Example

Here is a REAL example of a bad literature review from a real article -- pre publication draft -- just a few paragraphs. The review is bad for TWO reasons. One is that it is not well organized -- it discusses several articles without any particular systematic sequence. MORE IMPORTANT, it does not mention any relationship between the article and the research in the paper. THE REVISED VERSION fixes both of these mistakes. Compare the two carefully to understand the difference. The full paper is available from SSRN: Charity and Gift Exchange in Pakistan. It will be published in a forthcoming issue of PDR soon.

This is different from both a proposal review and a thesis review. In a proposal, a lit review cannot talk about connections with results because at proposal stage there will not be any results. In proposal, you have to talk about HOW the research will try to find out which of the several different ideas in the literature is right or wrong. In Thesis, you DO HAVE results, and hence a lit review will look more like the one below. However, in thesis, you have to do a more extensive and detailed literature review.

Note that in the literature review here, the connection with results is mentioned briefly. When the actual research is presented then the connection will be brought out more clearly and explained in greater detail, with empirical evidence based on data analysis.

EXAMPLE OF WRONG LITERATURE REVIEW:

MAIN TOPIC IS ABOUT CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND EFFECTS OF GENDER AND INCOME

Gender is among one of the consistent determinants of charitable behavior; relevant literature shows that females in general are usually more generous in charitable giving than males (Leslie, Snyder, and Glomb 2012; Einolf 2011; Mesch, et al 2011; Kamas, Preston, and Baum 2008; Piper and Schnepf 2008; Mesch, et al 2006; Meier 2005). A few of these studies also find that females are more generous in that a greater proportion contributes, but when they donate, men donate more (Piper and Schnepf, 2008; Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001). However, we do find few studies where gender differences are either insignificant (Bolton and Katok, 1995; Lo and Tashiro, 2012), or male donate larger amounts (Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001).[1] (Bolton & Katok, 1995) (Lo & Tashiro, 2012) -- Here review mentions three possible findings, but does not say what our research finds out -- so relation between research and literature is not brought out.

The motives for charity giving also differ across gender; women are more likely to give to causes related to education and health care (Einolf 2011; Mesch 2011; Piper and Schnepf 2008)[2], human services (e.g. child care, help for poor and homeless people) (Marx, 2000) and poverty related issues (Regnerus, Smith, and Sikkink 1998). Male donations, on the contrary, are more likely to be in sports, civil rights and adult recreations (Einolf, 2011). Another strand of literature show that female donations are motivated more by empathy (Willer, Wimer and Owens, 2012) and social pressure (Della Vigna et al, 2013).

Charitable behavior across gender shows that women donate more when altruism is expensive, but when it is cheap, men are more altruistic (Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Piper and Schnepf, 2008). Greater generosity of females to female solicitors is different from few earlier findings supporting cross gender favors (Landry et al, 2006; Andreoni and Petrie, 2008). While, Razzaque (2009), using the ultimatum game, argues that Pakistani cultural norms of courtesy towards females lead males to make hyper-fair offers to female. Ben-Ner et al. (2003), on the contrary, suggest lesser likelihood of women being generous while giving to other women in dictator game setting. Kamas, Preston, and Baum (2008) found that men tend to give more to women-only teams in dictator game. The previous two paragraphs mention a lot of literature in a disorganized way, motives, causes, social pressure, emphathy, cultural norms -- all mixed up and not thematically organized. Even worse, there is no connection made to our own research findings.

Literature on income and charity has two major theories. Some studies find that charitable giving as proportion of income declines with income (Auten and Rudney, 1990; Bekkers, 2004). In contrast, a few studies have also reported a U-shape trend, stating high donation level for lower and higher income group, and lowest for middle income group (Hodgkinson & Weitzman 1996; James & Sharpe 2007; Andreoni 2004). Different studies with different findings mentioned, but no mention of connection with our research.

[1] See Wit and Bekkers (2012) for discussion on differences in results. (Wit & Bekkers, 2012) (Bekkers R. , 2007) (Bekkers R. , George Gives to Geology Jane: The Name Letter Effect and Other Similarities in Fundraising, 2010)

[2] However, Bekkers (2007, 2010) finds that men are more likely to give to health causes.

REVISED VERSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Gender and Income

In addition to simple gift exchange, our experimental design also allowed us to assess the effects of Gender and Income on donations. Here our findings are more or less consistent with those reported in the literature with some minor variations.

Gender is among one of the consistent determinants of charitable behavior; relevant literature shows that females in general are usually more generous in charitable giving than males (Leslie, Snyder, and Glomb 2012; Einolf 2011; Mesch, et al 2011; Kamas, Preston, and Baum 2008; Piper and Schnepf 2008; Mesch, et al 2006; Meier 2005). This finding is in conformity with our results. A few of these studies also find that females are more generous in that a greater proportion contributes, but when they donate, men donate more (Piper and Schnepf, 2008; Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001). This does not occur in our study, Our studies are also in conflict with the findings of a few studies where gender differences are either insignificant (Bolton and Katok, 1995; Lo and Tashiro, 2012), or male donate larger amounts (Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001).[1]

The motives for charity giving also differ across gender; women are more likely to give to causes related to education and health care (Einolf 2011; Mesch 2011; Piper and Schnepf 2008)[2], human services (e.g. child care, help for poor and homeless people) (Marx, 2000) and poverty related issues (Regnerus, Smith, and Sikkink 1998). Male donations, on the contrary, are more likely to be in sports, civil rights and adult recreations (Einolf, 2011). Since we solicited charity for health care, and females donated more, our results are in conformity with these findings.

Our study shows that largest donations are from females to female teams of solicitors. This finding is different from a few earlier findings supporting cross gender favors (Landry et al, 2006; Andreoni and Petrie, 2008). Also, Ben-Ner et. al. (2003) find lesser likelihood of women being generous while giving to other women in dictator game setting. Similarly, our findings conflict with Kamas, Preston, and Baum (2008) who found that men tend to give more to women-only teams in dictator game. Cultural norms governing cross-gender interactions differ sharply from western norms, and are a likely source for these differences. However, our findings also differs from Razzaque (2009), who studies gender effects in the ultimatum game with Pakistani students as subjects. He finds that Pakistani cultural norms of courtesy towards females lead males to make hyper-fair offers to female in the ultimatum game. It seems likely that this is due to difference between norms among fellow students versus those prevailing in the traditional culture at large, but our study was not designed to assess this.

Another intriguing finding regarding charitable behavior shows that women donate more when altruism is expensive, but when it is cheap, men are more altruistic (Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Piper and Schnepf, 2008). If we proxy altruism by hospitality, both men and women, as well as donors and non-donors provide roughly equivalent hospitality. At the same time, women donate more. This indirect evidence does not support the cited results, but it can only be taken as suggestive, due to small sample sizes as well lack of experimental design to test this effect.

Another strand of literature show that female donations are motivated more by empathy (Willer, Wimer and Owens, 2012) and social pressure (Della Vigna et al, 2013). Again, our experiment was not designed to test for these effects, but provides some indirect evidence to support these findings in the Pakistani cultural context.

Literature on income and charity has two major theories. Some studies find that charitable giving as proportion of income declines with income (Auten and Rudney, 1990; Bekkers, 2004). In contrast, a few studies have also reported a U-shape trend, stating high proportional donation level for lower and higher income group, and lowest for middle income group (Hodgkinson & Weitzman 1996; James & Sharpe 2007; Andreoni 2004). Analysis across income group in our data seems to support the former view that shows declining charity as a proportion of income.

MAIN DIFFERENCE: EVERY RESULT mentioned is compared with our results in above revision. ALSO, the LIT Review has now a better organization so that each paragraph deals with one concept or theme..

[2] However, Bekkers (2007, 2010) finds that men are more likely to give to health causes.