1. EPQ Lesson 8
The Literature Review

2. Look at your handbook Page 11 – the bottom
Spot the words ‘Literature Review’

3. What is the Literature Review?
It’s where you analyse what other academics have already written about your topic
Or, put another way ….
It’s a critical & evaluative account, an analytical synthesis, of existing research

4. A GOOD Literature Review
is a synthesis
is a critical evaluation
is clear & concise
flows logically
has good breadth & depth

5. A POOR literature review …
is a list of the books you have read
is pure description
is confusing & longwinded
is randomly constructed
is narrow & shallow

6. Why do a Literature Review?
To avoid reinventing the wheel
Because it’s an intellectual exercise – to put existing work into ‘schools of thought’ and analyse the worth of these
To avoid plagiarism
To set up a scenario for you to argue against

7. And it is very possible
That most of your EPQ will be a Literature Review

8. MODEL 1 – the Judge
Background – some general information on this debate
School of Thought 1: What is the case for …?
2.1 Reason 1 Pros & cons of this
2.2 Reason 2 Pros & cons of this
2.3 Reason 3 Pros & cons of this
3. School of Thought 2: What is the case against …?
3.1 Reason 1 Pros & cons of this
3.2 Reason 2 Pros & cons of this
3.3 Reason 3 Pros & cons of this
Conclusion – based on the evidence and my evaluation of the theories, which School of Thought is correct?

9. Model 2 – the Truffle Hunter
Background – here’s an outline of the situation … why did it happen / is it happening?
School of Thought A, followed by evidence for and against this SoT
School of Thought B, followed by evidence for and against this SoT
School of Thought C, followed by evidence for and against this SoT
Introduce my Case Study (a local study?) or my Primary Research
Which theory best fits my case study? Are any of the theories correct? Is it time for a new theory?
Conclusion – what do I think of the whole situation on the basis of my case study?

10. Model 3 – the parachutist
Extract the best of the work of Academic 1
Extract the best of the work of Academic 2
Extract the best of the work of Academic 3
Extract the best of the work of Academic 4
Extract the best of the work of Academic 5
Extract the best of the work of Academic 6
Extract the best of the work of Academic 7
Add it all together. Think hard. Come up with brilliant new idea.

11. How to evaluate critically …
Be suspicious of everything you read
You can disagree and you can find fault with others’ conclusions
Check out the author
Think about possible bias, motives & methods

12. What follows is …
A list of ten ways in which to evaluate your sources …

13. 1. Personal bias
The author is a Catholic / Marxist / feminist / black / fanatic / atheist … who has, it would seem, emphasised / minimised the importance of …

14. 2. Societal pressures
Every author is a product of his / her culture / society. The fact that X lived during the Cold War / 1960s / post may have influenced his approach to the issue of …
X is judging the past by the standards of the present ….
A need to be politically correct may have influenced the author’s interpretation … For example, …

15. 3. Intended audience
The source was written for an American audience during the Cold War. It is not surprising therefore that it dismisses the Soviet input. For example …
The source is a work of popular history clearly intended for a non-specialist audience. The desire to sell copies has resulted in a rather superficial and sensational treatment of the issue. For example …

16. 4. An eye on posterity
X’s memoirs are intended to justify his actions in the eyes of posterity. For example …
What X says he did and felt at the time is rather at odds with what he actually did. Clearly he is trying to clear his reputation

17. 5. Slack work This historian has not considered the evidence of …
This conclusion is based on only half the evidence / a superficial approach …
Lack of citations suggests an unscholarly work
There are serious gaps …

18. 6. Access to archives
The 30 year rule has restricted the evidence that Professor X has available. In particular he was unable to discuss …
X has benefited from new evidence that has come to light as a result of the collapse of the USSR / aerial surveying / DNA testing …
We need more evidence …

19. 7. Over-specialism
X specialises in … and has therefore emphasised the importance of this factor, while underestimating others
X’s desire to prove the veracity of her interpretation has militated against a more balanced interpretation

20. 8. Propaganda
This film was intended to popularise X. Its treatment is therefore distorted and somewhat superficial
The article was written while the Labour Party was trying to win an election: it is not surprising that it applauds the work of …

21. 9. Different approaches
Neither X or Y are necessary wrong: both have relied on different material to reach their conclusions.
X bases his view on an analysis of character, while Y prefers to rely on medical evidence
The evidence is ambiguous, which might explain the different interpretations

22. 10. Language
In her survey, X makes some massive generalisations. For example, … the absence of specific data suggests …
She also uses sensationalist language
And finally, she fails to acknowledge her sources. The absence of any referencing casts serious doubt on her conclusions.

23. So …. What is a good source?
Written by an academic with unrestricted access to the evidence
It is difficult to detect any overt agenda or bias: the tone is objective
The treatment of the facts seems balanced & thorough
The article has been well researched (as evidenced by the lengthy reference section) and peer reviewed

24. Have a go … Please skim the four articles Give each marks out of ten
10/10 = totally reliable
1/10 = avoid like the plague