If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions. You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.
I think it’s worth pointing out that you don’t necessarily need to identify only one gap. Particularly if you are doing a complicated and involved investigation, like a master’s dissertation, there is likely to be more than one gap or contribution that your investigation can make.
How To Write A Literature Review
Pointing out multiple gaps/contributions can help to better situate your investigation in the literature you review and demonstrate greater critical thinking regarding the topic of your investigation and your framing of your investigation. Hopefully in this section I’ve at least outlined the tensions inherent in seeking to find a gap in the literature or outline the contribution to knowledge that you are seeking to make through your writing.
My student responded that she understood the request but wasn’t sure about how to go about doing that in her writing, which is fair enough. Rather than write an email to a single student on the topic, which would benefit one person, I felt it would be better to write out my thoughts on this matter here, in the hopes that what I have to say can benefit more than just one person. Before you can write a literature review, you must immerse yourself in a significant body of research. By the time you’ve written the review, you’ve read widely on your topic and are able to synthesize and logically present the information. There isn’t a universal answer to this question – it really depends on your field of study and the topic you’re researching. For example, in scientific research, you would normally focus on recent literature; in the humanities, you’re more likely to include important older works. But in general, if a source is still considered accurate and contains relevant knowledge about your topic, you can include it in your literature review as long as you have a clear reason for doing so.
This paper proposes and discusses the concepts related to ergonomics which is considered as macro ergonomics in supply chain system. SCM has been seen as macro ergonomics concerning on organization, people, technology, information and resources. This paper shows the importance of ergonomics at the inbound logistics and outbound logistics which are regarded as the critical supply chain activities. A scientific literature review on ergonomics as a critical determinant for SCF is discussed and provided as a theoretical contribution for further research related to the role of ergonomic to support supply chain performance. This kind of framing seeks to show how a given issue is being explored in a new light, offering a contribution by asking a different kind of research question. One strategy for seeking to make this kind of contribution is to integrate concepts from another field into the one you’re writing for, such as incorporating theories around negotiation from the business literature into an applied linguistics investigation. If a reviewer/reader says that another author has already used this framing, then the argument falls apart that it is necessary to conduct the newer investigation at all.
It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. Finally, one thing I didn’t cover here is the ‘comprehensive literature review’.
- The relationship I can draw to the literature is the evidence of the benefits of extensive writing generally, which I seek to apply to my particular teaching context specifically.
- Particularly if you are doing a complicated and involved investigation, like a master’s dissertation, there is likely to be more than one gap or contribution that your investigation can make.
- I think it’s worth pointing out that you don’t necessarily need to identify only one gap.
- I’ve included some subsections to break apart my text a bit and to hopefully help you to see a progression from a generally less critical contribution to knowledge framing to a generally more critical contribution to knowledge framing.
- This gets around the it’s-already-been-done dilemma because the knowledge pie is sliced according to practical applications for practitioners rather than according to more arbitrary demographic delineations.
- (It didn’t.) In this case, the knowledge I’m seeking is of interest to me as a practitioner , as it can help to inform my pedagogy.
There’s a kind of fine balancing act required between pointing out what previous research has accomplished, while at the same time leaving space in a review of the literature for your specific writing/investigation to make its own contribution. In the next part of this post I’ll consider some different strategies for identifying specific gaps or contributions. I’ll try to outline them from less to more critical, so you can hopefully see a scale of thinking about the topic emerge. I recently received a literature review chapter from a student, and in my feedback noted more needed to be done to helped identify the ‘gap’ in the literature that her work is seeking to fill.
Step 5: Write Your Literature Review
That’s where an author/researcher picks a topic and keywords, then does a database search for all the literature, examining all/most of the hits returned. That’s not something I’ve encountered very often in applied linguistics, and isn’t something I would recommend that students or beginning authors try to cut their teeth on. It tends to be more popular in the library sciences and in the biological sciences in my experience, and is too far outside of my realm of expertise to comment on very extensively. I think it’s worth saying, though, that in an applied linguistics review you don’t have to use language to try to sound like you’ve covered everything. If seeking to shift a paradigm or a way of thinking about a topic, it is important to first outline current ways of thinking and to note how those ways of thinking are similar to and different from the direction pointed to in your writing.
Nowadays companies are required to work more productive yet maintain good quality. To increase productivity, company needs a conducive effort to optimize the work system.
Reviewsupply Chain Finance: A Systematic Literature Review And Bibliometric Analysis
(It didn’t.) In this case, the knowledge I’m seeking is of interest to me as a practitioner , as it can help to inform my pedagogy. The relationship I can draw to the literature is the evidence of the benefits of extensive writing generally, which I seek to apply to my particular teaching context specifically.
However, the research behind these debates tends to involve investigating the writing for publication of authors whose first language isn’t English. Authors whose first language is English tend to not be included in such investigations. I certainly don’t think my thesis offers a definitive answer to the debate, but I do feel that it contributes to it in some useful ways. In this framing of a contribution, context is more carefully defined to be very specific, and the argument that’s JFD Bank Forex Broker Review made is that the contribution to knowledge is a contribution to practitioner knowledge within that specific space. For example, in a book chapter I wrote about how doing extensive writing with high school students in Japan led to an improvement in their writing speeds relative to students who didn’t do the extensive writing . When I moved to work at the University of Toyama, I was interested in whether the same exercise would result in similar improvements among my students here.
Literature Review: Role Of The Literature Review
After conducting field visits and expert interaction in the firm related to case industry, 11 major SCF dimensions that seem to have a significant amount of influence on supply chain performance of the firms were retained for further consideration. The author have used decision making trial and evaluation laboratory to establish initial causality and structural equation model to investigate the contribution of different flexibility dimensions on overall SCF. I would also recommend you watch how other authors characterize the literature they review as you do your readings and see what from their framings you can incorporate into your own writing and thinking .
You don’t necessarily need to ‘invent’ a direction, either; appreciative inquiry authors have a kind of read-made framing they can borrow, contributing further to appreciative inquiry as a field through their specific investigation. The argument about how appreciative inquiry is different from action research needs to be restated , but a given individual author doesn’t need to reinvent the argument/define a new direction with every paper they write. At this level of contribution, the author is engaging with various ongoing debates in the literature and seeking to make their own contribution to those debates.
This can lead to considerable stress for students/researchers who while they write up an investigation worry about whether someone is going to beat them to the punch or if they’ve missed some paper in their review that already did what they are doing. The implication is also that once the investigation has been done, the case is going to be closed on the group investigated. However, people are hardly ever this simple, and researchers are constantly finding that what appear to be clear-cut demographically-framed findings aren’t as clear-cut as they first appeared following later investigations. The members of the Language and Literature Department are committed to providing our students with the language and writing skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace and with literary knowledge that will enhance their education and lives. We offer degree programs in English, English Education, Foreign Language Education, Spanish, French, German and Rhetorical Speech and Communication.
Presumably, your original research has emerged from one of those open questions, so the literature review serves as a jumping-off point for the rest of your paper. Supply Chain Finance is an effective method to lower financing costs and improve financing efficiency and effectiveness, and it has gained research momentum in recent years. This paper adopts a systematic literature review methodology combined with bibliometric, network and content analysis based on 348 papers identified from mainstream academic databases. This review provides insights not previously fully captured or evaluated by other reviews on this topic, including key authors, key journals and the prestige of the reviewed papers. Based on the clusters identified, we carried out a further content analysis of 112 papers, identifying research gaps and proposing seven actionable directions for future research. The findings provide a robust roadmap for further investigation in this field. A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources related to a specific topic or research question.
We are committed to offering courses via eLearning to provide flexibility and access for our students. We invite you to visit us on the Bradenton and Venice Campuses and via our web pages. Supply chain finance as an effective method for improving supply chain financial performance has attracted attention from both academics and industries in recent years. In the development of SCF research and practice, there is growing interest in how SCF solutions help to promote SC sustainability performance. However, the research on sustainable SCF remains scant; both scholars and managers have not fully realized the significant economic, environmental, and social value behind this concept. This study, based on a systematic literature review of 47 articles related to SCF and sustainability, summarizes SSCF motives, practices and outcomes. In addition, to further investigate this emerging topic, this review discusses how SSCF solutions may help to drive sustainable SC enablers as well as mitigate sustainable SC barriers, which, in turn, improves sustainable SC performance.
Supply chain management is one form of competitive advantages that is applied to every industrial system. There are many https://forexarena.net/ factors which can influence the supply chain performance .Ergonomics is deemed to be one of significant drivers for SCF.
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review. If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop eur a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.
Based on the descriptive and thematic findings, this review then develops a conceptual framework that facilitates the conceptual development of SSCF. Finally, it identifies gaps in the existing literature and provides recommendations for future research. While specific style guidelines vary among disciplines, all literature reviews are well-researched and organized. Use the following strategies as a guide as you embark on the writing process. The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources – it analyzes, synthesizes, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject. The author have gone through extensive literature review and extracted 22 SCF dimensions.
Identifying Gaps In The Literature Or Contributions That You Hope To Make
This gets around the it’s-already-been-done dilemma because the knowledge pie is sliced according to practical applications for practitioners rather than according to more arbitrary demographic delineations. I’ve included some subsections to break apart my text a bit and to hopefully help you to see a progression from a generally less critical contribution to knowledge framing to a generally more critical contribution to knowledge framing.