WEBVTT 1 00:00:01.680 --> 00:00:05.310 Hello and welcome to the video lecture 2 00:00:05.310 --> 00:00:09.030 on how to use secondary research, 3 00:00:09.030 --> 00:00:11.400 how to do research that's already been done 4 00:00:11.400 --> 00:00:14.520 to begin to organize a literature review, 5 00:00:14.520 --> 00:00:18.753 which is very often the first step in any research project. 6 00:00:22.200 --> 00:00:26.340 So in this class, we're gonna learn about how do you select 7 00:00:26.340 --> 00:00:30.180 and read and review literature 8 00:00:30.180 --> 00:00:33.240 and create a literature review. 9 00:00:33.240 --> 00:00:35.610 So first, how do you find it, 10 00:00:35.610 --> 00:00:38.790 some tips on how to read and evaluate it, 11 00:00:38.790 --> 00:00:43.790 how to do some internet research as another activity, 12 00:00:45.660 --> 00:00:50.250 and then some ideas on how to organize a lit review 13 00:00:50.250 --> 00:00:53.373 and some other tips on how to do it well. 14 00:00:56.130 --> 00:01:00.823 So a lit review is a summary of the research 15 00:01:02.310 --> 00:01:06.573 that's been done previously on a topic, 16 00:01:07.830 --> 00:01:12.810 and its purpose is to look at what's already been done. 17 00:01:12.810 --> 00:01:14.313 How do you build on that? 18 00:01:16.590 --> 00:01:19.440 By knowing what's already been done, 19 00:01:19.440 --> 00:01:23.403 it can in many ways guide your next steps. 20 00:01:24.995 --> 00:01:29.400 What are some questions that were left unanswered? 21 00:01:29.400 --> 00:01:32.250 How was it approached in the past? 22 00:01:32.250 --> 00:01:33.083 What do we know? 23 00:01:33.083 --> 00:01:34.620 What's the key background here 24 00:01:34.620 --> 00:01:36.123 that we will wanna know about? 25 00:01:42.480 --> 00:01:46.570 So the questions that you will wanna ask yourself 26 00:01:47.490 --> 00:01:52.080 and which this will answer is what is already known, 27 00:01:52.080 --> 00:01:53.670 and what are the gaps? 28 00:01:53.670 --> 00:01:57.450 So every good literature review ends up with a gap. 29 00:01:57.450 --> 00:01:59.220 What do we don't know? 30 00:01:59.220 --> 00:02:03.150 And in many cases, your research project 31 00:02:03.150 --> 00:02:06.033 will be filling that gap. 32 00:02:09.450 --> 00:02:11.490 You also wanna ask what methods 33 00:02:11.490 --> 00:02:16.113 or problems have been done before? 34 00:02:17.597 --> 00:02:19.500 How did they address it? 35 00:02:19.500 --> 00:02:21.420 What's the current status? 36 00:02:21.420 --> 00:02:22.530 What do we know now? 37 00:02:22.530 --> 00:02:25.080 What's the most up-to-date information 38 00:02:25.080 --> 00:02:27.723 and research on our topic? 39 00:02:30.090 --> 00:02:32.073 There's a number of reasons why. 40 00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:36.300 First, it can help you to design your study 41 00:02:36.300 --> 00:02:40.110 and to interpret the result of it. 42 00:02:40.110 --> 00:02:44.370 It'll show how your work fits into a bigger picture. 43 00:02:44.370 --> 00:02:48.810 It brings the reader up-to-date in many cases 44 00:02:48.810 --> 00:02:51.960 by building on what's already been done. 45 00:02:51.960 --> 00:02:56.160 This can help build a case of why 46 00:02:56.160 --> 00:03:00.060 what you're doing and how you're doing it is important. 47 00:03:00.060 --> 00:03:03.000 And frankly, it makes you look more credible. 48 00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:05.340 It makes you look like you did your homework, 49 00:03:05.340 --> 00:03:07.410 you did your due diligence, 50 00:03:07.410 --> 00:03:11.040 you know what's been done already in this space, 51 00:03:11.040 --> 00:03:15.360 and that you are ready to go to the next step 52 00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:17.733 and build on what's already been done. 53 00:03:22.800 --> 00:03:25.290 These are the key sort of hows 54 00:03:25.290 --> 00:03:29.973 that you want to explain what's been done already. 55 00:03:30.810 --> 00:03:35.810 And you always wanna cite the sources as you mention them. 56 00:03:38.670 --> 00:03:42.450 You can point out ways in which this topic 57 00:03:42.450 --> 00:03:45.303 has been treated before. 58 00:03:47.764 --> 00:03:50.070 And again, by explaining how your work 59 00:03:50.070 --> 00:03:52.140 fits into the past work, 60 00:03:52.140 --> 00:03:55.650 it can make your research question more significant 61 00:03:55.650 --> 00:03:59.403 and sort of build credibility in your own work. 62 00:04:04.590 --> 00:04:09.590 So the first step is to think about what's your topic? 63 00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:12.720 And a really good first approach 64 00:04:12.720 --> 00:04:15.390 is to brainstorm key words. 65 00:04:15.390 --> 00:04:18.210 What are some words that might be out there 66 00:04:18.210 --> 00:04:23.210 that would describe the work that you want to learn about? 67 00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:25.860 What are some synonyms? 68 00:04:25.860 --> 00:04:30.030 What are some other ways in which it might be described? 69 00:04:30.030 --> 00:04:34.200 And you can think about sort of a number of key words 70 00:04:34.200 --> 00:04:35.373 that you would do, 71 00:04:36.930 --> 00:04:41.930 like if you were studying farm to school procurement 72 00:04:43.440 --> 00:04:46.470 in Vermont, that would be a good first step. 73 00:04:46.470 --> 00:04:48.540 First look at farm to school 74 00:04:48.540 --> 00:04:52.170 and then add the word procurement, 75 00:04:52.170 --> 00:04:55.470 then add the word Vermont and see what's done. 76 00:04:55.470 --> 00:04:58.800 And think of synonyms, and take some words out 77 00:04:58.800 --> 00:05:03.330 and add some new words in and see what you come up with. 78 00:05:03.330 --> 00:05:07.260 I very often use Google Scholar. It's one I use. 79 00:05:07.260 --> 00:05:08.700 I think it works well. 80 00:05:08.700 --> 00:05:13.110 Our library also has a number of specialty indices 81 00:05:13.110 --> 00:05:18.110 that can look for, can sort of help you narrow your search 82 00:05:20.280 --> 00:05:22.260 into more specific fields, 83 00:05:22.260 --> 00:05:24.573 and we'll learn more about them. 84 00:05:27.300 --> 00:05:30.390 So there's two main types of things that you can read. 85 00:05:30.390 --> 00:05:34.740 First, the sort of popular press, newspapers, websites, 86 00:05:34.740 --> 00:05:38.170 podcasts, lots of things like that 87 00:05:39.970 --> 00:05:41.280 that are out there but are not 88 00:05:41.280 --> 00:05:45.810 sort of in the scholarly research journal space, 89 00:05:45.810 --> 00:05:50.070 and journal articles, which specifically are 90 00:05:50.070 --> 00:05:52.743 in scholarly research space. 91 00:05:55.920 --> 00:06:00.920 So, it's certainly a fine idea to start off 92 00:06:02.760 --> 00:06:05.730 with what is known about this topic 93 00:06:05.730 --> 00:06:10.730 in the popular press, again, websites, news reports, 94 00:06:12.540 --> 00:06:16.710 magazines, newspapers, even things like podcasts 95 00:06:16.710 --> 00:06:19.650 and videos and things like that. 96 00:06:19.650 --> 00:06:23.460 One of the things that it does is it brings you up to speed 97 00:06:23.460 --> 00:06:26.733 about the discourse of the topic. 98 00:06:27.960 --> 00:06:29.340 What are organizations, 99 00:06:29.340 --> 00:06:31.500 what are sort of, you know, opinion leaders, 100 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:34.183 what are experts, what are politicians, 101 00:06:39.390 --> 00:06:42.783 what are journalists, what are stakeholders saying about it? 102 00:06:44.820 --> 00:06:47.400 This can provide good background. 103 00:06:47.400 --> 00:06:49.530 it can be a good starting point. 104 00:06:49.530 --> 00:06:52.350 It can sorta help you get your mind around it. 105 00:06:52.350 --> 00:06:57.350 But note that it's not always based on rigorous research. 106 00:06:57.540 --> 00:06:59.850 And we'll learn down the road 107 00:06:59.850 --> 00:07:04.850 about how many times that you cannot always believe 108 00:07:07.200 --> 00:07:11.280 everything that's said on the internet. 109 00:07:11.280 --> 00:07:16.280 But, so look at these with a sort of more critical eye 110 00:07:18.540 --> 00:07:21.030 and in terms of what's being said about it, 111 00:07:21.030 --> 00:07:24.360 rather than sort of what has research shown 112 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:25.503 is true about it. 113 00:07:28.530 --> 00:07:33.060 And then you can jump into journal articles, 114 00:07:33.060 --> 00:07:38.060 which are sort of a research report of a specific study. 115 00:07:40.440 --> 00:07:43.230 Usually these are in the form of, 116 00:07:43.230 --> 00:07:47.040 they'll start with an introduction, 117 00:07:47.040 --> 00:07:52.040 do a literature review, talk about the methods they use, 118 00:07:52.410 --> 00:07:56.160 the results they found and such. 119 00:07:56.160 --> 00:08:00.090 And many often, these are peer reviewed. 120 00:08:00.090 --> 00:08:03.040 And I'll say a bit on the next slide about what that means. 121 00:08:04.950 --> 00:08:09.510 So a researcher like myself will, 122 00:08:10.560 --> 00:08:14.490 when I am done with a research project, 123 00:08:14.490 --> 00:08:19.490 and very often in my case with a graduate student, 124 00:08:20.100 --> 00:08:21.810 we're working alongside 125 00:08:21.810 --> 00:08:25.830 and sort of me mentoring the student, 126 00:08:25.830 --> 00:08:29.970 writes up the results into the format 127 00:08:29.970 --> 00:08:33.210 of a peer review journal article, 128 00:08:33.210 --> 00:08:38.147 and we submit it to a journal for review. 129 00:08:41.340 --> 00:08:44.910 The first person to see it is the editor of the journal, 130 00:08:44.910 --> 00:08:47.100 who will read it and sort of think 131 00:08:47.100 --> 00:08:51.750 about who are other researchers that do work in this space? 132 00:08:51.750 --> 00:08:53.730 Who would know about this? 133 00:08:53.730 --> 00:08:58.350 Who has the expertise and the knowledge of the topic 134 00:08:58.350 --> 00:09:00.660 and the methods and such 135 00:09:00.660 --> 00:09:04.023 to be able to be a good judge of its merit? 136 00:09:04.950 --> 00:09:09.950 Then, so the editor sends it to these reviewers, 137 00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:13.620 who will read it. 138 00:09:13.620 --> 00:09:18.620 In many cases, they will make a bunch of suggestions 139 00:09:19.050 --> 00:09:22.927 and such, and they will say things like, 140 00:09:22.927 --> 00:09:26.400 "This is rejected, this is total garbage, 141 00:09:26.400 --> 00:09:28.440 not even worth another look." 142 00:09:28.440 --> 00:09:32.130 But many times, they do what's called revise and resubmit, 143 00:09:32.130 --> 00:09:36.930 which is, there's some merit here, 144 00:09:36.930 --> 00:09:39.180 but some things need to be changed 145 00:09:39.180 --> 00:09:41.070 before it's really ready. 146 00:09:41.070 --> 00:09:45.900 And here's a list of the things that need to be changed. 147 00:09:45.900 --> 00:09:47.970 And then it's up to the author 148 00:09:47.970 --> 00:09:50.583 to revise and resubmit. 149 00:11:19.650 --> 00:11:22.680 So when you do this, you'll very often once, 150 00:11:22.680 --> 00:11:27.120 so you do the search and you have a list of articles, 151 00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:31.980 and the first thing you'll wanna do is read the abstract. 152 00:11:31.980 --> 00:11:34.980 Why did they do it? How did they do it? 153 00:11:34.980 --> 00:11:36.213 What did they learn? 154 00:11:37.350 --> 00:11:41.730 Both because this'll help you decide, 155 00:11:41.730 --> 00:11:44.250 is this, you know, does this really 156 00:11:44.250 --> 00:11:49.250 provide relevant background for what I'm doing or not? 157 00:11:49.320 --> 00:11:52.860 And in many ways, too, so it, you know, it helps you decide, 158 00:11:52.860 --> 00:11:57.720 do I wanna read the whole thing, or do I sort of swipe away 159 00:11:57.720 --> 00:12:00.480 and not bother with it? 160 00:12:00.480 --> 00:12:04.200 And it also helps you to frame the article 161 00:12:04.200 --> 00:12:07.053 if you do decide to read it. 162 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:16.770 So I like to first sort of skim it for major points 163 00:12:16.770 --> 00:12:19.080 and then read and take notes on it. 164 00:12:19.080 --> 00:12:22.650 So sometimes I'll highlight it, some key parts 165 00:12:22.650 --> 00:12:26.433 that I want to make note of. 166 00:12:27.270 --> 00:12:31.350 Another thing that you can do is if you find an article 167 00:12:31.350 --> 00:12:34.080 that's really relevant to what you're doing, 168 00:12:34.080 --> 00:12:38.460 like this is a great one, that this is really close 169 00:12:38.460 --> 00:12:41.160 to what I've done, you know, in subject 170 00:12:41.160 --> 00:12:43.800 or in methods, or both, 171 00:12:43.800 --> 00:12:48.800 that there's ways in Google Scholar to look for, 172 00:12:49.980 --> 00:12:54.630 first, what are other articles by these same authors? 173 00:12:54.630 --> 00:12:59.630 Two, you can look at the studies that they cite. 174 00:13:00.120 --> 00:13:01.560 Who did they build on? 175 00:13:01.560 --> 00:13:04.380 What are the past, when they wrote it, 176 00:13:04.380 --> 00:13:08.130 what were the most relevant past studies 177 00:13:08.130 --> 00:13:12.060 that they cite in their lit review and their work, 178 00:13:12.060 --> 00:13:15.150 as well as sort of moving forward in time 179 00:13:15.150 --> 00:13:17.520 and learning who cited them, 180 00:13:17.520 --> 00:13:20.880 so you can get a list of the articles 181 00:13:20.880 --> 00:13:24.420 that were written after the one 182 00:13:24.420 --> 00:13:27.030 that you're reading at the time, 183 00:13:27.030 --> 00:13:30.930 which shows who are the other articles that cited them. 184 00:13:30.930 --> 00:13:32.220 And you can read those. 185 00:13:32.220 --> 00:13:35.310 And in this way you do a snowball approach, 186 00:13:35.310 --> 00:13:39.630 where you can start with one small handful of snow, 187 00:13:39.630 --> 00:13:43.110 one article, and roll it, roll it, roll it, roll it, 188 00:13:43.110 --> 00:13:46.590 and soon you have a great big snowball, 189 00:13:46.590 --> 00:13:49.620 a great, you know, a long list of articles 190 00:13:49.620 --> 00:13:50.793 that fit your needs. 191 00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:55.590 So when you are reading it, 192 00:13:55.590 --> 00:13:58.830 you always wanna have a critical eye 193 00:13:58.830 --> 00:14:02.850 and look for these things and see if it's a fit, you know, 194 00:14:02.850 --> 00:14:07.427 and also to just sort of have a critically thinking brain 195 00:14:10.680 --> 00:14:14.280 on with all the things that you read. 196 00:14:14.280 --> 00:14:19.260 And we're gonna talk about the research design 197 00:14:19.260 --> 00:14:23.373 and then some of the methods and other parts. 198 00:14:24.990 --> 00:14:28.200 So first, does the design make sense? 199 00:14:28.200 --> 00:14:32.400 Are the purpose and the gap in the questions, 200 00:14:32.400 --> 00:14:33.573 are they stated? 201 00:14:36.300 --> 00:14:40.980 Does their approach build on what's already been done, 202 00:14:40.980 --> 00:14:44.013 and sort of in a logical way? 203 00:14:46.890 --> 00:14:51.890 One big pet peeve of mine is that the uses 204 00:14:52.650 --> 00:14:55.800 of the words methodology versus methods, 205 00:14:55.800 --> 00:15:00.300 that methodology is the study of methods. 206 00:15:00.300 --> 00:15:04.663 And very, very few articles actually have methodology. 207 00:15:05.520 --> 00:15:08.880 A great deal of articles have methods. 208 00:15:08.880 --> 00:15:13.347 I did some interviews, I did a survey, and now I did this. 209 00:15:13.347 --> 00:15:15.843 And when you're just saying what you did, 210 00:15:17.752 --> 00:15:21.130 the best title for that section is methods. 211 00:15:22.560 --> 00:15:25.800 And unless you're diving into the philosophy 212 00:15:25.800 --> 00:15:30.800 of why that method will yield the information that you want, 213 00:15:32.520 --> 00:15:35.340 you're probably best off not claiming 214 00:15:35.340 --> 00:15:39.843 that what's under that heading is methodology. 215 00:15:44.370 --> 00:15:47.760 So you wanna look at the methods. 216 00:15:47.760 --> 00:15:50.760 How did they sample? Who did they talk to? 217 00:15:50.760 --> 00:15:52.770 How did they collect data? 218 00:15:52.770 --> 00:15:54.570 How did they analyze their data? 219 00:15:54.570 --> 00:15:56.433 And how did they report it? 220 00:15:58.560 --> 00:16:01.530 You wanna think about how did they choose 221 00:16:01.530 --> 00:16:05.700 their research subjects, if there are research subjects, 222 00:16:05.700 --> 00:16:10.110 which social science research very often has. 223 00:16:10.110 --> 00:16:13.230 Is it clear how they chose and why? 224 00:16:13.230 --> 00:16:16.560 Why did they talk to the people that they did? 225 00:16:16.560 --> 00:16:18.990 Why did they give the survey or do the interviews 226 00:16:18.990 --> 00:16:22.140 or otherwise collect data from those folks? 227 00:16:22.140 --> 00:16:24.183 Why are they the right ones? 228 00:16:25.560 --> 00:16:29.970 In some cases, you might want your sample 229 00:16:29.970 --> 00:16:32.610 to be so-called generalizable, 230 00:16:32.610 --> 00:16:37.590 that you can say that you can infer to some extent 231 00:16:37.590 --> 00:16:42.590 that my sample looks like the population as a whole, 232 00:16:44.910 --> 00:16:49.910 that it is a, like an accurate representation of it. 233 00:16:50.730 --> 00:16:55.730 And then that way, you can sort of generalize that 234 00:16:57.120 --> 00:16:59.900 to a larger population. 235 00:17:04.710 --> 00:17:08.280 Like we're gonna learn about the Vermonter Poll, 236 00:17:08.280 --> 00:17:12.420 which is a statewide representative poll, 237 00:17:12.420 --> 00:17:15.810 and it might ask a question on, you know, 238 00:17:15.810 --> 00:17:18.090 how important is this thing? 239 00:17:18.090 --> 00:17:22.410 And because of the way that the sample is drawn, 240 00:17:22.410 --> 00:17:26.640 that you can make some sort of credible inference 241 00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:31.640 that since this percentage of the poll said this, 242 00:17:31.680 --> 00:17:36.600 that we can sort of generalize to the state as a whole 243 00:17:36.600 --> 00:17:41.600 and be fairly sure that it represents the overall views 244 00:17:42.510 --> 00:17:44.073 of the state. 245 00:17:47.850 --> 00:17:51.330 Look at how did they collect data? 246 00:17:51.330 --> 00:17:55.500 What methods did they use? Do they make sense? 247 00:17:55.500 --> 00:17:58.980 Do they use the right methods to get the right kind 248 00:17:58.980 --> 00:18:00.630 of information that they want 249 00:18:00.630 --> 00:18:03.423 to address their research questions? 250 00:18:06.420 --> 00:18:10.140 When they do the analysis, 251 00:18:10.140 --> 00:18:13.140 do they use credible techniques and tests? 252 00:18:13.140 --> 00:18:18.140 Do they correctly interpret the data to have sort of, 253 00:18:20.340 --> 00:18:23.913 to report the results? 254 00:18:25.860 --> 00:18:28.260 Are the results meaningful? 255 00:18:28.260 --> 00:18:31.203 Are they tied to the research question? 256 00:18:32.718 --> 00:18:35.460 Can you follow what was done, what was learned, 257 00:18:35.460 --> 00:18:38.070 what's the meaning, what the significance, 258 00:18:38.070 --> 00:18:40.200 that it's the job of the researcher 259 00:18:40.200 --> 00:18:42.543 to clearly spell out these things. 260 00:18:44.040 --> 00:18:48.780 Are they upfront about their limitations? 261 00:18:48.780 --> 00:18:53.550 If they did not use a representative sample, 262 00:18:53.550 --> 00:18:57.813 if they, for example, used, 263 00:18:59.880 --> 00:19:04.880 if we did just interviews of five CDAE students, 264 00:19:06.810 --> 00:19:11.740 we probably can't say that all UVM students 265 00:19:11.740 --> 00:19:14.400 feel that the way that those five did. 266 00:19:14.400 --> 00:19:19.400 And do they suggest future research needs? 267 00:19:24.930 --> 00:19:29.190 There's a lot of information on the internet, 268 00:19:29.190 --> 00:19:31.530 or at least there's a lot of content. 269 00:19:31.530 --> 00:19:35.940 Whether it's information and whether it's all true, 270 00:19:35.940 --> 00:19:40.140 you know, it's important to evaluate the quality 271 00:19:40.140 --> 00:19:43.860 and always have a critical eye towards things that you read, 272 00:19:43.860 --> 00:19:48.543 especially things that are not in peer reviewed journals. 273 00:19:53.160 --> 00:19:55.590 So when you read, sort of, research 274 00:19:55.590 --> 00:19:58.830 or claims on the internet, 275 00:19:58.830 --> 00:20:01.380 do they have a clear point of view? 276 00:20:01.380 --> 00:20:03.480 Do they have an ax to grind? 277 00:20:03.480 --> 00:20:07.230 Do they sort of only tell one side of the story 278 00:20:07.230 --> 00:20:11.957 and leave out a whole lot of relevant things? 279 00:20:14.070 --> 00:20:17.190 Do they cite past studies? 280 00:20:17.190 --> 00:20:20.910 Do the studies they cite, are they up to date? 281 00:20:20.910 --> 00:20:23.670 Did they show that they did their homework, 282 00:20:23.670 --> 00:20:25.260 that they did a lit review 283 00:20:25.260 --> 00:20:27.150 and they have their minds around 284 00:20:27.150 --> 00:20:30.480 what work they've done in the past? 285 00:20:30.480 --> 00:20:35.480 In many cases, official data such as the .gov 286 00:20:35.550 --> 00:20:39.930 or university-based, the .edu 287 00:20:39.930 --> 00:20:42.780 should have been reviewed 288 00:20:42.780 --> 00:20:47.780 and at least should be much more credible than, say, a .com, 289 00:20:47.850 --> 00:20:49.980 you know, like a marketing website 290 00:20:49.980 --> 00:20:51.437 for some product 291 00:20:56.820 --> 00:21:01.820 or some like highly partisan political viewpoint, 292 00:21:02.940 --> 00:21:05.640 probably much less credible. 293 00:21:05.640 --> 00:21:08.850 Are what they say consistent with other findings, 294 00:21:08.850 --> 00:21:11.550 sort of does it pass the smell test? 295 00:21:11.550 --> 00:21:14.880 And if they're really breaking from it, 296 00:21:14.880 --> 00:21:18.730 like if they say no Vermont students 297 00:21:20.670 --> 00:21:25.230 like to ski or snowboard, you know, you'd be like, what? 298 00:21:25.230 --> 00:21:26.340 That doesn't seem right. 299 00:21:26.340 --> 00:21:29.550 And can they show you, well, why do they say that? 300 00:21:29.550 --> 00:21:32.223 What's the basis on which they're making that claim? 301 00:21:35.370 --> 00:21:40.370 So once you have your, the body of studies 302 00:21:40.980 --> 00:21:43.020 that you want to work with, 303 00:21:43.020 --> 00:21:47.130 so you feel like you've read and you've take notes 304 00:21:47.130 --> 00:21:50.100 and you sorta know what are the key parts, 305 00:21:50.100 --> 00:21:53.700 now it's time to think about how do you organize it. 306 00:21:53.700 --> 00:21:56.250 And there are four common ways, 307 00:21:56.250 --> 00:22:00.840 and note that these are not mutually exclusive, 308 00:22:00.840 --> 00:22:02.970 but, and these are not the only kinds, 309 00:22:02.970 --> 00:22:07.970 but you can use one or more of these frames as you do it. 310 00:22:11.370 --> 00:22:15.300 So first is the argument, sort of pro and con. 311 00:22:15.300 --> 00:22:17.670 What are the good things about this? 312 00:22:17.670 --> 00:22:19.323 What are the bad things about it? 313 00:22:20.970 --> 00:22:23.160 Chronologically, first we learned this, 314 00:22:23.160 --> 00:22:24.897 and then we learned this, and then we learned this, 315 00:22:24.897 --> 00:22:27.723 and the most recent thing that we learned is this. 316 00:22:29.550 --> 00:22:34.550 We can do it by the principal dimensions of the concept. 317 00:22:37.050 --> 00:22:41.610 So I know in the sort of food and agricultural work I do, 318 00:22:41.610 --> 00:22:44.880 that you can think about what are the economic implications, 319 00:22:44.880 --> 00:22:48.060 what are the social implications, the environmental, 320 00:22:48.060 --> 00:22:50.163 the nutritional, et cetera. 321 00:22:51.090 --> 00:22:55.800 Or it can be done by the perspectives of the actor 322 00:22:55.800 --> 00:22:58.350 or the stakeholders. 323 00:22:58.350 --> 00:23:02.700 So again, in my view, first this is, 324 00:23:02.700 --> 00:23:07.700 these are the perspectives and the implication for farmers, 325 00:23:08.730 --> 00:23:13.647 then manufacturers, then so on, up to consumers. 326 00:23:14.760 --> 00:23:17.923 If you're doing a university-based one, 327 00:23:20.610 --> 00:23:21.660 that you may wanna talk 328 00:23:21.660 --> 00:23:25.590 about, well, what are the studies that pertain to students? 329 00:23:25.590 --> 00:23:28.110 What are the ones that pertain to faculty, to staff, 330 00:23:28.110 --> 00:23:31.953 to administrators and so on. 331 00:23:35.520 --> 00:23:40.520 There's a true art form of writing a lit review, 332 00:23:40.680 --> 00:23:43.530 that it is an act of curation. 333 00:23:43.530 --> 00:23:46.270 It's like the person at a museum 334 00:23:49.920 --> 00:23:52.770 who wants to make a display, say, 335 00:23:52.770 --> 00:23:55.560 of a certain time and place, 336 00:23:55.560 --> 00:23:59.973 doesn't just throw things up in some sort of random way, 337 00:24:01.380 --> 00:24:03.660 that they carefully curate them 338 00:24:03.660 --> 00:24:07.890 to sort of tell a story of what was happening 339 00:24:07.890 --> 00:24:10.380 in the art world and the broader world 340 00:24:10.380 --> 00:24:12.510 at that time and place. 341 00:24:12.510 --> 00:24:16.470 In the same way, writing a good lit review 342 00:24:16.470 --> 00:24:21.270 is about curating articles to form an argument 343 00:24:21.270 --> 00:24:23.310 and to identify a gap, 344 00:24:23.310 --> 00:24:26.220 and to say these are things that we know 345 00:24:26.220 --> 00:24:28.890 and they all lead us to this place 346 00:24:28.890 --> 00:24:31.200 where we have identified a gap, 347 00:24:31.200 --> 00:24:32.970 something that we don't know 348 00:24:32.970 --> 00:24:36.900 and that we are intending to fill that gap. 349 00:24:36.900 --> 00:24:38.700 And so it's not a laundry list. 350 00:24:38.700 --> 00:24:43.700 It's not just that it must be both curated and organized 351 00:24:45.600 --> 00:24:48.120 to tell a good story, 352 00:24:48.120 --> 00:24:51.180 or more specifically, to form an argument 353 00:24:51.180 --> 00:24:56.180 of this is research that needs to be done by me now. 354 00:24:59.280 --> 00:25:02.700 Two things I've found in student lit reviews 355 00:25:02.700 --> 00:25:05.790 that I want you to avoid, 356 00:25:05.790 --> 00:25:10.790 first is note that the two ways, 357 00:25:11.100 --> 00:25:15.570 that the first one is just too verbose. 358 00:25:15.570 --> 00:25:18.030 There's too many words, that you don't need all that, 359 00:25:18.030 --> 00:25:22.900 just cite it that I and my colleagues found 360 00:25:25.396 --> 00:25:27.510 that this thing and everything above that 361 00:25:27.510 --> 00:25:32.510 from, in the first one, from the word "found" up, 362 00:25:32.580 --> 00:25:36.303 is just sort of fluff that's in the citation anyway. 363 00:25:38.730 --> 00:25:42.550 Another one is to have a long list of claims 364 00:25:43.881 --> 00:25:45.720 and then a whole bunch of citations 365 00:25:45.720 --> 00:25:49.233 at the end of the paragraph, 366 00:25:51.870 --> 00:25:55.260 that you wanna make it clear when you're making a claim, 367 00:25:55.260 --> 00:25:58.740 what claim goes with what citation. 368 00:25:58.740 --> 00:26:01.410 And so if you, the reader, reads a claim 369 00:26:01.410 --> 00:26:06.210 and say, "Hmm, that's interesting," that they can easily go 370 00:26:06.210 --> 00:26:09.930 and find the article that makes that claim, 371 00:26:09.930 --> 00:26:13.113 so they can go and read it and learn more about it. 372 00:26:16.800 --> 00:26:19.983 So here are the key takeaways. 373 00:26:22.020 --> 00:26:24.000 So we talked about what they are 374 00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:28.680 and how they're done, where you can get information, 375 00:26:28.680 --> 00:26:31.050 how to evaluate them and also a bit 376 00:26:31.050 --> 00:26:35.493 about judging resources from the web. 377 00:26:37.350 --> 00:26:40.320 Here's an example of a lit review 378 00:26:40.320 --> 00:26:44.403 written by one of UVM's librarians. 379 00:26:46.170 --> 00:26:48.660 Here's a good guide of just sort of how 380 00:26:48.660 --> 00:26:50.250 to write a lit review. 381 00:26:50.250 --> 00:26:52.500 I think there's a lot of good stuff in there. 382 00:26:54.270 --> 00:26:56.163 And that's it, thank you.