Literature Review & How To

How to write a lit. review:

• First, a literature review is an analysis of the works used in a research paper.  It is written to connect the themes in different works, and also to connect those works to what is being done in paper being written.
• When writing, stick to the main points of the papers.
• At the beginning of the review, be sure to point out why the topic is important and how researchers before have solidified the importance of it.
• While writing about certain studies, highlight their importance.
• If citing a classic study, it is important to state that it is so
• It should have a header, and page numbers should be included.
• Cite all references that are relevent to your paper (LaMongan-Rallisst, 2006).

 

• When writing a lit. review, it is beneficial to ask these questions: What topic is being discussed? What materials are relevent to the study or research being done? What literature would contribute to what is being done?
• In the literature review per reference, an overview of the reference should be given.
• Also, similarities and differences between the references being summarized should be noted.
• A literature review is meant for providing a better understanding of the subject.
• Provide a new interpretation of certain aspects of the subject.
• Put the research being done in the ranks of other researchers (Allen, 1996).

 

Reference List

Allen, R.C. (1996). Write a literature review. Retrieved from http://library.ucsc.edu/help/howto/write-a-literature-review

LaMongan-Rallisst, H. (2006, November 17). Guidelines for writing a literature review. Retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litreview.html

 

Literature Review:

Sex is a hot topic; therefore, it can be said that a lot of research has been done about it.  In my own personal research, I found numerous articles on orgasm, sexuality, genders, gender roles, sexual dysfunctions, and many other topics closely related to sex in general.  This next section will discuss some of this research that has already been done about orgasms and sexual satisfaction, and on topics that are broader but also closely related.

            A study was done in 2005 by Kenneth Mah and Yitzchack M. Binik on whether or not orgasms were more related to the body or the mind.  In their initial study, they discussed how a great number of factors added up to the sum of an orgasm; but that psychosocial factors were the main dynamic in how orgasms were experienced for woman (2005).  They also discussed how, for woman, the pleasure and satisfaction were results of “intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors” (2005).  The location of the orgasm, (vaginal or clitoral, for woman), and how the intensity of the orgasm was perceived also played a role in male and female orgasm experience.  To explain further, many women describe clitoral orgasms as being more intense but that orgasms achieved through intercourse were more sexually satisfying as a whole.  This would be an example of how the orgasm was perceived by the person experiencing it.  Yet another factor in the schema has to do with the quality of the relationship between the couple having sexual relations, and how this also correlates to the rate of orgasm or “orgasm frequency”.  Later in the study, the actual experiment was described.  Mah and Binik created an adjective-rating questionnaire, the “Orgasm Rating Scale” for participants to take.  They tested the hypotheses that in both masturbation and sex between couples: the perceived characteristics of the orgasm will be related to the orgasmic pleasure and satisfaction, the psychological intensity of the experience will relate to pleasure and satisfaction, and the psychological intensity will be more related to satisfaction than will the anatomical location of sensations.  Also, they believed that orgasmic pleasure was direction related to relationship satisfaction (2005).  All hypotheses but the idea that psychological perception of intensity will relate more with orgasm satisfaction than anatomical location of the physical sensation were proven conclusive by the research results for both male and female participants (Mah, & Binik, 2005).

            In another study, the response of partners in a sexual act and how it affected the act itself was researched.  This is considered the empathic response and it is controlled by the autonomic nervous system, meaning it is not under voluntary control.  It can include cardiovascular changes, but it can also include sexual responses.  Empathic responses during sexual intercourse can either “increase sexual arousal in response to a partner’s sexual arousal, or decrease sexual arousal due to a partner’s lack in arousal” (2008).  Our partner’s responses can control our own personal responses, and vice versa.  Physiologically, this would include erection in males and vascular engorgement in females and appearance of lubrication in both males and females.  In cases where there is a lack of empathic response, inhibition of the formerly stated responses would occur (2008).  There are many ways to show sexual arousal, and this could include respiratory rate, vocal responsiveness, facial expressions, and etcetera.  Also considered in the initial study were the differences in orgasms themselves.  According to the study, people can have a single, multiple, or sustained orgasmic experience.  The current study used an anonymous questionnaire to research whether or not empathic responses enhance sexual satisfaction and if the presence of arousal in a partner enhances the sexual response of the opposite partner, and vice versa (2008).  The hypothesis that empathic responses are experienced by people and that those responses enhance sexual satisfaction was supported by both males and females.  Even in the case where a partner possibly “faking” responsiveness was discussed, males still were reported to have enhanced experiences.  It was found that it was important for both males and females to have partners experience satisfaction, and in the best case orgasm (Haning, O’Keefe, Beard, & Randall, 2008).

              In a separate study done by Mah and Binik in 2002, the psychosocial aspects of orgasm were questioned in male and females.  This is where they initially created the adjective rating scale; which was composed of a 0 to 5 scale rating survey to describe sex with a partner and solitary sexual actions.  Also, another part of the survey included questions relating to how specifically they reached climax with a partner; in other words, what sexual behaviors led to orgasm (2002).  Participants were graduate and undergraduate students, and ranged between male and female, single and committed.  Mah and Binik chose adjectives related to sensory and “cognitive affective” sensations, such as “swelling, flooding, flushing, pulsing, throbbing” and “tender, passionate, pleasurable, unifying”.  This was to aid in telling apart what could be considered physical and emotional.  They assumed that women would relate orgasm with a partner to the cognitive affective side and that men would relate more to the sensory side (2002).  Also, they assumed that orgasm satisfaction with a partner would be higher than with solitary satisfaction.  In their results they found that for men pleasure satisfaction was higher with a partner than in solitary masturbation, even though earlier in the study men had described orgasm with self as more intense (2002).  For woman, “emotional intimacy” scores were higher with a partner than with self.  This difference was higher in woman than in men, as expected (2002).  Another aspect pertaining orgasm that was discovered occurred in men and women’s explanation of their orgasm.  Woman were only slightly more likely than men to describe their orgasm as “flooding, shooting, general spasm, and throbbing”, yet men were considerably more likely to describe their orgasm as “shooting”.  This would directly relate to the explanation of ejaculation, which is sometimes used incorrectly to name orgasm in men.  Other than this difference, however, while men were more likely to describe a shooting sensation, there were little differences between adjective explanations between genders otherwise (Mah, & Binik, 2002).

Before: In my literature review, I hope to educate my audience on what has been done in the past on my topic.  Also, I hope to show that I have adequate knowledge on the topic before I dive into my own personal research.  I hope to accomplish this by providing excellent summaries of articles and research that have already been published.  Another way I hope to reach my goal is by putting those same articles into words that my audience can better understand.  The articles are written from a highly educated point of view, and while my audience is at a scholarly level I cannot assume that all of the material or terminology will be recognized by them.

After: I believe that I accomplished the above goals in a number of ways. I tried to give good summaries of the information in the articles, that at times were twenty pages long.  Before writing, I highlighted the main points of my articles and the information that I wanted my audience to read and understand.  When writing, I tried to keep my audience in mind so that I was writing from an accurate point of view.  I tried to keep my summaries shorter, although looking back I am not sure that I accomplished that to the best of my abilities.  In the future, I hope editing and further addition of sources can strengthen my research.