2002HSV - Lecture Week 2

Acknowledgement of Country

Lecturer begins by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land and paying respect to Elders past and present, extending that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Recap of Foundational Concepts (Week 1)

Paradigms
- Positivist (mainly)
- Reality governed by universal, context-free laws.
- Small sample ⇒ generalisable to population.
- Break phenomena into constituent parts (physical-science model).
- Interpretivist (mainly)
- Social world ≠ physics; truth is context-dependent.
- Knowledge claims always embedded in time/place.
Ontology (nature of reality) & Epistemology (how we know it) underpin paradigm choice.
Key contrasts
- Nomothetic vs Idiographic
- Nomothetic = general explanations (e.g., child maltreatment → poorer adult outcomes).
- Idiographic = single-case explanations (e.g., Barry’s unique life story).
- Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning
- Deductive: premises ⇒ logically necessary conclusion.
  - Formal form $A \wedge B \rightarrow C$
  - Example
    \text{Socrates is a man} \
    \text{All men are mortal} \
    \therefore \text{Socrates is mortal}
- Inductive: observations ⇒ generalisation (e.g., 10 000 white swans ⇒ “all swans are white” – falsified by black swan).
- Quantitative vs Qualitative
- Quant: numerical data, probability theory to generalise.
- Qual: rich, contextual description (interviews, focus groups, documents, images).
Research process is iterative, not linear
- Literature ↔ Topic ↔ Research Question cycles.
- Weeks 2–3 content intentionally overlaps because lit review and question generation co-evolve.

Literature Reviews – Purpose & Typology

Always define purpose & audience before writing.
Grant & Booth (2009) identify 14 review types; key purposes include:
1. Answering a factual question.
2. Consolidating scattered knowledge.
3. Identifying best practice.
4. Informing social policy.
5. Justifying a new empirical study (OUR purpose).
Common student error: write a mini-systematic review that answers a question, then tack on a research question—marks lost for weak “critical analysis.”

Systematic Reviews vs Our Task

Systematic Review
- Narrow effectiveness question (e.g., “Is CBT effective for PTSD?”).
- Pre-registered search strategy; hard inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Aim = definitive answer; labor-intensive, multi-author.
- PRISMA flow-chart.
Our Review
- Exploratory, flexible, single-author.
- Goal = expose gaps/limitations to argue for a new study.
- No PRISMA required.

Searching for Literature

Choosing/Refining a Topic

Brainstorm sources: personal observation, professional experience, passion, upcoming courses, desired field, browsing recent journals.
Pick something THIS WEEK so you can begin searching.

Where to Start

Google Scholar – user-friendly orientation; NOT sufficient end-point.
Library Catalogue
- Use Advanced Search (choose fields, Boolean operators AND/OR, phrase " ").
- Filters: peer-reviewed, date ranges.
- Tools: cite (APA 7th output), save list (bulk export), export to EndNote/Zotero/Mendeley.
Databases via Library Guides
- Navigate: Resources & Borrowing → Library Guides → Psychology, Social Work & Human Services (or other relevant discipline).
- Compare coverage: academic journals vs news/current-affairs databases.

Citation / Reference Management

One-click APA citations—but always verify accuracy.
EndNote demo: import PDFs & metadata; organise folders; insert citations in Word; auto-switch styles.
Alternatives: Zotero, Mendeley, MyBib.
Use something electronic rather than manual typing.

Practical Search Tactics

Start broad → progressively refine.
Build synonym blocks with OR; combine blocks with AND.
- Example: $("child maltreatment"\ OR\ "child abuse"\ OR\ neglect\ OR\ "child protection"\ OR\ "child welfare")$
Iterative & exploratory – update terms as you read.
DON’T
- Lock yourself into a fixed keyword list.
- Apply rigid inclusion/exclusion like a systematic review.
- Search for the mythical article that covers A AND B AND C simultaneously.
DO
- Think conceptually; draw on parallel fields (e.g., parole risk tools → child-protection risk tools).
- Combine multiple bodies of literature.
Golden rule: “There is always something” – if empirical work scarce, pivot to theory.

Making Sense of the Literature

Types of Papers

Conceptual/Theoretical – advance explanations, no data.
Methods papers – explain how to research, no data.
Empirical – contain literature review, methods, data, discussion.

Age of Sources – “How old is too old?”

Theory & methods can remain valid for decades (e.g., Bowlby/Ainsworth; Cox regression 1972).
Empirical findings may date rapidly (policy changes, COVID, NDIS).
Judge relevance contextually; ensure up-to-date evidence for claims tied to current practice.

Efficient Reading Workflow

Title → relevance?
Abstract → enough detail to decide.
Introduction → (early phase) collect background & seminal citations.
Discussion/Conclusion → main findings, future directions.
Limitations → goldmine for research-gap ideas.
Methods & Results (when study resembles your own design or you need technical detail).

Critical Noticing

How is the problem conceptualised? What theoretical lens?
Methods used (design, sample, measures, analyses).
Strengths & weaknesses across the body of evidence.
Inconsistent findings – explore reasons (design, setting, definitions, era).
Global assessment: How convincing is collective knowledge? What can/can’t we conclude?

Organising the Forest (Not Just the Trees)

Develop categories that support your eventual argument:
- Theoretical perspectives (psychological vs sociological).
- Methods (surveys vs administrative data; quant vs qual).
- Geography (US vs UK vs Australia; Global North vs Global South).
- Client groups (women/men/children; LGBTQ+; Indigenous, etc.).
Tools: Word/Excel matrices, reference-management notes, or literal paper piles.

From “Finding a Gap” to Constructing a Problem

Research funding/time scarce ⇒ justify originality.
Easier to build a problem than stumble upon an empty space.

Seven Proven Strategies

New theory × old problem
- Pair an under-used theory with an existing issue (e.g., use Labelling Theory to study parental non-compliance with case plans).
Inconsistent results
- Resolve contradictory findings – probe design, setting, definitions.
Methodological weaknesses
- Propose stronger design, larger sample, longer follow-up, different outcome measures, richer qualitative insight.
Explain an established relationship
- Move from that A ↔ B to why/how via mediators/moderators.
New population/context
- Transfer study to under-researched group/location (e.g., same-sex DV; Pacific Island climate migrants).
Recent developments
- Emerging tech (ChatGPT, AI), policy shifts (NDIS), global events (COVID, climate change) demand fresh data.
Next logical step
- When evidence shows what, propose study on what next (intervention trial, long-term outcomes, mechanism testing).

Theory source can be outside social sciences—so long as it elucidates a social-work/human-services question.
International focus permissible; evaluate cultural & methodological feasibility.

Practical & Emotional Guidance

Feeling daunted, overwhelmed, or stuck is normal – part of iterative scholarship.
Action plan
1. Start early – pick a tentative topic this week.
2. Search–think–search cycles; accept revision.
3. Bring drafts/questions to tutorials – peer and tutor feedback accelerates clarity.
4. Use tools – citation software, library guides.
5. Relax – confusion subsides as patterns emerge.

Key Take-Home Messages

Your literature review’s sole function in this course: argue convincingly that a new empirical study is needed.
Discuss the state of the forest (collective evidence), not just individual studies.
Gaps are actively constructed via strategic critique and synthesis.
Search broadly, iteratively, and methodically; harness synonyms and multiple databases.
Organise papers to highlight theory, method, context, or population distinctions relevant to your argument.
Start now, collaborate, verify citations, and keep perspective – the process will coalesce with sustained effort.