Hi
I'm doing my Masters in Counselling Psychology and it's taking me FOREVER because my strength is in interpersonal communication and not academic writing.
I have had consistent feedback from various people that my lit review needs to demonstrate that I've critically analysed the literature. I've been told my lit review is too descriptive - in other words I've done a good job of summarising what the literature says but I haven't discussed the weaknesses and strengths of the studies I'm referring to.
I have no idea how to do this! And I need your help.
Theoretically I understand that I need to read each study to check to make sure that:
1. The research question and hypotheses are related to each other,
2. The lit review is relevant to the research question and reflects a gap that the study I'm reading is trying to fill
3. The methodology is appropriate given the research question
4. The results are discussed in relation to the limitation of the methodology and areas for further research are suggested.
But in practice I don't know how to:
1. Demonstrate I've done the above while keeping a narrative flow so that the critique of each study doesn't create a stop/start, stop/start awkwardness to the background of my thesis topic.
2. Determine which studies I need to do this for and which I don't. Surely I don't need to do a review of each and every study I've read that I want to refer to in my lit review - do I?
I can not wait to get feedback from those of you who love academic writing and doing lit reviews (do these people actually exist? I so hope so!).
If anyone can suggest a study for me to read that does this beautifully I would greatly appreciate it. In all my reading I seem to only find descriptive lit reviews like what I've been writing.
Thank you so much!
Amanda
Well, if people are telling you to critically review the literature, you might start by looking at where the literature contradicts itself. In other words, there must be some studies that indicate that some approaches to counseling psychology are better than others. However, they probably don't all agree on which approaches are best, or else everyone in the field would use the same approach. But, if the literature contains such disagreements, then you should be able to decide which side you are on, and explain your decision with reference to the strengths and weaknesses of the research you have read about. This is the best advice I can give you given the extremely general nature of your query. If you could post more information about your topic, that might be helpful.
Hi Sean
Thank you for your reply and asking for more information. I didn't know how much detail to provide. I didn't want to put anyone off by posting too long a post. I really appreciate your help.
My research question is: Can being a female victim of parental incest as a child lead to erroneously being diagnosed with BPD as an adult?
My hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1: Having been a female victim of incest by a parent during childhood is significantly correlated to self-identified symptoms of BPD as an adult.
Hypothesis 2. The strength of the correlation proposed in hypothesis 1, reduces as a function of age.
The participants will be asked to spend 5 minutes writing about how their experience of incest by a parent effects them currently. They will then be requested to complete the Borderline Symptom Inventory (BSI) based on their current assessment of themselves. The participants will then be asked to spend 5 minutes writing about how their experience of incest by a parent effected them in their late teens to mid twenties. After completing this short writing they will be asked to complete the BSI again, this time retrospectively recording their perception of themselves during their late teens to mid twenties
So I'm attempting to demonstrate that females who were sexually abused by a parent as a child when self-assessing retrospectively will be more likely to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of BPD when compared with their current self-assessment on the BSI.
I appreciate that a longitudinal study would be much more rigorous, as would being assessed by a qualified psychologist versus self-assessment but this is outside the scope of what is possible in a minor thesis for my coursework/placement/minor thesis Masters. If you see other limitations or issues with my hypotheses or method I'd love to hear them.
In regards to the existing literature - There is a plethora of articles which question the validity of BPD as a PD. Following is a summary of the main points in the literature which I've identified to date which bring into question the diagnostic validity of BPD:
* There is a plethora of literature which looks at co-morbidity with an amazingly wide range of other psychological conditions (both Axis I and Axis II - depression, PTSD, OCD, eating disorders, substance abuse, and a range of PDs etc, etc).
* The literature refers to the level of variability in presentation of symptoms possible using the nine point diagnostic criteria of BPD given that only 5 of the 9 criteria are required to make a formal diagnosis of BPD - resulting in 258 different presentations.
* The literature indicates a shift away from the orginal belief that BPD is an intractable PD resistant to intervention towards evidence that BPD responds well to evidence based, BPD specific treatment (thus BPD does not meet the criteria of a PD).
* BPD improves with age regardless of intervention - indicating perhaps development of life skills/self-psychological skills (thus BPD does not meet the criteria of a PD).
* BPD is linked with abusive family of origin or a history of trauma (i.e. not personality - not static) and is related to affect and attachment dysfunction which can be improved with intervention.
* There are cultural and gender biases which lead to women being more likely to be given the diagnosis of BPD with the same presentation (i.e. from case notes only).
I can't wait to hear from you and from anyone else, however, as I'm Australian and it's now 11:22pm over here I'll be logging off and going to bed so please don't be offended if I don't respond.
Cheers!
Amanda
Hey, now, writing is interpersonal communication, too!! Stephen King calls it a form of telepathy! :) I hope that you can find a similar study to use as a guide as you write up your results. It may be hard to believe, but this kind of writing becomes easy after you have written a few dissertations it becomes easy!
Critically analyze sources by criticizing them. Be harsh. Also, tell about the implications of their findings with regard to your own project. Let that
literature review contextualize your own work, and be brilliant! I see that these main points from the literature are great, but put that synthesis at the end of the lit review; within the lit review, comment on all the limitations and strengths of the various works.
I wonder, am I overlooking part of your question? Post some more questions, or some parts of the lit review. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!
BPD? Borderline Personality Disorder? Bipolar Disorder? I can think of a couple of things that particular acronym could stand for. In any event, your first step would be to decide whether or not you believe BPD is a valid psychological disorder. If not, your thesis is pointless, since anyone who is diagnosed with BPD must then be being misdiagnosed, so your thesis then becomes merely that people who have suffered from sexual abuse are more likely to be diagnosed with BPD than people who have not, which is something that a quick empirical review of patient files would confirm or deny. If you do believe that it is a valid psychological disorder, then you are going to have to come up with criteria that allow you to measure its validity, in order to determine when a person has been properly diagnosed and when a person has been misdiagnosed (so you have some basis for claiming that those who have been sexually abused have been misdiagnosed as having BPD, rather than as having actually developed BPD). So, to critically analyze the literature, you would look at how BPD has been defined and the various ways it can be diagnosed, and say which ones you think are valid and why.
Good luck!!
Thanks Kevin :) Of course you're right that writing is communication LOL. What I meant was that my strength is in face to face communication rather than academic writing. Formal academic writing makes me very anxious, however, I can run training and present seminars and courses and thoroughly enjoy myself.
Thank you for your suggestion to criticise each study individually and then synthesise to pull it together in the end. This sounds so simple it's a bit embarrassing that I couldn't see this. I'm still really keen to see an example of "best practice" lit review. If anyone can suggest a study that includes this I'd be forever grateful.
This thesis is only a minor thesis of 10,000-15,000 words so my lit review will be 4000-5000 words. Can anyone give me an indication of how many studies I should be referring to given this word limit? I know it's a bit like asking "How long is a piece of string?" but an indication would be helpful to make sure I'm in the ballpark. I have a tendency to feel like I've never read enough which results in me becoming overwhelmed and struggling to put limits on my work. This is one of the reasons I've not been able to complete my thesis.
Cheers!
Amanda
PS - COULD SOMEONE PLEASE POST A REPLY AS THIS FORUM WONT ALLOW ME TO POST TWICE IN A ROW AND I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO SEAN HERE AS THE POST WOULD BE VERY VERY LONG! YOU CAN JUST POST A "HI" SO I CAN POST :)Hi...now you can post, Amanda!
Bless you Kat13! :)
Thanks Sean
Borderline Personality Disorder is the condition. I don't believe that BPD is a valid psychological disorder which is my initial motivation to do a thesis on BPD. I want to demonstrate that BPD does not meet the DSM-IV definition of a PD (personality disorder).
PDs are defined in the DSM-IV as "...an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment". As the definition of personality disorders stipulate that the inner experience and behaviour of the person is pervasive, inflexible and stable over time the diagnosis of a patient with a personality disorder indicates the patient is unlikely to significantly improve even with treatment. The patient diagnosed with a PD is perceived as having a fundamental and irreparable flaw in their personality.
BPD is defined in the DSM-IV as "...a pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity". The hypothesis of this study arose from two main outcomes of research. Firstly research indicates that a child who is a victim of parental incest is more likely to have difficulty maintaining and sustaining healthy interpersonal relationships, has difficulty maintaining positive self-image, has emotional instability, and engages in impulsive behaviour - all of which are diagnostic criteria of BPD. Secondly research indicates that victims of childhood incest can overcome the above issues which demonstrates that someone diagnosed with BPD can then heal sufficiently to no longer meet the criteria, demonstrating that BPD does not meet the definition of a PD.
The aim of this research is to demonstrate that victims of childhood parental incest perceive themselves as having met the diagnostic criteria for BPD in their late teens, early-mid twenties, and that those same subjects are less likely to currently perceive themselves as meeting the diagnostic criteria for BPD if they have had the necessary interpersonal support to heal the wounds caused by their childhood abuse.
It is expected that sustained, positive interpersonal relationships found outside the family of origin in adulthood combined with sustained psychotherapeutic type interventions (one on one counselling, support groups, group therapy, personal development courses etc) the victims of childhood parental incest can experience the interpersonal support and skills necessary to sufficiently heal the wounds created by the incest to no longer meet the criteria for BPD.
If you can seen any flaws in my logic please let me know.
JUST A GENTLE REMINDER THAT I'D LOVE SOMEONE SUGGESTING A STUDY/ARTICLE THAT PROVIDES A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF BEST PRACTICE LIT REVIEW :)
Cheers!
Amanda
Hi!! ha ha, rather than look at a perfect lit review, it would be good to look at several decent ones. I suggest going to Google Scholar and then typing "literature review" in parentheses. That way, you will get a list of thousands of papers with literature reviews. After that , try searching for "review of literature" in order to get all the studies like that.
You might even want to type in a key word from your topic next to "literature review."
Most importantly KNOW the purpose of a lit review. You are trying to make a contribution that is both unique and significant. That is like, the definition of a dissertation, or something... So, if I wanted to write about the effectiveness of hypothermia therapy for brain injuries, for example, I would want to (in theory) read about ALL the major progress that has been made. This ensures that I am not doing the same thing someone else already did, and it also shows where there are gaps that need to be filled (i.e. by my contribution) in this area of study.
The lit review is an AWESOME thing to write, because you are writing about something that interests you (I hope), so you get to tell about everything under the sun that has been learned in that field.
Imaging having to convince a person to pay you to do this dissertation. You would have to educate that person about what is up with the subject, what is going on with it in recent years... and to do that you tell all about all the major studies within recent years.
The classic answer to the question of how long a lit review is supposed to be is "Long enough!" and that means long enough to get YOUR report grounded in modern understanding. Wow, I get excited just typing about it. I am jealous that you are at this part of your process! The lit review is great!! So, let it come from the heart.
You are probably overwhelmed by the size of the thing, so just give a paragraph or two for every source you read... after writing a paragraph for every source, put them in some logical order -- chronological, categorical, whatever. Then, your brain will be so full of info about this that you can write a spectacular intro to tack on to the beginning. Write the lit review intro last.
Get fired up!! Here is helpful link: york.cuny.edu/~washton/student/Org-Behavior/lit_rev_e g.pdf
Kevin - you are wonderful. Thank you. I really love how enthusiastic and excited you are about lit reviews. It's wonderfully inspiring and gets me motivated.
And thank you so much for providing such concrete and specific assistance (Google scholar and how to search, suggesting one paragraph per study - then organising, and the wonderful link which provides a great overview of the process).
I feel like I must be incredibly inept but how do you know when you've read "ALL the major progress that has been made"? How do I now I haven't missed an important study?
Also - One of the things that I find the most difficult aspect of reading is that EVERYTHING I read seems interesting and relevant (ok maybe not everything!). I do really care about my topic and find it v v interesting. Any suggestions as to how ensure that I don't get sidetracked by interesting but not imperative for the purpose of my thesis?
You and this forum have helped me get excited and motivated. Instead of overwhelmed and avoidant. Thank you so much :)
Your logic seems okay from your second post. The only suggestion I have is that, in addition to saying what condition the people are not suffering from (BPD), you say what it is that you think that they are suffering from. Really, if the people meet all of the criteria for BPD, then that's what they have. It may not be a true PD, in the sense that they can be successfully treated, in a way that PDs apparently can't be, but this is a matter of semantics, and could presumably be fixed merely by renaming BPD to, say BPS (Borderline Personality Syndrome). I'm guessing syndromes, unlike disorders, can be treated, but if not, you could simply substitute some other term that would work. Hopefully you can show that a diagnosis of BPD is currently correlated with a lack of treatment (on the grounds PDs can't be treated). That way, your push to show that BPD can be treated and therefore isn't a PD at all serves a serious medical purpose. Good luck.