Rationale & Literature Review Paper

Dr. Gass

= HCOM 308

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Summer 2009

Rationale & Review of Literature Pap= er

<= o:p>

Rationale:

<= o:p>

Y= our rationale should be a more developed, well-refined version of your research prospectus. Your primary task= is to strengthen the rationale for conducting the experiment you have proposed. You should further develop the “need step” for your proposed experiment. You also should ampli= fy on the social significance of the investigation (answer the “Who cares?” question). Expl= ain the investigation’s role and relevance to your specific discipline. Advance arguments as to why your particular study is needed at this particular time. How would such research advance the state of knowledge in your field? In addition, you should:

Clearly define concepts: Your key terms and concepts should be clearly defined. Definitions should be drawn from experts writing in texts or scholar= ly journal articles.

<= o:p>

Identify any research controversies: If there are competing theories, perspectives, or points of view on the line of research you’ve chosen= you should discuss them. If schol= ars disagree on the best way to measure a phenomenon, you should address the is= sue. If previous studies were flawed or subject to important limitations point that out.

<= o:p>

Narrow your focus: You will probably need to n= arrow your focus to examine variables in specific contexts, situations, or settin= gs (For example, not just credibility, but source credibility in the context of celebrity endorsers; not just treatment of stuttering, but treating stutter= ing in L1 versus L2). Be as speci= fic as possible about the nature of the investigation.

<= o:p>

Explain how the independent variable(s) will be manipulated: You should clearly state what your independent variab= les are and how they will be manipulated or operationalized. 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?

<= o:p>

Explain how the dependent variable(s) will be measured: You should identify established scales or measurement= s to measure the dependent variable(s) in your investigation. Don’t rely on “home-made” measures.

<= o:p>

Identify any problems or iss= ues involved in your line of research: Is your proposed investigation practical? Are there methodological obstacles you’ll need to overcome? Are there any ethical concerns inv= olved? (Would participants be exposed to any psychological stress or emotional discomfort?)

<= o:p>

Literature Review:

<= o:p>

Writing a literature review = is akin to assembling a picture puzzle. The pieces that are already in place are analogous to the studies completed by previous researchers. You need to explain what the picture looks like thus far. You need to explain which pieces o= f 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 should make the overall picture clearer.

Most literature reviews devo= te more attention to the independent than the dependent variable, although this varies somewhat from topic to topic. Your literature review should be written in a narrative or essay for= m. You are building an argument as to= why your investigation is needed. The reviews of studies should be in 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 not be purely descriptive (e.g., there were this many subjects, there were this many conditions, etc.) You should offer a systema= tic 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 studie= s for their strengths and weaknesses (but don’t feel you must find fault with every study you encounter--remember, your proposed experiment should 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 relevance or relations= hip of each study reviewed to your proposed experiment.