Dissertation – Secondary Research – Possible Structure and Content Guide
A front cover stating: student name, module title, module code, Title of project module
leader, supervising tutor and word count.
Abstract (optional and does not contribute to your word count)
This should be an overview of the aim of the critical review, the methodology used and an
outline of the key findings (around 250 words. This is optional and does not contribute to the
overall word count)
A contents page (does not contribute to your word count)
Acknowledgements (optional and does not contribute to your word count))
Section 1 – Introduction: Review Aims and wider context
Have you:
Provided an introduction which sets the scene and outlines the study proposal and general
aim
Provided a brief description of the wider context for the critical review – e.g. national
policy context BUT not too much as you’ll likely expand on this in your context of the
review (section 2)
Provided a rationale for the choice of review – why was it chosen?
Say briefly why the topic is important and any particular professional issues connected to it
Listed the specific aims of the review
Section 2 – Context of the review (outlines the context for your review and key
issues/debates. policies, practices etc. connected to your topic area)
Have you:
Contextualised your critical review in political/policy/practice (Links closely to section
1 above but offers a closer analysis of the context of the review). Stayed sufficiently
focused.
Stated any theoretical perspectives relevant to the context of your chosen topic
These sections are facilitated by explaining and evaluating policy developments and
practice issues, and different theoretical perspectives connected to the topic area
Demonstrated critical thought and analysis by debating the commonalities/similarities
and differences between salient perspectives connected to the topic area
Section 3 – Review Methodology
Have you:
Given an overview of the approach used
Provided an account of your search strategy and the search process and results
Include the dates of searches and the number of ‘hits’ found in database searched. Also
outline what was found via any other searches beyond databases. Provide an overview
(map) of what was found
Outlined the inclusion and exclusion criteria used and justification for them.
Outlined the process involved in data extracting and analysis of the research
including any issues connected to the latter in regard to research quality etc.
Included discussion of good practice issues connected to the completion of your
critical review – e.g. reliability, validity, trustworthiness, and ethical issues
Sections 4 – Evidence Synthesis, Findings and Discussion
Findings: Have you:
Synthesised and presented evidence extracted from the research you have identified
in a logical and appropriate format.
Discussion: Have you:
Critically discussed what you have found
This is facilitated by engaging with synthesised findings, comparing and contrasting,
drawing inferences etc.
Discussion of what this means for your professional practice/ professional understanding
of the topic chosen.
Section 5 – Conclusions
Have you:
Provided an appropriate conclusion based upon the best evidence synthesis of the
research which you have reviewed.
Provided an answer to your review question(s) and indicate how you have met your
review aim(s).
Have they been met? Not necessarily a weakness if you reflect on why you have not met
all your aims.
Concluded what this means for your professional practice/understanding.
Noted any recommendations about how practice/understanding can be developed.
List of References (this list does not contribute to the word count)
Appendices (do not contribute to the word count)
Have you included copies of:
Review tools (e.g. search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria and data extraction tool)
Any other documentation relevant to the study that the assessor would need to
access, e.g. examples of data extraction
