A structural model of literature review: an analysis of Chinese postgraduate students’ writing

Fionnuala O’Connell & Lixian Jin

Introduction

Thousands of Chinese students visit the UK to study and the number is increasing every year. On top of their social, psychological, linguistic and cultural problems, they have several academic difficulties such as understanding lectures, giving their views in seminars and writing an essay which achieves a high mark. In particular they have difficulties in the writing of a literature review as a part of a thesis or dissertation.

This paper outlines the key features of a ‘good’ literature review based on research into concepts of what a literature review is, given by Western academics. This is important because the research or coursework done by Chinese students who study at a British university will be assessed for its literature review by their British supervisors who are influenced by these concepts. A structural model of literature review is proposed, which is based on Hoey’s (1983) Problem-Situation-Response-Evaluation,’ Swales’s (1990) ‘move analysis,’ and Dudley-Evans’s (1994) ‘move cycles.’ The dissertations written by five Chinese postgraduate students at British universities were analysed for their literature reviews, the features and structures of which are compared with those of a good literature review featured by well-established Western academics. Some suggestions are given for designing a more effective teaching programme for academic writing and for informing academic staff of the particular needs of Chinese students.

A Western concept of Literature review: Definitions

A review of the literature was conducted based on the published information about reviews, aiming to find the nature and scope of a good literature review. Definitions of the literature review have developed over time. Mauch & Birch’s (1983) definitions of a review is compared to ‘…an imaginary, informed, intelligent discussion about the field with an expert, using references and citing authors and concepts important or critical…’ Since then, literature review definitions have been developed and added to.

After collecting, reading and synthesising over one hundred library and university guides on writing and study skills collated by the researchers as well as a wide range of books on academic writing from several countries, it can be claimed that Western definitions of the literature review are as numerous as they are varied.

Cooper (1989) has pointed out that there are a number of other names that can be given to a literature review. These include research review, integrative research review, research synthesis and meta-analysis. From these various names, one can detect that a literature review is not just a simple collection of all the literature references. Many sources have commented that the main features of a competent literature review should include the following aspects:

Literature review writers do not only provide information on past research outcomes in their literature review, but are also encouraged to build up ‘ongoing dialogue’ (Creswell 1994, Hitchcock 1996) while establishing a ‘state of the art’ (Hubbuch 1992) summary, which shows the ‘patterns and trends’ of the research area.

Researchers believe that a review should make a critical analysis of the previous literature. The literature should ‘make critical compilations of previous research’ (Cuba 1993), ‘make a critical assessment of the reviewed literature’ (Kramer et al 1995) and ‘develop a critical attitude’ (O’Donoghue 1997). In order to achieve a critical analysis, researchers stress the importance of writing an argument in a literature review, which should ‘carry forward arguments and counter-arguments’ (Cryer 1996), ‘present a coherent argument’ (Hitchcock 1996), and present ‘reference to studies that support the ongoing argument,’ (Locke et al. 1997).

A literature review intends to discover problems and unsolved issues in previous studies through critical analysis of those studies. Kramer et al. (1995) recommend ‘finding gaps in the literature that this study fills,’ and Hitchcock (1999) advises students to ‘highlight gaps.’ This important notion of gaps is elaborated in structural models.

A Structural Model of Literature Review

This section explains the key notions in the proposed structural model of literature review, how it is constructed and what the main elements are in this model.

Swales’s (1981) ‘move analysis’ and Hoey’s (1983) research into the analysis of discourse provided a starting point for this research. Swales (1981) established a pattern of four ‘moves’ in his analysis of research article introductions. Hoey (1983) also established a pattern in sentences consisting of a Problem-Situation-Response and an Evaluation which provided a framework for the model literature review. Dudley-Evans (1984) further expanded the structures highlighted by Swales (1981) and Hoey (1983) to suggest a cyclical pattern of moves, hence ‘move cycles’, which are detailed below.

What is a move?

Move as a technical term in discourse analysis was used in Sinclair (1975) to describe the individual parts of an exchange in conversational analysis. Skelton (1994) believes that a move is determined by establishing the rhetorical function of a given text and ascertaining whether there are specific linguistic forms or exponents which indicate that function. If such a pattern exists, a specific rhetorical move is confirmed. Whether or not a move is a defining feature of a particular genre is a judgement that has to be made by the analyst using specific criteria. There may be a cline of optionality with some of the elements identified.

Dudley-Evans (1994) defines moves in his analysis by using discourse markers. The researcher defines a move as a manifestation by the writer to move away from one aspect of the text to introduce another.

Move cycles

The pattern of moves can occur cyclically in that one or more moves can re-occur in a text in a pattern. Move cycles, as proposed by Hopkins and Dudley-Evans (1988) contain categories that ‘arise from the text’ and that describe the ‘transactional, interactional and logical functions of language in such a way as to reflect the writer’s constantly shifting ‘foregrounding’ of these different aspects. Hopkins and Dudley-Evans’s (1988) move cycles developed from Swales’s (1981) four-move structure and Dudley-Evans’s (1994) move cycles to analyse the discussion section of dissertations.

Based on the above structural elements and a review of the literature on writing a literature review, a literature review model implicated and proposed by well-established Western academics was produced.

Moves and elements in the structural model of literature review

The literature review model presented below contains the following ‘moves’ and ‘elements’. The moves, of which there are five, are made up of elements or components that function within the move. The term element was first used by Nwogu (1997). Some of the elements (E) within the move are optional.

Analysis of Chinese postgraduate students’ literature reviews

Student J, University 1

When Student J uses ‘argues,’ it is used to refer to reference to the research of others. The sentences within paragraphs are clearly written, but the function of the paragraph is not clearly understood (See p.1/2). Page one, paragraph three is the start of a paragraph, which continues, to the end of paragraph two, ‘teacher education’ on page fifteen.

Moves one two and three are established on page fourteen and fifteen. The use of the present tense is significant.

Analysis of moves used

M1: Paragraph 1. Statement of objectives

‘As was mentioned’ is not correct. Instead, Jiang should state ‘In the introduction…’

M2 Paragraph 2. Reference to previous Findings

P. 15. Paragraph 1: ‘that is to say’ is used incorrectly but signifies a move

M3: P.15 Paragraph 3: ‘in the rest of..’ signifies the transition to the next section

M4: P. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Reference to Findings

M5: Summary of section (end of p. 19)

M6: Reference to Findings (p. 20 sec 2.3, 21,22)

M7: Summary of section (p. 23, para 1)

M8: Reference to Findings (p. 23, sec 2.4, 24)

M9: Summary of section 9, (p. 24, last para)

M10: Reference to findings (p. 25, sec 2.5, p. 26)

M11: Summary of section (p. 27, para 2)

M12 Reference to Findings 9 (p. 27,28 sec 2.6)

M13: Summary (p. 29/30)

M14: Conclusion (p. 30/31)

M15: Transition to next chapter (p. 31)

Student W University 2

1. Introduction – p. 7 –9
2. Reference to Findings (p. 10,11,12,13,14)
3. Conclusion (p. 18)
4. Transition to next chapter – last lie of p. 18.

Language

Tense (p. 14)

Adjective endings – tense ‘should were’, p. 10, L3

Wrong or strange use of phrasing ‘ English is becoming a powerful and helpful working tool.’

Articles missing (p. 13, L10, p. 16)

Student C University 3

38 different sources acknowledged – 80 references in Bibliography

No critical analysis

No argument and counter-argument

Short literature review – 5 pages

Clear writing style

Contributes interesting knowledge

Explains how and why the research question was formulated

No clear argument

Synthesis of main points

Many headings used

No personal comment

Transition to next chapter

Clear outline given in Introduction and Conclusion

Student N University 4

Overview section – not called a literature review – 34 pages long and 26 different researchers referred to. However, the LR is quite short.

Few references to findings

Argument not made explicit or clear

No critical analysis

Use of Headings for clarity

No final summary

No conclusion

Student S, University 2

Reference to previous research

Objectives given in the introduction

Discourse markers

Use of ‘therefore’ and ‘since’ are used correctly

However, a limitation of claim is used correctly

Uses ‘according to’ to introduce researchers. Also ‘illustrates, in order to, points out, makes clear, apart from, claims, suggests, summarises.’

The phrase ‘it is clear’ is common.

Table 1. Analysis of 5 Chinese Literature reviews. Number of occurrences of the following moves and elements

Discussion

All five reviews include some of the key characteristics of research matching the features of a good literature review. For example, they clearly attempt that which Hemmington (1999) recommends for a review: themes are identified and authors’ views compared and contrasted; references are introduced to ensure ‘smoothness, variety and readability.’

Three reviews outline their objectives at the beginning of the literature review, as Hemmington (1999) recommends, leading the reader through the dissertations by outlining what is going to be discussed. The review commences with a topic sentence and continues with a thesis statement. The review writer provides an overview of what the literature review will discuss and reveal and attempts to show the review’s contribution to the overall argument (Hemmington 1999).

Only one review showed evidence of critical analysis. In Chinese writing, there is some tendency to appreciate the literary values of a text but not necessarily to criticise it (Cortazzi 1990). Cortazzi & Jin (1997:81) have also found that British tutors will prefer a deductive pattern for writing while Chinese postgraduate students prefer an inductive style. Kaplan (1966) has argued that Chinese as well as other “Oriental” writing is indirect although this has been viewed as controversial. The claim is that for many Chinese writers a subject is not discussed directly but is approached from a variety of indirectly related views. In the authors’ opinion, this may cause the postgraduate student to lose marks by not ‘presenting a coherent argument’ (Cryer 1996) nor ‘critically analysing the argument’ (Cuba 1993), skills required necessary to write a literature review.

Critical analysis has been researched widely in the literature as determined by Phillips and Pugh (1997) who recommend that ‘the criticisms of other need to be identified.’

Wiersma (1986), Cryer (1996) and Hitchcock (1996) advise that ‘conflicting findings or variations in findings should be explained.’

None of the five reviews analysed had an argument and counter-argument prevailing through their review. Developing logical argument, using evidence to support argument and critically evaluating theory and models is highlighted in the literature on writing a good review (Cryer 1996, Hitchcock 1996, Phillips and Pugh 1997, Locke et al 1997, Hemmington 1999).

One of the functions of a literature review is to identify areas in the literature that need to be researched further or as Phillips and Pugh (1997) highlight, ‘the review is the place to define areas of theoretical and empirical weakness.’ A literature review highlights gaps and under-researched areas (Hitchcock 1999) and clarifies theoretical, methodological and analytical issues.

Chinese people may treat ancient literary works with respect and rarely question their authority. This does not meet the expectations for critical analysis of Western tutors and also this respect for texts may occasionally lead to students plagiarising (Cortazzi & Jin 1996). Therefore, Chinese postgraduate students in the UK lose marks as they fail to present an ‘ongoing dialogue’ (Creswell 1994) and do not refer to studies that ‘support the ongoing argument’ (Locke et al 1997) but refer to anecdotes that distract from the ongoing argument. Matalene (1985) shows in sample essays written by Chinese ESL students in China that arguments are often delayed, students include narration, and use statements that seem unconnected in the eyes of the Western reader.

Composing an argument may be difficult for Chinese students who find it difficult to criticise the work of others. Connor (1996:73) has stated that ‘in the Confucian sense of self, one is more a self in human relationships, and less a self in isolation.’ Chinese people tend to be collaborative; however, western people may value individualism more highly. In other words, it is difficult to criticise other scholars as the writer does not see himself or herself as an individual voice but as a part of collective one and so wants to fit into a community.

Chinese students seem to avoid free expression of personal views, but prefer quotation and paraphrase of others’ words or the use of set phrases (Tsao 1983; Matalene 1985; Cai 1993). This may stem from literary traditions and from respect for authority but can be interpreted in the West as showing a lack of individuality or creativity or can again lead to accusations of plagiarism.

In the concluding section of the review, recommendations may be made by the writer (Cuba 1993). The conclusion is a final summary that clinches the need to do the study (Kramer et al 1995). In the five literature reviews analysed, three reviews had a conclusion and one review made a recommendation.

Conclusion

There needs to be a greater awareness among staff and students at British universities of the differences in academic culture that exist between China and the UK and what this implies for academic writing.

Throughout this paper the authors have attempted to make more explicit the difficulties encountered by Chinese students when writing a literature review. Their perceptions of writing a review may be different to those expected by academics in the UK and this needs to be made explicit to Chinese students at the outset. The further development of the current research hopefully helps to raise the awareness of strengths and differences of Chinese students in their academic writing.

Bibliography

Cooper, M.M & Holzman. M (1989) Writing as social action. Portsmouth, NH. Boyton/Cook Publishers

Creswell, J.W (1994) Research Design – Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications

Cryer, P (1996) The Research Student’s Guide to Success. Oxford: OUP.

Dudley-Evans, T (1994) Genre Analysis, An Approach to Text in ESP. ‘In: Coulthard, M (ed), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London, Routledge, p.219-228

Hitchcock, G (1996) Study Guide. Doncaster College Faculty of Business and Professional Studies, Doncaster.

Hoey, M (1983) On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin

Hubbuch, S (1992) Writing Research Papers Across the Curriculum (3^rd ed). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Kramer, M., Leggett, G & Mead, C.D (1995) Handbook for Writers. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Locke, L.F., Spirdusu, W.W & Silverman, S.J (3^rd edition) (1997) Proposals that work. A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant proposals. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications

Nwogu, K.N (1997) The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes. vol.16, no.2, p.119-138

O’Donoghue, T.A & Haynes, F (1997) Preparing your thesis/dissertations in Education. Comprehensive Guidelines. The Graduate School of Education. The University of Western Australia, Social Science Press

Sinclair, J (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: OUP

Skelton, O (1994) Analysis of the Structure of original research papers: an aid to writing original papers for publication. British Journal of General Practice, Vol 44, p.455-459

Swales, J (1981) Aspects of Article Introductions. Aston Monographs No.1. The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.

Swales, J (1990) English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.

Back