Writing literature reviews
Why do you need to review the literature for your thesis or project?
A review of the literature has the
following functions:
·
To justify your choice of
research question, theoretical or conceptual framework, and method
·
To establish the importance of
the topic
·
To provide background
information needed to understand the study
·
To show readers you are
familiar with significant and/or up-to-date research relevant to the topic
·
To establish your study as one
link in a chain of research that is developing knowledge in your field
The review traditionally provides a
historical overview of the theory and the research literature, with a special
emphasis on the literature specific to the thesis topic. It serves as well to
support the argument/proposition behind your thesis, using evidence drawn from
authorities or experts in your research field.
Your review of the literature may be
·
stand-alone, or
·
embedded in the discussion, or
·
segmented into a series of
chapters on several topics
The review must be shaped by a focus on
key areas of interest, including research which provides a background to the
topic (depending on whether it is for an Honours thesis or for a PhD). It
should also be selective. A
common mistake in writing the review is to comment on everything you have read
regardless of its relevance. In your writing it is useful to think of the review as a funnel - start
wide with the overview and then quickly narrow into discussing the research
that relates to your specific topic.
·
Another way of looking at the
process, particularly if you are examining several topics (or variables), is to
think of yourself as a film director (Rudestam and Newton, 1992). You can think
of providing your audience with:
·
long shots to provide a solid sense of the background
·
middle distance shots where the key figures and elements to be examined are brought clearly
into view
·
close-up shots where the precise focus of your work is pinpointed
'Literature' can include a range of
sources:
·
Journal articles
·
Monographs
·
Computerized databases
·
Conferences proceedings
·
Dissertations
·
Empirical studies
·
Government reports and reports
from other bodies
·
Historical records
·
Statistical handbooks
A number of these may be on the web. You
should approach such material with the same critical eye as you approach
printed material.
What are the examiners looking for?
A review of the literature should:
·
Set up a theoretical framework
for your research
·
Show your reader that you...
·
have a clear understanding of
the key concepts/ideas/studies/ models related to your topic
·
know about the history of your
research area and any related controversies
·
can discuss these ideas in a
context appropriate for your own investigation
·
can evaluate the work of others
·
Clarify important
definitions/terminology
·
Develop the research space you
will also indicate in the Introduction and Abstract
·
Narrow
the problem; make the study feasible
Questions you need to ask yourself when you are planning and
drafting your Literature Review:
·
What has been done in your
field of research? What principles of selection are you going to use?
·
How are you going to order your
discussion? Chronological, thematic, conceptual, methodological, or a
combination? What section headings will you use?
·
How do the various studies
relate to each other? What precise contribution do they make to the field? What
are their limitations?
·
How does your own research fit
into what has already been done?
Adapted from Literature Review Guide,
Gail Craswell, ANU.
Matching introductions and conclusions
The main aim in structuring your review
of the literature is to lead your reader to the point where he/she can see no
other option than the need to conduct precisely the form of research you are
proposing. The introduction and conclusion to your review of the literature, as
well as indicating how your research is going to bring to a satisfactory
resolution unresolved questions in others' work, can also accomplish additional
tasks. You can, for example, identify the key terms and concepts; you can
outline the structure of the review itself - by preview in the introduction, or
review in the conclusion - and you can then foreshadow the direction of the
next section/chapter. (see also Giving Reader Directions).
Consider the key terms in the following
introduction to the literature review in a Masters Project in Linguistics and
see how the student returns to them in her conclusion.
Example 1 Topic: "Using computer technology to focus on form in corrrective feedback: A case study".
2. STIMULI FOR A FOCUS ON FORM
2.1 The value of corrective feedback
[Introduction]
Linguists
and educationalists have for many years had conflicting views about the value of correcting linguistic errors[1]
in the speech and writing of second language learners. With regard to the
practice of correcting written errors, one extreme view is that corrections do
not have a significant effect on student errors and teachers should, therefore,
adopt less time-consuming efforts to direct students' attention to surface
error (Robb, Ross and Shortreed 1986:91). The more moderate view does not
dismiss the value of correction as a useful teaching technique, but rather, it
emphasises the importance of consistency and systematicity if the positive effects of correction[2] are to be
realised (Cohen and Robbins 1976:60; Rivers 1981:306; Lalande 1982:140.
In
second language teaching/learning, the purpose in providing feedback such as
'correction', i.e., 'corrective feedback' (Schachter 1991:89), is to supply
learners with 'negative evidence'[3] which attempts to draw their attention to the linguistic
errors made (Ellis 1994:584), or to "what is ungrammatical in their
sentences" (p. 434). According to Gass (1991:140), focusing attention on
form through corrective feedback is similar to grammar instruction in the way
that it alerts "learners to the mismatch between their learner language
form and the target language". Indeed, a number of studies investigating
the effect of corrective feedback in speech (Tomasello and Herron, 1989:394;
Lightbown and Spada 1990:443; Carroll and Swain, 1993:372), and in writing
(Lalande 1982:145) support the view that learners can improve their conscious knowledge of the target language[4] through a focus
on form in the corrective feedback[5].
[Conclusion]
The above discussion has highlighted the benefits of using a concordancer as a
research tool for investigating and focusing on regular patterns of language
use [1] and [4]. It reviews a range of previous applications that have used
concordance data as stimuli for investigating students' linguistic errors. The
technique proposed in this study extends on these previous applications by
providing students with two types of
stimulus for focusing on linguistic form[5]: 1) the negative evidence[3] of extensive corrective feedback, and 2) the positive evidence[2] of concordance
data which the students generate independently from a corpus of their own
reformulated texts. The next section elaborates further on the proposed
technique and provides a detailed account of the method used to trial it.
Note the key terms in the Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the following
introduction to the literature review in a Chemical Engineering PhD. See how
the student returns to them in his conclusion.
Example 2 Topic: "Design of high-rate trickling filters"
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
[Introduction]
The technical literature of trickling
filters is very extensive. This is evidenced by the literature search and
critical analysis published by Dow (1971), which cited over 5,600 references in
the literature published up to 1968. An exhaustive review of the literature is
thus beyond the scope of this work.
The aim of this chapter is to provide,
through selective reference to some of the literature, a clearer understanding of the different microbiological, chemical
and physical processes that occur within
trickling filters[1]. Experimental observations of various trickling filter
phenomena are reviewed, and there is discussion of the sometimes conflicting conclusions about the mechanisms of trickling
filtration that have been drawn from the empirical evidence[2].
The chapter is divided into two parts. The
subject of the first is the biological
film which is the site of the biological oxidation of organic matter from the
wastewater[3], and is thus the heart of the process of trickling filtration.
The formation biofilm is outlined, and the different processes which occur
within it are discussed. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a
consideration of the operating variables
which determine trickling filter performance[4].
[Conclusion]
Concluding Remarks
The review of literature in this Chapter
has concentrated largely on empirical
observations of trickling filters[2]. At the micro level, the effects of oxygen and substrate limitations
on the reactions occurring within the biofilm have been assessed[3]. At the
macro level, trickling filter
performance has been considered in terms of state variables such as hydraulic
rate and depth of packing[4]. Certain important concepts, such as liquid
residence time, have been introduced and used to explain, qualitatively,
certain aspects of filter behaviour.
To quantify filter behaviour,
it is necessary to develop a theory for the process; the theory may be a
complex mechanistic model, or a simple empirical correlation[1]. All trickling filter theories are
based to some extent on empirical observation, if only for certain basic
assumptions. Thus this Chapter provides a basis for the next in which the
development of trickling filter theories is outlined, and various design
equations are critically analyzed.
Giving reader directions
Reader directions are comments on the
text in the text: they give signals to the reader about where the author is
going, where he or she has got to, and what he or she has achieved so far. The
author "intrudes" to direct the reader in some way.
Starting with the top level this can
apply to:
The whole thesis ( the focus of this thesis is...)
Another chapter ( the physical properties are presented and analysed in
Chapter 5)
The current chapter ( the rest of this chapter will examine...)
Another section ( in the previous section, it was demonstrated...)
The current section ( the following case study will illuminate...)
Passage immediately preceeding or
following ( the objectives are as follows:...)
More specifically, these reader directions can function to:
1.
Preview
Example 1: These two techniques are
discussed below.
Example 2: In the first section of this
chapter, the achievement in this area between 1996 and 1998 will be presented
and discussed in detail.
2.
Review
Example 1: In the preceding section, the
results of tests performed on interfaces comprising concrete and either
Johnstone or Gambier Limestone were outlined.
Example 2: The applications of educational
technology elaborated on in the previous chapter has indicted an irreconcilable
difference between...
3.
Overview (provide purpose statements)
Example 1: It is now appropriate to
consolidate these ideas and to examine POSTGRES in greater detail in relation
to its support for rules and objects.
Example 2: This discussion of constructivism
has underlined the necessity to consider collaborative learning as a means of
providing multiple perspectives. That approach will now be examined in relation
to...
Citing previous research
When you cite the work of other authors,
you may choose to focus either on the information provided by that author, or on the author him- or herself. The first focus is called information prominent because the information is given primary importance:
Example 1: " For viscoelastic
fluids, the behaviour of the time-dependent stresses in the transient shear
flows is also very important (Boger et al., 1974)."
In the second type, author-prominent citation, the author's name is given more emphasis. It serves as
the subject of the sentence, followed by the date or citation number in
parentheses, and then by the information. Such citations can be either strong or weak, depending on how much
emphasis is placed on the identity of the author:
Example 2: " Close (1983) developed
a simplified theory using an analogy between heat and mass transfer and the
equivalent heat transfer only case." ( strong)
Example 3: " Several authors have
suggested that automated testing should be more readily accepted (Balcer, 1989;
Stahl, 1989; Carver and Tai, 1991)." ( weak)
Exercise 1
Try making Example 1 author-prominent, and Examples 2 and 3
information-prominent. How does the emphasis change in each one?
Example 1:
Show Answers
Example 2:
Show Answers
Example 3:
Show Answers
Exercise 2
In some disciplines,
information-prominent citation is the norm. In the following drafts of an
Engineering PhD student's paper (for a journal), the student is summarising a
large amount of material. After discussion, he was able to reconceive the
introductory paragraph as a number of topics (investigated by different
authors) supporting a clear topic sentence. This enabled him more easily to
identify for the reader how his own contribution was significant.
Earlier draft
Network planning problems are too
complicated to be solved by a single technique. Therefore the tool which
incorporates multi techniques is highly desirable. Many attempts have been made
to realize a hybrid system. Stonebraker [2] described attempts to integrate
knowledge base of rules with database of facts. Martini et al. [2] integrate
rule-based expert system and operations research methods. Integration of
rulebased features and object-oriented paradigm can be found in Bahr et al.
[3]. Allemang [4] described combination of generic procedural form and
case-based reasoning.
Later draft
Many attempts have been made to realise a
hybrid system using multiple techniques. There have been attempts to explore an
integration of rule systems into database systems, the use of mathematical
models combined with rules and a combination of rules and an object-oriented
modelling [3,4,5]. Another method that has also been combined into a hybrid
system is case-based reasoning [6]. The integration of methods described in
previous papers seems to offer only ad hoc solutions. None of them was based on
a unified mechanism. In contrast, this paper describes a network planning tool
that uses a fundamental mechanism within a constraint-based planning engine.
This mechanism allows a tight integration of plannng rules, optimization
algorithms, casebase and database modules into a planning system. Therefore, it
ensures higher efficiency.
What are the specific changes he makes?
Comments
Answer: Exercise 1
Author-prominent and Information-prominent Examples
Example 1 Boger et al (1974) claim that for viscoelastic fluids, the behaviour
of the time-dependent stresses in the transient shear flows is also very
important.
Author-prominent and Information-prominent Examples
Example 2 A simplified theory has been developed using an analogy between
heat and mass transfer and the equivalent heat transfer only case (Close,
1983).
Author-prominent and Information-prominent Examples
Example 3 It has been suggested that automated testing should be more readily
accepted (Balcer, 1989; Stahl, 1989; Carver and Tai, 1991).
Answer: Exercise 2
[a] Many attempts have been made
to realise a hybrid system using multiple techniques. There have been attempts
to explore an integration of rule systems into database systems, the use of
mathematical models combined with rules and a combination of rules and an
object-oriented modelling [3,4,5]. [c]
Another
method that has also been combined into a hybrid system is case-based reasoning
[6]. The integration of methods described in previous papers [b] seems to offer only ad hoc
solutions. None of them was based on a
unified mechanism. In contrast, this paper describes a network planning tool
that uses a fundamental mechanism within a constraint-based planning engine.
This mechanism allows a tight integration of planning rules, optimization
algorithms, casebase and database modules into a planning system. Therefore, it
ensures higher efficiency.[d]
[a] Note the topic focus on the "attempts" -
the research which has been done.
[b] The disadvantage with previous research is identified.
[c] The first paragraph is developed by listing the possible techniques
[d] The second paragraph identifies the contribution of the current paper
[b] The disadvantage with previous research is identified.
[c] The first paragraph is developed by listing the possible techniques
[d] The second paragraph identifies the contribution of the current paper
Ordering citations
All approaches to ordering citations
should move toward the specific focus of the author's own study:
·
distant to close
·
chronological
·
different categories of
approach
·
a combination of the above
Example 1
The general text
for the area of information retrieval is more than 10 years old (Salton and McGill,
Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, 1983). Yet, the methods of
information retrieval mentioned are still relevant today. Van Rijsbergen (1979)
describes probabilistic retrieval, which is the model that the Bayesian network
implementation of information retrieval system is based on. Of the
implementations of such systems, Turtle's (1990) implementation appears to be the most well-known and
demonstrates superior performance compared to Boolean and vector space
methods. Ghazfan et al. (1994) have produced a different implementation which has not been tested in an actual
information retrieval system. It is the purpose of this investigation to
obtain performance results in an actual information retrieval system.
Note how this example moves from distant
to close (in terms of relevance and applicability as well as chronologically).
It moves from 1) the broader historical context to 2) the implementation which
demonstrates superior performance, and then to 3) the implementation which
provides the model to be tested for the study.
Example 2
The situational approach was very much a product of the 1960s, one
of its pioneering achievements being Neile Osman's work with Australian
immigrants (Osman, 1959). As a movement, however, it did not really survive the attack made on it by Wilkins in the early
70's (e.g. Wilkins, 1973). Wilkins' main objection therefore is that the
situational approach is superficial. [...] Widdowson, for instance, observes
that 'The danger of such analysis is that ...' Recent work by Ventola (1983;
1984), Martin (1985), Coupland (1983) and others opts for [...] Current trends are towards reconstructing
accounts that include...
Speech community has been an evolving
concept [...] and the variety of [...] criteria has been discussed by Hudson (1980),
Saville-Troike (1982) and especially by Braithwaite (1984). At the outset, a speech community was seen as
being composed of those who share similar linguistic rules (Bloomfield , 1933) [...] Later, Labov will emphasize 'shared norms' [...] (Labov, 1966:7). Finally, there are those such as Hymes who
argue for multiple criteria.
Note how this example too is structured
chronologically, but its real achievement (as well as covering a great deal of
ground very concisely) is to compare and contrast a number of scholars,
applying a clear and consistent personal perspective.
Use of tenses
The verb tenses you use in your lit
review reveal more to your reader than just the time frame. They can also tell
your reader:
·
whose idea is being put forward
(yours or someone else's)
·
something about your attitude
toward the ideas you are reporting on (if you have attributed them to an
author/theorist)
·
how general or specific your
point/description is
In brief, tenses are used in the
following ways (note that this is a simplified description of tense use):
The
present tense is used for:
a
generalisation (in overviews, statements of main points, etc.) OR a generally
accepted scientific fact
Example: " This thesis investigates the second approach."
a
statement made by you as a writer
Example: " Non-standard applications such
as CASE, CAD/CAM are now emerging."
a
statement reporting the position of a writer and your support or lack of
support for this position
Example: " Therefore, this sequential
approach is impractical in the real world where projects are typically large (Radice, 1988)
and the activities from one stage may be carried out in parallel with the
activities of another stage."
The
past tense is used to:
describe
the contents, findings, or conclusions of past research. It emphasises the
completed nature of a past activity. It is often referred to as the 'reporting'
tense, and is traditionally used by scholars to report all past findings,
including even very current research in some cases.
Example: " This model was not popular in the software
industry until it was later refined by Boehm (1976)."
The
present perfect tense is used to:
indicate
that research in the area is still continuing, or that the research has
immediate relevance today
Example 1: " Several researchers have studied distributed database design."
Example 2: " Fricke (1983) has illustrated that black liquor shows three rheological behaviours."
Example 2: " Fricke (1983) has illustrated that black liquor shows three rheological behaviours."
generalise
about past literature
Example: " Software has been tested manually for most of the last
four decades."
present
a view using an information-prominent citation
Example: " The services that have been identified for the future B-ISDN include [7] [77] [78]."
Thus, you can use tenses to indicate more
than chronology. You can use the past tense in reporting
others' research to indicate that that research is of secondary importance to
your current work. You can use the present perfect to indicate that the research is of more
direct and primary importance. You can use the present tense to indicate your general position relative
to reported research.
Paraphrase or quotation?
You will need to introduce the work of
others to your reader, and you can do this in different ways. You can:
·
directly quote the words of
other researchers, making sure you integrate the quote properly, or
·
paraphrase other researchers'
ideas by expressing the ideas in your own words
Direct quotation is thus found more commonly in
humanities and social science writing, and not so frequently in the science and
technology disciplines. For the most part, you should aim to paraphrase. Rarely is the
original text written with your particular focus as its main concern. Your
examiner will be looking to see how well you can utilise the sources for your
own ends.
Direct quotations are commonly used to
highlight:
·
author's definitions of
important terms
·
assumptions underlying the
author's choice of words
·
particularly illustrative
examples of an author's specific view, difficult to paraphrase
·
particularly
well-expressed opinions, revealing insights which a paraphrase could not
capture
When
you use direct quotation, it needs to fit grammatically with the rest of your
sentence.
1. Aid agencies have been known to
take the view that such communities consist of "helpless victims with no
capacity or expertise for responding to their own needs" (Leung et al.,
1994).
You can see that the quotation is the
grammatical continuation of that part of the sentence used to introduce it.
2. Hancock (1987) more recently
summarized the concept as follows:
During disasters,
"charitable" advertising may succumb to the temptation of making
appeals for public money which can function to humiliate the supposed
beneficiaries and misrepresent them as passive victims.
With ' as
follows', no grammatical constraints apply to the quote, whereas an expression
such as ' Hancock (1987) can be
criticized for [...]' must be followed by a verb ending in '-ing'
(e.g. ' comparing') or a noun phrase
(e.g. ' his neglect of ...)'.
In some cases you will need to modify the
quote using square brackets [like this] to include a verb ending or to change a
pronoun to make it follow grammatically. Omitted information is indicated by
'[...]'.
3. The system was designed to show
"how expert systems [could be used to] help in the decision making for
investments in real estate" (Ostler and Branard, 1996, p. 77).
A
variety of constructions is available. The important thing to consider is how
you put this all together to give a picture of your own research in relation to
others'. You will be showing your attitude toward that research, whether you
consider it outdated or still viable, close to your own perspective, etc.
Reporting words
The following section lists some useful
expressions for critically presenting other writers' ideas.
Reporting verbs or expressions are used
to report on what other authors have done: whether they have made claims,
argued a case, established findings, drawn conclusions, etc. Note the
differences in these verbs: your choice of word will reveal to your reader your
attitude toward the status of the author's theories/research; it will also
indicate whether or not you consider her/his claims to be substantiated.
Assign the following reporting words to the most appropriate category:
|
Reporting verb
|
Answer
|
Categories
|
|
Account
for
|
1
|
Note: In the following,
"author" indicates the source (not "you as the writer").
Group 1 Author's
argument (author making a point to develop or justify his/her argument)
Group 2 Author's
emphasis (author drawing reader's attention to a particular point)
Group 3 Author's
references to other authors (author positioning him/herself against other
authors)
Group 4 Author's
omissions (author not fully arguing a point)
Group 5 Author's
admissions (author conceding a point of potential weakness)
|
|
Acknowledge
|
5
|
|
|
Argue
|
1
|
|
|
Assume
|
4
|
|
|
Challenge
|
3
|
|
|
Claim
|
1
|
|
|
Contend
|
1
|
|
|
Dispute
|
3
|
|
|
Draw
attention to
|
2
|
|
|
Emphasise
|
2
|
|
|
Establish
|
1
|
|
|
Find
|
1
|
|
|
Focus
on
|
2
|
|
|
Hold
the view
|
1
|
|
|
Insist
|
2
|
|
|
Maintain
|
1
|
|
|
Note
|
2
|
|
|
Observe
|
2
|
|
|
Point
out
|
2
|
|
|
Propose
|
1
|
|
|
Prove
|
1
|
|
|
Recognise
|
5
|
|
|
Recommend
|
1
|
|
|
Reiterate
|
2
|
|
|
Reject
|
3
|
|
|
Remark
|
2
|
|
|
Stress
|
2
|
|
|
Suggest
|
1
|
|
|
Support
|
3
|
|
|
Take
for granted
|
4
|
|
|
Underline
|
2
|
Indicating your own position
There are a number of ways of indicating
your position in relation to previous research. The following is a sample of
the kinds of evaluative expressions which may be used to indicate your own
views of the authors
you cite.
The research:
- disregarded
X
- neglected to
consider X
- overlooked X
- underestimated
X
- has been
limited to X
- overestimated
X
- suffered
from X
- requires
excessive amounts of (time/storage, etc)
- has taken no
account of X.
Which
of the following adjectives have you seen used in your discipline - and in what
way? Some may have positive OR negative connotations depending on the discipline
and what it values.
The research/theory is:
- incomplete
- efficient
- questionable
- useful
- simple
- reliable
- too general
- robust
- inconclusive
- unsatisfactory
- comprehensive
- complex
- over-simplified
- cumbersome
You can
expand your repertoire of evaluative expressions by reading articles or other
theses attentively.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism means taking the ideas or
words from other writers without acknowledging them. Along with fabricating
results, it is considered to be one of the worst academic sins! When you submit
your thesis you must be very confident that all sources are acknowledged; hence
the Declaration Statement. This is why you must use a method of notetaking
which allows you to easily distinguish your own work from that of others.
Example
The original author wrote:
" [Microsoft's chairman has explained the] company's strategy to make
Windows the universal client operating system in the enterprise."
The student wrote:
" The company's
strategy is to make Windows the universal client operating system in the
enterprise by the Window Open
Services Architecture (WOSA) [Semich, 1992]."
The
student has copied word for word from the original author's article. Although
the student acknowledged the author, he didn't put the excerpt in quotation
marks or adequately paraphrase the original wording. This is still not acceptable, and may be considered plagiarism.
Signalling your position
The I vs We debate
In a thesis, the relevance and importance
of you as the author can change from section to section. The way your identity
intrudes into the text depends to a large extent on accepted use in your
particular discipline. Take your cues from the way this is done in published
articles in your field (although note the different vehicle and audience), and seek the advice of your supervisor.
" I" or " we" is commonly
found in mathematical writing, but is usually advised against for industrial or
civil engineering. " I" and " my" can commonly be intrinsic for
psychoanalytic writing, for instance - and case-study writing in a number of
disciplines - but not for psychology. You will find " we" in history
theses, and even " nous" in French.
Traditionally in much academic writing,
it is not generally accepted to write: "I think..." or "It is my
opinion...", because this detracts from the supposed objectivity of
scholarship. It is true that too much insertion of yourself in your writing
swings the focus away the material you are investigating and on to you.
However, under the influence of a number of (post-)modern philosophers and
other theorists, this may even be desirable in some disciplines. It is a debate
that is still in flux within the academic community.
It sounds awkward to style yourself as
" the
author", " the present writer", or " the researcher". There
are more graceful ways of expressing your own opinion. If you are uncertain how
to avoid an over-personalised tone in sections of the thesis where you do not
want this, or too much passive voice, you can use the following expressions to
make your position clear in relation to your sources:
Showing support or agreement
Example: " The following discussion is
based on the work in Murray et al.(1990)."
Example: " From the above discussion, it
is clear that the design of moment connections involving solid
members offers considerable insight into..."
Example: "The
characteristics of vapour flows in falling film evaporators are well described by Stenhede
(1982)."
Showing disagreement
Example: "Bruegge et
al. (1992) review OMT; however, their paper is from a project management and team
communication perspective and is not relevant to the argument
presented here."
Example: " Neither mathematics nor the classic
Newell and Simon (1972) descriptions of human problem solving are particularly useful in domains where
absolute correctness, resolution, proof and related concepts are
inappropriate."
Active or passive voice?
Some academic writers feel that the use
of the passive voice (verbs which do not indicate who or what is doing the
action) can lead to writing in which sources or agents are not clear. Certainly,
repeated use of the passive results in texts which are 'flat' and tedious to
read.
The difficulty with endless passive sentences is that
the reader tends to lose sight of any agent, and the writing becomes dominated
by things instead of
people. You may see passive voice dominating in published articles, but this is
often for reasons of space. Do not be afraid to use active voice - especially
in your Discussion section, where it is sometimes important to indicate that it
is you thinking certain
things and having particular opinions. In Methods sections of many theses (in
Medicine, for example), it is acceptable to break the monotony of many passive
voice sentences with some active voice.
Compare the two texts below and decide
which you think is preferable.
Passive voice text
The systems most favoured for
investment were shown to be planning, design and production.
Many manual systems were reported as being current investments
across the sector. Only the largest firms, however, were interested
to any degree in integrated systems. Textile and clothing firms were
seen to be investing in automated production, design, planning and
reporting technologies.
Active voice text
In terms of current
investments, manufacturers favoured planning, design and
production systems, with many firms showing a strong interest
in manual systems. According to the literature, only the largest firms however,
showed any degree of interest in integrated systems. Textile
and clothing firms, in particular, have invested in automated production,
design, planning and reporting technologies.
Useful references
Australian
Government Publishing Service (1992). Style
Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers. 4th ed. Canberra : AGPS.
Blaxter, L. Hughes, C. and Tight, M.
(1996) How to Research.
Buckingham: Open University University
Press.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G. C., and Williams,
J. M. (1995) The Craft of Research.
Chicago and London :
The University of
Chicago Press.
Mauch, J.E. and Birch, J.W. (1983). Guide to the Successful Thesis and Dissertation. Conception
to Publication: A Handbook for Students and Faculty. New York and Basel :
Marcel Dekker.
Rudestam, K. E. and Newton , R. R. (1992) Surviving Your Dissertation. Newbury Park : Sage.
Sharp, J. A. and Howard, K. (1996) The Management of a Student Research Project.
2nd. Ed. Great Britain :
Gower.
Taylor, G. (1989). The Student's Writing Guide. Cambridge : CUP.
Turabian, K.L. (1996). A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and
Dissertations. 6th ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Weissberg, R. and Buker, S. (1990). Writing Up Research. Experimental Research Report Writing
for Students of English. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey : Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment