EXERCISE 1

 Check your literature review knowledge. Please take into account your current
writing situation (maybe preparing for a research article publication or for your
thesis/dissertation literature review )

1. The preparation of a literature review is a three-step process: finding

the relevant literature, reading, and then writing up the review.
2. Your literature review should be as long as possible to persuade your
reader that you have read very widely.
3. You need to include all of the previous research that relates to your
topic.
4. You can safely ignore literature that is not directly related to your topic.
5. Your literature review is important because it demonstrates that the
findings, theory, or analysis that you will present are a contribution to a
cumulative process.
6. Your literature review needs to explain clearly which potential areas for
inclusion have not been covered in the review and why they have been
omitted.
7. Your literature review should discuss problems and/or controversies
within your field.
8. Your literature review should be presented in chronological order.
9. Your literature review can help you discover conceptual traditions and
frameworks used to examine problems.
10. Your literature review should focus on very recent publications
because they are likely the most relevant.
11. Your literature review should help you reveal gaps in the existing body
of research.
12. In your literature review you should critically evaluate each piece of
work included.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source: Swales and Feak (2000) English in Today’s Research World. A Writing Guide.

1
EXERCISE 2

 Observe the process of research writing. The present student’s sample

illustrates the steps followed before handing a definite version of a literature
review in the field of Psychology.

A STUDENT BEGAN A SHORT LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE STIGMA OF THE

MENTALLY ILL AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS. WORKING THROUGH
PSYCHARTICLES SHE FOUND THREE LIKELY ARTICLES. WHEN SHE READ
THEM ALL, SHE WROTE A PARAGRAPH DESCRIPTION OF EACH:

1. Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003). The impact of contact on stigmatizing attitudes towards
people with mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 271-289.

Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental illness, perceptions of
dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. They found that, as a participant’s
own life contact with mentally ill individuals increased, participants were both less likely to
perceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely
to desire social distance from the target.This relationship remained after controlling for
demographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity, education, income and
political conservatism. They also found that any type of contact – with a friend, a spouse, a
family member, a work contact, or a contact in a public place – with mentally ill individuals
reduced perceptions of dangerousness of the target in the vignette.

2. Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M.A.
(2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personality responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 28, 293-309.

Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White and Kubiak (2002)
conducted two studies to investigate the strength of the theoretical relationship between
stigma and personality responsibility, and stigma and dangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited
two models to account for stigmatizing reactions. In the first model, labeled personal
responsibility, personality responsibility influences both the level of pity and anger
displayed toward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence
helping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived dangerousness
influences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002), administered a questionnaire to 216 community
college students. This questionnaire contained items which would allow the examination of
the two models. The results of a path analysis indicated that while both models fit the data,
the results for the dangerousness model seemed far more consistent with the data. Their
second study was an attempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with
either an educational group or a mental patient. During the meetings, either myths about the
personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients were discussed and
debunked. While education yielded some positive results, contact with mental patients
produced stronger results

3. Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’
labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 41, 208-223.

Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of descriptions of the
targets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the behavior, the target’s perceived
2
dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty percent
of the participants labeled a target described with depressed symptoms as having a mental
illness (as compared with 54% for those described with schizophrenic symptoms or 1%
with normal troubles); 37% would be unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48%
for the schizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed person
would do violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles).

NEXT SHE DECIDED UPON THE ORDER OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN THE PAPER:

3. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of descriptions of the targets’
behavior, causal attributions about the source of the behavior, the target’s perceived
dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty percent
of the participants labeled a target described with depressed symptoms as having a mental
illness (as compared with 54% for those described with schizophrenic symptoms or 1%
with normal troubles); 37% would be unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48%
for the schizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed person
would do violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles).

1. Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental illness, perceptions of
dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. They found that, as a participant’s
own life contact with mentally ill individuals increased, participants were both less likely to
perceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely
to desire social distance from the target.This relationship remained after controlling for
demographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity, education, income and
political conservatism. They also found that any type of contact – with a friend, a spouse, a
family member, a work contact, or a contact in a public place – with mentally ill individuals
reduced perceptions of dangerousness of the target in the vignette.

2. Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White and Kubiak (2002)
conducted two studies to investigate the strength of the theoretical relationship between
stigma and personality responsibility, and stigma and dangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited
two models to account for stigmatizing reactions. In the first model, labeled personal
responsibility, personality responsibility influences both the level of pity and anger
displayed toward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence
helping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived dangerousness
influences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002), administered a questionnaire to 216 community
college students. This questionnaire contained items which would allow the examination of
the two models. The results of a path analysis indicated that while both models fit the data,
the results for the dangerousness model seemed far more consistent with the data. Their
second study was an attempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with
either an educational group or a mental patient. During the meetings, either myths about the
personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients were discussed and
debunked. While education yielded some positive results, contact with mental patients
produced stronger results.

THEN, SHE CAREFULLY CHOSE THE ORDER OF THE PARAGRAPHS SO SHE

COULD TALK ABOUT: (A) that people respond to the mentally ill with fear and rejection,
(B) contact reduces both rejection and fear and (C) how to best arrange the contact to
reduce stigma. NOW SHE ADDED INTRODUCTORY AND CONCLUDING
SENTENCES, PARAGRAPH HOOKS AND SHORT TRANSITION PARAGRAPHS
TO HELP THE FLOW OF IDEAS:

3
A) Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people respond to the mentally ill with
feelings of fear and rejection. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of
descriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the behavior,
the target’s perceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographic
characteristics. Twenty percent of the participants labeled a target described with depressed
symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared with 54% for those described with
schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% would be unwilling to interact
with the depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles); and
33% felt that the depressed person would do violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic
and 17% for the normal troubles). Thus, a common respond to the mentally ill are rejection
and fear of violence. While, based upon research, the common response to a mentally ill
person is to fear violence, diagnosed mental patients commit violence at the same rates as
non-diagnosed people (Martin, et al., 2000). Public perceptions may not match reality due
to the public’s lack of contact with the mentally ill.

B) Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with the mentally ill and the stigma of
mental illness, perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. They
found that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally ill individuals increased,
participants were both less likely to perceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette as
physically dangerous and less likely to desire social distance from the target.This
relationship remained after controlling for demographic and confound variables, such as
gender, ethnicity, education, income and political conservatism. They also found that any
type of contact – with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a contact in a
public place – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of dangerousness of the
target in the vignette. Thus, according to Alexander and Link (2003), any contact with the
mentally ill is associated with reduced fear and rejection. However, since this study was
observational in nature, we cannot know if contact reduces fear or having lower fear
increased contact.

C) Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White and Kubiak (2002)
conducted two studies examining the causal processes in contact, fear and rejection.
Corrigan et al. posited two models to account for stigmatizing reactions. In the first model,
labeled personal responsibility, beliefs about personality responsibility influences both the
level of pity and anger displayed toward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity
and anger influence helping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness,
perceived dangerousness influences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the
avoidance of the mentally ill.

In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002) administered a questionnaire to 216 community
college students. This questionnaire contained items which would allow the examination of
the two models. The results of a path analysis indicated that while both models fit the data,
the results for the dangerousness model seemed far more consistent with the data. Their
second study was an attempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with
either an educational group or with a mental patient. During the meetings, myths about the
personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients were discussed and
debunked. While education yielded some positive results regarding fear and rejection,
contact with mental patients produced stronger results. Thus, Corrigan et al. demonstrated
that contact causes less rejection and fear.

4
IN THE FINAL STAGE, THE STUDENT NEEDS TO WRITE AN INTRODUCTORY
AND CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH. SHE WROTE THE CONCLUDING
PARAGRAPH FIRST. IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHE NEEDS TO OVERVIEW THE
PAPER AND MAKE A CONCLUSION:

It appears that the mentally ill are rejected because of the public’s fear of the mentally ill.
At least one-third of the people sampled in one study said that they would both reject
socially and fear violence from someone displaying behaviors associated with different
mentally illnesses. Other research discovered that this rejection is associated to lack of
contact with the mentally ill and that as contact increased, fear of the mentally ill decreased.
The direction of the relationship between fear and rejection seems to be that fear (possibly
based upon myths about mental illness) causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it appears that
exposing these myths as myths increases the acceptance of the mentally ill and that staged
contact with a mentally person to expose myths has an even more powerful effect.

NOW SHE NEEDS TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE RESEARCH METHODS:

Caution must be advised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and Alexander and Link’s (2003)
studies and the first study of Corrigan et al. (2002) were based upon paper and pencil
methodologies. And while Corrigan et al.’s (2002) second study involved staged
presentations, it was conducted in a college setting with a college sample. Future research
should replicate these findings in more natural settings with different populations.

THE STUDENT THEN BROUGHT HER DRAFT TO HER MENTOR. AFTER HE

READ IT, SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF HER
CONCLUSION. IN OTHER WORDS, IF SHE COULD PHRASE IT AS A CLEAR AND
STRONG STATEMENT. AND SHE DID:

The rejection of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s belief in myths about the
dangerousness of the mentally ill and exposing those myths can reduce rejection.

5
NOW SHE NEEDS TO WRITE THE INTRODUCTION. WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
BEGIN BROAD AND NARROW DOWN TO THE THESIS STATEMENT.IN FACT,
THE THESIS STATEMENT IS THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE INTRODUCTION AND
THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THE CONCLUSION:

The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One of those challenges is the
stigmatization they face. Stigmatization is social rejection; they are rejected by people
because of the label they carry or that their behaviors clearly indicate that they belong to a
certain labeled group. Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s belief in
myths about the dangerousness of the mentally ill and exposing those myths can reduce
stigmatization.

 Now, Please have a look at this student’s final version and see how her writing
evolved from being a very first draft to a very reasonable literature review.

EXERCISE 3
 Read the following 9 abstracts (extracted from Swales and Feak (2000) English
in Today’s Research World. A Writing Guide) and draw a scheme for organizing
them as if you had to plan and write a literature review of your own. Please
keep in mind that there is no right way to order or group the abstracts and,
thus, you have to be prepared to explain the thinking processes behind your
choices while discussing organizational “architecture” in this workshop.

1. Van Hoek, J. 1996. Information in manufacturing systems and the needs of

graduating engineer. European Journal of Professional Education 17:67-77.

Few opportunities for developing communication skills exist in the crowded curricula of most
bachelor of science engineering courses in Western Europe. It is thus important that those few
available are spent on fundamental aspects of the most relevant areas. The course developed
at the University of Amsterdam is built around case studies of actual manufacturing problems.
Students are required to form engineer-manager groups as task forces to solve problems as
they arise. In this way they become socialized into the engineering community. Evidence is
presented from student evaluations as to the success of this approach.

2. Scott, J. 1995. The logical structure of technical reports: software support. Journal of
Technical Documentation 11:273-82.

The “expression” problem in writing engineering technical reports is secondary to the

“comprehension” problem-that is, the ability to perceive relevance, organize material into
sections, and then organize sections into a logical order. This paper begins by considering the
question of efficiency and the contributions that “logical sections in logical order” can make to
the effectiveness of reports. It then presents an algorithmic IBM-compatible software program
which encourages the kind of analysis and organization underlying effective report writing.

6
3. McWrath, A. 1990. Communication skills for engineering undergraduates: an
engineer’s response. Professional Engineer 47:21-23.

The growing employment of “specialists” in communication skills has recently become

problematic in many engineering schools. As a professor of engineering, I am committed to
helping my undergraduates improve their writing and speaking abilities. I argue that this is best
achieved in the context of real engineering courses taught by real engineers, not by
“outsiders” to the profession who often fail to understand the nature and purpose of
engineering communications.

4. Leon, A., and W.Deng. 1998. Developing communication skills in civil engineering
students. Civil Engineer 73:507-19.

Civil engineers are responsible for devising economic practical solutions to satisfy the needs of
the community for roads, bridges, water supplies, and other major works. Throughout their
education and training it is unlikely that they will receive much formal training in effective
communication. To remedy this, a new course of communication studies was introduced two
years ago at Manchester University. The essential feature is to have all the communication
topics set in the context of civil engineering practice. Thus, a large civil engineering contract is
simulated, and all aspects of communication skills are related to the simulation. Preliminary
results suggest that the students have appreciated the linking of communication studies with
civil engineering work.

5. Ahmed, S., and B. Williams. 1997. Content in engineering courses for engineering
students. Studies in Higher Education 33:74-92.

Communication courses for engineering undergraduates vary widely in content, from mass
media on the one hand to the social responsibility of the engineer on the other. As a rule,
students find little interest in such courses because of their distance from their immediate
concerns (Olsen, 1992). In contrast, our research shows good responses-as measured by
interview and questionnaire-for courses that focus on the day-to-day communication
problems of engineers, both with their colleagues and the general public.

6. Lo,C., and C.S.Li. 1998. Empowering female students in engineering education. Cross
Currents 24:96-109.

Many reports speak of a “chilly climate” toward women engineering students (EEGR Survey
(1996) for an overview). Our experimental program provides opportunities for women
students to develop their communications skills in sheltered, women-only environments and
then apply their newly found confidence in mainstream situations. Follow-up studies report
improved grades, more effective participation in class, and increased job offers (p=0.5;
QZ=4.78; ff=X4+on the Fittori scoring rule).

7
7. Pradip, S., and R.Rahim. 1997. Moving from national to international prominence:
Computer engineering in Bombay. UNESCO Journal of Technical Education 23:2-14.

There has been much talk of the “Bombay Miracle” (e.g., Time, August 3, 1996) but rather less
of the communication failures of the computer engineers and scientists in the city. We have
developed training courses for engineering graduates stressing cross-cultural differences in
negotiation, writing styles, patent laws, and contractual obligations among Indian, Japanese,
and North American leaders in technological change. Although no empirical evidence is yet
available, there are signs that the case approach to success and failure in Indian computer
engineering initiatives for export is having beneficial results.

8. Sullivan, P. 1996.Problems in communication skills courses. Journal of Technical

Education 24:23-40.

A survey of undergraduate technical communication programs in the United States (n=77)

suggests that the acceptability of the program to both students and faculty does not depend
on the quality of the program (as measured by staff profiles, curriculum analysis, and level of
integration with engineering courses). Rather, the prime determinant is engineering faculty
support (or otherwise) for the program. The study suggests that the way forward lies more in
canvassing for faculty support than in internal improvements.

9. Fredrickson, K. 1998.Provision for the non-native speaker in graduate engineering

programs. English for Specific Purposes 12:222-33.

The increasing numbers of NNS in U.S. graduate engineering programs have caused various
kinds of strain, including faculty burnout (Perillo 1991), tension between NS and NNS
populations for financial support (Luebs, 1995), and dissatisfaction with NNS after graduation
when their English skills are shown to be less than promised (Swales, 1995). An experimental
program of “English internships” with U.S. research associates and scientists has proved highly
effective in helping NNS students develop their technical writing skills in English. The
conclusions suggest that such programs should be expanded to other campuses.

8
Myths of violence and the stigma of mental illness
York College, CUNY (Suzie student)

The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One of those

challenges is the stigmatization they face. Stigmatization is
social rejection; those stigmatized are rejected by people
because of the label they carry or that their behaviors
clearly indicate that they belong to a certain labeled group.
Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s
belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentally ill
and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization.
Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people
respond to the mentally ill with feelings of fear and

rejection. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the

effects of descriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal
attributions about the source of the behavior, the target’s
perceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’
sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty percent of the
participants labeled a target described with depressed
symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared with 54% for
those described with schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal
troubles); 37% would be unwilling to interact with the
depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and 21% for
normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed person
would do violence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17%
for the normal troubles). Thus, a common respond to the
mentally ill are rejection and fear of violence.

While, based upon research, the common response to a

mentally ill person is to fear violence, diagnosed mental
patients commit violence at the same rates as non-diagnosed
people (Martin, et al., 2000). Public perceptions may not
match reality due to the public’s lack of contact with the
mentally ill.
Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with the
mentally ill and the stigma of mental illness, perceptions of

9
dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. They
found that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally
ill individuals increased, participants were both less likely
to perceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette as
physically dangerous and less likely to desire social
distance from the target. This relationship remained after
controlling for demographic and confound variables, such as
gender, ethnicity, education, income and political
conservatism. They also found that any type of contact – with
a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a
contact in a public place – with mentally ill individuals
reduced perceptions of dangerousness of the target in the
vignette. Thus, according to Alexander and Link (2003), any
contact with the mentally ill is associated with reduced fear
and rejection. However, since this study was observational in
nature, we cannot know if contact reduces fear or having
lower fear increased contact.

Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski,

White and Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies examining the
causal processes in contact, fear and rejection. Corrigan et
al. posited two models to account for stigmatizing reactions.
In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, beliefs
about personality responsibility influences both the level of
pity and anger displayed toward mental patients.
Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence
helping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness,
perceived dangerousness influences fear of mental patients,
which in turn influences the avoidance of the mentally ill.
In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002)
administered a questionnaire to 216 community college
students. This questionnaire contained items which would
allow the examination of the two models. The results of a
path analysis indicated that while both models fit the data,
the results for the dangerousness model seemed far more
consistent with the data. Their second study was an attempt

10
to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with
either an educational group or with a mental patient. During
the meetings, personality responsibility or the dangerousness
of mental patients were discussed and debunked. While
education yielded some positive results regarding fear and
rejection, contact with mental patients produced stronger
results. Thus, Corrigan et al. demonstrated that contact
causes less rejection and fear.

Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s

belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentally ill
and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization. At least
one-third of the people sampled in one study said that they
would both reject socially and fear violence from someone
displaying behaviors associated with different mentally
illnesses. Other research discovered that this rejection is
associated to lack of contact with the mentally ill and that
as contact increased, fear of the mentally ill decreased. The
direction of the relationship between fear and rejection
seems to be that fear (possibly based upon myths about mental
illness) causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it appears that
exposing these myths as myths increases the acceptance of the
mentally ill and that staged contact with a mentally person
to expose myths has an even more powerful effect. Caution
must be advised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and Alexander
and Link’s (2003) studies and the first study of Corrigan et
al. (2002) were based upon paper and pencil methodologies.
And while Corrigan et al.’s (2002) second study involved
staged presentations, it was conducted in a college setting
with a college sample. Future research should replicate these
findings in more natural settings with different populations.

References

Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003).The impact of contact on stigmatizing attitudes
towards people with mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 271-289.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., Uphoff-Wasowski,K., White,
K., & Kubiak, M.A. (2002).Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personality
responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 293-309.
Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role
of ‘disturbing behavior’ labels, and causal attributions in shaping public

11
attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41, 208-223.

12