Selecting and Framing Research Questions and Design

This post relates to the following article:

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation

A substantive literature is an integral part of undertaking substantive and thorough research.

“Good” research is good because it advances our collective understanding. A good researcher needs to understand what has happened before them and the strengths and weaknesses of existing students and what this might mean.  Researchers cannot perform significant research until they understand the literature in the field.  (Boote 2005)

Literature Reviews should accomplish several important objectives:

• It sets out the broad context of the study.
• Clearly demonstrates what is and what is not included.
• Justifies your decisions for what is to be included and not included.

Literature Review enables the author to distinguish what has been learnt and what remains to be learned.

Good Literature Reviews must be both methodogical and sophisticated.  – A good synthetic literature review has 3 key characteristics:

• Clarifies and perhaps resolves a problem rather than ‘glossing’ over a problem.
• Progressive shift that yields a new perspective on the literature and predictive power than is offered in existing perspectives.
• Finally satisfies the formal criteria of a goal theory.

Boote and Beille, have created a table for analysing literature reviews, which there are 5 categories and 12 scoring system.  These include:.

1. Coverage.	How well the author has justified the criteria for inclusion / exclusion.
2. Synthesis	To gauge how well the author summarised, analysed and synthesised the selected literature
3. Methodology	Measures how the author identified main methodological and research techniques that have been used and the advantages and disadvantages.
4. Significance	How well the dissertation rationalised the practical and scholarly significance in the research problem.
5. Rhetoric	How the literature review was written, was it clear, coherent structure that supports the review?

This article provided a good basis for the structure of a literature review and particularly what needs to be included in the actual report.

My personal thoughts on the article.

The article also reiterates the need for having a clear understanding of the research currently undertaken in your area before you commence any further research.  Boote and Beille also speak under their heading of ‘significance’ about the importance of ensuring the balance between scholarly application and practical application. This is where in the past I have found my greatest problems. I have found that as a professional educator, I tend to apply what I am learning in a practical sense, without applying the same scholarly application to that practice e.g. the research behind the practical application. This last point is where I need to go.

Boote and Beille provided a good infrastructure to start the literature review. This article was clearly laid out and whilst I think it targeted a more specific scope of student (e.g. someone e about to do a dissertation) the key reiteration of understanding what research is currently available as to where the current research is needed.