You can’t figure out the process of finding articles for your literature review?
I hear this a lot.
The most common question I get from students is this: The topic I’m writing about is so new, there’s just no literature on it. What should I do?
In this article, we’ll get to the bottom of this. To do this, we’ll discuss the 5 biggest mistakes in searching literature for your research.
If you stick with it until the end, I even have an example for you on how you can craft an amazing literature review section, even if at first glance there seems to be no literature about the topic.
#1 Too narrowly defined search terms
The first mistake students make when trying to figure out how to search for literature effectively is using too narrowly defined search terms.
The results of a literature search can only be as good as the filtering mechanisms you use.
Let’s use a simple example. For this, we need a topic that is so new that there is little or no literature to be found on it.
The example is: Universal Wallets
Universal Wallets are storage places for digital valuables. Maybe you have your own digital wallet to store cryptocurrencies or NFTs in.
In a Universal Wallet, however, you can store not only NFTs and coins but also other things like digital identity documents or other proofs of your identity.
Boolean Operators
For searching in literature databases, finding literature can be as simple as entering search terms. Using Boolean operators can help you to be more effective in your search.
If you are doing a systematic search process that you want to document in your methods section, this is an absolute must, because it ensures replicability.
But even if you keep your search terms for yourself and write a “regular” literature review section, Boolean operators can help you big time.
Especially the “OR” operator. For example, with “Universal Wallets,” you would get a low number of hits for the search term “Universal Wallet” in most databases.
In Google Scholar, however, an algorithm automatically combines your search term with synonyms and also gives you the next best results.
But if you’re searching on another database, that’s of no help to you.
Through the Google Scholar search results, though, I came across synonyms that I would never have searched for.
Wireless Wallets, Cloud Wallets, Electronic Wallets, Hardware Wallets, Wallet System, and Mobile Wallet seem to be related terms.
From this, you could make the search string “wireless” OR “cloud” OR “electronic” OR “hardware” OR “mobile” AND “wallet” for your database search on Scopus, Web of Science and so on.
You’d have to search for Wallet System separately or use brackets to include the term “wallet system.” It’s just a bit cumbersome because here “wallet” is the first word and not the second.
Forward and Backward Search
If a refined database search yields no results, then you need to delve into some other tricks.
With a forward and backward search, you can find the sources upon which the few hits you did find are based, or sources that have cited them afterwards.
The best hit for the term “Universal Wallet” was the paper “Universal Wallets” by Jorgensen and Beck (2021). For the backward search, we simply look at the bibliography and see what we can find there.
Ha!
One paper cited there uses the term “Digital Wallet.” That’s something I could have thought of by myself.
But most often, when finding literature, I do not.
Now, searching for “Digital Wallet” yields endless results. A digital wallet is, of course, not what is meant by “Universal Wallet,” but it is still a related technology.
Thus, it’s perfectly feasible to build on the term “Digital Wallet” to describe what exactly is new about a “Universal Wallet” and why we cannot simply transfer the research on digital wallets to this more nuanced version of the technology.
#2 Inappropriate Databases for Finding Literature
The search terms are one thing. But if the database you are searching on simply does not cover enough sources, then even the best search terms and operators won’t help.
When you use databases, primarily use those in which the research of your own discipline is indexed.
A medical researcher searches on PubMed, a computer scientist on IEEE, and a psychologist on PsycNet. However, sometimes it pays to look beyond the confines of a discipline.
So make sure you also check out interdisciplinary databases. This could be something like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
Or you could look directly into another discipline if you already have an idea of who else might be interested in your topic outside your research field.
The more you can cover with your databases, the better. In the worst case, you find nothing there. But at least you’ve tried.
#3 Old Wine in New Bottles
Regarding “Universal Wallets,” there is certainly a difference compared to “Digital Wallets” or the good old-fashioned wallet.
However, this may not always be the case with other terms.
Take, for example, the topic of Digital Transformation.
The term has only been a trend topic for a few years, and since then, there has been a lot of research on it.
But what’s actually new about it?
Haven’t companies been introducing technology to improve their processes for 50 years?
Yes, they have. And there’s plenty of research literature on that. It’s just not found under the label “Digital Transformation.”
But if you search for “IT-enabled Organizational Transformation,” you get some hits from the last millennium!
And these hits might be relevant for someone wanting to study Digital Transformation.
So, when it comes to your topic, ask yourself: Is the topic really as new as the term describing it?
#4 Too Much Description
This mistake deals with the goal of your literature search. You want to write a literature review section on your topic and diligently cite relevant literature.
This approach isn’t necessarily wrong.
But you write a truly excellent literature section when you change your goal.
A poor literature review section merely recounts research on a topic but fails to gather enough relevant literature.
A mediocre literature review section manages to do so, but only describes what has been researched on the topic.
A fantastic literature review section gathers relevant literature, explains what has been done so far, and critiques or interprets what this means.
So, especially with a new topic, don’t focus too much on finding literature and citing every single source that somewhat fits the topic.
Instead, try to develop your own argument using a handful of relevant findings. For example, you could explain the difference between the new term and existing ones.
Or you could further develop the argument you used for motivation in your introduction.
We’ll look at an example of this at the end of the video.
#5 Your Doughnut Has No Hole
If you’re writing a non-systematic literature review section, completeness is not a criterion. So your “cheese” of literature can have holes, as long as you develop an exciting argument.
But if you have a sweet tooth, try imagining the metaphor of a doughnut.
Let’s say you’ve convinced me, and your topic is indeed so new that there’s little research on it. And Finding literature isn’t always straightforward.
What you can do then is not look for the hole in the middle, but for the surrounding dough. What are the terms and phenomena that are closely related to your topic?
Work your way through the databases, gathering literature on somewhat broader topics and terms, and approach the doughnut’s hole argumentatively.
For “Universal Wallets,” you could start with the topic of Digital Wallets, explain what Crypto-Wallets are, and from there move on to Universal Wallets.
An Example for a Literature Chapter on a “Brand New” Topic
As luck would have it, I found an excellent example for you. In their paper on “Universal Wallets,” Jörgensen and Beck (2021) did almost exactly that.
They start not with the topic of Digital Wallets but directly with Crypto-Wallets. That’s how they begin their literature review section.
When it comes to “Universal Wallets,” they continue to cite literature.
But if we take a closer look, we realize that this literature has nothing directly to do with the term.
The chapter is a perfect doughnut!
The first source they cite is titled “Digital Lifestyle.” This source is somewhat more broadly related to the topic.
Then, the authors cite sources on “The Token Economy” and “Identity Ecosystems.” These two sources are closer to “Universal Wallets,” but neither directly refers to it.
Further sources revolve around “Blockchain Identity Management Systems” and “The potential of blockchain in education and health care.”
The last source is a report from the World Wide Web Consortium on “Universal Wallets.” When the academic literature is not yet extensive, reports from industry can also be helpful.
From this example, you can see how to write a literature review section on a topic without using a single academic source on that topic!
Avoiding the 5 mistakes I mentioned have taught you how to search literature effectively.
So from now on, “My topic is too new” is no longer an excuse. And if you meet someone who uses this excuse in your presence, send them this article! 🙂