This week I spent most of time trying to analyze sources and
discern if they can add meaning to my argument. As we went over what a
literature review entails in class, adapting it to my own research area became
more and more relevant but also daunting. The only way you can avoid being
afraid is to understand and learn more about that thing. Some people are scared
of spiders, but the more you read up about them the more you realize that most
(!) are harmless. Some people are afraid of the dark, but when you turn on the
lights you will realize nothing unknown was even there. So, to face the
literature review, I needed to understand what it meant, deconstruct its value
so it would not be so overwhelming.
A literature review in general means the definition, context, and established sources to help a reader's understanding of existing literature and research. For my paper specifically, a literature review meant a definition
of ADHD as a mental disorder, a cohesive summary of its symptoms, general
treatment plans, and occurrences in the general population. With that
established, I need to define and trace the history of neurofeedback therapy.
To understand its use today I need to track its origins and developments to
contextualize its importance in comparison to other treatment options. Additionally,
I need to research literature that notes the difference (scientific and behavioral) between childhood ADHD
and adult ADHD to account for its relevance as a focus for my paper. Only once
all this context is establish, can I finally introduce a research question and pinpoint the gap (how no research has been done comparing the success of neurofeedback therapy of adults with results with children) and
go about detailing a method. All sources I read are not only fodder for me to
understand, but should be used later so the audience can be aware of why this
research not only has significance, but exists in reality.
The
important source that I was able to find was by Joel T. Nigg of the Psychiatry
department at Oregon Health and Science University called "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Endophenotypes,
Structure, and Etiological Pathways".
Nigg defined ADHD with major characteristics that emerge in regards to temperament
and personality, markers to help distinguish people who have ADHD. This source
was crucial for me in understanding ADHD symptoms (spatial orienting, impulsivity, inattention, disorganization, etc.) and the disorder itself. This
is the source that has provided me with a expansive definition according to the
DSM-IV. In regards to finding a gap, this source discuses prescription
medication but the mention of neurofeedback therapy is limited and fleeting,
showing how that area has not been explored extensively as demonstrated by this
pivotal source, While this is a crucial source definition-wise, I need to find
more sources to understand neurofeedback therapy and its history in general.
Finally, I think the John Oliver activity would be an
interesting way to prove what we have been learning and hone our argumentative
skills. This could serve as a break from collecting sources and a means to stay
on our toes during this long, arduous process.
Word Count: 523
Sunskruthi! Thanks for this post and your input. I really like how you're putting together all of your ideas, I would just try to make sure that you're doing so in a logical way. Not to say that you're not, but right now it reads as a little overwhelming, so try to link and synthesize the ideas together more.
ReplyDeleteDoes that source you use make any distinctions in defining ADHD between children and adults? If so, what are they? If not, why don't they? Is there not a clear distinctions?
Hey Sunskruthi! I think you pretty much covered everything that should be in your lit review, like all the different subtopics you need to discuss and the distinctions you need to make (child v. adult ADHD) and the definitions you need to provide. That’s great! Also good job on finding a gap in the research already!!
ReplyDeleteSo yeah like Mrs. Haag said, you should try to find a good way to organize your literature review. Maybe explain ADHD first, then explain the treatment options, then discuss how effectively they work for children v. adults with ADHD and explain why this is significant and what it could possibly lead to (like in terms of future research)? Idk. My question would be how would you find a suitable definition for ADHD? It’s a really complicated and broad disorder, so are you going to explain the symptoms and everything?? Or not??
Hey sunskruthi, so first of all, I think that a lot of people still hate spiders, and also you never know what kind of creatures hide in the dark. With that being said, I appreciate the analogy and understand what you are getting at with it.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it seems like you have a pretty clear idea on what the purpose of the literature review is and what you're subtopics are, so that's really good. And also, like Mrs. Haag said, just make sure that you start to develop the order of your subtopics. Other than that, it seems like you are right on track.