Took an additional month, but finally I am done with my literature review. Now its turn for methodology chapter and like before, I don’t want to make any mistakes. So guys, help me out with this part. For all I know, I need to just explain the methods I adopted and why they were appropriate. What else should I incorporate?
I am in a PhD program and can’t seem to write a literature review! It’s been 7 months since I enrolled in this program and maybe I am new at this, that’s why I can’t get it. But I am fed up! After selecting my topic and extensively reading different papers related to my field, I am told to prepare a draft on literature review (which I heard for the first time). My self-righteous guide didn’t bother to explain how to write an LR or what the heck that is! All I got to know from here and there was that, you write about other researches.
Failure 1: I just took the abstract of other research papers and simply ‘put’ them in my draft, which was a super failure, no doubt.
Failure 2: I re-wrote the abstracts (pretty stupid of me for which I got to hear my guide’s bickering for two painful hours!!).
Failure 3: I included more references and instead of writing in paragraphs about one research, I wrote in sentences. For example, Mr. X stated this, Mr. Y stated that (advised by my guide and still the sicko rejected it).
Failure 4: I divided the literature review into sections and did a little bit more explaining (my smart-ass guide wanted a critical analysis, without explaining it to me!!).
Failure 5: So, I revised the document according to the ‘critical analysis’ and still got rejected!
Why? Because now, that imbecile wants me to make a concept matrix and also, he wasn’t satisfied with my critical analysis! What the heck is a concept matrix? I am so damn tired of making revisions! What do I do?
I am so sorry to hear this. Some advisors are just non-cooperative and yours is ‘stupid’, I guess. He should just tell you what he wants, instead of moving you around. Anyways, have you identified the different theories from your literature review?
Theories as in the findings of the researchers? What they proposed? That’s what you mean by theories, right?
Well, concept matrix is a way to present your literature review by displaying the different concepts interpreted by different researchers! For example, your research topic is something like, “evaluating the impact of social media on CRM”, a possible concept can be “social media has a positive impact on CRM”, then you need to present the ideas and methods that the other researchers have applied to evaluate the positive impact of social media on CRM. It has to be in a tabular form. I think I am unable to clearly explain it you, so have a look at the following link of a pdf. It might help:
I think your problem is your supervisor and not the literature review! And it’s the most common problem that we all share. Try making him understand, don’t just listen to him and make the corrections. If he has stretched your LR for this long, god only knows what he’ll do when you move onto research methodology!
I know that the problem is my overcritical supervisor, but that is something I can’t solve. So I abide by his rules, after all, he got my marks.
@davidbergeviin what I learnt is that I need to identify the concepts from my research and write the discoveries of other researchers on those concepts. I did accordingly and mailed it to my supervisor. I hope he finally approves.
davidm34 10:49 am on April 18, 2016 Permalink |
A research methodology is a blueprint of a research incorporating each and everything you want to do for answering the particular research questions. It is something that you have to study in detail as I don’t think anyone can explain all the methods to you here. As you have to start from the start, how about you check out this book:
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches, by Creswell (2003)
brunoperryblog 11:58 am on April 20, 2016 Permalink |
Thanks for the reference. I already know the methods, it’s the way I have to explain and justify why I chose them. I have heard that when students are unable to justify their research methods, the examiners not only reject their thesis but also ask them to use another method. And that is like doing all-the-work, all-over-again. Considering my supervisor, I don’t want to be that situation. So, how to I write the methodology in a persuasive manner?
davidm34 9:42 am on May 6, 2016 Permalink |
For justifying your methods, you need to consider all the methods and evaluate why they can’t be good for your research. You can give examples from your literature about the methods adopted by others and also show the significance of your method by highlighting its advantages backed by more literature.
alexoliphaant 8:03 am on May 9, 2016 Permalink |
Hey, check out this blog on how to write a methodology chapter:
http://www.chanakya-research.com/blog/the-structure-for-the-methodology-chapter/
robertmaxeey 9:16 am on May 17, 2016 Permalink |
Outline your methodology and then present it to your supervisor before writing it completely. If there will be any error, the supervisor will point out and that will save you re-do time. Take a look on this post, on quick writing and see if that works:
http://www.phdstatistics.com/blog/the-quickest-way-to-write-a-dissertation-methodology-section/
brunoperryblog 6:50 am on May 26, 2016 Permalink |
From what I gather, the main thing is to support your choices of methods with literature. Which studies should I mention, the ones who used the same methods, or those who didn’t?
minttyt 11:43 am on June 1, 2016 Permalink |
I guess you can present both. You can explore the studies that chose a different path with their limitations and the reason why your method can be much better. And you can explore those, which chose the similar kinda method and how that turned out to be fruitful.
davidbergeviin 7:52 am on June 6, 2016 Permalink |
Providing justification for your adopted methodology stems solely from the outcome of your literature review. From the review, it may be that the methodologies employed by the previous studies did not adequately explain the phenomenon; 2. It may be that the new methodology in other field of studies may contradict the existing knowledge about the phenomenon and offer fresh insight which you may want to apply; 3. It may be that the way the problem and its associated concepts were approached and defined were problematic; and 4. It may be that the contemporary problem have falsified at the previous claims about the issue you are investigating. On the basis of these arguments you can justify your methodology chapter.