-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
4 changed files
with
38 additions
and
1 deletion.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ | ||
## L4: Literature Review ([pdf](../slides/04-litreview.pdf), video) | ||
|
||
[![Lecture4-LitReview](../assets/images/04-litreview.jpg)](../slides/04-litreview.pdf) | ||
|
||
You're about to start a new research project. *Can* the problem you're interested in be studied? It had better be, otherwise you won't make much progress. But *should* it be studied? Does it add to the body of knowledge? And who else besides you would care about the results? | ||
|
||
Doing a literature review can help you summarize what is known about your topic to identify what remains *unknown*. It's the framework ("[conceptual framework](jan23-theory.md)") for establishing the importance of your study, it helps relate your study to the literature, helps identify how your study fills in gaps in knowledge, and gives direction for your research questions and hypotheses. | ||
|
||
There are three components to a well-done literature review: | ||
|
||
1. Identify a **problem** in the world that people are talking about; | ||
2. Establish a **gap** in the current knowledge or thinking about the problem; and | ||
3. Articulate a **hook** that convinces readers that this gap is of consequence. | ||
|
||
We disect the literature reviews in two example papers and discuss how each articulates its problem, gap, and hook. | ||
|
||
### Exemplars | ||
|
||
> Chen, J., Nairn, R., Nelson, L., Bernstein, M., & Chi, E. (2010). [Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams](https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2010/zerozero88/zerozero88-chi2010.pdf ). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 1185-1194). | ||
> Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2002). [Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla](https://herbsleb.org/web-pubs/pdfs/mockus-two-2002.pdf). ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 11(3), 309-346. | ||
The two example papers we disect in class. | ||
|
||
### Lecture Readings | ||
|
||
> Lingard, L. (2015). [Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81538200.pdf). Perspectives on Medical Education, 4(5), 252-253. | ||
> Lingard, L. (2018). [Writing an effective literature review](https://d-nb.info/1160919941/34). Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 133-135. | ||
The problem-gap-hook heuristic for structuring literature reviews. | ||
|
||
--- | ||
> Justin Zobel, Writing for Computer Science (3rd Edition). Springer, 2015 | ||
Good and bad practices for citations. | ||
|
Binary file not shown.