Skip to content

Category: Literature Review

Literature Review

For the University of Southampton, the official advice offered by the library is to refer to “Doing a Systematic Review” as listed on the http://library.soton.ac.uk/systematic-reviews website:

1 Planning your review
2 Performing scoping searches, identifying review question and writing  protocol
3 Literature Searching
4 Screening titles and abstracts
5 Obtaining papers
6 Selecting full text articles
7 Data extraction
8 Quality assessment
9 Analysis and synthesis
10 Writing up, editing and disseminating

This project focuses on 9; analysis and synthesis, while providing an output useable by 10, with particular integration with Liquid | Author.

The work-process of 1-9 will be integrated to help the user search (3) from with the View when desired and read the articles (6) with full meta-information attached.

Twofold Aim

The SAGE Study Skill’s “The Literature Review” makes clear there are two separate aims of a LR: The production of a LR document– the ‘Product’–and the ‘Process’ of enriching the student’s understanding of the knowledge space in question.

The Process : The Mental Aim

The mental aim of a literature review is for the student to demonstrate that they are aware of, and can interpret what is already known and where gaps and contradictions in the knowledge (Jesson, Matheson, Lacey, 2011). The process is defined by Fink as a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work by researchers, scholars and practitioners (2013). It is important because a high quality research synthesis can give us the most trustworthy answers to specific review questions, and it can identify gaps in our knowledge that require further research (Booth, Sutton, Papaioannou, 2016).

Intellectual Archeology

The process of doing a literature review is analogous to unearthing artifacts, some of which have a more obvious use a connection to the rest and others less so. In physical archeology, building a picture of the finds involves not only excavating the artifacts themselves but also recording and analysing their features and contexts. The extraction of information takes place both through manual operations and remote sensing. These ways of looking at the process can inform the student’s literature review process by inspiring how the student can add their academic document artifacts to an increasing diagram which they can interact with to develop deeper insights. This notion of actively gathering is reflected in the hypertext literature by Jim Rosenberg in The Structure of Hypertext Activity (1996).

Specific Questions & Speak Points to Support

While doing a LR the student will ask general questions about the field and specific questions based on documents, authors or concept discovered, based on general thoughts and something which sparks their curiosity. These are the interactions the View system will primarily need to support, not just general layouts of nodes. Initial questions can include the following:

Author Centric

Who cited this document?
What else did this author write?
Who did this author collaborate with?

Document Centric

What document cited this document?
What does this document cite?

Concept Centric

Where does a specific concept appear in this document?
Where does a specific concept appear in these documents?

Once questions like these can be quickly and easily posed by the user, the focus will be on how the views can then be modified to answer further questions.

1 Comment

Citation Lifts

A practical problem in the literature review process is when the user comes across a citation in a document they are reading which looks interesting. The user will need to decide whether to ignore the citation, highlight it somehow for follow up later, follow the citation and either simply add it to a list or management software as another item to the stack or stop reading the current document read the cited document then and there.

To deal with this, the Liquid Reader will therefore allow the following action when a user comes across a citation in a standard PDF document:

The user selects the cited text, including the bracketed citation name & date or the superscript number and chooses a ‘Lift’ command. The software then (automatically and invisibly to the user) jumps to the end of the document for the References/bibliography section where it scans for the reference and uses the extra information to search for it online.

The search results is then presented to the user who can choose to tag and colour code the citation and/or write a note.

If possible, the user can also download the document at this stage. On ‘Save,’ the citation is added to the user’s list of literature review documents for access by any of the above meta-information (where it was found, text in the quote, tag, date found etc.) for opening in the Liquid Reader or Liquid View. Import in a citation management system is also an option.

This will deal with the issue of ‘analog-hyperlinks’ where attention becomes diluted by (potentially useful) distractions by providing the simple function to Lift the cited document to access in a findable way later, while at the same time building up a picture of the knowledge space.

Documents using the suggested Rich PDF formats will be able to support this process more robustly but it should be possible to enable on most PDF documents.

Leave a Comment

KJ-Ho

KJ-Ho is a method invented by the  Japanese ethnologist, Jiro Kawakita, developed as a result of having difficulties in interpreting ethnographic data in Nepal (Scupin, 1997).

 

 In Japan, by far the most popular creative problem-solving methodology using creative thinking is the KJ Ho method. This method puts unstructured information on a subject matter of interest into order through alternating divergent and convergent thinking steps.

Susumu Kunifuji, 2013

Jiro explained the process in his  paper (Kawakita, 1991), in which the relevant aspect for Liquid View is the visual problem solving method, the basic steps of which are:

• Label Making is the process of writing down everything relevant on index cards.
• Label Grouping is the process of grouping the cards according to relevancy.
• Group Naming to name the groups of cards.
• Spatial Arrangement to arrange the Groups into useful arrangements.
• Relationship Settings to use links to indicate the relationships between the objects/nodes, where the shapes of the links convey the nature of the relationship:
  – Cause and effect: One is a predecessor or a cause of another   ––>
  – Interdependence: Objects are dependent on each other    <––>
  – Correlation: Both objects relate to one another in some way   ––
  – Contradiction: Objects are conflicting to each other   >––<
• Verbal or written explanation. The last step is to explain the chart clearly which other visual thinking systems neglect

 

Relevance to Liquid View

This system has quite a rigorous process behind it, which is not something which would naturally fit with the Liquid View but the general process is very much what was planned for Liquid View. Giving arrow designs meaning is interesting and I think a way to teach the user what the different designs mean would be to the interaction to make lines from one node to another be through dragging one node onto another and have drop zones reveal options for what links should be made, including the ones above and the ones I have added below, with both textual description and visual.

• Relationship Settings

  – Notes: dotted greyed lines to indicate unsure relationships
  – Labels: greyed lines to indicate labels the author has set to comment on a node. This will likely not show up in the word processing view
  – Comments: On locked documents or in read mode, red lines to indicate that someone other than the author has added text, which is thus referred to as a comment

 

Furthermore, since Liquid View will be a digital implementation, the labels for the links can be used to filter which nodes and links should be shown and in what ways.

Leave a Comment