5 Literature Review Mistakes and How to Fix Them (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: If you're struggling with your literature review and you've been getting comments like, it's unfocused, it needs rewriting, it's not at the graduate level, it's unclear, you're missing key studies, then this is going to be a fantastic video for you. Because what I'm going to do today is I'm going to break down the five most common mistakes I've seen and show you how to fix it. So often the lit review is hard, not because you're bad at research, but just because no one's ever really shown you how to do it, leaving you to figure it out for yourself without the right mental models. If you're new to the channel, I'm Professor David Stuckler. I've published over 400 peer-reviewed papers and coached hundreds of researchers, many who have gone on to become tenured faculty themselves, and all I do on this channel is share with you the implicit logic that's often not taught. And of course, before we dive in, it's YouTube. I've got a special bonus tip on what makes a top-class literature review you're not going to want to miss at the end. So mistake number one, no strategic argument. This happens because often researchers think a lit review is just a summary of what's out there, just surveying the field. It's not. Your literature review is a strategic argument. It has a destination. It's going to take the reader somewhere, and that somewhere is going to depend on the purpose of your literature review. If it's a dissertation, the purpose is to justify and roll out the red carpet and make the case for your next empirical chapters or the methods that you're going to use. So you're going to be concluding often with a gap and a research question. If it's, say, a policy review, often you might be synthesizing and trying to highlight what recommendations or policies or practice implications there are for a field. Again, it's a strategic argument. So before you write, in either case, you need to know what the destination is going to be. And you need to know, am I trying to argue for a gap? Am I trying to argue for policy or practice? So if you don't know what you're trying to show and where you're trying to go, your reader won't either, and it's a recipe for getting lost. The fix for this is to do the analysis before you start writing. So commonly what I see researchers do at early stages is they try to figure it out. They try to do the analysis while they're writing, and that might have worked well for past assignments, but often doesn't for something as vast as a literature review, and it's just a recipe for going in circles. So you want to have clarity on a gap, a research agenda, precise research question or policy implications that you then can work backwards from to make a strategic argument for. Mistake number two, a boring summary. So think about the worst literature review in the world, and believe me, I see these. It says, author one said this, author two said that. And that's where you get the comments like, this is just descriptive. It's not at the grad level. I mean, and what's actually wrong is you kind of wrote a reading log, but you didn't synthesize. And that's really important because the synthesis is kind of the heart and the real value of the literature review. You have to compare, you have to integrate, you have to evaluate, look for contradictions, look for patterns. And so the fix for this is not to just, again, start summarizing, but to actually start interpreting what you're seeing in the articles as ideas, patterns, tensions, differing methods, drawing different conclusions. And sometimes setting up a framework can help you. You need to analyze to get to a synthesis, not just describe. So your job here, think of your job as having to explain where there's consensus, where studies agree, where there's conflict, and why that's important. And that's what gets you into graduate level work. Mistake number three, it's a big one. It's not following a funnel. And this often happens when people say the review lacks focus or the scope is unclear. So a lit review is supposed to have this kind of narrowing structure. It starts broad often about why you're taking this on in the first place. Why is this so important? It gets more focused and more precise. And ultimately you get to the direction where you want it to lead to, which most commonly for researchers is going to be a gap and or a research question that follows from it. But many reviews fail here because they're not following the funnel and they start too narrow. And so if you start too narrow at, say, you start with your research question where you want to be later on in your dissertation, or where your research methods actually start, well, there's nothing to funnel. You're starting at the gap. There's nothing to review. The other common mistake here is that you start too broad. And just instead of a funnel, you look like a straight tree. You never narrow. You never drive. And you don't get that strategic argument. Both break the funnel. So the correct funnel is going to show that you understand the field broadly. And it's going to have this narrowing nature. And it's going to land clean on and derive something precise and crisp by the end of it. Mistake number four. You didn't take us to the edge of evidence. And this commonly happens when reviewers or supervisors say, you're missing key studies. The review doesn't reflect the state of the field. It's because you need to take us. Almost imagine you're taking us to the edge of the evidence. And then you see right where the cliff drops off. And we don't know more. And we need to know more. And so, yes, you need to include landmark studies in your field, recent high-impact work. But you also need to take us and reveal where the evidence is becoming inconsistent, thin, or contested. You're going to do this by using our did plus found formula. You need to actually get into the nitty gritty of what the authors did methodologically. How did they do their study? And then what did they find? And describe those findings in detail. And often I find here in this edge case is that early stage researchers aren't getting into those details. Kind of glossing over them and talking about the studies in a superficial way. Just saying, the authors argued for this. Or the authors argued for that. But we need a whole lot more. They developed a new theory that argued for this. And made these predictions. Is that they used logistic regression models. But there was a large residual in their model that remained unexplained in this population. Those details are important. They're like the buds that cause your argument, strategic argument, in front of your literature review to bloom. So the fix is, make sure you've used real studies and real findings to highlight what we know, what we don't know. And right where that edge is. That's often the gap. And that's often in that narrowing ladder part of the precision of your funnel. The fifth big mistake. Loading up your literature review with lots of extraneous details and no linearity. And that's when reviewers say, well this is confusing. The argument is hard to follow. Again, some of these mistakes are linked to each other. But what's actually wrong here is that you're not driving the car in a straight line. You're taking lots of detours. So it's like driving from Dallas to New York. Except somehow you said, let's go to Kansas. And then you went back down to Florida. And you're going down rabbit holes here and there. And maybe you don't have an outline that's helping to structure and make sure that you're following a funnel and make sure that you're taking the reader strategically through each step and each chain of the argument that you're building. And look, we're curious creatures. We're discovering the literature for the first time. There's tangents, irrelevant studies, unnecessary theory. The fix here is really two things. One is to ensure that each of your paragraphs makes one big point. No more, no less. That's going to improve your writing instantly. And each of those points needs to move the argument forward to where you're trying to get to. And so if what you're writing about doesn't help you to justify your gap, doesn't help you justify the policy or practical conclusions you want to draw, cut it. You don't have to include everything. Finally, special bonus. It's YouTube. What makes a lit review truly top class? What separates good reviews from outstanding ones is that a top class review says something that no single study could stay on its own. That's why I'm a big fan of systematic reviews. You can see the argument for that in this video right here. Systematic reviews and other reviews that are done well, they can really spot patterns that are invisible in an individual study alone. Because you're kind of zooming out and taking a helicopter view of the field, you can spot contradictions, see methodological blind spots, reframe entire debates, set an agenda for your field. So if your review only repeats what individual studies already said, it doesn't add much value. That's that boring summary. If it synthesizes across of them, it becomes a reference point. It becomes indispensable. If you found this helpful and you like our mental models, I would encourage you to get in touch with us with the link below. Check out our training courses. Inevitably, we can do a whole lot more working together than we can here in an interactive way. See if it's a good fit, and I'd encourage you to set up a call with myself or a member of our team. And if you are trying to implement a literature review and you feel like you just haven't had the right mental model or you're making any of these mistakes, check out the video I've got for you right up here, a step-by-step guide on literature reviews that will prevent you from getting lost and take you start to finish. I'll see you then.