sampling in qualitative research.

To achieve this objective, we purposefully sampled publications according to the criterion of influencewhich research methodology in literature operationalized as how often an author or publication has been referenced in print or informal discourse.



research methodology in literature


May 10,  · Literature based research methodology hasoften been referred to in many texts as: literature reviewTo some extent this is true but the problem is that as such it has blurred the understanding between literature review as a methodology in its own right and its utilisation in the process of empirical research. Oct 11,  · Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. this would entail an initial review of the research methods literature. thereby accelerating the advance of research planningeits.cf by: research. What exactly are objectives and what do researcher need to find out? In literature review, are researcher looking at issues of theory, methodology, policy, quantitive research, or what? Before researcher start reading it may be useful to compile a list of the main areas and questions involved, and then read with the purpose of finding.