Literature Review and Evidence Synthesis

Introduction

A dissertation in mass media management is not simply a report of information collected from books, websites, interviews, or databases. It is a reasoned contribution to knowledge. The literature review establishes what is already known, how that knowledge has been produced, where scholars and industry practitioners disagree, and why the proposed study is necessary. Evidence synthesis then connects individual sources into an analytically coherent account rather than presenting a sequence of unrelated summaries.

For media-management research, the literature may include peer-reviewed scholarship, professional reports, regulatory documents, company disclosures, audience research, datasets, market intelligence, policy papers, and credible journalism. These sources differ in purpose, methods, authority, transparency, and potential bias. A strong review therefore requires systematic searching, critical appraisal, appropriate synthesis, and accurate citation.

The central task is to move from a broad topic—such as streaming, newsroom innovation, influencer marketing, media concentration, or artificial intelligence—to a precise research problem supported by evidence. The review should ultimately produce a conceptual or theoretical framework that guides the research questions, data collection, and interpretation.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Explain the purpose and structure of a literature review in a mass media management dissertation.
2. Design a transparent search strategy using academic databases and industry sources.
3. Evaluate sources for relevance, authority, methodological quality, currency, and bias.
4. Distinguish between narrative, systematic, scoping, integrative, and realist forms of review.
5. Synthesise findings across studies without confusing summary with analysis.
6. Identify debates, contradictions, limitations, and research gaps.
7. Construct a defensible theoretical or conceptual framework.
8. Apply accurate citation, referencing, and research-integrity practices.

1. What a literature review does

A literature review is a structured and critical examination of existing knowledge relevant to a research problem. It performs several related functions.

Mapping the field. The review identifies major concepts, authors, theories, methods, organisations, markets, and historical developments. For example, a review of platform news distribution may need to cover gatekeeping, algorithmic visibility, platformisation, business models, audience metrics, and newsroom labour.

Defining concepts. Everyday terms often conceal important differences. “Engagement” may refer to clicks, viewing time, comments, sharing, emotional involvement, or a strategic relationship with an audience. A dissertation must specify which meaning is being used and how it will be observed.

Explaining relationships. A review shows how concepts may be connected. For instance, a study could propose that platform dependency increases audience reach but also reduces editorial autonomy. Such a proposition should be grounded in prior theory and evidence.

Evaluating evidence. Published findings are not automatically reliable. A study may have a small or unrepresentative sample, unclear measures, weak causal reasoning, or commercial sponsorship. Critical reviewing examines how a conclusion was reached.

Justifying the study. The review establishes a research gap. A gap is not merely a topic that has never been studied. It may be a population, geographical setting, time period, method, mechanism, theoretical disagreement, or practical problem that existing research has not adequately addressed.

A literature review is therefore an argument. Its conclusion should make the reader understand why the research question follows logically from the reviewed evidence.

2. Types of review and choosing an appropriate design

Different review designs answer different questions. Students should select a design deliberately rather than using the label “literature review” without explanation.

A bachelor’s dissertation will often use a structured narrative or scoping review. A systematic review requires more extensive searching, duplicate screening, protocol development, and appraisal than is normally possible in a small project. Nevertheless, even a narrative review should report its search logic and selection principles so that the process is credible.

The review design must match the research question. “How has research conceptualised influencer credibility?” is primarily a mapping and conceptual question. “What is the relationship between paywalls and local-news consumption?” requires clearer outcome definitions and more systematic comparison of empirical studies. “How do newsroom managers implement AI tools under different regulatory conditions?” may benefit from an integrative or realist approach because context and organisational mechanisms are central.

3. Planning the search

3.1 From topic to search question

Searches become more effective when the topic is divided into concepts. A useful planning table contains the population or setting, intervention or phenomenon, outcome, and context. These categories need not all be used in every project.

Search terms should include synonyms, spelling variants, related concepts, and sector vocabulary. A search string might combine terms using Boolean operators:

(streaming OR "video-on-demand" OR OTT) AND (retention OR churn OR loyalty) AND (personalisation OR recommendation*)

“OR” broadens a search by including alternatives. “AND” narrows it by requiring multiple concepts. Quotation marks search for an exact phrase, while an asterisk may retrieve word variants where the database permits truncation. Search syntax differs across Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and library catalogues; students should consult database guidance rather than assume that one syntax works everywhere.

3.2 Academic databases and industry sources

Academic databases are valuable because they provide bibliographic metadata, peer-reviewed research, scholarly books, conference papers, and citation links. Relevant databases may include Scopus, Web of Science, Communication & Mass Media Complete, ProQuest, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SAGE Journals, Emerald Insight, and institutional repositories.

Industry and policy sources are essential in a field where technologies, markets, regulation, and audience behaviour change rapidly. Useful sources may include annual reports, regulator publications, national statistics, Reuters Institute reports, Ofcom or equivalent national regulators, audience-measurement organisations, trade associations, professional bodies, and transparent consultancy studies.

Industry sources should not be treated as interchangeable with peer-reviewed research. A company report may provide current market data but have incentives to present its performance positively. A regulator may offer authoritative statistics but define categories differently from an academic study. The source’s purpose and method must be assessed before its claims are used.

3.3 Search documentation

A search log improves transparency and prevents the review from becoming dependent on memory. It should record the database or website, date searched, exact search string, filters, number of results, and decisions taken. Citation-management software such as Zotero, EndNote, or Mendeley can help organise references, but software does not evaluate quality or eliminate duplicate records perfectly.

A review protocol can be prepared before detailed screening. It should state:

• the research question and key concepts;
• databases and supplementary sources;
• date and language limits;
• inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• procedures for screening titles, abstracts, and full texts;
• quality-appraisal criteria;
• planned synthesis method; and
• procedures for recording reasons for exclusion.

The protocol may be revised when the field proves broader or narrower than expected, but changes should be documented. Transparent adaptation is more credible than pretending that the final process was entirely predetermined.

4. Selecting and evaluating evidence

4.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Selection criteria should be related to the research question. Possible criteria include publication date, geographical scope, language, population, sector, method, document type, and direct relevance. A study should not be excluded simply because its conclusion disagrees with the researcher’s expectation. Excluding inconvenient evidence creates confirmation bias.

For example, a review of digital subscription strategies might include empirical studies of newspapers, magazines, and specialist news services published from 2015 onward, together with relevant industry reports. It might exclude studies focused solely on public broadcasting if the business model and audience relationship are fundamentally different. The rationale should be stated.

4.2 Appraising source quality

Quality is multidimensional. The following questions provide a practical appraisal framework:

1. Authority: Who produced the source, and what expertise or institutional responsibility do they possess?
2. Purpose: Is the source scholarly, commercial, regulatory, promotional, journalistic, or advocacy-oriented?
3. Transparency: Are data, sampling, measures, analytical procedures, and funding disclosed?
4. Methodological fit: Does the method answer the research question appropriately?
5. Validity and reliability: Do the measures represent the intended concepts, and would the procedure produce reasonably consistent results?
6. Currency: Is the evidence sufficiently recent for a rapidly changing media environment?
7. Corroboration: Are claims supported by other independent sources?
8. Limitations: Does the author acknowledge uncertainty, bias, and boundary conditions?

Peer review is a useful quality signal but not a guarantee of correctness. Conversely, a non-peer-reviewed regulator report may be highly valuable for current market facts. Quality must be judged in relation to the claim being made.

A helpful distinction is between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. A primary source presents original data, such as an interview study, audience survey, company filing, or regulatory dataset. A secondary source analyses or synthesises primary work, such as a scholarly review article. A tertiary source summarises information, such as an encyclopaedia or introductory webpage. Tertiary sources may help with orientation but should rarely carry the central argument of a dissertation.

4.3 Method-specific appraisal

Different methods create different risks. In a survey, examine sampling, response rate, measurement design, and missing data. In qualitative interviews, assess recruitment, reflexivity, interview procedures, coding, and evidence supporting interpretations. In content analysis, examine the unit of analysis, coding categories, coder training, and intercoder agreement. In experiments, consider randomisation, manipulation checks, control conditions, and ecological validity. In case studies, examine case selection, triangulation, and the chain of evidence.

A numerical reliability coefficient should never be treated as proof that a study is good. For example, agreement between coders can be high when categories are vague or highly uneven. The meaning of any statistic depends on the design and the construct being measured.

5. From summary to synthesis

5.1 Summary versus synthesis

Summary reports what each source says: “Author A found X; Author B found Y.” Synthesis compares and interprets sources: “Across experimental studies, recommendation cues appear to increase perceived relevance, but interview research suggests that transparency concerns limit trust when users cannot understand how recommendations are generated.”

Synthesis can be organised in several ways:

• Thematic synthesis: groups findings by concepts or themes, such as trust, labour, revenue, and regulation.
• Chronological synthesis: explains how a debate or technology developed over time.
• Methodological synthesis: compares what surveys, interviews, experiments, and platform data reveal.
• Theoretical synthesis: compares explanations offered by different theories.
• Contextual synthesis: examines how findings vary by country, organisation, platform, audience, or institutional setting.
• Conceptual synthesis: combines related concepts into a model or framework.

A useful paragraph often has four moves: claim, evidence from more than one source, comparison or qualification, and implication for the proposed study. The writer should distinguish an author’s finding from the writer’s interpretation.

5.2 Handling disagreement

Disagreement is analytically valuable. Apparent contradictions may arise because studies use different definitions, samples, time periods, platforms, measures, or levels of analysis. For example, one study may find that social media increases news exposure while another reports declining trust. These findings are not necessarily incompatible: exposure and trust are different outcomes, and effects may vary by platform and user group.

When synthesising disagreement, ask:

• Are the studies examining the same construct?
• Are their populations and contexts comparable?
• Do their methods support causal or only associative claims?
• Could a third variable explain the difference?
• Is the disagreement theoretical, empirical, or definitional?
• What evidence would distinguish the competing explanations?

Avoid false balance. A well-designed study with transparent data should not automatically receive equal weight to an unsupported opinion merely because both express different views.

5.3 Causal language

Evidence synthesis must respect what a design can establish. Cross-sectional association does not by itself demonstrate that one variable causes another. Longitudinal, experimental, and carefully designed quasi-experimental studies may provide stronger causal evidence, although each has limitations. Qualitative research can explain meanings, mechanisms, and processes without claiming statistical generalisation.

Use precise language: “is associated with,” “is consistent with,” “participants described,” “the authors argue,” or “the evidence suggests.” Reserve “causes” for designs and evidence that justify causal inference.

6. Identifying and framing research gaps

A research gap should be specific, evidenced, and consequential. Common forms include:

• Empirical gap: insufficient evidence about a group, country, organisation, platform, or period.
• Conceptual gap: important terms are used inconsistently or a relationship is under-theorised.
• Methodological gap: existing work relies heavily on one method and misses another dimension.
• Contradictory evidence gap: credible studies produce materially different findings.
• Contextual gap: a theory developed in one media system may not explain another.
• Practical gap: managers or policymakers face a problem for which available evidence is inadequate.
• Temporal gap: technological or regulatory change has made earlier evidence incomplete.

A weak gap statement says, “Few studies have examined this topic.” A stronger statement identifies the exact limitation and its significance: “Existing studies explain audience adoption of paid newsletters primarily through individual motivation, but provide limited evidence about how editorial teams manage the conflict between conversion targets and perceived independence. This study addresses that organisational mechanism through interviews with editors and managers.”

The gap must not be manufactured by ignoring relevant work. A responsible review acknowledges adjacent research and explains precisely what remains unresolved.

7. Constructing a theoretical or conceptual framework

7.1 Theory and framework distinguished

A theory is a systematic set of concepts and propositions that explains relationships or processes. Examples relevant to mass media management include resource-dependence theory, institutional theory, diffusion of innovations, uses and gratifications, agenda-setting, gatekeeping, political economy, technology-acceptance approaches, and the knowledge-based view of organisations.

A conceptual framework is a study-specific model showing the concepts, relationships, assumptions, and context that organise the investigation. It may draw on one theory or integrate several theories. It is not merely a decorative diagram; each element must be defined and justified by literature.

7.2 Selecting and using theory

Theory should be selected because it explains the research problem, not because it is fashionable. Ask:

1. What is the unit of analysis—individual, newsroom, firm, platform, market, or policy system?
2. What mechanism is being explained?
3. What assumptions does the theory make about actors, power, technology, and institutions?
4. Does the theory fit the context and available evidence?
5. What concepts can be operationalised or explored in the proposed study?
6. What would count as evidence against the explanation?

For instance, resource-dependence theory may explain why a media organisation adapts editorial practices in response to dependence on advertisers, platforms, investors, or public funding. Institutional theory may explain why organisations adopt practices to gain legitimacy even when efficiency benefits are uncertain. Combining the theories may be useful, but the relationship between them must be explicit rather than a list of unrelated labels.

7.3 Operationalisation

Operationalisation translates abstract concepts into observable indicators or interview themes. Consider “editorial autonomy.” Possible indicators include the frequency of commercial intervention, decision-making authority, changes to content priorities, and journalists’ perceptions of influence. No single indicator perfectly captures the construct; the researcher should justify the selected indicators and recognise their limitations.

A conceptual framework should specify:

• core constructs and definitions;
• expected relationships or processes;
• mediating or moderating conditions where relevant;
• unit and level of analysis;
• context and boundaries; and
• links to research questions and methods.

7.4 An illustrative framework

Suppose a dissertation examines how local digital news organisations respond to platform dependence. A conceptual framework might propose that platform dependence creates both opportunities and constraints. Dependence may increase reach and data access, while also exposing organisations to algorithm changes, revenue uncertainty, and reduced control over audience relationships. Organisational capabilities and public funding may moderate these effects. The framework would lead to questions about strategy, managerial decision-making, editorial consequences, and sustainability.

The framework is a proposition to investigate, not a conclusion established in advance. Qualitative findings may revise it; quantitative findings may support some relationships and challenge others.

8. Citation, referencing, and research integrity

Citations perform three functions: they acknowledge intellectual ownership, allow readers to verify claims, and show how the argument is situated in scholarship. Cite the original source when possible, especially for theories, empirical findings, definitions, and quotations. Secondary citations should be used sparingly and clearly identified according to the required style.

A citation is needed when presenting another author’s idea, evidence, data, wording, distinctive concept, or interpretation. Common knowledge and the researcher’s own analysis generally do not require citation, although boundaries can be difficult. When uncertain, cite.

Paraphrasing is not achieved by changing a few words while retaining the original sentence structure. Read the source, close it, reconstruct the idea in your own structure, and cite it. Direct quotations require exact wording, quotation marks, and a page or location where the referencing style requires one. Every in-text citation must correspond to a reference-list entry, and every reference-list entry should be cited in the text.

Citation counts and journal rankings may help locate influential work, but they are not measures of truth or relevance. Students should avoid citation padding, citation laundering, fabricated references, and invented page numbers. Reference-management software should be checked against the original source because imported metadata may contain errors.

Generative AI tools may assist with brainstorming search terms, organising notes, or improving language, subject to institutional policy. They can produce fabricated studies, inaccurate quotations, biased summaries, and incorrect citations. Researchers remain responsible for checking every source and disclosing use where required. Confidential interview data, unpublished manuscripts, and personal information should not be uploaded to tools without appropriate authorisation and data protection safeguards.

9. Applied case: an illustrative evidence review of newsroom AI adoption

Background. A regional news company is considering generative AI for transcription, headline suggestions, translation, and archive search. Managers want efficiency, while journalists are concerned about accuracy, employment, copyright, and public trust.

Problem. A preliminary search produces three types of evidence: academic studies on automation and journalism, professional reports describing current newsroom experiments, and regulatory or legal guidance. The sources use “AI adoption” differently, making direct comparison difficult.

Analysis. The research team first defines adoption as the organisational introduction and routine use of AI-supported tools, distinguishing experimentation from editorial dependence. It searches communication databases for journalism, automation, algorithmic management, trust, and professional identity, then searches regulator and industry websites for current guidance. It records the date, search terms, and inclusion decisions.

Quality appraisal shows that academic studies provide stronger conceptual and methodological discussion but may predate the newest tools. Industry reports provide current examples but sometimes rely on self-reported success and commercial interests. Legal sources are authoritative about rules within their jurisdiction but may not explain newsroom practice. The team therefore uses triangulation rather than treating one source type as sufficient.

The synthesis identifies four themes: efficiency and workflow redesign; accuracy and accountability; professional identity and editorial judgement; and governance, transparency, and copyright. Evidence is mixed: automation may reduce routine workload, but benefits depend on verification practices, staff capability, data quality, and managerial policy. The team identifies a gap in research on how regional newsrooms translate organisational principles into everyday editorial routines.

Approach and solution. The resulting conceptual framework links external pressures and organisational resources to AI adoption practices. External pressures include competition, labour costs, regulation, and platform change. Organisational resources include managerial capability, training, data governance, and editorial norms. Adoption practices are expected to influence workflow efficiency and perceived credibility, with human verification and transparency acting as key conditions. The dissertation proposes interviews with managers and journalists, document analysis of AI policies, and observation of selected workflows.

Outcome. The review does not conclude that AI is beneficial or harmful in general. Instead, it produces a bounded research problem and a framework capable of examining when and why outcomes differ.

Learning points. The case demonstrates the value of defining concepts, combining source types carefully, distinguishing current evidence from established theory, identifying mechanisms rather than merely listing benefits and risks, and allowing empirical findings to refine the framework.

10. Common weaknesses and best practices

Weak literature reviews often become annotated bibliographies, rely on a small number of easily accessible sources, use outdated evidence for rapidly changing technologies, or make broad claims from narrow studies. Other problems include unclear inclusion criteria, excessive quotation, uncritical use of industry statistics, and a framework that is disconnected from the research questions.

Best practice is to begin with a focused question, search iteratively but document each stage, use multiple source types appropriately, read methods as carefully as findings, compare studies by context and design, and write thematically. Maintain an evidence matrix with fields such as citation, research question, context, sample, method, principal finding, limitation, relevance, and theoretical contribution. Distinguish what the source demonstrates from what it merely suggests.

A final audit should check that the review has a clear line of argument, represents significant perspectives fairly, explains disagreements, identifies a defensible gap, links the framework to method, and uses consistent citations. The test is not the number of references but the quality of reasoning connecting them.

Contemporary developments

Media-management research increasingly involves platform governance, creator economies, subscription models, datafication, synthetic media, automation, climate responsibility, and changing regulation. These developments make evidence review more difficult because relevant knowledge is distributed across academic disciplines and because commercial technologies change faster than publication cycles.

Researchers should therefore distinguish between evidence that is stable and evidence that is time-sensitive. A foundational theory may remain useful for decades, while a platform policy or audience statistic may become obsolete within months. Reviews should report publication and data-collection dates and avoid presenting temporary conditions as universal truths. Cross-disciplinary searching is especially important because management, journalism, information systems, economics, law, sociology, and audience studies may use different terms for related phenomena.

Chapter Summary

A literature review is a critical argument that maps knowledge, defines concepts, evaluates evidence, synthesises debates, and justifies a dissertation. Effective reviewing begins with a focused question and a documented search strategy covering appropriate academic and industry sources. Source quality depends on authority, purpose, transparency, methodological fit, currency, corroboration, and acknowledged limitations.

Synthesis is more than summarising sources. It compares findings by concept, method, context, and theory; explains disagreement; and uses causal language responsibly. Research gaps may be empirical, conceptual, methodological, contextual, contradictory, practical, or temporal. A theoretical framework explains relationships through established theory, whereas a conceptual framework organises the constructs and propositions of a particular study. Both must be connected to operationalisation, research questions, and methods.

Accurate citation protects intellectual integrity and enables verification. Reference software and AI tools can support the process but cannot replace source checking or scholarly judgement. A strong review is transparent, balanced, current, theoretically informed, and sufficiently focused to lead naturally to the proposed research design.

Key Terms

Literature review: A critical and structured examination of existing knowledge relevant to a research problem.

Evidence synthesis: The process of integrating findings from multiple sources into an analytical account.

Systematic review: A review using explicit, reproducible procedures for searching, selecting, appraising, and synthesising evidence.

Scoping review: A review that maps the extent, range, and characteristics of research on a broad topic.

Narrative review: A flexible interpretive review organised around themes, concepts, or historical development.

Research gap: A specific unresolved limitation, absence, contradiction, or underdeveloped area in existing knowledge.

Primary source: A source presenting original data, documents, observations, or analysis.

Secondary source: A source that analyses, interprets, or synthesises primary material.

Peer review: Evaluation of scholarly work by specialists before publication.

Inclusion criteria: Explicit conditions a source must meet to be included in a review.

Exclusion criteria: Explicit reasons a source is omitted from a review.

Search strategy: The planned combination of databases, keywords, filters, and procedures used to locate evidence.

Theoretical framework: A set of concepts and propositions derived from theory that explains a research problem.

Conceptual framework: A study-specific model of concepts, relationships, assumptions, and context.

Operationalisation: Translating an abstract construct into observable indicators or research questions.

Triangulation: Using multiple sources, methods, investigators, or theories to examine a phenomenon.

Validity: The extent to which evidence or a measure supports the intended interpretation.

Reliability: The consistency of a measurement or research procedure.

Citation: An acknowledgment that identifies the source of an idea, wording, data, or claim.

Research integrity: Ethical and responsible conduct in designing, reporting, citing, and preserving research.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What are the principal purposes of a literature review in a dissertation?
2. How do academic databases differ from industry sources in typical purpose and evidence value?
3. Distinguish between a research gap and a broad topic that has received little attention.
4. What is the difference between a theoretical framework and a conceptual framework?
5. Why should researchers document their search terms and selection decisions?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a researcher could design and document a structured literature search for a dissertation on digital-news subscriptions.
2. Discuss the criteria that should be used to evaluate the quality of academic and industry sources.
3. Explain the difference between summary and synthesis, using examples from mass media management.
4. Compare narrative, systematic, scoping, and integrative reviews and identify a suitable use for each.
5. Describe how a conceptual framework can be developed from a literature review and connected to research questions and methods.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A study finds that personalised recommendations increase viewing but reduce perceived autonomy. Design a synthesis that explains how these findings might be reconciled through differences in measurement, audience, and context.
2. You are asked to investigate whether newsroom AI improves productivity. Construct inclusion criteria, source-appraisal questions, and at least three possible research gaps.
3. A company report claims that its new platform strategy increased audience loyalty. Explain how you would evaluate the claim, identify possible biases, and determine what additional evidence is needed.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

What is the primary purpose of a literature review in a dissertation?

A. To demonstrate that the researcher has read many sources

B. To replace the need for collecting original evidence

C. To build a critical argument about existing knowledge and justify the study

D. To provide an alphabetical list of publications

Correct Answer: C. To build a critical argument about existing knowledge and justify the study

Question 2

Which review type is most directly concerned with mapping the range and characteristics of research on a broad topic?

A. Scoping review

B. Experimental review

C. Narrative interview

D. Bibliographical essay

Correct Answer: A. Scoping review

Question 3

Which Boolean operator normally narrows a database search by requiring both terms?

A. OR

B. AND

C. NOTES

D. NEARLY

Correct Answer: B. AND

Question 4

Which factor is most important when evaluating an industry report?

A. Whether its title is attractive

B. Whether it supports the researcher’s preferred conclusion

C. Its purpose, transparency, method, and possible commercial interests

D. Whether it contains the largest number of pages

Correct Answer: C. Its purpose, transparency, method, and possible commercial interests

Question 5

Which statement best distinguishes synthesis from summary?

A. Synthesis compares and interprets evidence across sources

B. Synthesis uses quotations instead of citations

C. Summary always involves statistical analysis

D. Summary is more critical than synthesis by definition

Correct Answer: A. Synthesis compares and interprets evidence across sources

Question 6

Which is an example of a methodological research gap?

A. A country has never been studied

B. Existing research relies almost entirely on surveys and lacks qualitative investigation

C. A theory has two competing definitions

D. A regulation has recently changed

Correct Answer: B. Existing research relies almost entirely on surveys and lacks qualitative investigation

Question 7

What does operationalisation involve?

A. Removing all abstract concepts from a study

B. Translating concepts into observable indicators or research questions

C. Replacing primary sources with tertiary sources

D. Ranking journals by citation count

Correct Answer: B. Translating concepts into observable indicators or research questions

Question 8

Which statement about peer review is most accurate?

A. Peer review guarantees that every published conclusion is correct

B. Peer review is irrelevant when assessing scholarly sources

C. Peer review is a useful quality signal but does not eliminate the need for critical appraisal

D. Peer review applies only to industry reports

Correct Answer: C. Peer review is a useful quality signal but does not eliminate the need for critical appraisal

Question 9

Why should causal language be used carefully in a literature review?

A. All research methods are incapable of identifying relationships

B. Association alone does not establish that one variable causes another

C. Causal claims are permitted only in qualitative research

D. Causal language makes citations unnecessary

Correct Answer: B. Association alone does not establish that one variable causes another

Question 10

What is a key responsibility when using generative AI in literature-review work?

A. Accepting generated references without checking them

B. Uploading confidential research data for convenience

C. Verifying sources and remaining responsible for accuracy and integrity

D. Replacing all database searches with AI output

Correct Answer: C. Verifying sources and remaining responsible for accuracy and integrity