Searching through Published Literature

1. Researcher and Scholar

Research scientists, of necessity, need to become scholars. The best scholars are not necessarily the best researchers, and vice versa. Knowledge in science and technology is so diversified that a pro­fessor, an expert in his own area of specialization, is nearly a novice in regard to the knowledge of other professors in the same depart­ment. It is not uncommon that dozens of Ph.D. candidates work­ing in the same department know very little of each other’s work. Each researcher, in a sense, is at the narrow apex of a small pyra­mid of specialized knowledge. To a lesser extent, this is also true at the master’s level and at the level of the undergraduate thesis, in that order, the pyramid being smaller. To be able to do research, the researcher should have a good idea of the breadth and height of the knowledge pyramid wherein he is placed. But to study every “block and brick” of the pyramid, that is, every published article in his area, is impossible. Fortunately, unlike in the pyra­mid analogy, not all articles are equally important; some are even insignificant. How well one can identify the significant ones among the hundreds that are available is a matter of gift, luck, and, of course, experience.

For a newcomer, to survey the literature is a formidable task, but much depends on what kind of preparation one needs to begin the task. Suppose, as it was pointed out in Chapter 1, one wants to do research for a Ph.D. and has a modest scholarship, but his superior has suggested or advised no direction, or “track.” For him, the task of surveying the literature is very wasteful and frustrating. At the other extreme, one may become, from the beginning, a member of a team working, not necessarily for a degree, under the direction of a guide, manager, or director. Then, to choose literature in one’s track is fairly easy.

We will assume a case at neither of these extremes, in which the candidate is not a member of a research team and has the guidance of a knowledgeable superior who provides a track, sug­gests the context of a problem, but lets the researcher find his own way and define the problem for himself. This is the most desirable case for the researcher. Where should such an indepen­dent, rather self-dependent, researcher start his search in litera­ture? We attempt to outline here how he can make progress.

Thanks to computer technology, we live in an age of informa­tion explosion. Taking the hint from what the school children do when their teacher gives them a project, we naturally go to the Internet. There is a lot of “information” on any topic, on any meaningful word combination one may form. The list of studies available is simply overwhelming, sometimes running to several hundred items. If the researcher spends the time to read each one of the titles and looks at the source to make a reasonable guess as to its relevance, he may get a few articles he thinks worthwhile to look at in detail.

2. Literature in Print

Printed literature, though not available at one’s fingertips, is more likely to be fruitful. In the order of building the base and then the height of the pyramid, one may start with the general ency­clopedias like the Britannica and the Americana. Next in order are encyclopedias on individual broad subject areas, such as phys­ics, chemistry, biology, electrical engineering, and materials. Then follow handbooks on various subject fields, wherein a fairly detailed discussion can be found on various topics. Then come books in the field, which are often too numerous, and it is not easy to see all of them. Looking through the contents of selected ones, with luck, the researcher may notice a whole chapter deal­ing with material that he is looking for. Chapter-end and book- end bibliographies are a great source for more literature. Books in Print lists all of the books currently available, including recent publications, classified by subject. Recent developments, maybe in one’s area, will likely be dealt with in one or more of these books. Careful perusal of the contents of those that suggest them­selves by their title may bear fruit.

Then follow periodicals (e.g., journals, annals, transactions). Most journals occasionally publish volumes devoted to abstracts of articles or indexes of articles published in previous issues of that journal, and in some cases, in other journals as well. Based on the title and abstract description, you may trace or call for the reprints of relevant articles. Occasionally, there are articles wholly devoted to a review (or survey) of available published literature in a particular problem area.

In doing a literature search, there is no orderly, step-by-step procedure to follow. Quite a bit of roundabout search is fairly common. The researcher may find, for example, in a reference in a recent article another article closer to his interest, or a mono­graph, or even a book, published quite a few years ago dealing with material he has been searching for. To find such a jewel is very gratifying. By the time the researcher reaches this stage in the literature search, he may get the frustrating feeling that what­ever he thought of as a problem has already been “solved” by oth­ers and that he has appeared on the scene too late.

Not so. In fact, such frustration is an unconscious indicator that the researcher has done a “good enough” amount of search­ing and that the end of the tunnel is around the corner. Almost always, unconsciously, his mind has been groping toward defin­ing the problem. And almost always, when he has least been thinking about it, he will see the problem defined, delimited, and presented to his conscious mind. That problem then becomes his.

He then knows all the aspects that have been researched already and has found that one aspect that somehow escaped the notice of others and that he is called upon to adopt and make his own. The question or questions that define the problem, when changed from interrogative to assertive form, take a new life in the shape of a hypothesis. And that is what the researcher has been waiting for: a hypothesis. From then on, hypothesis becomes the focal point of his research work.

The literature survey does not end there. In one sense, it begins over again, but with a better focus, at a higher level in the knowledge pyramid. We notice that the literature survey begins with the problem; it started when the problem was only a track, a suggestion, a context. On the other hand, more literature survey was needed to define the problem, to delimit it and to form a hypothesis. How much literature survey is needed to reach that stage is a matter of luck and anybody’s guess. And when does the literature survey end? It does not; all through the next steps of experimentation, analysis, writing, and presentation, literature survey is a continuous and integral part of research work. In fact, it almost becomes a habit with research workers; even when they change careers, they tend to remain scholars.

3. Overdoing?

It is interesting to ask if there is anything like too much scholar­ship, meaning too much study of literature. Opinions differ among research workers, but I know at least one case in the affirmative. I recollect a great scholar, let us call him “Rao,” from my early research years. Rao was meticulous in everything he did, very hard working, devoted to knowledge, and brilliant as well. There was no book he had not seen in his area of study, no recent or old article that he had not studied. He was sure to be present at all seminars and colloquiums, not only in his department but often in others as well. He was a familiar face at all meetings of scientific interest. He missed no lecture by a guest speaker. One could bet that no presentation was complete without Rao asking questions and that those questions were very pointed and relevant. Often he would answer his own questions because the presenter could not. His comments were almost like the last words on the topic under discussion. Many of us expected great things from Rao. If he were to win a Nobel price, we would not be surprised.

Rao emigrated to the United States, to the disappointment of many because they would miss him, and to the approval of many more because, to them, that was the right atmosphere for Rao’s genius to flourish. Rao joined a well-known university in the Midwest and worked under a well-known professor. Several years later, I emigrated to the United States too. Rao was in touch with a common friend and came to visit that friend, who was now married with children, had worked many years in industry, and had returned to another university to earn a Ph.D. We were chat­ting on many things about our common past: changes in our old institution, our professors and co-students there, who was where, doing what, most of whom we had lost track of.

Rao was now balder than before, with some gray hair here and there, but the same old smiling, casual, unreserved self—and still unmarried. Unexpectedly, almost as a confession, he talked about himself. His words were not exactly these, but their meaning was as follows: “At that time, I was very close to my subject. I still tend to be. I have come to understand one thing when it is too late. Being too close to the subject is not conducive to creative work. I see a lot of details, which is not good. A certain amount of distance between the subject and the observer is essential. I miss that.” I felt a great pity, almost sadness for him. He was of course smiling and casual. There was no trace of self-reproach in his statements. I remembered a saying relevant to artists, but I could not say it to him: “When observing the woods, do not look at the trees.”

4. After the Climb

Returning to literature survey as a part of research work, it is pos­sible, with some overlap, to think of two phases of that: (1) before hypothesis, beginning with the inception of the problem, and (2) after hypothesis, lasting throughout that research and beyond. In the second phase, the researcher looks for a few selected journals relevant to the research, more specific articles in those journals, and even within an article for more specific information. He is

Source: Srinagesh K (2005), The Principles of Experimental Research, Butterworth-Heinemann; 1st edition.