By Mahider
My name is Mahider, and I’m a researcher at Includovate. I’m based in Ethiopia and this is my first time working for an international research incubator. Includovate has a growth mindset and there are always training opportunities and a ‘learning by doing’ culture. I’ve conducted literature reviews before, but never been formally taught how to do them. This blog outlines my experience learning about Scientific literature reviews (SLR) at Includovate.
The four SLR training sessions highlighted the aims and processes of conducting an SLR in contrast to more traditional approaches to a literature review. I gained a unique insight into how unconscious bias can seep into the rationale, hypothesis, and data collection methods of a given research endeavour and learned how to address these issues. Secondly, having a research assignment that runs parallel to the training sessions allowed me to operationalize what I learned in a small way; thereby allowing me to appreciate both the benefits and challenges of conducting an SLR.
I found SLR to be a much more valuable and comprehensive tool than its traditional counterpart. Whilst the traditional literature review process was a tool that I had learned in university and subsequently used when writing my bachelor’s thesis and other publications, I have found it to be detrimentally subjective. This concern is especially poignant when it comes to conducting legal research, where I had a long-standing suspicion that the unstructured way a research topic is usually selected, as well as the inductive manner in which data is collected, could hurt the validity and clarity of the subsequent stages of the research process. As such, I agree with Mr Vidy Potdar (our trainer) when he concluded that the systematic protocols instituted by SLR can go a long way in controlling the likely bias that is associated with the traditional literature review processes.
To that end, although some would argue that the literature review process is primarily about content evaluation and assessment of the discourse surrounding a particular topic, one of the most interesting aspects of the SLR training sessions was regarding its methodological and holistic approach to selecting the literature that would ultimately be reviewed. In this respect, the training sessions enabled me to see the benefits of having a structured and clearly defined literature review protocol, which identifies any research gaps amidst the plethora of research that exists on a given topic and also allows me to develop theories that are poignant, clear and based on a robust assessment of a diverse set of resources; which will ultimately limit what Mr Vidy Potdar describes as ‘publication bias’.
By way of example, I would like to briefly discuss the three stages of conducting an SLR that I found to not only be insightful but also very relevant for the type and style of research that I normally conduct. Although some academics have identified several stages of conducting an SLR, the most intriguing stages for me were defining the SLR objectives, outlining the methodology to be used for conducting the review and the procedures to be followed when assessing the quality of the chosen literature. Although each of these stages is at different points of the review process, their ability to objectively structure the process, clearly define the literature selection parameters as well as provide for objective criteria, and independent characterisations of the reviewed literature underscore the hallmark characteristics and objectives of SLR. Whether it is the three principal reasons of clarity, validity, and auditability or the seven key principles highlighted by Pittway and other academics, the benefits of conducting an SLR can easily be summarised by the following three words: transparency, consistency, and clarity.
In conclusion, what I learned during these training sessions will aid my future research and publication efforts. SLR goes beyond the traditional literature review that merely defines a specific issue by compiling the published literature on the topic and summarises the critical points and gaps in the current discourse. SLR clearly defines parameters that are prepared before the review process and are subsequently used as a guide for conducting the review. SLR identifies, evaluates, and synthesises the existing and diverse body of work on a given issue by being accountable, replicable, and transparent. I believe that this is not only an effective way to identify the gaps that persist within the literature and reduce bias, but also serves to address such gaps in a holistic, unique, and clear manner.
Call to Action
Want to support local researchers from Ethiopia get published?
Support our campaign to decolonise research here: https://bit.ly/IncludovateRaisesTheBar
About The Author
Mahider has a background and an interest in Human Rights Law specifically on the rights of vulnerable groups and women. She was responsible for the implementation of project STRACE-CHR (Support teaching, research and community engagement in Human Rights); mobilising resources and following up on project activity. She has worked for Plan International Ethiopia on Gender mainstreaming, gender equality and human rights and on the rights of refugees. She has also provided technical support to community rights promoters, evaluated their activities and gave training. As an assistant researcher, she has been engaging in data collection, coding, analysing, ethical review and supervising the research process and teams. Overall, Mahider has excellent training, communication, research, organisation, and project implementation skills. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Includovate is a feminist research incubator that “walks the talk”. Includovate is an Australian social enterprise consisting of a consulting firm and research incubator that designs solutions for gender equality and social inclusion. Its mission is to incubate transformative and inclusive solutions for measuring, studying, and changing discriminatory norms that lead to poverty, inequality, and injustice. To know more about us at Includovate, follow our social media: @includovate, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram.
Reference
- Charles Sturt University. (2020). Types of Literature Review: Systematic Literature Review. Charles Sturt University. https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review/Systematic
- Griffith University. (2020). Systemic Literature Reviews for Education & Social Science. Griffith University, Queensland Australia. https://libraryguides.griffith.edu.au/systematic-literature-reviews-for-education
- Pittway, L. (2008) Systematic literature reviews. In Thorpe, R. & Holt, R. The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research. SAGE Publications Ltd doi:10.4135/9780857020109
- Struklej, E. (2018). Writing a Systemic Literature Review. Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS). https://blog.efpsa.org/2018/01/03/writing-a-systematic-literature-review/
- Xiao, Y. & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systemic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education & Research.