Sarah Whyte Dissertation Submitted 2018-09-04 Post-Defence Revisions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Sarah Whyte Dissertation Submitted 2018-09-04 Post-Defence Revisions The Rhetorical Life of Surgical Checklists: A Burkean Analysis with Implications for Knowledge Translation by Sarah Whyte A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Sarah Whyte 2018 Examining committee membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Carolyn Miller Emeritus Professor, North Carolina State University Supervisor Jay Dolmage Associate Professor, University of Waterloo Internal Member Catherine Schryer Professor, Ryerson University Internal Member Randy Harris Professor, University of Waterloo Internal-external Member Kathryn Plaisance Associate Professor, University of Waterloo Other Member (Non-voting) Lorelei Lingard Professor, Western University ii Author’s declaration This thesis consists of material all of which I authored or co-authored: see Statement of Contributions included in the thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Statement of contributions I am the sole author of this thesis, except for Chapter 4, which reproduces a significant portion of a published article on which I am the first author with six co-authors. That chapter also draws more selectively upon three additional co-authored articles. I was the first author of one and substantive co-author of the other two. iv Abstract This dissertation uses the terms of Kenneth Burke’s dramatism to identify rhetorical aspects of surgical team checklists as they have been promoted, performed, studied, and surveilled. I argue that these terms can help to account both for the rapid uptake of checklists into policy and for their more variable effects and uptake into practice. I develop this argument by analyzing a large archive of texts published between 1999 and 2017, including popular media, news coverage, promotional campaigns, primary research, and other forms of scholarship. These published texts are considered alongside ethnographic fieldnotes from a study in which I collaborated to design, introduce, and evaluate an early version of a preoperative checklist at four Canadian hospitals. My analyses are guided heuristically by the first principles and central terms of dramatism, including action and motion; motive and situation; identification and division; attitude, form, and circumference. I use these terms to chart the early emergence of checklists within professional literature; to trace their rapid uptake as a standard of professional communication; to discern their multiple purposes and effects; to illustrate how and why they are enacted, accepted, and sometimes rejected in the operating theatre; and to locate blind spots in applied health services research. Taken together, these analyses demonstrate the importance of diverse rhetorical processes both to the uptake and to the basic functions of checklists. They also demonstrate the value and versatility of dramatistic terms. I contend in particular that the concept of rhetorical situation, as elaborated by Burke, holds significant potential for understanding and mediating the material and symbolic dimensions of practice and practice change. This dissertation points the way toward a uniquely rhetorical approach to the study and practice of knowledge translation in healthcare work. v Acknowledgements This dissertation has been cultivated from seeds planted over many years. For those seeds and their now-sturdy roots, I am thankful to the members of my committee: Catherine Schryer, Randy Harris, Lorelei Lingard, and Jay Dolmage. Each of their roles has shifted over time as this research has grown in the spaces between disciplines and institutions. All of them have inspired the substance of this work in deeply formative ways. I am especially grateful that their support has endured, without hesitation, even when I have been neither swift nor graceful in clearing the hurdles of this degree. For any shortcomings of this work, the fault is mine. And Kenneth Burke’s. Randy got me hooked on the discipline of rhetoric and the rhetoric of science in 2000, when I first arrived to the University of Waterloo seeking a bridge from biomedical science into English. At the same time, Catherine introduced me to genre theory, qualitative research, education in the health professions—and to Lorelei. I ultimately returned to do a PhD because these introductions to the field had yielded so many questions and because there was still so much to learn from both Catherine and Randy. Many of those questions grew from my time working with Lorelei. This doctoral proJect was possible because she blazed many trails, created opportunities for me within her research team, and then gave me the freedom to chart my own course from that work. I am more grateful still for what I have learned from Lorelei about teaching and research as dynamic and rigorous rhetorical practices. Her direct mentorship largely preceded my doctoral studies but continues to guide me at every turn. As my original supervisor and then co-supervisor, Catherine guided the foundational stages of this work. She has modelled ways of drawing social and rhetorical theories into the close analysis of communication in context. She drew my attention toward concepts that later emerged into this proJect—and are still emerging—in important but unexpected ways. I am grateful too for her confidence and enthusiasm, which have persisted through diversions in my life, along with professional moves in her own. vi Randy’s teaching, writing, and incisive feedback have deepened my understanding of rhetorical theory, Kenneth Burke, form, and cognitive rhetoric—all of which run to the core of this proJect in explicit and implicit ways. Along with his intellectual generosity, they serve as guides for me whenever I am seeking inspiration, direction, conceptual clarity, or a renewed sense of rhetorical possibility. It is largely thanks to Jay Dolmage that I ultimately completed this proJect. As my supervisor at Waterloo, he kept me connected and optimistic during the more isolated stages of this work. His ease, encouragement, constant availability, and nimble feedback enabled me to regain a sense of perspective and to keep moving whenever I got stuck. Long before I did, he saw completed theses amidst my work. He kept insisting that I was almost finished until I could see it, and make it so, for myself. Two fellowships provided the most formative and intellectually exciting experiences of my doctoral studies. It was a joy and privilege to be part of the vibrant community of scholars at Health Care, Technology, and Place. The Wilson Centre is an academic home that never fails to lift my spirits and celebrate incongruous perspectives. Along with the Department of English at the University of Waterloo, these communities have enabled me to believe seriously in the ideal of transdisciplinary scholarship that discovers its relevance by pursuing difficult questions wherever they lead. I do not take this belief or its enabling conditions for granted. I am especially thankful to particular members of these communities. Tina Martimianakis has been a constant source of encouragement and wisdom. The collaboration and friendship of Erica Sutton and Holly Witteman made this process worthwhile independent of the degree at the end. For various forms of support and dialogue that directly enabled this work at one stage or another, I would like to thank Mariana Arteaga, Doug Buller, Carrie Cartmill, Tina Davidson, Sherry Espin, Brian Hodges, Patricia McKeever, Nancy McNaughton, and Aimée Morrison. For making my writing days brighter, I’m thankful to Cynthia Vo, Pamela Cunningham, Yaania Veerasingam, and my friends in the Academic Ladder Writing Club—especially vii Emily Michelson and Eleanor Carlson, who (as anonymous scholars) kept me company at odd hours and pulled me through the home stretch from Italy and Japan. I am thankful to the surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists who were so hospitable toward the Team Talk proJect that gave rise to this work. Both that proJect and my doctoral research were supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I am also grateful to Richard and Elizabeth Currie, who not only fund a Fellowship for education research in the health professions but also host an annual dinner for recipients and listen keenly to updates on our work as it evolves. For rewarding collaborations that also enabled me to pay bills, and the flexibility to prioritize my doctoral proJect when I needed to, I am thankful to Cynthia Whitehead, Sophie Soklaridis, and Tina Martimianakis. To Kari Osmar, I am thankful for these things along with friendship and conversations about professional education and practice that wended their way through three seasons of ironman training and beyond. My work and life are forever enriched and energized by Michelle Janutka. I have more gratitude than words for Michelle, Christopher Turner, and Jean-François Daignault, who blur the lines between friends and family in the most wonderful ways. They have gracefully shared many visits and vacations with this proJect tagging along uninvited. Above all—for sun, soil, water—I am grateful to my parents, Sally and Doug, whose generosity and care run constant and deep. They have given resolve, humour, fierce belief, and support of every kind, always. I am thankful, finally, for my daughters, Morgan and Tamsin, who teach me every day about rhetoric and its limits in ways that are funny and grounding and wise. And for Anna, who is also funny, grounding, and wise—and who didn’t know what she was getting herself into. Her support comes in the steadfast, day-in and day-out variety. She has navigated the start, middle, and end of all my endurance events with love, resilience, and sometimes hand-painted signs reminding me to just keep swimming. viii Dedication This is for my grandmothers, Jessie and Dorothy, and my aunt Janet, all of whose resilient, quiet voices I can still hear cheering for me.
Recommended publications
  • Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? an Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2
    Journal of Scientometric Res. 2021; 10(1):130-134 http://www.jscires.org Perspective Paper Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? An Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2 1Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA. 2CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, INDIA. ABSTRACT Sci-Hub, founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 in Kazakhstan has, over the years, Correspondence emerged as a very popular source for researchers to download scientific papers. It is Vivek Kumar Singh believed that Sci-Hub contains more than 76 million academic articles. However, recently Department of Computer Science, three foreign academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society) have Banaras Hindu University, filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and LibGen before the Delhi High Court and prayed for Varanasi-221005, INDIA. complete blocking these websites in India. It is in this context, that this paper attempts to Email id: [email protected] find out how many Indian research papers are available in Sci-Hub and who downloads them. The citation advantage of Indian research papers available on Sci-Hub is analysed, Received: 16-03-2021 with results confirming that such an advantage do exist. Revised: 29-03-2021 Accepted: 25-04-2021 Keywords: Indian Research, Indian Science, Black Open Access, Open Access, Sci-Hub. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.10.1.16 INTRODUCTION access publishing of their research output, and at the same time encouraging their researchers to publish in openly Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become one accessible forms.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools
    applied sciences Article A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools Tatiana Person 1,* , Iván Ruiz-Rube 1 , José Miguel Mota 1 , Manuel Jesús Cobo 1 , Alexey Tselykh 2 and Juan Manuel Dodero 1 1 Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] (I.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.M.M.); [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.D.) 2 Department of Information and Analytical Security Systems, Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Security, Southern Federal University, 347922 Taganrog, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews are powerful methods used to determine the state-of-the-art in a given field from existing studies and literature. They are critical but time-consuming in research and decision making for various disciplines. When conducting a review, a large volume of data is usually generated from relevant studies. Computer-based tools are often used to manage such data and to support the systematic review process. This paper describes a comprehensive analysis to gather the required features of a systematic review tool, in order to support the complete evidence synthesis process. We propose a framework, elaborated by consulting experts in different knowledge areas, to evaluate significant features and thus reinforce existing tool capabilities. The framework will be used to enhance the currently available functionality of CloudSERA, a cloud-based systematic review Citation: Person, T.; Ruiz-Rube, I.; Mota, J.M.; Cobo, M.J.; Tselykh, A.; tool focused on Computer Science, to implement evidence-based systematic review processes in Dodero, J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Availability of Scientific Publications
    Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications* Final Report January 2018 By: Science-Metrix Inc. 1335 Mont-Royal E. ▪ Montréal ▪ Québec ▪ Canada ▪ H2J 1Y6 1.514.495.6505 ▪ 1.800.994.4761 [email protected] ▪ www.science-metrix.com *This work was funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSES or the NSF. The analysis for this research was conducted by SRI International on behalf of NSF’s NCSES under contract number NSFDACS1063289. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Downloads Lead to More Article Citations
    THE SCI-HUB EFFECT:SCI-HUB DOWNLOADS LEAD TO MORE ARTICLE CITATIONS Juan C. Correa⇤ Henry Laverde-Rojas Faculty of Business Administration Faculty of Economics University of Economics, Prague, Czechia Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia [email protected] [email protected] Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos Julian Tejada Centre for Change and Complexity in Learning Departamento de Psicologia University of South Australia Universidade Federal de Sergipe [email protected] [email protected] Štepánˇ Bahník Faculty of Business Administration University of Economics, Prague, Czechia [email protected] ABSTRACT Citations are often used as a metric of the impact of scientific publications. Here, we examine how the number of downloads from Sci-hub as well as various characteristics of publications and their authors predicts future citations. Using data from 12 leading journals in economics, consumer research, neuroscience, and multidisciplinary research, we found that articles downloaded from Sci-hub were cited 1.72 times more than papers not downloaded from Sci-hub and that the number of downloads from Sci-hub was a robust predictor of future citations. Among other characteristics of publications, the number of figures in a manuscript consistently predicts its future citations. The results suggest that limited access to publications may limit some scientific research from achieving its full impact. Keywords Sci-hub Citations Scientific Impact Scholar Consumption Knowledge dissemination · · · · Introduction Science and its outputs are essential in daily life, as they help to understand our world and provide a basis for better decisions. Although scientific findings are often cited in social media and shared outside the scientific community [1], their primary use is what we could call “scholar consumption.” This phenomenon includes using websites that provide subscription-based access to massive databases of scientific research [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus
    Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1160-1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2018.09.002 Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories Alberto Martín-Martín1 , Enrique Orduna-Malea2 , Mike 3 1 Thelwall , Emilio Delgado López-Cózar Version 1.6 March 12, 2019 Abstract Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2,299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%-96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%-77%) and WoS (27%-73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%-65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%- 38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • I Introducing Primary Scientific Literature to First-Year
    SUMMER 2013 • Volume 34, Number 4 ON THE WEB COUNCIL ON UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH z Introducing Primary Scientific Literature To First-year Undergraduate Researchers Swan, Chris, Jesse Cooper, and Amanda Stockwell. 2007. “Introducing Engineering Students to Research Through a First Year Advising Program.” Susan Carson, Eric S. Miller American Society for Engineering Education. Honolulu, Hawaii, June 24-27. North Carolina State University of the phages in the second semester. The student experience at our institution incorporated critical aspects of under- Wonziak, Carl. 2011. “Freshman Fellows: Recruiting and Retaining Great In the past decade, recommendations for reforming the graduate research, including: project ownership; keeping a Students Through Research Opportunities.” Council on Undergraduate Research way we teach science to undergraduate students have detailed laboratory notebook; disseminating research find- Quarterly 32: 8-15. surged. In particular, emerging research suggests that stu- ings in both oral and written forms; and— the focus of this Zydney, Andrew L., Joan S. Bennett, Abdus Shahid, and Karen W. Bauer. dents benefit from self-guided learning practices that are article—reading and discussing relevant primary scientific 2002. “Faculty Perspectives Regarding Undergraduate Research Experience in focused on core concepts and competencies rather than on literature. Science and Engineering.” Journal of Engineering Education 91: 291-297 content coverage. (National Research Council 2003, 2007, 2009; American Advancement for
    [Show full text]
  • Amplifying the Impact of Open Access: Wikipedia and the Diffusion of Science
    (forthcoming in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology) Amplifying the Impact of Open Access: Wikipedia and the Diffusion of Science Misha Teplitskiy Grace Lu Eamon Duede Dept. of Sociology and KnowledgeLab Computation Institute and KnowledgeLab University of Chicago KnowledgeLab University of Chicago [email protected] University of Chicago [email protected] (773) 834-4787 [email protected] (773) 834-4787 5735 South Ellis Avenue (773) 834-4787 5735 South Ellis Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637 5735 South Ellis Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637 Chicago, Illinois 60637 Abstract With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific knowledge, it is important to compare its representation of that knowledge to that of the academic literature. Here we identify the 250 most heavi- ly used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles in total) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal’s academic status (im- pact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of its being ref- erenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. One of the implica- tions of this study is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the dif- fusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience. Word count: 7894 Introduction Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites in the world1, has become a destination for information of all kinds, including information about science (Heilman & West, 2015; Laurent & Vickers, 2009; Okoli, Mehdi, Mesgari, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, 2014; Spoerri, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Chronicles
    Public Health Chronicles TOBACCO INDUSTRY bacco industry to manipulate information on the risks of MANIPULATION OF RESEARCH tobacco (Figure). These strategies have remained remark- ably constant since the early 1950s. During the 1950s and Lisa A. Bero, PhD 1960s, the tobacco industry focused on refuting data on the adverse effects of active smoking. The industry applied the Research findings provide the basis for estimates of risk. tools it had developed during this time to refute data on However, research findings or “facts” are subject to interpre- the adverse effects of secondhand smoke exposure from the tation and to the social construction of the evidence.1 Re- 1970s through the 1990s. search evidence has a context. The roles of framing, problem The release of previously secret internal tobacco industry definition, and choice of language influence risk communi- documents as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement cation.2 Since data do not “speak for themselves,” interest in 1998 has given the public health community insight into groups can play a critical role in creating and communicat- the tobacco industry’s motives, strategies, tactics, and data.16 ing the research evidence on risk. These documents show that for decades the industry has An interest group is an organized group with a narrowly tried to generate controversy about the health risks of its defined viewpoint, which protects its position or profits.3 products. The internal documents also reveal how the in- These groups are not exclusively business groups, but can dustry has been concerned about maintaining its credibility include all kinds of organizations that may attempt to influ- as it has manipulated research on tobacco.16 ence government.4,5 Interest groups can be expected to con- The tobacco industry has explicitly stated its goal of gen- struct the evidence about a health risk to support their erating controversy about the health risks of tobacco.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Literature Resources: a Guide for CNRA Employees
    Scientific Literature Resources: A Guide for CNRA Employees GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR FEBRUARY 2020 PREPARED BY Nicole Waugh, California Energy Commission Library Amy Loseth, California Geological Survey Library Jenny Woo, California Energy Commission Library CDFW Literature Access SIFT (Science Institute Focus Group) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 1: ONLINE RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Citation Databases ................................................................................................................ 8 Scopus ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Google Scholar ......................................................................................................................... 8 Pubmed .................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Databases .............................................................................................................................. 9 Biodiversity Heritage Library ................................................................................................... 9 Birds of North America ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Bibliometrics
    AN INTRODUCTION TO BIBLIOMETRICS PROF JONATHAN GRANT THE POLICY INSTITUTE, KING’S COLLEGE LONDON NOVEMBER 10- 2015 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND KEY MESSAGES Introduce you to bibliometrics in a general manner Show you the basic requirements for conducting bibliometric analyses You will learn about invalid bibliometric measures around Build up expertise in bibliometrics before using it ! Use bibliometrics wisely, and in context ! CONTENT OF TALK Introduction of bibliometrics and data systems Basic requirements for bibliometric analysis Validity of research assessment Bibliometric indicators Some example uses THE METRICS TIDE PROVIDES GOOD OVERVIEW ON (BIBLIO)METRICS http:// www.hefce.ac.uk /media/ HEFCE,2014/ Content/Pubs/ Independentrese arch/2015/ The,Metric,Tide / 2015_metric_tid e.pdf WHAT IS BIBLIOMETRICS? • The use of published scientific literature (articles, books, conference proceedings, etc.) for measuring research activity eg output volume, science 'quality', interdisciplinarity, networking • New knowledge created by scientists is embedded in the scientific literature • By measuring scientific literature, we measure knowledge and the ways it is produced BIBLIOMETRICS RELIES ON INFORMATION IN A PAPER Journal Title Authors Addresses Abstract References BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SYSTEMS In the field we work with three bibliographic databases: Web of Science by Thomson Reuters; Scopus by Elsevier Science; Google Scholar by Google. Understanding strengths and weakness of different databases is key (i.e. “Coverage”) LEVELS OF BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Macro level eg country and region comparisons Meso level eg research organisation, universities, institutes Mirco level eg analysis of programmes, groups or individual researchers THREE METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 1. Based on list of names of researchers 2. Based on a list of publications of a unit 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Scientific Literature in Biology Courses I. Types of Literature II
    Literature Research B-1 Using Scientific Literature in Biology Courses I. Types of Literature Introduction Page 2 Scientific Literature Primary literature Page 2 Secondary literature Page 3 Comparison of primary and secondary Page 4 Guidelines for deciding which sources to use Page 5 Citing Sources of Information Guidelines for deciding when to cite Page 6 Avoiding plagiarism in scientific writing Page 6 II. How to Cite Sources The Name-Year System of Citing Page 7 Creating a Literature Cited List Page 8 Formatting References Page 9 Print Resources Page 10 Electronic Resources Page 11 Sources not in Electronic Form or Print Page 12 Literature Research B-2 Introduction In science, knowledge accumulates as individuals study phenomena in the natural world. These researchers base their studies on the information contributed in the past by others, and the results of the new studies provide new information or different interpretations of the subjects under investigation. Scientists share their work through the publication of the results of their original research projects. In this way, the new knowledge is available to all who have an interest in those subjects. At Earlham, we believe it is important that you learn how to access and use this scientific literature. Our reasons for this include: • Reading scientific literature is one of the necessary components of scientific research. • Using scientific literature shows something about the social structure of the activity of scientists -- it illustrates the formal means by which scientists communicate with each other and with wider communities. • By reading scientific literature, you will see examples of the writing style by which scientists communicate.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Literature Review Overview
    Scientific Literature Review Overview: 1. What is a Scientific Literature Review? 2. How to write a Scientific Literature Review 3. Key elements of a Coherent Literature Review 4. Literature Review Structure What is a Scientific Literature Review? Scientific Literature Review: A scientific literature review is a critical account of what has been published on a topic by accredited researchers. It may be: • A stand-alone assignment • An introduction to an essay, report, thesis, etc. • Part of research/grant proposals Scientific Literature Review: Writing a literature review will: • Improve your topic knowledge • Provide new insight on your topic to others • Demonstrate your literature searching abilities • Demonstrate your critical analysis skills • Demonstrate your communication/writing skills …your lecturer will be marking you on these skills! Scientific Literature Review: A scientific literature review is not: • An English essay… use scientific writing! • A summary of each research article that you read • Based on personal opinion or biased towards your opinion • A chronological history of events in your research area Scientific Literature Review: What is the purpose of a literature review? Scientific Literature Review: What is the purpose of a literature review? Communication and advancement of scientific knowledge! • Scientific knowledge is not static: reviews help scientists to understand how knowledge in a particular field is changing and developing over time • There is a significant output of scientific publications – literature
    [Show full text]