Please write a 2,500-word literature review that provides a critical synthesis of a minimum of 20 academic sources (i.e., academic journal articles, preferably, with DOI numbers; chapters in edited books; or monographs) on a topic of your choice (preferably your dissertation topic).
The literature review needs to accomplish the following:
critically synthesise the theoretical research and empirical studies that have already been conducted by other researchers on the topic(s) relevant to your research question, as well as any cross-sections of these;
identify a research gap (through counter-claiming, identifying a niche, question-raising, or continuing a tradition);
establish a narrow, grounded, and argumentative research question; a hypothesis; and a set of research objectives for the research gap identified.
N.B. The research question, the hypothesis, and the research objectives are included in the 2,500 words; the References section is not.
Please submit a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) file. PDF files, etc. are not accepted.
The assignment will be assessed based on the following criteria (see the grid below):
Synthesis (40%)
Source use (10%)
Structure (20%)
Research objectives (20%)
Language and mechanics (10%)
Papers shorter than 2,250 and longer than 2,750 words lose 10 points. Papers shorter than 2,000 words fail automatically. Papers where there are two or three discrepancies between the references used in and after text receive 0% on Language and Mechanics. Papers where there are four or more discrepancies between the references used in and after text fail automatically. Papers that do not contain a minimum of twenty (20) academic sources fail automatically. Academic sources are academic journal articles, preferably, with DOI numbers; chapters in edited books; and monographs. Poor academic practice (e.g., quoting directly from sources that exceeds 10% of the paper) will result in automatic fail.
Because the first draft is an optional assignment, submissions after the deadline will not be accepted.
Academic conduct notice
Harvard-style referencing needs to be used consistently throughout. Incomplete referencing shall result in reporting the case to the Academic Conduct Officer, who keeps a record of such violations. First offenders may resubmit their papers and may receive 50% at most. Repeated violations of academic standards shall be sanctioned in line with the plagiarism regulations as detailed in the Student Handbook.
Where the Academic Conduct Officer has reason to suspect that a piece of work submitted by a student was wholly or in part written by someone other than the student who submitted it, and this has not been disclosed by the student, they may call for the student to defend the work in a viva or a written comprehension test. The burden of proof in such a viva or test will be upon the student to demonstrate to the examination panels satisfaction his/her full comprehension of the work s/he has submitted. Failure to appear without satisfactory explanation will result in immediate failure of that assessment, with consequences of academic misconduct and application of sanctions.
