REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
circulars, orders, memoranda and others which
The review of related literature is one of the
components of a research process. An
investigator needs to review, write-ups,
readings, and studies to his present study to
determine the similarities and difference of the
findings between the past and present studies.
This also aims to gain insight into the aspects of
the problems that are critical and controversial.
A review of related literature, related legal
bases and studies provide the investigator a
background regarding the aspects which have
been studied and not yet studied. It also assists
him on what to do on the components of the
research process. This also gives ideas to
proceed with the study until its completion.
The researcher should have the ability to
compare between what he should read and
include in his study and what should not read
and does not need to include in his study.
Basically, the researcher is required to read all
literature and studies partially and closely
related to his study.
The word related means the legal bases
literature and studies which have direct bearing
or relation to the present study.
The review of related literature is broken into
three parts:
1. Related Legal Bases
2. Related Literature
3. Related Studies
Note: in the field of Information Technology,
research can also include the related Systems
Related Legal Bases
Related legal bases as section in Chapter 2 of a
research paper is important to determine the
relevance of the study to the government’s
thrust. The major sources of related legal base
are laws and department directives such as
is related to the present study.
These laws and department directives serve as
legal bases for the paradigm of the study. In
presenting the related legal bases, the
researcher has to arrange them
chronologically from recent to the past and the
relevance of each legal basis is explained.
Related Literature
Literature may be defined as
“Written works collectively, especially that
enduring importance, exhibiting creative
imagination and artistic skill which are written
in a particular period, language and subject”.
Any written materials published in book,
journal, magazine, novel, poetry, yearbook, and
encyclopedia are considered as literature.
The related literature is a section in a research
paper in which the sources are taken from
book, journals, magazines, novels, poetry and
many others. Similarly, the presentation of
related literature is in chronological order from
past to recent. The relevance of each literature
presented to the present study is also
explained. It is unscientific if related literature is
presented and no explanation at the relevance
to the present study.
Related Studies
Published and unpublished research studies are
sources of materials that are included in this
section. The research studies which have direct
bearing to the present study are segregated
into foreign and local studies.
The presentation of foreign and local studies is
similar with related legal bases and review of
literature which are arrange in chronological
order. And each related study has explanation
on the relevance of the present study.
Topic 2: How to write RRL Writing a good
literature review
If I have seen further it is only by standing on
the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton, 1676
What is the RRL for?
• “RE--‐VIEW”: means “look again” • Find the
BEST of what has already been said about your
topic
• Discover what other people KNOW or DON’T
KNOW; build on what they have learned
What is the RRL for?
• Become an EXPERT in the area you are
exploring
• Provide your readers with robust background
of the area you are exploring
• Set up your research questions and your
research methods
The Literature Review
• A systematic method for identifying,
evaluating and interpreting the work of
researchers, scholars and practitioners in a
chosen field (Fink, 1998)
existing knowledge in your area of interest. It is
important for you as a person engaged in
research to be able to locate, organize, and use
the literature in your field.
17
Important Functions of a Review
• A good familiarity with related research
enables you, the investigator, to define the
limits of current research and what new
research is needed in the field.
• An understanding of theory in the field
enables you to place the question in
perspective.
• By studying related research, you learn which
procedures and instruments have proven useful
and which seem less promising and more likely
to waste valuable time and effort.
• A thorough search of related research avoids
unintentional replication of previous studies.
• A careful study of related literature puts you
in a better position to interpret the significance
of your own results.
18

The Literature Review Common Problems

• The selection of available documents (both

published and unpublished) on the topic, which
contain information, ideas, data and evidence
written from a particular standpoint to fulfill Common Errors in the Review
certain aims or express certain views on the
• Failing to define satisfactorily the topic limits
nature of the topic and how it is to be
of the review of the literature.
investigated, and the effective evaluation of
these documents in relation to the research • Copying bibliographic data incorrectly and
being proposed (Fink, 1998) then being unable later to locate the reference
you need.
Literature Review

A researcher makes the mistake of rushing into

planning and carrying out the study before
making a thorough survey of the literature. You,
the researcher, must relate your topic to
• Copying far too much material onto note (How will I put this together?)
cards. This often makes it look as if you do not
Organize Related Literature
have a clear understanding of the project and
cannot separate important from unimportant Once you are satisfied that you have carried out
information. a reasonably comprehensive study of the
literature in the field, you need to organize it. A
20
useful approach is to arrange the studies by
Research Tools Available topic or sub-topic and determine how each of
these relates to your study.
(Knowing Where to Look)
26
• Your own library
2. Organizing your RRL
• DOST website
• YOUR STORY
• CHED-ZRC Website
– RRL is not a replication of existing research – It
• Google and Google Scholar
is your interpretation of what others are doing
• ACM Digital Library (www.acm.org) • IEEE in the field
Electronic Library (www.ieee.org) • Patent
– Do not simply pile up what other people said;
search engines (wipo, google patents) • Authors
stitch your own “quilt”
of Papers
• ONE GOLDEN THREAD
21
– Seamless, continuous
1. Planning
Organizing your Sub-Areas
(What should I include? )
• Sub--‐areas must also have a golden thread •
1. Planning your RRL
Use summaries at the beginning OR end of a
• STEP 1: DEFINE YOUR TOPIC CLEARLY – section. If a section is long, do both. • Use
Subject: What is your general subject? transitions between sections (“In the previous
section, we did this, now we do this”). Don’t
– Specific topic: What aspects of the subject are overdo it.
you interested in?
Organizing your Sub-Areas
– Purpose: Why is this topic interesting or
important to you or to others? • Use transitions between paragraphs
(“Because we have said this,” “based on the
CRIME! CRIME! CRIME! previous point”)
• Gaping holes in your RRL • Use signposts (first, second, third).
• Useless stuff in your RRL • Manage the number of outline levels you
• Too long or too short have • Should “build up” to your specific
problem and case (organization)
• Does not lead to research questions
Organize Related Literature
2. Organizing
• Present the literature so as to justify carrying
out the study by showing what is known and
what remains to be investigated about the
topic.
• Avoid the temptation to present the literature
as a series of separate, unrelated summaries.
• Don’t include every study you find in a search
of literature.
30
Steps in Organizing Related Literature
1. Begin with the most recent studies in your
field and then work backward through earlier
volumes. 2. Read the abstract or summary
section of a report first to determine whether it
is relevant to your topic.
3. Before taking notes, skim the report quickly
to find those sections that are related to your
topic. 4. Make notes directly on file cards; they
are easier to sort and organize than sheets of
paper, backs of envelopes, and so on.
31
Steps in Organizing Related Literature
5. For each concept, write out the complete
bibliographic reference.
6. To make sorting and organizing easier, do not
put more than one reference on each card.
7. Be sure to indicate which parts of the notes
are direct quotations from the author and
which are your own paraphrases.
32
CRIME! CRIME! CRIME!
• Ordered well, but fragmented and incoherent
(not “stitched” together)
• Order is bad
• Author driven
– Topic driven
– No signposts
• Excessive outline levels
Choosing Good Sources (How do I filter out
material?)
Choosing Sources
• Authorship (who wrote the piece?
Credentials? Reasons to be biased?)
• Publishing organization (which organization is
publishing? Is it an authority in the area? Is it
selling something?)
Choosing Sources
• Point of view or bias (does the author or
organization have an agenda – political,
commercial, environmental, even scientific?)
• Knowledge of the literature (does it bring in
relevant writings about the field, or is it largely
unsupported?)
Choosing Sources
• Accuracy and reliability (are the claims and
findings verifiable because the method of data
gathering and analysis are disclosed)?
• Currency (sometimes relevant, sometimes
not)
– How Shakespeare’s plays were received
– Updates on stem cell research
• Source: Reid, 2003. The Prentice Hall Guide
for College Writers.
Good Sources
• Written by a credible author
• Published in a publication that is selective
(“refereed” or screened”)and relatively
independent
• No blatant bias
• Knowledge of the field is demonstrated •
Accuracy and reliability can be verified -
Methods for data gathering and analysis are
disclosed • Piece should be recent, if area is fast
changing
Risky Sources
• Neither written nor reviewed by a non--‐
expert • Published in media whose quality and
credibility are debatable
• Spouts opinion, rather than a systematically--‐
formulated response to a problem
• Provides findings, but based on thin or sloppy
data
• Old and outdated
• Ex. Wikipedia? Google search?
Type of Source
GUIDELINE: ARGUMENT = CLAIM + REASONS +
EVIDENCE
Type of Source
• International refereed A--‐star journal • Good
versus not so good journals • Journals versus
conferences • World Bank--‐type
Choosing Sources
• “Jackpot” international refereed journals •
“Jackpot” international refereed conferences
CRIME! CRIME! CRIME!
• Carelessly selected sources
• Easy sources (Wikipedia)
• Few sources
• Many sources but poor quality • Old sources
• “Landmark” studies are overlooked
Adding Value
(I’ve paraphrased… Now what?)
Paraphrasing
• Is using or putting in one’s own words to
restate the author’s ideas and acknowledging
the sources to give credit to the original author
• Is used when we want to express someone
else’s idea in our own words.
• Uses different words to express the same idea
• Is rewriting the text in order to simplify
focusing not only on what is said but also on
how it is said • Makes the understanding of the
source text less difficult by breaking down the
information into manageable units
Souce: Research Fundamentals from concepts
to output by Almeida, et al (2016)
Points when paraphrasing
• Paraphrasing can be longer or shorter than
the original. Concentrate on the meaning not
on the words.
• Not all synonyms have exact meanings •
Avoid using abstract words – they come as
weak words
• Use of synonyms is a problem in scientific
writing because often there is only one word to
describe a certain action or object.
Adding Value to Literature Reviewed
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO PARAPHRASE!
(NECESSARY BUT CANNOT STOP THERE)
• Summarize
• Compare/ Contrast
• Evaluate
• Theorize: find new and unexplored areas, or
areas that can be improved
Adding Value through Summarizing
The World Wide Web is an information--‐
sharing application that makes it possible to
retrieve information from, and contribute
information to, any computer connected via the
Internet. The Web and the Internet are defining
features of contemporary “networked” society
(Castells, 2000), and are increasingly being
incorporated into organizations, shaping
organizational boundaries (Afuah, 2003),
communication (Segars & Kohut, 2001), public
relations (Coupland & Brown, 2004), change
initiatives (Vieira da Cunha & Orlikowski, 2008),
and customer behaviour (Wiertz & de Ruyter,
2007). As a result, employees, customers and
other stakeholders increasingly interface with
organizations through their Web portals, sites
that serve as a point of access to information
from diverse sources.
Adding Value through Comparing and
Contrasting
Literature suggests that there are two views of
knowledge. The first view of knowledge is
universal, which sees knowledge as objective;
universally applicable (Orlikowski and Baroudi,
1991); developed through logic and rationality
(Boland & Tenkasi, 1995); cerebral/ cognitive
and needing to be articulated; instrumental;
and a good or a commodity. Knowledge under
this view has also been referred to as episteme
(Marglin, 1990).
Adding Value through Comparing and
Contrasting
A second view of knowledge is that it is socially
constructed. According to this ideal type,
knowledge is subjective and constructed rather
than objective and discovered; context--‐
specific rather than universally applicable;
developed in a manner that goes beyond
formal, systematic, and positivist assumptions;
takes multiple forms; is geared towards
purposes other than prediction and control;
and is incapable of being managed under
traditional notions of information--‐ processing
(Brown & Duguid, 2001; Gherardi, Nicolini, &
Odella, 1998)
Adding Value through Evaluating
There is a body of work that suggests that TV
violence can have harmful psychological effects
on children, for two reasons. First, children
exposed to large amounts of it tend to adopt
the values of what they see (Jones, 2001).
Second, children’s constant exposure to violent
images makes them unable to distinguish
fantasy from reality (Smith, 1997).
(continued….)
Adding Value through Evaluating
• There is also a body of work that suggests that
TV does not make children violent; rather,
children who tend to watch greater amounts of
violent entertainment are born with violent
values (Johnson, 1998; Caldwell, 2002).
However, such conclusions have since then
been discredited by findings in the study of
Jones (2004), who found that children with no
predisposition to violence were just as
attracted to violent entertainment as those
with a history of violence.
Adding Value through Finding New Areas
• From the review of literature it has been
noted that much of IT research tends to focus
on applying a single metaphor to understand
complex objects and ideas (Atkinson et al.,
2003; Remenyi et al., 2005; Van Soye, 2003;
Yen, 2002). This traditional form of analysis is
useful; however, it may exhibit “a tendency to
lock categories into fixed meanings and
relationships” (Putnam et al., 1996, p. 378).
Further work can be done by exploring the use
of metaphorical chains, rather than single
metaphors, to understand IT.
CRIME! CRIME! CRIME!
• Long and frequent quotes
• Paraphrasing only Methods emerge out of nowhere • Case site is
not justified
• Bad referencing
Writing Style
• Putting in one’s opinions and preferences
without basis (How do I write “well”?)

• Plagiarizing Writing Style in your RRL

Plagiarizing • Formal, academic language

• If you get someone else’s IDEA as well as – No rhetorical questions (“What would the
WORDS -> quote and cite company think?”)

• If you get someone else’s IDEA only -> – No slang (“we’re gonna do this”) or
paraphrase and cite contractions (“we’ll do this”)

Integration • Clear choice of words; one should not have to

ask “what do you mean by this”
(What do I do with my RRL?)
• Telegram test: Every single word and sentence
Integration with the Rest of the Document
must be there for a purpose
• Your RRL should build up to your research
Writing Style in your RRL
questions or problem
• Proper length
– “We can see much work has been done to
explore XXX, but limited work has been done to • No spelling errors
address YYY. In this study, I therefore seek to
• No grammatical errors
help address this gap by exploring the following
research questions…” • No formatting errors
Integration with the Rest of the Document • Consistency in citation formats
• Your research questions should lead to your Things You can Do
methods
• Get a group of OC friends, feed them, then
– “To address these research questions, I am have them scan your document
employing qualitative methods in the context of
a case study….I am using qualitative methods • Read your document ALOUD, word for word,
because….I am using the case method including punctuation marks
because… • Worst case: hire a proofreader
• If you are using a case, you must justify why Some Pitfalls
your case site is compelling.
• Too much
– “I have chosen ZZZ as my case site because…”
• Too little
CRIME! CRIME! CRIME!
• Missing key works
• RRL is written then is never used again •
Research questions emerge out of nowhere • • Cutting and pasting
• Randomly presented

• Too old

• Plagiarizing

• Paraphrasing

• Confusing fact and opinion Good Maps

Example • Start with the topic

• “Knowledge is like light. Weightless and
intangible, it can easily travel the world,
enlightening the lives of people everywhere.
Yet billions of people still live in the darkness of
poverty --‐----‐ unnecessarily. Knowledge about
how to treat such a simple ailment as diarrhea
has existed for centuries, but millions of
children continue to die because their parents
do not know how to save them.”
Challenges
• Students are often overwhelmed by the vast
amount of information that they encounter
and have difficulty in identifying and organizing
the information in the context of their research
(Alias & Suradi, 2001).
• Include all important concepts/ theories •
Break down concepts/ theories broadly and
deeply
• Show relationships among bubbles • Include
relevant works
• Show gaps
• Are innovative – not replications of existing
literature reviews
Writing
• Machi and McEvoy (2008; 50) suggest maps
are “excellent tools for developing the
composition outline of the literature review
document”

Challenges • However, Alias & Suradi (2008; p.4) point out,

“a concept map that looks structurally good
• Carnot (2006) suggests experts in their field may not produce a good literature review.”
develop richer knowledge structures, not only
in terms of declarative knowledge, but also the
interconnections between that

knowledge.

Concept Maps

• Mapping is one of a number of key strategies

commonly presented in guides for the doctoral
research student in conducting literature
reviews (for example, Hart, 1998; Kamler &
Thomson, 2006; Machi & McEvoy, 2008).

• Hart (1998; 162) suggests “mapping the ideas,

arguments and concepts from a body of
literature is an important part of the review of
literature.”