Dr. Gass
=
HCOM 308
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Fall
2009
Rationale:
Your
rationale should be a more developed version of your research prospectus.
Clearly define
concepts:
Your key terms and concepts should be clearly defined. Definitions should be drawn from e=
xperts
writing in communication texts or scholarly journal articles.
Identify any
research controversies: If t=
here
are competing theories, perspectives, or points of view on the line of rese=
arch
you’ve chosen you should discuss them. If scholars disagree on the best w=
ay to
measure a phenomenon, you should address the issue. If previous studies were flawed or
subject to important limitations point that out.
Narrow your f=
ocus: You will pro=
bably
need to narrow your focus to examine variables in specific contexts,
situations, or settings (For example, not just credibility, but source
credibility in the context of celebrity endorsers; not just treatment of
stuttering, but treating stuttering in L1 versus L2). Be as specific as possible about t=
he
nature of the investigation.
Explain how t=
he
independent variable(s) will be manipulated: You should clearly state what y=
our
independent variables are and how they will be manipulated or operationaliz=
ed. For instance, how many conditions =
will
there be in your experiment? =
What
will participants be asked to do in your experiment? Will they be asked to perform some=
task
or behavior? Will they be exp=
osed
to differing stimulus conditions?
Explain how t=
he
dependent variable(s) will be measured: You should identify established scales=
or
measurements to measure the dependent variable(s) in your investigation.
Identify any
problems or issues involved in your line of research: Is your prop=
osed
investigation practical? Are there methodological obstacles you’ll ne=
ed
to overcome? Are there any et=
hical
concerns involved? (Would participants be exposed to any psychological stre=
ss or
emotional discomfort?)
Literature Review:
Writing a
literature review is akin to assembling a picture puzzle. The pieces that are already in pla=
ce are
analogous to the studies completed by previous researchers. You need to explain what the pictu=
re
looks like thus far. You need=
to
explain which pieces of the puzzle are still missing. Your proposed experiment should
constitute the next logical piece of the puzzle that needs to be put it
place. Your proposed study sh=
ould
make the overall picture clearer.
Most literatu=
re
reviews devote more attention to the independent than the dependent variabl=
e,
although this varies somewhat from topic to topic. Your literature review should be w=
ritten
in a narrative or essay form. You
are building an argument as to why your investigation is needed. The reviews of studies should be i=
n your
own words and should reflect your own understanding of the methods used in =
the
studies as well as the findings.
Your
literature review should be selective, not exhaustive identify the=
most
relevant studies in the topic area, including “landmark” studies
and recent research.
Your
literature review should not be purely descriptive (e.g., there=
were
this many subjects, there were this many conditions, etc.) You should offer=
a
systematic critique (analysis and evaluation) of the literature. Rather than simply describing what=
was
done in a particular investigation, examine the quality of the research as
well.
Analyze
studies for their strengths and weaknesses (but don’t feel you must =
find
fault with every study you encounter--remember, your proposed experiment sh=
ould
overcome the limitations present in previous studies).
Point
out gaps in the literature to underscore the need for more research.
Identify
inconsistencies
if they exist.
Look
for interrelationships between studies, or generalizable findings across
studies. Explain the relevanc=
e or
relationship of each study reviewed to your proposed experiment.
You
needn’t review each study in its entirety. Focus only on those elements of ea=
ch
investigation that have bearing on your own proposed study. You might wish to focus on the fin=
dings
of one study. You might choos=
e to
highlight a scale or instrument used in another study. You might explain a particular proc=
edure
or operationalization used in yet another study. Discuss only those aspects of stud=
ies
that are relevant to your own proposed experiment.
You
must include a minimum of 6-12 references from scholarly, refereed journal
articles.
Your paper should be 6-10 pages (not counting references), typed,
double-spaced, and carefully proofread for spelling, grammatical, and
typographical errors. This paper represents 20% of your overall course grad=
e.
Your referenc=
es
should conform to the APA guidelines.
Stop by my office if you would like to see some sample papers with
well-done literature reviews.
Good luck!