Capstone 2026/27 (Group 9)

Workshop 3: Locking in

Violeta Haas

Department of Political Science

School of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Trinity College Dublin

Today

  1. Your presentations (7–10 min) + Q&A (10 min)
  2. Tips on writing a literature review (next short submission)

Presentations

What to cover

  1. Your question + its theoretical and empirical significance + whether you changed the data or research design
  2. The research questions and main findings of the 3 closest articles you identified
  3. How your project builds on the readings: what’s new, and what we’ll learn that goes beyond
  4. Any questions you have at this point

Format

  • 7–10 min presentation (slides welcome)
  • Followed by 10 min Q&A

Listener handout

How to write a literature review

Adapted from materials by Dr Matthias Dilling

What is a literature review?

Situates your research question in previous work on this (and closely related) questions.

Typically used to:

  • Concisely define the key outcome you want to explain
  • Identify and briefly outline explanations/answers scholars have so far provided
  • Examine which explanation may carry more/less power

What it is not

  • Not historical/country background
    (“Ireland is a parliamentary democracy…”)
  • Not a dump of everything you read
    (only what helps define the outcome, answer your question, and point to weaknesses → which your project will address)
  • Not a chronological “who said what, when”
  • Not an article-by-article summary
    (too long for 400–500 words, and dull)
  • Not a full annotated bibliography
    (not every source will be summarised at equal length)

Finding suitable literature

  1. Start from readings already close to your question (incl. your three attached papers)
  2. Search key concepts in the Library catalogue and recent issues of relevant journals (e.g. APSR, AJPS, JOP, BJPS)
  3. Prefer peer-reviewed work in high-quality journals (and books from strong presses) over blogs, news, or grey literature
  4. Snowball from a particularly prominent study
  5. Check who cited that study next (Google Scholar → “Cited by”)

Google Scholar → “Cited by”

Google Scholar result for Hangartner et al. 2019 with Cited by count highlighted

Organise your readings

You want to highlight gaps and weaknesses your research will have answers to, so categorise similar studies into the same family and contrast families.

  • Build an overview table or annotated bibliography while you read
  • Then a one-page mind-map/overview: how readings relate, what is contested, which sides
Author Year Title RQ & puzzle Outcome Key explanatory factor Findings Strengths & limits

How to group readings

Group individual readings into categories large enough for 3+ pieces, small enough to mark a real division.

Examples:

  • Overlap vs differences on key concepts (e.g. “populism” as an ideology vs as a political style)
  • (Type of) variation on the dependent variable (e.g. levels of inequality vs changes in inequality)
  • Key independent variables/theoretical tradition (e.g. institutional: electoral rules vs structural: inequality)
  • Shared strengths and/or weaknesses (e.g. same sample bias: untested in non-democratic contexts or multiparty systems)
  • Measurement/data for key variables (e.g. studies using immigration stocks vs inflows)

Group by claim, not by paper

Prefer:

Research on … finds effects for voters (e.g. …), parties (e.g. …), and norms (e.g. …).

Example:
Most of this work studies police–civilian interactions, documenting bias in whom officers stop and search (Pierson et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2024), how they speak to minority civilians (Voigt et al., 2017; Rho et al., 2023), and when they use force (Ba et al., 2021; Hoekstra and Sloan, 2022).

Avoid:

Author A argues … Author B shows … Author C finds …

How many studies?

For ≈400–500 words:

  • Space for about 2–3 substantive paragraphs
  • If each paragraph engages ≥4 readings → bibliography of roughly 8–12 (potentially more) peer-reviewed items
  • No universal number but that is a useful rule of thumb

Some more tips

  • Proceed logically from cluster to cluster
  • Emphasise main findings/arguments in each cluster
  • Use your own words (minimise direct quotes)
  • Page numbers only for direct citations or a specific claim on a specific page. Otherwise (Author, year)
  • Focus on controversy and each cluster’s strengths/limits for your question (or key concept)

A drafting sequence

  1. Paragraph outline: first sentence of each paragraph = the takeaway
  2. Under each: brief bullets (author, year, page if needed)
  3. Write paragraph 1, then 2, …
  4. Redraft and edit to the word count

Useful connectors: on the one hand/on the other; in contrast to; in line with; enters the debate; rejects/criticises; broader/narrower scope; in the same vein…

See also: Academic Phrasebank (University of Manchester)

Next short submission

Short submission 3 — lit review draft, due Mon 9 Nov:

  • 400–500 words (excluding references)
  • Organised around competing explanations/clusters
  • Strengths and limits relative to your question
  • What remains unresolved and how you contribute

After today

Next steps

  • Use today’s feedback to tighten the RQ BEFORE you dig deeper into the lit
  • Start reading toward the debate, not a random pile of papers
  • Workshop 4 (Thu 12 Nov): lit-review presentations

Questions?