1.1 Individual Literature Review
You are required to produce a critical review of the literature which will enable you to define and individually investigate a focused area that relates directly to your programme, route or pathway. Your choice of topic will generally be driven by either an issue encountered during the process of undertaking the consultancy, or an aspect of theory related to the sector or industry within which your project was located. You should discuss your initial ideas and agree your final choice with your supervisor.
It is expected that your literature review will broadly achieve the following:
- Establishing the context and structure of your chosen area and its significance
- A synthesis of current views and suggesting new perspectives
- Identifying relationships between ideas and practice
- Distinguishing the theory development that has been undertaken in your chosen area and highlighting gaps in knowledge or work which still needs to be done.
You may also wish to consider:
- Identifying the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used to research your area
- Placing the research in a historical context
Work should be structured as an ‘academic paper’, using section headings to organise main themes and ideas. You should include an introduction, the literature review itself, a concluding paragraph and a list of references. Include any diagrams or figures in the text if appropriate. Referencing must be to Harvard Standard.
Marking Criteria
The review will be marked according to how well you have met the following five criteria:
- Demonstrates an understanding of appropriate theoretical concepts
An indication of what is being looked for: the student effectively establishes the context for and significance of the issue and clearly identifies and understands the body of theory that is relevant for the subject under study. It is not necessary to present all theories, concepts and models in full detail, rather the student should summarise the key areas and should assume that the reader is familiar with this material. The student should endeavour to present a reasoned case for why certain theories/models etc are included/not included.
- Demonstrates an ability to evaluate the literature and synthesise
An indication of what is being looked for: An analytical and evaluative review which compares and contrasts differing schools of thought and assesses them to develop and interrelate concepts, reflecting the student’s own perspective. Arguments are well balanced and connections between concepts are demonstrated through the production of an appropriate conceptual framework.
- Uses of a wide range of relevant literature
An indication of what is being looked for: The student uses a wide range of relevant literature to effectively support arguments and which provides a clear framework for exploring the topic area. This literature is assessed in a way which demonstrates an awareness of ‘accepted’ thinking in addition to current problems and new insights in the subject area.
- The extent to which the review is coherent with a clear ‘voice’ and sense of direction
An indication of what is being looked for: The review is very readable; professionally written with a consistent, coherent structure and a balanced and clear line of argument. There is no repetition or source of confusion.
- Presentation and referencing
An indication of what is being looked for: The work is consistently and clearly formatted and it ties together tightly as one complete document. Harvard referencing is accurate throughout.
GRADE INDICATIVE COMMENTS
70%+ The student effectively establishes the context for and significance of the problem under study, and leading concepts and ideas are assessed in a way which demonstrates a deep awareness of current problems and new insights in the subject area. The review is evaluative and reflects the student’s own perspective to develop and interrelate concepts through an imaginative conceptual framework. A wide range of relevant literature is used to effectively support arguments and provide a clear framework for exploring the topic area. The piece is written in an engaging style and the structure of the work is balanced, coherent and persuasive, and exhibits clarity and direction. Formatting is consistent and imaginative throughout and the structure of the piece ties it together as one complete document. Harvard referencing is accurate throughout. Submissions which make a useful contribution to the body of knowledge itself or which are of a publishable standard which might be considered for an academic conference will score over 80%.
60-69% Key issues are clearly expressed and understood. Material is relevant and demonstrates a good understanding of the subject area which contextualises the problem to be addressed. The review is analytical, comparing and contrasting differing schools of thought, and synthesises to produce an appropriate conceptual framework. Arguments are well balanced and literature is used in a persuasive and coherent way to support the discussion. Evidence of wide reading is shown with a good range of established and emergent texts sourced. The review is very readable; professionally written with a consistent and coherent structure and a clear line of argument. Clearly and professionally presented and references are accurately integrated and listed (perhaps with one or two minor technical errors).
50-59% The student covers the major theoretical bases which provide some context for the problem being addressed, although some aspects would benefit from further development. Some analysis is undertaken, although this is largely functional and demonstrates only a moderate degree of insight. However, some connections between concepts are made and good use is made of a range of sources to explore issues, although the conceptual framework may be missing or require development. The prose is generally readable and some thought to organisation apparent, but use of language sometimes leads to difficulties in understanding and/or is quite repetitive in places. The whole piece is legible but does not look very polished and may include some confusion with referencing conventions.
45-49% Major themes are covered to some extent, but important information is lacking and only a superficial knowledge of the subject area is demonstrated. There is little analysis and the report is largely descriptive. Whilst the student makes some attempt to compare and contrast the literature the links are unclear and under-developed. Selected sources are limited in terms of depth or appropriateness and not very well linked to the discussion. Inconsistent organisation makes the review confusing to follow and/or it is very repetitive. The central theme is unclear and the piece would clearly benefit from redrafting. A conceptual framework is missing or may require reworking. Presentation and application of Harvard referencing convention makes it sometimes difficult to read and follow the line of thought.
0-44% The piece demonstrates a weak knowledge of the subject area, with little evidence that the relevant conceptual domain is understood. The review is descriptive with no analysis undertaken, no central line of argument and no resulting conceptual framework. Sources selected are sparse and inappropriate, demonstrating a lack of wide reading and a lack of familiarity with the subject area. There is no consistent standard of Harvard referencing applied. Appearance is disorganised, inconsistent and unprofessional, and structure and use of language obscure the meaning throughout. Obviously lazy submissions (characterised by lack of effort rather than lack of content) will score substantially below 44%.
Word Count: 2,700 words
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]