4. السابقة الدراسات مفهوم
• An academic literature review is defined as
• ”The selection of available documents (both published
and unpublished) on the topic, which contain
information, ideas, data and evidence written from a
particular standpoint to fulfil certain aims or express
certain views on the nature of the topic and how it is to
be investigated, and the effective evaluation of these
documents in relation to the research being proposed”
(Hart, 2001, p. 13).
• Hart, C. (2001). Doing a literature search. London: Sage.
4
6. A Literature Review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources
(e.g., dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a topic for your
paper.
Its purpose is to demonstrate that:
[1] the researcher has insightfully and critically surveyed relevant
literature on his/her topic to convince an intended reader that the topic
is worth addressing.
[2] the researcher has understood the key issues around his/her topic.
[3] the researcher identified gaps in prior research
[4] the researcher aims to fill at least one of these gaps.
السابقة الدراسات مفهوم
6
7. • Background information or explanations of
concepts
• Arguments for the research importance
• A list of seemingly unrelated sources
• A summary of other people’s work
A LITERATURE REVIEW IS NOT . . .
7
9. WHY UNDERTAKE A LITERATURE REVIEW?
• The aim of doing a literature review is to find out what is already
known about a specific topic? Why is this important?
• The objectives of a literature review may therefore be:
• To summarise current knowledge.
• To generate and refine your own research ideas.
• To provide a critical review which demonstrates:
1. awareness of the current state of knowledge in the subject area
(description skills);
2. a synthesis of resources showing the strengths and limitations,
omissions and bias (critical skills); and
3. how the research fits into this wider context (analytical skills).
Reference: JESSON and LACEY (2006).
12. 12
WHAT IS A CRITICAL REVIEW?
• Good critical literature reviews tell a story and help to advance our
understanding of what is already know (JESSON and LACEY,
2006).
• A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths and
weaknesses of an article's ideas and content.
• It provides description, analysis and interpretation that allow
readers to assess the article's value.
• It is NOT to provide a summary of everything written on a
research topic.
13. • What does the title lead you to expect about the article?
• Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organized the
content.
• Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.
• Study the list of references to determine what research contributed
to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they
represent important work in the field?
• Search Google Scholar to see if other writers have cited the author's
work.
• How do the authors criticise their work?
BEFORE YOU READ THE ARTICLE
13
20. 20
Reference Research Issue Sample Size
Disclosure
Proxy
Country Findings
Lang and
Lundholm
(1993)
Determinants of
analyst ratings of
corporate
disclosures.
2,319 firm-
years
Subjective
ratings based
on
AIMR-FAF
ratings
USA Disclosure scores
are higher for large
firms with a
weaker relation
between stock
returns and
earnings.
Welker
(1995)
Association
between
corporate
disclosure
quality and the
cost of debt.
1,639 firm-
years
Subjective
ratings based
on
AIMR-FAF
ratings
USA Negative
association
between disclosure
scores and cost of
debt.
Lang and
Lundholm
(1996)
The association
between
disclosure
quality and
analyst following
and the
properties of
analyst forecasts.
751 firms Subjective
ratings based
on
AIMR-FAF
ratings
USA High disclosure
firms have a large
analyst following,
more accurate
analyst earnings
forecasts, less
dispersion between
analysts and less
volatility in
forecast revisions.
Schleicher
(1996)
Effect of the
quality of UK
annual report
disclosures on
share price
anticipation of
earnings.
18 firms
(200 firm-
years)
Self-
constructed
index
UK No association
between the quality
of corporate annual
reports and share
price anticipation
of earnings.
Botosan
(1997)
Association
between
disclosure
quality and the
cost of equity
capital.
122 firms Self-
constructed
index
USA Negative
association
between disclosure
scores and cost of
capital.
Bryan Information 250 firms Self- USA Forward-looking
22. • Group the authors who say the same things together and put the authors who say different
things on their own
• Unacceptable style:
• Hussainey et al. (2003) find that voluntary disclosure affect positively share price anticipation of
earnings.
• In addition, Schleicher et al. (2007) find that the relationship between voluntary disclosure and
share price anticipation of earnings is positive.
• Finally, in a recent study, Hussainey and Walker (2009) provide empirical evidence supporting the
positive association between voluntary disclosure and investors’ ability to predict future earnings.
• On the other hand, Gelb and Zarowin (2002) did not find association between annual report
disclosures and share price anticipation of earnings.
• Acceptable style
• Empirical literature shows that voluntary disclosure enhance investors’ ability to anticipate future
earnings (Hussainey et al., 2003, Schleicher et al., 2007 and Hussainey and Walker, 2009). Gelb
and Zarowin (2002), however, did not find this positive association.
22
23. 23
“ Considerable attention has been given to examining the
association between corporate disclosure and share price anticipation
of earnings (e.g. Schleicher and Walker, 1999; Lundholm and Myers,
2002; Gelb and Zarowin, 2002; Hussainey et al., 2003 and Schleicher
et al., 2007).
These papers find that the stock market’s ability to anticipate
future earnings changes is significantly improved when firms
voluntarily provide higher levels of disclosure.
However, these studies do not take into account the possibility that
dividend policy may provide an alternative device for conveying
value-relevant information to the stock market that might act as a
substitute or complement for narrative disclosure in the financial
communication process”. (Hussainey and Walker, 2009).
29. السابقة الدراسات كتابة عند نصائح
• Research Hypotheses
• The hypotheses should base on relevant theories (sometimes base on relevant
empirical results of previous studies or rather reliable arguments).
بنظريات تتعلق أو تستند أن البد الفرضيات
(
جدلي أو سابقة لدراسات تجريبية نتائج إلى تستند أحيانا
ات
ثابتة
Which theory suits your topic? ؟ لموضوعك المناسبة النظرية ما
• Capital market theory or capital need theory
• Agency theory
• Signalling theory
• ………………….etc.
Why might this theory be a better framework for your work rather than
others? ؟ األخرى النظريات من لعملك أفضل عمل إطار النظرية هذه اعتبار يمكن لماذا
29
30. Thank you for your attention
I welcome questions,
suggestions and comments