Step 3: Checking the Literature
Step three is a daily working routine, not a chapter you write once. It runs from the first quick scan of a paper through to a backup copy stored somewhere other than your desk — and most of it is habit rather than technique.
The routine, and what it is building towards
By this point you have a topic that has survived screening and testing — see reviewing and testing your research topic. Step three is where you find out whether the topic holds up against what has actually been published, and where the raw material for everything downstream gets collected.
Notice the proportions. Only the first and third parts are about reading. The second, fourth and fifth are about handling what you read and recording what you think, and the sixth is about what the whole exercise produces. The source is describing an operating discipline, not a search.
The six parts as a working loop
What each part actually requires of you
Source and scan
Find relevant items and read them quickly for overview. The scan is a triage pass — its output is a decision about whether the item earns a careful read, plus the references you harvest from its bibliography.
Download and save, including references
Take the item and its bibliographic details at the same time. The instruction to save the references with the literature is the one most often ignored, and the cost of ignoring it lands months later when a quotation cannot be attributed.
Read carefully and annotate
Two outputs are specified: annotations on the source, and a note of the value of the reading to your topic. The second is the one that makes the pile usable — an annotated paper with no statement of relevance is a paper you will have to read again.
Write your thoughts as you go
Daily if possible, even a paragraph or two, first thing in the day if you can. This is writing to think, not drafting a chapter.
Date everything and back it up elsewhere
Note and date all drafts and references as you go, keep backup copies, and store a copy in a separate location. The source names a portable hard drive as its example of a separate location.
Begin constructing the theoretical framework
The reading is not the deliverable. Building the framework from the literature is, and the source treats it as the point the other five parts run towards.
Run these as a loop rather than a sequence. Each scan produces new references, which produce new scans; the writing and the backup discipline apply continuously rather than at the end of a phase.
Two reading modes, and the only search technique the source gives
The source distinguishes scanning from careful reading and does not name a third mode. Keeping the two genuinely separate is what stops a literature check from becoming an undifferentiated slog through everything you can find.
SCAN AND CAREFUL READ, AS THE SOURCE SEPARATES THEM
| Mode | The source's instruction | What it is for | What you hold afterwards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scan | Source the relevant literature and scan — read quickly for overview | Deciding whether this item earns your full attention, and finding the next items | A keep-or-discard judgement, and references harvested from the bibliography |
| Careful read | Carefully read the literature, annotating sources and noting the value of the reading to your topic | Extracting what this particular item contributes to your particular topic | Annotations, plus a written statement of the item's value to your topic |
The source names these two modes and no others. It sets no ratio between them and no rule for how many items to scan before reading anything carefully.
The instruction to "use bibliographies in papers for further reference" is the source's only stated search technique. It is a good one — following the references of a paper that is clearly relevant tends to produce better results than a broad keyword search, and it moves you backwards through a conversation towards the works everybody in the field cites.
Saving, dating and backing up
The fifth part of the routine reads like administrative advice and is not. Dated drafts are the evidence that your thinking developed rather than arrived, and they are what lets you reconstruct why a question changed.
The file discipline the source asks for
- Every item downloaded is saved with its full reference, at the moment you download it
- Every draft carries a date, and old drafts are kept rather than overwritten
- Every reference is noted and dated as you go, not reconstructed at the end
- Backup copies exist for your writing, not just for the literature you collected
- At least one copy lives in a separate location — the source's example is a portable hard drive
Writing while you read
Three separate instructions sit inside the fourth part of the routine, and they are easy to read as one piece of general encouragement. They are not. Each addresses a different failure.
Three instructions inside one
Write down your thoughts while reading
The reaction to a paper is most useful at the moment you have it. Recorded later, it becomes a summary of the paper rather than a record of what the paper did to your thinking.
Write daily if possible, even a paragraph or two
The threshold is deliberately low. A paragraph is enough to keep the thread of the argument live between sessions, which matters most when research runs alongside a delivery role.
Do it first thing each day if you can
The source hedges this with if you can. The underlying point is that writing is the part that gets displaced by everything else, so it belongs before everything else.
There is a further payoff the source states directly: "Your review of the literature gives you material from which you develop questions to ask in data gathering." The notes you make while reading are the raw material for interview and survey questions later — which means the quality of your instruments is being determined now. That work is picked up on designing your research.
Where the routine hands over
The sixth part — begin to construct the theoretical framework — is where this step stops being a routine and becomes an argument. That material is substantial enough to sit on its own page, and this one deliberately stops at the boundary.
This page covers the routine
- Sourcing and scanning, and following bibliographies
- Saving literature together with its references
- Careful reading, annotation and statements of relevance
- Writing daily while the reading is fresh
- Dating drafts and backing them up in a separate location
The framework page covers the argument
- Concepts as the building blocks of theory
- How key concepts direct your search and your reading
- What the theoretical framework does for the project
- The relationship between the conceptual and theoretical frameworks
- How the framework guides data gathering
The two are tightly coupled in the source: key concepts direct your search and your reading, and the reading in turn builds the framework. Read them together — start with the conceptual and theoretical framework if you are unsure what you are reading for.
Running the routine without losing a week
Two practical framings, offered as synthesis rather than as source requirements. First, treat the literature as secondary data — it was gathered by other people, for other purposes, and is interpreted by others, which is exactly how the material defines secondary sources. Read it with the same scepticism you would apply to any data you did not collect.
Second, the file discipline in part five is the same discipline the process asks for again at the very end, when the report and the data have to be stored properly. Setting it up now costs nothing; retrofitting it costs a weekend. That later requirement is covered on writing the report and storing the data.
What to carry forward
- Six parts: source and scan, save with references, read and annotate, write daily, date and back up, build the framework. Run them as a loop, not a sequence.
- Scan and careful read are different jobs. The scan decides whether an item earns your attention and harvests the next references from its bibliography.
- Following bibliographies is the only search technique the source gives. Keep your own log of where else you searched.
- Write daily, even a paragraph, first thing if you can — and note what each reading is worth to your topic while you still remember.
- Date every draft and keep a copy in a separate location. The source makes this point with a story; treat the story as illustration and the instruction as the requirement.
Frequently asked questions
How much literature is enough?
The supplied teaching source sets no threshold and gives no stopping rule for this step. The only related guidance sits at the idea stage, where it warns that a topic with little literature is one you will probably be advised against. In practice, stop when new items stop changing your framework and start repeating references you already hold.
What is the difference between scanning and reading?
The source treats them as distinct activities. Scanning is reading quickly for overview and is aimed at triage and at harvesting further references. Careful reading produces annotations and a written statement of what the item is worth to your topic. Most items you find should be scanned; only some earn the second mode.
Which databases should I search?
The source does not name any. Its only stated search technique is using the bibliographies of papers you already have to find further references. Anything beyond that — database selection, search strings, coverage — is outside the supplied material, so document whatever approach you take.
Why does the source insist on writing daily?
It gives the instruction without a justification: write down your thoughts as you go, daily if possible, even a paragraph or two, first thing each day if you can. The stated purpose of the notes emerges later — the review gives you the material from which you develop the questions you will ask in data gathering.
Is the backup advice really part of the research method?
It is part of the routine as the source sets it out, sitting alongside dating your drafts and references. The material illustrates it with a story about a thesis lost in a house fire, which is an illustration rather than evidence — but the instruction to keep dated backups in a separate location stands on its own.
When do I start writing the theoretical framework?
The source places it last in the routine — begin to construct the framework from the literature once the reading is under way. It is not a separate phase that starts when reading finishes, and the framework in turn directs what you read next, so expect the two to overlap.
References and source attribution
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford (the topic-development references also list the 2012 4th ed.).
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London (listed among the source's references).
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge (set as reading for the introductory and topic-selection material).
- The supplied teaching source: master's-level teaching material on developing a research topic, supplied as study notes and accompanying slides. The six-part routine is quoted from that material.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What is the six-part routine for checking the literature?
- How do I decide whether to scan a paper or read it carefully?
- What file and backup discipline does the source ask for during the literature review?
- How does the literature review feed into my data gathering questions?
- What does the supplied source not tell me about searching for literature?