Towards elucidating the context of the research questions and hypotheses of the PhD research
Inspirational framework 'Literature and Research Questions' for PhD candidates
Added valueof theresearch stage
Objective of the inspirational framework
Achievementsand training opportunities
Bestpractice byPhD candidate
Expectations
Objective of the inspirational framework
Objective
- To provide inspiration on how to approach the 'Literature and Research Questions' stage during the PhD trajectory
- To clarify the minimal expectations regarding reviewing literature and formulating research questions in PhD research
- To guide the members of the doctoral advisory committee and project counselortowards their coaching opportunities for the various research stages
Added value of the research stage
- To clarify the research context
- To give a structured overview of the existing knowledge and insightsin the research domain
- To aid in the identification of research gaps, hypotheses, and research questions
- To facilitate the highlighting of the originality, relevance, generalizability, andimpact of the PhD research
- To clarify the societal relevance and impact of the PhD research
Added value
Expectations
- To understand a research domain
- To formulate clear objective(s) and research question(s) of the PhD research
- To clarify the societal context, relevance, and impact of the work
- To be familiar with the principles of plagiarism
- To recognize the risks and opportunities of AI tools for literature research
- To apply these skills for the general introduction section of the PhD dissertation
Expectations
Take a look!
Take a look at the publications types that are accepted to meet the minimum criteria to submit the PhD for defence.
Achievements and training opportunities
Achievements
Search strategy
Quality assessment
Framework
Review types
Training opportunities of the Faculty Research Training Program (FRTP)
Review types
Each type of review serves a specific purpose and is chosen based on the research question(s) and the nature of the existing literature.
Review types
Systematic review (with meta-analysis)
Scoping review
Umbrella review
Structured narrative review
Rapid review
Other review types
References: Grant & Booth (2009), Higgins & Green (2011), Sutton et al. (2019), Ufora e-learning module 'Master your thesis', KCGG
Framework
Use a framework to make your research question clear and specific. PICO is a commonly used framework for formulating clinical research questions. If your research question is not typically clinical or broader in nature, you might consider using PCC. The tools SPIDER and ECLIPSE are specifically designed to identify relevant qualitative and/or mixed-method studies.
Framework
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
Search strategy
Search strategy
Using a search strategy (including database-specific syntax and terminology) is essential in the literature review process to make searching more efficient, accurate, and comprehensive. It’s a powerful way to harness database capabilities, allowing for a systematic and reproducible approach to identifying relevant studies.
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
Quality assessment
A Quality Assessment Tool evaluates the overall methodological quality of a study by assessing whether key methodological elements are present and properly reported, providing insight into the study’s reliability and validity.Risk of Bias (RoB) Tools are a specific type of quality assessment tools, examining the potential biases in study results by analyzing how methodological shortcomings may have influenced findings.The choice between these tools depends on several factors such as the review’s objective and the study design of the included studies.
Quality assessment
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
References: Furuya-Kanamori et al. (2009), Ufora recording KCGG
Training opportunities of the Faculty Research Training Program
The Faculty Research Training Program provides researchers with essential training courses to acquire basic knowledge and skills essential for research in Medicine and Health Sciences. The training modules reflect the various stages of a research cycle in a program that is updated monthly and communicated via the faculty newsletter. Examples of training opportunities (KCGG) on literature review: Pre-searching: how to choose your review type? Searching: search strategy, scientific databases Processing: study selection , quality assessment, reference management Publishing: insights in academic publishing Outreach: research communication to the broad audience
Enrol in Ufora for the 'BLITS informatiesessie' , 'Workshops KCGG_NL' and/or 'Workshops KCGG_ENG' for recordings of previous sessions and additional training materials (slides, templates,...)!
Training opportunities
Take a look!
Take a look!
Best practice by PhD candidate
Laís Boralli Razza is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Head and Skin and a super fan of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. She believes that a comprehensive literature review is an essential starting point in any PhD journey. Organizing and sharing your knowledge through a publication, particularly when the review uncovers new results and insights, is highly valuable.
Best practice
Additionally, literature reviews can often be initiated early in the research process, are sometimes easier to publish, and tend to attract numerous citations. A solid literature review also paves the way for subsequent research steps, helping to build both confidence and maturity in your work. During her PhD, Laís published a meta-analysis as a lead author in the Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry.
Take a look!
Acknowledgements and references
AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Anne Magherman and Valery Labarque for the outline of the inspirational frameworks. Many thanks to all staff involved in the Ufora e-learning modules and the members of the KCGG - especially dr. Nele Pauwels - for providing a solid content-related foundation for the development of this inspirational framework. Sincere gratitude to dr. Laís Boralli Razza for sharing her experience on systematically reviewing and analysing scientific literature with us. ReferencesNature masterclassesOrpheus Best Practice Handbook 2024 KCGG Ufora e-learning module 'Master your thesis'
Acknowledgementsand references
Reviews are among the most sought-after types of articles, created to meet diverse research and policy needs. Various types of reviews exist, each differing in structure and methodology. Grant and Booth (2009) and Sutton et al. (2019) provide a comprehensive overview of these types. Examples of other review types include: - Critical review: serves as a foundation for developing new hypotheses and models - Mapping review: helps identify more specific, policy- and practice-oriented questions - State-of-the-art review: focuses on the latest developments within a defined timeframe - ...
An umbrella review summarises multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a particular topic. It gives a quick overview and an exhaustive list of reviews relevant to the decision at hand. Therefore, it requires the pre-existence of narrower component reviews.
A rapid review provides a quick synthesis of the evidence on a particular topic. Simplified systematic review methods are used to expedite the process, often with limitations in comprehensiveness.
A scoping review maps the range of available literature related to a broad topic or research question. Descriptive in nature, it helps to identify the key concepts, relevance, gaps, and evidence of the existing research. The results are useful for formulating research questions for future studies. Internationally recognised reporting standards are available for this type of literature review, namely PRISMA for a scoping review. The JBI Manual for scoping reviews can serve as a guide when conducting such reviews.
A systematic review is a type of literature review that systematically collects, analyses, and summarises all available evidence on a topic according to strict (registered) protocols. An extensive transparant and reproducable search strategy is used. It is necessary that two independent reviewers are involved in the process. The data can be summarised in either a descriptive narrative or statistical meta-analysis manner. A meta-analysis is a statistical process conducted after performing a systematic review to combine quantitative data from multiple studies, generating a pooled estimate. However, even when a systematic review is performed, a meta-analysis may not be feasible due to limitations in available data or methodological differences between studies. Internationally recognised reporting standards are available for this type of literature review, namely PRISMA for a systematic reviews and meta-analyses . In addition, Cochrane Reviews are known as the gold standard in evidence-based practice and decision-making in healthcare. The Cochrane Handbook can serve as a guide when conducting such reviews .
By summarizing existing studies, a standard narrative review provides a broad overview of the literature on a topic. In contrast, a structured narrative review systematically collects, analyzes, and summarizes all available information, often in preparation for empirical research. Unlike a standard narrative review, a structured narrative review clearly outlines the systematic search methodology used to gather the literature, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.
Minimum publication requirement
Type of publications (not) accepted to meet the minimum publicaton criterion
The minimum requirement for a publication as a (shared) first author in a scientific, peer-reviewed international journal is that the work must present original research data.
Furthermore, the doctoral student must demonstrate that the manuscript underwent a comprehensive review process, including the following timeline details: date of submission, duration of the review period, date of submission of the rebuttal letter and revised version, date of acceptance, date of proofreading, and date of publication. From now on, patents and patent applications will also count as publications for your PhD. When submitting your dissertation for defense, you will be asked to explain your contribution to the patent. For more information about patents, please contact UGent TechTransfer.
(*) In case of a systematic review, protocol or technical paper, a manuscript with original research data is also required. The manuscript with original research data must be accepted/published or submitted for publication.
Inspirational framework 'Literature and Research Questions'
Onderwijs FGE
Created on July 9, 2024
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Fishbone Diagram
View
Puzzle Diagram
View
Gear Diagram
View
Square Timeline Diagram
View
Timeline Diagram
View
Timeline Diagram 3
View
Timeline Diagram 4
Explore all templates
Transcript
Towards elucidating the context of the research questions and hypotheses of the PhD research
Inspirational framework 'Literature and Research Questions' for PhD candidates
Added valueof theresearch stage
Objective of the inspirational framework
Achievementsand training opportunities
Bestpractice byPhD candidate
Expectations
Objective of the inspirational framework
Objective
Added value of the research stage
Added value
Expectations
Expectations
Take a look!
Take a look at the publications types that are accepted to meet the minimum criteria to submit the PhD for defence.
Achievements and training opportunities
Achievements
Search strategy
Quality assessment
Framework
Review types
Training opportunities of the Faculty Research Training Program (FRTP)
Review types
Each type of review serves a specific purpose and is chosen based on the research question(s) and the nature of the existing literature.
Review types
Systematic review (with meta-analysis)
Scoping review
Umbrella review
Structured narrative review
Rapid review
Other review types
References: Grant & Booth (2009), Higgins & Green (2011), Sutton et al. (2019), Ufora e-learning module 'Master your thesis', KCGG
Framework
Use a framework to make your research question clear and specific. PICO is a commonly used framework for formulating clinical research questions. If your research question is not typically clinical or broader in nature, you might consider using PCC. The tools SPIDER and ECLIPSE are specifically designed to identify relevant qualitative and/or mixed-method studies.
Framework
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
Search strategy
Search strategy
Using a search strategy (including database-specific syntax and terminology) is essential in the literature review process to make searching more efficient, accurate, and comprehensive. It’s a powerful way to harness database capabilities, allowing for a systematic and reproducible approach to identifying relevant studies.
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
Quality assessment
A Quality Assessment Tool evaluates the overall methodological quality of a study by assessing whether key methodological elements are present and properly reported, providing insight into the study’s reliability and validity.Risk of Bias (RoB) Tools are a specific type of quality assessment tools, examining the potential biases in study results by analyzing how methodological shortcomings may have influenced findings.The choice between these tools depends on several factors such as the review’s objective and the study design of the included studies.
Quality assessment
Take a look!
Take a look at the various training opportunities!
References: Furuya-Kanamori et al. (2009), Ufora recording KCGG
Training opportunities of the Faculty Research Training Program
The Faculty Research Training Program provides researchers with essential training courses to acquire basic knowledge and skills essential for research in Medicine and Health Sciences. The training modules reflect the various stages of a research cycle in a program that is updated monthly and communicated via the faculty newsletter. Examples of training opportunities (KCGG) on literature review: Pre-searching: how to choose your review type? Searching: search strategy, scientific databases Processing: study selection , quality assessment, reference management Publishing: insights in academic publishing Outreach: research communication to the broad audience Enrol in Ufora for the 'BLITS informatiesessie' , 'Workshops KCGG_NL' and/or 'Workshops KCGG_ENG' for recordings of previous sessions and additional training materials (slides, templates,...)!
Training opportunities
Take a look!
Take a look!
Best practice by PhD candidate
Laís Boralli Razza is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Head and Skin and a super fan of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. She believes that a comprehensive literature review is an essential starting point in any PhD journey. Organizing and sharing your knowledge through a publication, particularly when the review uncovers new results and insights, is highly valuable.
Best practice
Additionally, literature reviews can often be initiated early in the research process, are sometimes easier to publish, and tend to attract numerous citations. A solid literature review also paves the way for subsequent research steps, helping to build both confidence and maturity in your work. During her PhD, Laís published a meta-analysis as a lead author in the Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry.
Take a look!
Acknowledgements and references
AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Anne Magherman and Valery Labarque for the outline of the inspirational frameworks. Many thanks to all staff involved in the Ufora e-learning modules and the members of the KCGG - especially dr. Nele Pauwels - for providing a solid content-related foundation for the development of this inspirational framework. Sincere gratitude to dr. Laís Boralli Razza for sharing her experience on systematically reviewing and analysing scientific literature with us. ReferencesNature masterclassesOrpheus Best Practice Handbook 2024 KCGG Ufora e-learning module 'Master your thesis'
Acknowledgementsand references
Reviews are among the most sought-after types of articles, created to meet diverse research and policy needs. Various types of reviews exist, each differing in structure and methodology. Grant and Booth (2009) and Sutton et al. (2019) provide a comprehensive overview of these types. Examples of other review types include: - Critical review: serves as a foundation for developing new hypotheses and models - Mapping review: helps identify more specific, policy- and practice-oriented questions - State-of-the-art review: focuses on the latest developments within a defined timeframe - ...
An umbrella review summarises multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a particular topic. It gives a quick overview and an exhaustive list of reviews relevant to the decision at hand. Therefore, it requires the pre-existence of narrower component reviews.
A rapid review provides a quick synthesis of the evidence on a particular topic. Simplified systematic review methods are used to expedite the process, often with limitations in comprehensiveness.
A scoping review maps the range of available literature related to a broad topic or research question. Descriptive in nature, it helps to identify the key concepts, relevance, gaps, and evidence of the existing research. The results are useful for formulating research questions for future studies. Internationally recognised reporting standards are available for this type of literature review, namely PRISMA for a scoping review. The JBI Manual for scoping reviews can serve as a guide when conducting such reviews.
A systematic review is a type of literature review that systematically collects, analyses, and summarises all available evidence on a topic according to strict (registered) protocols. An extensive transparant and reproducable search strategy is used. It is necessary that two independent reviewers are involved in the process. The data can be summarised in either a descriptive narrative or statistical meta-analysis manner. A meta-analysis is a statistical process conducted after performing a systematic review to combine quantitative data from multiple studies, generating a pooled estimate. However, even when a systematic review is performed, a meta-analysis may not be feasible due to limitations in available data or methodological differences between studies. Internationally recognised reporting standards are available for this type of literature review, namely PRISMA for a systematic reviews and meta-analyses . In addition, Cochrane Reviews are known as the gold standard in evidence-based practice and decision-making in healthcare. The Cochrane Handbook can serve as a guide when conducting such reviews .
By summarizing existing studies, a standard narrative review provides a broad overview of the literature on a topic. In contrast, a structured narrative review systematically collects, analyzes, and summarizes all available information, often in preparation for empirical research. Unlike a standard narrative review, a structured narrative review clearly outlines the systematic search methodology used to gather the literature, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.
Minimum publication requirement
Type of publications (not) accepted to meet the minimum publicaton criterion
The minimum requirement for a publication as a (shared) first author in a scientific, peer-reviewed international journal is that the work must present original research data.
Furthermore, the doctoral student must demonstrate that the manuscript underwent a comprehensive review process, including the following timeline details: date of submission, duration of the review period, date of submission of the rebuttal letter and revised version, date of acceptance, date of proofreading, and date of publication. From now on, patents and patent applications will also count as publications for your PhD. When submitting your dissertation for defense, you will be asked to explain your contribution to the patent. For more information about patents, please contact UGent TechTransfer.
(*) In case of a systematic review, protocol or technical paper, a manuscript with original research data is also required. The manuscript with original research data must be accepted/published or submitted for publication.