1 00:00:03,600 --> 00:00:08,600 [Instructor] Hello everyone and welcome to this session 2 00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:13,110 where we're gonna be talking about 3 00:00:13,110 --> 00:00:15,630 how to do a literature review. 4 00:00:15,630 --> 00:00:20,630 How do you read through, collect and organize, 5 00:00:22,290 --> 00:00:27,290 and write up the results of a review of what research 6 00:00:27,510 --> 00:00:31,323 has been done on the topic that you are studying? 7 00:00:32,910 --> 00:00:36,090 This will be your first homework assignment 8 00:00:36,090 --> 00:00:39,483 and this is helping you to get ready for that. 9 00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:49,143 So, let's start to talk about what is a literature review. 10 00:00:50,670 --> 00:00:55,410 So, it's a summary of previous research on a topic. 11 00:00:55,410 --> 00:00:59,823 So, you collect, organize, analyze 12 00:01:04,470 --> 00:01:09,030 and report out the findings of previous research 13 00:01:09,030 --> 00:01:12,273 on the topic that you are studying. 14 00:01:13,380 --> 00:01:17,010 And again, its purpose is to review 15 00:01:17,010 --> 00:01:20,220 what do we already know, to lay out a case 16 00:01:20,220 --> 00:01:23,430 of this is what we already know. 17 00:01:23,430 --> 00:01:26,670 And then, with the intent of building on 18 00:01:26,670 --> 00:01:28,263 what has already been done. 19 00:01:34,770 --> 00:01:38,820 The two key questions that a lit review answers are, 20 00:01:38,820 --> 00:01:41,550 what is known about the subject? 21 00:01:41,550 --> 00:01:44,550 What do we already know, and what are the key gaps? 22 00:01:44,550 --> 00:01:46,530 What do we not know? 23 00:01:46,530 --> 00:01:50,640 And hopefully, your work will be to fill in 24 00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:52,623 one or more of those gaps. 25 00:01:59,220 --> 00:02:01,170 Some of the questions that you'll ask 26 00:02:01,170 --> 00:02:05,190 as you go through, are what are the methods 27 00:02:05,190 --> 00:02:10,190 or the problems that have identified in previous research 28 00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:14,160 and how do they impact your research? 29 00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:17,520 And to sort of bring the reader up to date 30 00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:21,843 of what is the current status of research in this area? 31 00:02:27,210 --> 00:02:30,483 Here are my thoughts on why you should do a lit review. 32 00:02:31,980 --> 00:02:35,250 First, it's to help you to design your study, 33 00:02:35,250 --> 00:02:37,500 so you're not reinventing the wheel. 34 00:02:37,500 --> 00:02:41,670 So, you are covering fresh ground as well as 35 00:02:41,670 --> 00:02:46,670 by situating it in what's already been done, 36 00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:54,080 it helps the readers to interpret the results. 37 00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:57,510 It also explains how your research question 38 00:02:57,510 --> 00:03:01,560 fits into the larger picture of what we already know. 39 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:06,560 It brings the reader up to date, it justifies your approach. 40 00:03:07,140 --> 00:03:10,920 So, if you do a good job of outlining what we already know 41 00:03:10,920 --> 00:03:15,870 and what we don't know, that serves as a good justification 42 00:03:15,870 --> 00:03:20,070 of the work that you are proposing to do. 43 00:03:20,070 --> 00:03:22,650 And last, it makes you look more credible, 44 00:03:22,650 --> 00:03:25,560 that by showing that you understand 45 00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:29,610 what has already been done, it establishes 46 00:03:29,610 --> 00:03:31,080 that you've done your homework, 47 00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:36,080 you've done your due diligence, and that it makes 48 00:03:36,300 --> 00:03:38,223 what you say more credible. 49 00:03:41,070 --> 00:03:42,600 How do you do it? 50 00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:46,740 So, you basically summarize and explain what's been done, 51 00:03:46,740 --> 00:03:50,583 always citing the sources as you mention them. 52 00:03:51,450 --> 00:03:55,050 You can point out the different way that researchers 53 00:03:55,050 --> 00:03:57,270 had treated the topic. 54 00:03:57,270 --> 00:04:01,990 And again, explaining how the past work fits 55 00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:07,880 to create a justification of what you'll be doing 56 00:04:08,910 --> 00:04:11,913 and to make your research question significant. 57 00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:25,400 To get started, think about what is your topic. 58 00:04:25,592 --> 00:04:29,580 And a great way to start to look for articles 59 00:04:29,580 --> 00:04:33,810 that are relevant is to think of key words. 60 00:04:33,810 --> 00:04:37,350 So, think about some number, five, eight, 61 00:04:37,350 --> 00:04:42,120 maybe up to 10, sort of, key words and phrases 62 00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:45,683 that are related to your topic. 63 00:04:49,484 --> 00:04:52,920 In a class in the very near future, 64 00:04:52,920 --> 00:04:56,280 we're gonna have a reference librarian come in 65 00:04:56,280 --> 00:04:58,440 and help you brainstorm those. 66 00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:03,440 And she's also going to show you search engines, 67 00:05:04,950 --> 00:05:09,390 search indices, which will help you find articles. 68 00:05:09,390 --> 00:05:13,860 One very commonly used one is Google Scholar, 69 00:05:13,860 --> 00:05:16,380 where you can put your keywords in 70 00:05:16,380 --> 00:05:20,580 and it will show you articles that are related to that, 71 00:05:20,580 --> 00:05:24,090 just like any, you know, just like Google does, 72 00:05:24,090 --> 00:05:28,530 it takes keywords and shows you links. 73 00:05:28,530 --> 00:05:30,720 In this case, it specifically shows you 74 00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:33,120 scholarly research articles. 75 00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:37,937 And the librarian will also show you some specialty indices 76 00:05:40,230 --> 00:05:43,653 that may help you find articles faster and more easy. 77 00:05:47,865 --> 00:05:50,580 There's two basic types of things 78 00:05:50,580 --> 00:05:52,800 that you may choose to read, 79 00:05:52,800 --> 00:05:56,493 popular press and journal articles. 80 00:05:59,753 --> 00:06:04,753 Sometimes a good starting point is popular press articles 81 00:06:06,330 --> 00:06:09,870 and reports about your topic. 82 00:06:09,870 --> 00:06:14,250 So, this can include things like magazines, newspapers, 83 00:06:14,250 --> 00:06:18,960 websites, not written by scholars, written more, you know, 84 00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:21,333 by journalists or by advocates. 85 00:06:23,490 --> 00:06:28,490 The advantages is it tells you what others 86 00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:32,160 are saying about it, what is being said sort of 87 00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:37,160 in the popular discourse about the topic, 88 00:06:38,190 --> 00:06:42,660 but keep in mind that while it's a good starting point, 89 00:06:42,660 --> 00:06:45,240 it provides good background information 90 00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:49,080 that it's not always rigorously researched. 91 00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:53,040 It may be biased, it may be superficial, it may be slanted, 92 00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:56,820 it may be trying to advocate for a specific point of view 93 00:06:56,820 --> 00:07:00,720 and only including evidence that support that view 94 00:07:00,720 --> 00:07:04,470 and omitting evidence that does not. 95 00:07:04,470 --> 00:07:08,310 But, again, it can be a good starting point 96 00:07:08,310 --> 00:07:10,563 just to sort of bring you up to speed. 97 00:07:14,460 --> 00:07:17,410 The gold standard of scholarly research 98 00:07:17,410 --> 00:07:22,410 is an article from a scholarly journal. 99 00:07:24,960 --> 00:07:29,960 This is a specific account about one study 100 00:07:30,030 --> 00:07:31,770 or one part of a study, 101 00:07:31,770 --> 00:07:35,130 and it will walk you through an introduction. 102 00:07:35,130 --> 00:07:37,110 It will itself do a lit review, 103 00:07:37,110 --> 00:07:39,720 tell you about the methods they used, 104 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:42,600 the results they found, et cetera. 105 00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,630 And usually, these are peer reviewed 106 00:07:45,630 --> 00:07:47,850 and I'm gonna tell you a bit about what that means 107 00:07:47,850 --> 00:07:50,313 in case you're not familiar. 108 00:07:54,180 --> 00:07:58,230 So, peer review is a process that I am very familiar with, 109 00:07:58,230 --> 00:08:01,590 both as an author and as a reviewer. 110 00:08:01,590 --> 00:08:03,420 So, here's how it works. 111 00:08:03,420 --> 00:08:06,570 Say that I have done a research project 112 00:08:06,570 --> 00:08:09,810 and I write up a paper that I hope 113 00:08:09,810 --> 00:08:12,960 to go into one of these journals. 114 00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:17,960 I send it to the journal and the editor receives it, 115 00:08:19,500 --> 00:08:21,630 and the editor reads it 116 00:08:21,630 --> 00:08:24,570 and then sends it out to other reviewers. 117 00:08:24,570 --> 00:08:29,570 So, one of the jobs of the editors is to read my work 118 00:08:30,060 --> 00:08:33,607 and think, "Hmm, who else out there does work like this? 119 00:08:33,607 --> 00:08:37,676 "Who would be a good judge of the merits of this?" 120 00:08:37,676 --> 00:08:42,567 Usually, quite honestly, other professors 121 00:08:43,920 --> 00:08:47,280 or folks who work in academic settings like myself. 122 00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:49,380 So, those who have done work like this 123 00:08:49,380 --> 00:08:52,353 and have similar interests. 124 00:08:53,220 --> 00:08:57,270 The reviewers will read it, they'll judge it, 125 00:08:57,270 --> 00:09:01,980 they will basically say whether it's well done or not, 126 00:09:01,980 --> 00:09:06,810 and in almost every case, suggest improvements. 127 00:09:06,810 --> 00:09:08,190 Tell me more about this. 128 00:09:08,190 --> 00:09:12,510 I'm not quite following that, you know, 129 00:09:12,510 --> 00:09:15,483 make a better case for this point, et cetera. 130 00:09:16,620 --> 00:09:20,040 Then when the reviews are in, the editor sends it back 131 00:09:20,040 --> 00:09:25,040 to the author, in many cases, 132 00:09:25,329 --> 00:09:28,800 with the instructions to "revise and resubmit." 133 00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:33,572 So, the original work isn't really ready for the journal, 134 00:09:33,572 --> 00:09:38,572 but if the author makes a number of revisions based on 135 00:09:38,779 --> 00:09:43,050 the recommendations of the reviewers that they, 136 00:09:43,050 --> 00:09:46,260 which the author then does and resubmits it, 137 00:09:46,260 --> 00:09:49,350 and sometimes it takes a few back and forth 138 00:09:49,350 --> 00:09:54,350 and it is eventually, hopefully, in my case, accepted. 139 00:09:54,780 --> 00:09:59,780 Sometimes the editor, the reviews will be so poor 140 00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:03,660 that the editor basically concludes 141 00:10:03,660 --> 00:10:08,300 that no amount of revision is going to make it worthwhile, 142 00:10:09,150 --> 00:10:13,080 that it's just very flawed or not well done 143 00:10:13,080 --> 00:10:17,670 or just not important or some reasons like that 144 00:10:17,670 --> 00:10:19,620 and will reject it. 145 00:10:19,620 --> 00:10:23,070 But in my case, hopefully, when I submit it, 146 00:10:23,070 --> 00:10:26,850 it will be eventually accepted and then placed 147 00:10:26,850 --> 00:10:30,753 into that journal where folks can read it. 148 00:10:33,300 --> 00:10:37,020 Usually, a review is double blind, 149 00:10:37,020 --> 00:10:40,050 where in the case I was speaking of, 150 00:10:40,050 --> 00:10:44,070 I as the author don't know what reviewers 151 00:10:44,070 --> 00:10:49,070 are going to read it and the reviewers don't know the name 152 00:10:49,140 --> 00:10:51,210 of the author who wrote it. 153 00:10:51,210 --> 00:10:53,760 So, it's like both sides are blind, 154 00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:55,920 no one knows who the other is. 155 00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:59,040 And it's so, you know, only the editor knows 156 00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:04,040 and this is done so that the paper is judged solely 157 00:11:06,090 --> 00:11:11,090 on its own merits and that it's well done and credible 158 00:11:12,420 --> 00:11:17,420 and not that, maybe a reviewer particularly likes me 159 00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:21,420 and will let you know faulty work pass, 160 00:11:21,420 --> 00:11:26,420 or particularly dislikes me and rejects really good work 161 00:11:26,820 --> 00:11:29,583 just 'cause they think I'm a jerk. 162 00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,180 In the near future, again, we're gonna have 163 00:11:42,180 --> 00:11:44,670 a guest in class, a reference librarian 164 00:11:44,670 --> 00:11:46,890 who's going to teach you how to find articles. 165 00:11:46,890 --> 00:11:51,180 Now, once you find them, here's a really good way 166 00:11:51,180 --> 00:11:52,080 to read it. 167 00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:54,810 So, you wanna start with the abstract, 168 00:11:54,810 --> 00:11:57,210 which is the summary at the beginning, 169 00:11:57,210 --> 00:12:00,150 sort of walks you through the purpose, 170 00:12:00,150 --> 00:12:02,819 the basic methods, the finding. 171 00:12:02,819 --> 00:12:05,790 This will both help you to decide whether 172 00:12:05,790 --> 00:12:09,600 you wanna take the time to read the whole article. 173 00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:14,190 And if so, it also sort of frames it for your reading 174 00:12:14,190 --> 00:12:16,350 and gives you a quick overview, 175 00:12:16,350 --> 00:12:18,873 so you sort of know what to expect. 176 00:12:24,270 --> 00:12:29,220 So, I encourage that, you know, first sort of skim through 177 00:12:29,220 --> 00:12:33,390 and jot down notes and with the major points, 178 00:12:33,390 --> 00:12:36,060 then go through and take a more thorough 179 00:12:36,060 --> 00:12:41,060 sort of critical detailed reading and take a lot of notes. 180 00:12:42,977 --> 00:12:47,977 It's also important that if you find an article 181 00:12:48,150 --> 00:12:51,540 that is really relevant to your topic, 182 00:12:51,540 --> 00:12:54,723 that it can help you find other articles. 183 00:12:55,770 --> 00:12:58,470 So, one of the things you can do is look 184 00:12:58,470 --> 00:13:01,508 at what are the studies that the article 185 00:13:01,508 --> 00:13:04,953 you're reading now cited look for, 186 00:13:08,790 --> 00:13:13,790 other articles by the same author, 187 00:13:14,670 --> 00:13:17,790 as well as the articles they cite. 188 00:13:17,790 --> 00:13:21,090 And if you use certain search indexes 189 00:13:21,090 --> 00:13:23,400 and including Google Scholar 190 00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:28,080 that you can see who cited this article. 191 00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:31,380 So, if you find an article from say 2015 192 00:13:31,380 --> 00:13:34,275 that you think is really great and important, 193 00:13:34,275 --> 00:13:37,290 you can plug it into Google Scholar 194 00:13:37,290 --> 00:13:40,200 and Google Scholar will say, since that time, 195 00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:42,900 here are the articles that read 196 00:13:42,900 --> 00:13:47,900 and cited this article in their work. 197 00:13:48,120 --> 00:13:52,710 And I call it a snowball approach that by starting with one, 198 00:13:52,710 --> 00:13:56,880 and if you can find who they cite and who's cited them, 199 00:13:56,880 --> 00:13:59,700 like a snowball, it can start off small, 200 00:13:59,700 --> 00:14:02,040 but as it rolls down the hill it gets bigger 201 00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:03,570 and bigger and bigger and bigger. 202 00:14:03,570 --> 00:14:08,570 And soon, hopefully, you will have a big pile of studies 203 00:14:11,250 --> 00:14:14,853 that can help form the basis of your lit review. 204 00:14:21,840 --> 00:14:26,840 In general, I think it's most journal articles, 205 00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:30,840 peer reviewed, that you can have some credibility 206 00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:34,320 that they, or some faith that they are done well, 207 00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:37,980 but a good way to look at it is to sort of think about 208 00:14:37,980 --> 00:14:41,913 in these points, and I'm gonna go through each one. 209 00:14:45,780 --> 00:14:50,370 So, first, looking at the research design, 210 00:14:50,370 --> 00:14:54,060 is the purpose of the research clearly stated? 211 00:14:54,060 --> 00:14:57,300 Do they identify a research gap 212 00:14:57,300 --> 00:15:00,750 and research questions that they're going to be addressed? 213 00:15:00,750 --> 00:15:05,103 Is the whole sort of research design laid out well? 214 00:15:09,930 --> 00:15:13,290 Next, look at the methods. 215 00:15:13,290 --> 00:15:18,290 So, sampling means, who did they talk to? 216 00:15:18,630 --> 00:15:19,680 Who were their subjects? 217 00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:21,003 How did they choose them? 218 00:15:22,020 --> 00:15:25,710 Data collection, what methods did they use? 219 00:15:25,710 --> 00:15:29,070 How did they analyze their data and how to report it? 220 00:15:29,070 --> 00:15:31,950 And again, I'm gonna go over each of these 221 00:15:31,950 --> 00:15:33,453 in a little bit more detail. 222 00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:43,127 Later on in the course, we're gonna spend a class 223 00:15:43,127 --> 00:15:45,060 thinking about sampling, 224 00:15:45,060 --> 00:15:48,003 which is how the subjects are chosen. 225 00:15:49,020 --> 00:15:53,700 And when you read a study, is it clear who they talked to 226 00:15:53,700 --> 00:15:56,040 or where they collected data and why? 227 00:15:56,040 --> 00:15:59,790 Why did they chose those subjects 228 00:15:59,790 --> 00:16:03,243 or those units of analysis? 229 00:16:04,920 --> 00:16:09,120 Sometimes you can think about how much 230 00:16:09,120 --> 00:16:13,520 does the sample resemble the overall population? 231 00:16:15,930 --> 00:16:19,410 And then, we ask, is it generalizable? 232 00:16:19,410 --> 00:16:21,810 So, if you wanna know, UVM, 233 00:16:21,810 --> 00:16:26,340 the whole UVM student body's view on a topic 234 00:16:26,340 --> 00:16:28,470 and you ask two students, 235 00:16:28,470 --> 00:16:32,190 that's not a very representative sample. 236 00:16:32,190 --> 00:16:36,900 But if you get a larger and larger sample 237 00:16:36,900 --> 00:16:41,900 that is drawn in ways that make sure that all aspects 238 00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:47,480 of the population are represented then you can make 239 00:16:47,550 --> 00:16:50,580 a better claim that the results 240 00:16:50,580 --> 00:16:55,110 from this smaller group, probably closely resemble 241 00:16:55,110 --> 00:16:58,700 the results of the entire population. 242 00:17:04,770 --> 00:17:08,220 You can ask yourself, what methods did they use 243 00:17:08,220 --> 00:17:09,690 to collect data? 244 00:17:09,690 --> 00:17:11,730 Was it a survey? 245 00:17:11,730 --> 00:17:13,500 Did they interview people? 246 00:17:13,500 --> 00:17:15,360 Did they do observations? 247 00:17:15,360 --> 00:17:18,090 And do they make sense for the research questions? 248 00:17:18,090 --> 00:17:22,470 Do they, were they the right, or at least are they, 249 00:17:22,470 --> 00:17:25,800 did they make a good choice of the methods they used 250 00:17:25,800 --> 00:17:29,253 to get the the kind of information that they seek? 251 00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:38,190 We'll learn a lot more as we go about how to analyze data, 252 00:17:38,190 --> 00:17:41,995 but you can think about did they use credible techniques? 253 00:17:41,995 --> 00:17:46,350 Did they use the right statistical tests, 254 00:17:46,350 --> 00:17:49,950 when, if that is what they did, 255 00:17:49,950 --> 00:17:53,913 and did they correctly interpret the results? 256 00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:01,860 Next, how did they report out? 257 00:18:01,860 --> 00:18:04,350 Are the results meaningful? 258 00:18:04,350 --> 00:18:07,890 Are they tied to the research question 259 00:18:07,890 --> 00:18:10,113 that they identified? 260 00:18:11,040 --> 00:18:13,644 When you read it, do you have a clear understanding 261 00:18:13,644 --> 00:18:16,530 of what they did, how they did it, 262 00:18:16,530 --> 00:18:19,650 what was learned and what it means? 263 00:18:19,650 --> 00:18:24,343 Are they upfront about any flaws or any limitations? 264 00:18:26,760 --> 00:18:30,450 All studies have limitations. 265 00:18:30,450 --> 00:18:33,810 It's important to be very clear and up front about that. 266 00:18:33,810 --> 00:18:36,510 And if the author doesn't do that, 267 00:18:36,510 --> 00:18:40,410 maybe it means they have something to hide. 268 00:18:40,410 --> 00:18:43,080 And it's also a very good thing 269 00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,800 to suggest future research needs. 270 00:18:46,800 --> 00:18:49,800 Good research might answer some questions, 271 00:18:49,800 --> 00:18:53,280 but it will certainly pose new ones based on what you know. 272 00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:58,004 And do they lay out some future research needs 273 00:18:58,004 --> 00:19:00,513 that emerge based on what they found? 274 00:19:02,040 --> 00:19:07,040 So, basically you'll be able to do a much better job, 275 00:19:07,800 --> 00:19:10,980 I'm hoping, of evaluating the quality 276 00:19:10,980 --> 00:19:14,190 of research at the end of this class. 277 00:19:14,190 --> 00:19:18,393 That is one of the major goals, to be a better consumer. 278 00:19:19,620 --> 00:19:21,210 And I hope that you'll go back 279 00:19:21,210 --> 00:19:22,980 and once you've taken this class 280 00:19:22,980 --> 00:19:27,347 and you've sort of walked through the various methods 281 00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:32,820 and options, revisit this and I think it'll make 282 00:19:32,820 --> 00:19:36,510 more sense than it even does now. 283 00:19:36,510 --> 00:19:38,410 Hopefully, it makes sense now, though. 284 00:19:44,130 --> 00:19:49,113 I wanna talk to you a bit about internet research. 285 00:19:51,060 --> 00:19:56,060 Where do you find data and how do you evaluate the quality? 286 00:19:56,160 --> 00:19:59,970 So, we're gonna talk in class about 287 00:19:59,970 --> 00:20:02,760 where you get information 288 00:20:02,760 --> 00:20:05,430 and what search engines that you use. 289 00:20:05,430 --> 00:20:09,330 You're gonna learn from our reference librarian 290 00:20:09,330 --> 00:20:11,640 about a number of them, 291 00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:14,040 but I wanted to talk to you mostly about 292 00:20:14,040 --> 00:20:18,300 how do you evaluate the quality of claims 293 00:20:18,300 --> 00:20:22,380 or research articles that you may find online 294 00:20:22,380 --> 00:20:26,015 that are not in a peer reviewed article, 295 00:20:26,015 --> 00:20:28,773 peer reviewed journal. 296 00:20:33,270 --> 00:20:38,270 First, think of, do they advocate a clear point of view? 297 00:20:39,510 --> 00:20:43,770 And I mean by that, do they have an axe to grind? 298 00:20:43,770 --> 00:20:48,150 Are they just clearly cherry picking information 299 00:20:48,150 --> 00:20:53,150 that confirms their point and dismissing all others? 300 00:20:54,300 --> 00:20:58,110 Or do they do a good job of sort of laying out 301 00:20:58,110 --> 00:21:01,863 a balanced and full account of things? 302 00:21:03,120 --> 00:21:05,580 When they make a claim do they cite it? 303 00:21:05,580 --> 00:21:10,020 Do they cite where does this information come from? 304 00:21:10,020 --> 00:21:15,020 All good studies, and in my view, all good writing 305 00:21:16,350 --> 00:21:20,010 should cite where you could get the information. 306 00:21:20,010 --> 00:21:21,810 Is it up to date? 307 00:21:21,810 --> 00:21:24,330 Both, was it written recently? 308 00:21:24,330 --> 00:21:28,890 And if it was, are the references, the other studies 309 00:21:28,890 --> 00:21:30,840 that they cite up to date? 310 00:21:30,840 --> 00:21:35,840 Or did an article in 2020 only cite articles from the 1930s 311 00:21:37,020 --> 00:21:39,660 or something and only out date ones, 312 00:21:39,660 --> 00:21:42,213 since we've learned a lot more? 313 00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:46,290 I would say that for the most part, 314 00:21:46,290 --> 00:21:48,930 government data that you get from .gov 315 00:21:48,930 --> 00:21:53,640 and university findings that you got from the .edu 316 00:21:53,640 --> 00:21:56,040 are probably going to be more credible 317 00:21:56,040 --> 00:21:58,953 than a .com or a .org. 318 00:21:59,910 --> 00:22:04,910 Certainly, in recent years, I know that a lot of the data 319 00:22:06,540 --> 00:22:09,960 and information on climate change 320 00:22:09,960 --> 00:22:14,607 has been purged from federal databases. 321 00:22:16,740 --> 00:22:21,000 So, which goes up to the first point that I think it, 322 00:22:21,000 --> 00:22:23,730 in my view that they have an axe to grind 323 00:22:23,730 --> 00:22:28,470 and want to sort of deny it, 324 00:22:28,470 --> 00:22:33,470 but I think for the most part that government 325 00:22:33,750 --> 00:22:38,750 and university generated data at these two 326 00:22:39,060 --> 00:22:41,329 kind of domain names will probably 327 00:22:41,329 --> 00:22:45,873 for the most part be pretty credible. 328 00:22:46,980 --> 00:22:51,660 And we also wanna think about are their claims 329 00:22:51,660 --> 00:22:54,450 consistent with other findings? 330 00:22:54,450 --> 00:22:59,100 And not that, you know, not that it's just 331 00:22:59,100 --> 00:23:03,180 confirmation bias, but certainly they, you know, 332 00:23:03,180 --> 00:23:07,050 if they find something wildly out of line 333 00:23:07,050 --> 00:23:11,250 with what everybody else said, you know, 334 00:23:11,250 --> 00:23:15,663 that could perhaps be a cause of suspicion. 335 00:23:24,090 --> 00:23:27,360 You are going to write a lit review. 336 00:23:27,360 --> 00:23:32,360 And here are four possible ways 337 00:23:32,970 --> 00:23:35,613 that you can organize it. 338 00:23:36,690 --> 00:23:41,160 The first one is for or against a claim or an argument. 339 00:23:41,160 --> 00:23:42,303 So, you could say, 340 00:23:46,860 --> 00:23:48,480 climate change is real. 341 00:23:48,480 --> 00:23:51,810 And here's the arguments for that. 342 00:23:51,810 --> 00:23:54,450 And climate change is a hoax. 343 00:23:54,450 --> 00:23:58,980 And if you can find any evidence about that, 344 00:23:58,980 --> 00:24:00,750 then you could claim that, you know. 345 00:24:00,750 --> 00:24:02,460 You might wanna do a little bit 346 00:24:02,460 --> 00:24:04,710 less straight forward one about that, 347 00:24:04,710 --> 00:24:09,540 but also next is chronological. 348 00:24:09,540 --> 00:24:11,580 So, first we learned this and then we learned this 349 00:24:11,580 --> 00:24:12,570 and then we learned this 350 00:24:12,570 --> 00:24:15,903 and now this is our understanding of it. 351 00:24:17,220 --> 00:24:21,960 A third way is by the dimensions. 352 00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:26,520 So, in a lot of my work, I'll sort of break it down. 353 00:24:26,520 --> 00:24:31,520 Most of my research pertains to food and agriculture. 354 00:24:31,530 --> 00:24:36,060 So, I might think about here are the economic implications. 355 00:24:36,060 --> 00:24:38,070 Here are the social implications. 356 00:24:38,070 --> 00:24:39,810 Here are the environmental ones. 357 00:24:39,810 --> 00:24:41,550 Here are the nutritional ones. 358 00:24:41,550 --> 00:24:45,780 So, sort of breaking it into these various dimensions 359 00:24:45,780 --> 00:24:50,780 and then organizing the lit review based on each of these. 360 00:24:52,470 --> 00:24:57,470 And last, by the views of specific actors 361 00:24:57,750 --> 00:24:58,950 or stakeholders. 362 00:24:58,950 --> 00:25:01,860 So, if I'm looking at a kind of food, 363 00:25:01,860 --> 00:25:04,050 I might wanna think, well, what do farmers think? 364 00:25:04,050 --> 00:25:06,746 What do manufacturers, what do processors, 365 00:25:06,746 --> 00:25:11,190 distributors, et cetera think? 366 00:25:11,190 --> 00:25:15,660 Maybe if you were looking at an issue at UVM, 367 00:25:15,660 --> 00:25:20,130 say divestment from fossil fuels in our portfolio. 368 00:25:20,130 --> 00:25:21,510 You might wanna look at, well, 369 00:25:21,510 --> 00:25:24,120 what have, you know, students said about this? 370 00:25:24,120 --> 00:25:25,013 What have faculty said? 371 00:25:25,013 --> 00:25:27,573 And what have administrators say? 372 00:25:32,340 --> 00:25:36,690 Organization of a lit review is extremely important 373 00:25:36,690 --> 00:25:41,010 in that you do not just wanna do a laundry list. 374 00:25:41,010 --> 00:25:45,570 That it's really important that you form an argument 375 00:25:45,570 --> 00:25:46,890 that you curate. 376 00:25:46,890 --> 00:25:51,890 So, you choose articles and carefully organize them 377 00:25:53,260 --> 00:25:58,260 in a way to give it some momentum, to create an argument, 378 00:25:59,250 --> 00:26:02,400 to make a point, to have a thesis statement, 379 00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:05,070 and then, to identify a gap. 380 00:26:05,070 --> 00:26:08,070 So, again, a good lit review 381 00:26:08,070 --> 00:26:10,260 does not read like a laundry list. 382 00:26:10,260 --> 00:26:13,920 It almost reads like a who-done-it, 383 00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:15,720 where you come to the end and it's like, 384 00:26:15,720 --> 00:26:18,390 okay, well, we know all of this stuff, 385 00:26:18,390 --> 00:26:22,380 but here's a big and really important gap 386 00:26:22,380 --> 00:26:24,240 that has not been touched on 387 00:26:24,240 --> 00:26:27,963 and that's what I'm going to do my work on. 388 00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:36,840 Here are two common mistakes that students 389 00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:41,070 in the past have in my class have done. 390 00:26:41,070 --> 00:26:46,070 So, they might write, this is the not a good way. 391 00:26:46,590 --> 00:26:50,790 In their 2012 article in the journal, Agriculture 392 00:26:50,790 --> 00:26:52,410 and Human Values, Dr. David Conner 393 00:26:52,410 --> 00:26:55,620 and his colleagues found that da-la-la-la-la-la. 394 00:26:55,620 --> 00:27:00,270 Just make it shorter and just give the citation. 395 00:27:00,270 --> 00:27:03,240 Connor et al. 2012, found that 396 00:27:03,240 --> 00:27:04,680 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 397 00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:08,370 So, you don't need the first name 398 00:27:08,370 --> 00:27:10,530 and the name of the journal and all of that. 399 00:27:10,530 --> 00:27:15,390 Just say the name of the authors and the year 400 00:27:15,390 --> 00:27:18,780 and then the interested reader could go 401 00:27:18,780 --> 00:27:20,643 and see where that is from. 402 00:27:23,490 --> 00:27:26,850 The second one is to have a long list of claims 403 00:27:26,850 --> 00:27:29,700 and then a bunch of citations at the end. 404 00:27:29,700 --> 00:27:32,610 It's much better as you make a claim, 405 00:27:32,610 --> 00:27:37,610 so you would say 0.1, Smith and Jones, 406 00:27:38,286 --> 00:27:43,286 0.2, Brown and Williams and so on. 407 00:27:43,950 --> 00:27:46,980 Make sure it's clear as you make claims, 408 00:27:46,980 --> 00:27:50,643 which one goes with which citation. 409 00:27:52,230 --> 00:27:54,870 So, if the interested reader wants to know more 410 00:27:54,870 --> 00:27:58,350 and finds a claim that they think is interesting, 411 00:27:58,350 --> 00:28:01,773 they could go find that article and read more. 412 00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:12,480 Here are the key takeaways of this session. 413 00:28:12,480 --> 00:28:15,450 First, what is a lit review? 414 00:28:15,450 --> 00:28:16,470 Why do we do them? 415 00:28:16,470 --> 00:28:17,850 How are they done? 416 00:28:17,850 --> 00:28:22,760 Looking about various sources, particularly journal articles 417 00:28:26,010 --> 00:28:31,010 and the popular press, what to look for, 418 00:28:31,020 --> 00:28:34,140 the research to design and methods, 419 00:28:34,140 --> 00:28:36,780 and so forth to see if they're well done. 420 00:28:36,780 --> 00:28:40,917 And we also talked a bit about judging web resources. 421 00:28:45,690 --> 00:28:50,690 So, here are more resources on some lit reviews 422 00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:54,543 of how they may be done. 423 00:28:56,040 --> 00:28:59,460 And here is also some resources 424 00:28:59,460 --> 00:29:03,840 on how to do a lit review and so forth. 425 00:29:03,840 --> 00:29:08,163 And I encourage you to look these up on your own time.