aim to give a ‘genetic’ account of the origins and development of understanding for a defined topic.They usually follow a basically chronological sequence — perhaps broken up into periods treated more as coherent wholes (‘periodization’); or perhaps analytically fragmented into component parts or sub-topics.But here too literature reviews often expand as a way of bringing new research staff up to speed.
aim to give a ‘genetic’ account of the origins and development of understanding for a defined topic.They usually follow a basically chronological sequence — perhaps broken up into periods treated more as coherent wholes (‘periodization’); or perhaps analytically fragmented into component parts or sub-topics.Tags: Telerik Report Book Page Number1000 Words Essay1000 Essay In NcTell Tale Heart EssayEssay House DreamRay Bradbury The Martian Chronicles EssayPage Numbers EssayBuy Open University Essays
The humanities and most of the social sciences are dominated by narrative reviews.
Their proponents claim that they focus on ‘meanings’ and hence are especially appropriate for these human-focused and interpretative disciplines.
Critics argue that narrative reviews are often partial, making no effort to be comprehensive.
They are written up in ways that are qualitative or subjective; analysts rarely make explicit their criteria for assessment; and these evaluative criteria are not applied systematically.
Finally, of course, once the design of an experiment is fixed, and its equipment and protocols have been defined in a particular way, it is always tricky and may well then be impossible to adapt them or to do things differently.
This strengthens the rationale for an exhaustive initial literature search to surface all options and help choose the best-adapted procedures.
The criteria are used to progressively filter down the field of relevant work, so as to focus progressively on just the best-conducted studies.
The analyst then seeks to condense out precise effect estimates of how a given cause or type of intervention A affects phenomenon X at the focus of analysis.
For some observers the limitations of narrative reviews are exposed by the wide gulf between the meager citations levels of the humanities and soft social sciences, compared with the far more extensive referencing included in STEM science papers.focus instead on results and attempt to find consensus (or at least an agreed picture) about effect sizes underlying apparently divergent or disparate findings.
The analyst first explicitly defines a set of quality criteria to be used in comprehensively sifting through a large volume of literature.