Live from Copenhagen, Denmark, it's theCUBE, covering KubeCon and CloudNativeCon Europe 2018, brought to you by the CloudNative Computing Foundation and its ecosystem partners. Hello everyone, welcome back to theCUBE's exclusive coverage here in Copenhagen, Denmark for coverage of KubeCon 2018, part of the CNCF, CloudNative, Compute Foundation, part of the Linux Foundation. I'm John Furrier, my co-host, Lauren Cooney, the founder of Spark Labs here at Kelsey Hightower, co-chair of the program as well as a staff engineer, developer, advocate at Google Cloud Platform, celebrity in the industry, dynamic, always great to have you on. Welcome back. Awesome, good to be back. How are you feeling? Tired? You get the energy? I'm good, I finished my keynote yesterday. My duties are done, so I get to enjoy the conference like most attendees. Great, keynote was phenomenal, got good props, great content from a very tight movement, things along, a little bit of a jab at some of the cloud providers, someone say, oh Kelsey took a jab at the cloud guys. What was that about? I mean, what was, there's some good comments on Twitter, but keeping it real? Honestly, so I work at a cloud provider, so I'm part of the cloud guys, right? So I'm at Google Cloud, and what I like to do is, and I was using Amazon's S3 in my presentation, and I was showing people basically like the dream of, in this case, serverless, here's how this stuff actually works together right now. We don't really need anything else from the cloud providers, there's what you can do right now, so I like to take a community perspective when I'm on the stage, so I'm not here only to represent Google and sell for Google, I'm here to say, hey, here's what's possible, and my job is kind of up-level the thinking. So that was kind of the goal of that particular presentation, it's like, here's all this stuff, let's not lock it all down to one particular provider, because this is what we're here for, KubeCon, CloudNativeCon is about taking all that stuff and standardizing it and making it accessible. And then obviously people are talking about the outcome that's preferred right now in the future, which is a multi-cloud workload portability, Kubernetes is playing a very key role and obviously the DevOps, people who have been doing it for many, many years have eaten glass, spit nails, custom stuff, but reap the benefits. But now that they want to make it easier, they want to repeat that, so with Kubernetes nice formation, a lot of people saying here on theCUBE and in the hallways that a de facto standard, the word actually said multiple times here. Interesting. Yeah, so you got Kubernetes becoming the de facto standard for compute, but not events, not data, not the way you want to compute those events or data, so the job isn't complete. So I think Kubernetes will solve a large portion of compute needs. Thumbs up, we're good to go. Linux has done this for the virtualization layer. Kubernetes is doing for the containerization, but we don't quite have that on the serverless side. So it's important for us all to think about where the industry is going, so it's like, hey, where the industry is moving to, where we are now, but it's also important for us to get ahead of it and also be a part of defining what the de facto standard should be. That's great. And you mentioned community, which is important because I want to just bring this up because a lot of startups in the membership of CNCF, and when you have that first piece done, you mentioned the other work to be done, that's an opportunity to differentiate. This is the commercialization opportunity to strike that balance. Your reaction to that, how do you see that playing out? Because it is an opportunity to create some value. Honestly, I'm wearing a serverless.com t-shirt right now. There's a startup in the space, they're trying to make serverless easy to use for everyone regardless of the platform. I think no matter what side of the field you stand on, we need these groups to be successful. They're independent companies, they're going for ambition, they're trying to fill the gaps in what we're all doing. So if they're successful, they just make a bigger market for everyone else. So this is why not only do we try to celebrate them, we try to give them this feedback like, hey, here's what we're doing, here's what the opportunities are. So I think we need them to be successful.  Then we may not have people trying anymore. And I think there's actually a serverless SIG in the CNCF, right, and I think that they're doing a lot of great work to kind of start to figure out what's going on.  Exactly, so the keynote yesterday was largely about some of the work they're doing. So you mentioned the serverless SIG and CNCF. So some of the work that they're doing is called cloud events. But they want to do a standardized way we take these events from the various providers. We're not going to make them all work the same way. But what we can do is capture those events in a standard way and then help define a way to transport those between different providers, if you will, and then how those responses come back. So at least we can start to standardize at least that part of the layer. And if Google offers you value or Amazon offers you value, you own the data. As the data generates events, you can actually move it wherever you want. So that's the other piece and I'm glad that they're getting in front of it. Well, I think the goal is obviously if I'm using AWS and then I want to use Azure and then I want to go to Google Cloud or I want my development teams are using different components and features and all of them, right? You want to be able to have that portability across. And we sit together. So the key part of that demo was if you're using one cloud provider for a certain service, in this case, I was using Google Translate to translate some data. But maybe your data lives in Amazon. The whole point was that be notified that your data's in Amazon so that it can be fired off an event into Google, function runs the translation, writes the data back to Amazon. There are customers that actually do this today, right? There are different pieces of stacks that they want to be able to access. Our goal is to make sure that they can actually do that in a standard way and then show them how to do it. A lot of big buzz too, also going on around Kubeflow, but Google co-chaired or co-founded now part of the CNCF. Istio, service meshes. Again, this points to the dots that are connecting, which is okay, I got Kubernetes, got containers. Now Istio, what's your vision on that? How did that play out? An opportunity, certainly, to abstract away some complexity. What's your thoughts on Istio? So I think there's going to be a certain things. Things like Istio, there are parts of Istio that are very low level. That if done right, you may never see them. That's a good thing. So Istio comes in and says, look, it's one thing to connect applications together, which Kubernetes can help you do with this built-in service discovery. How does one app find the other app? But then it's another thing to lock down security and implement policy. This app can talk to this app under these conditions. Istio comes in and brings that to the playing field. Great, that's a great addition. Most people will probably wrap that in some higher level platform and you may never see it. Great, then you mentioned Kubeflow. Now this is a workflow, or at least an opinionated workflow for doing machine learning or some analytics work. There's too many pieces. So we start naming every single piece that you have to do, or we can say, look, we know there's a way that works. We'll give it a name, we'll call it Kubeflow. And then what's going to happen there is the community's going to rally around and actually more workflow. We have lots of great technology wrapped underneath all of that. But how should people use it? And I think that's what I'm actually happy to see now that we're in year four or five of this thing is people are actually talking about how do people leverage all of these things that fall below? As the IQ starts to increase with cloud native, you're seeing enterprises, and there's levels of adoption. The early adopters, the shiny new toy are pushing the envelope, fast followers coming in, then you've got the mainstream coming in. So mainstream, there's a lot of usage and consumption of containers. Very comfortable with that. Now they're bumping into Kubernetes. Oh, wow, this is great. This, different positions of the adoption. What's your message to each one? Mainstream, fast followers, early adopters, the early adopters keep pushing, keep bringing that community together, form the community, fast follow up. What's the position? What's your, the Kelsey Hightower view for each one of those points of the evolution? So I think we need a new model. So I think that model is kind of out now. Because if you look at the vendor's relationships now, so the enterprise typically buys off the shelf when it's mature and ready to go. But at this point now, a lot of the libraries you saw in the programming languages, if you see a language, a library that you need, if it's on GitHub, you look around and it's like, we're going to use this open source library because we got a ship, right? So they started doing early adoption, maybe at the library level. Now you're starting to see it at the service level. So if I go to my partner or my vendor and they say, hey, the new version of our software requires Kubernetes. Now that's a little bit early for some of these enterprises to adopt, but now you're having the vendor relationship saying we will help you with Kubernetes. And also a lot of these enterprises, it's early, guess what, they have contributors to these projects. They helped design them. I remember back in the day when I was in financial services, JPMC came out with their own messaging standard so banks communicate with each other. They gave that to Red Hat and Red Hat turns it into a product and now there's a new messaging standard. That kicked off 10 years ago. And now we're starting to see these same enterprises contribute to Kubernetes. So I think now there's a new model where if it's early, enterprises are becoming the contributors, donating to the foundations, becoming members of things like CNCF. And on the flip side, they may still use the product, but they want to stay in their future. So you can jump in at any level as a company. You don't need to wait for the mainstream. You can have a contributor in the front wave to help shepherd through. Yeah, you need more say. I think when people bought typical enterprise software, if there wasn't a feature in there, you wait it for the vendor to do it. The vendor comes up with a feature and tells you it's going to cost you another $200 million for this add-on and you have no say into the progress of it or the speed of it. And then we moved to a world where there was APIs. Look, here's APIs, you can kind of build your own thing on top. Now the vendor's like, you know what, I'm going to help actually build the product that I rely on. So if vendor A is not my best partner right now, I can pick a different vendor and say, hey, I want a relationship around this open source ecosystem. You have some features I like right now, but I may want to be able to modify them later. I think that's where we are right now. Well, I think also the emergence of open source offices and things like that in enterprises that are more monolithic have really helped to move things forward with their users and their developers. I'm seeing a lot of folks here that are actually coming from larger companies inside of Europe and they're actually trying to learn Kubernetes now and they are here to bring that back into their companies that they want to know about what's going on. That's a good observation because that open source office is replacing the, I'm the vendor management person. Well, you need legal and you need all of those folks to just get the check marks and get the approval so that folks can actually take code in and if it's under the right license, which is super important, or put code back out. And it seems to be some of the same people that were managing the IBM relationship, the people that were managing the big vendor relationship. This thing is going to cost us all this cash. We're going to make sure that we're getting the right, we're compliant with the licensing model that we're not using more than we paid for in case we get an audit. The same group has some of the similar skills needed to shepherd their way through the open source landscape and then, in many cases, hiring in some of those core developers to sit right in the organization to give back and to kind of have that first tier support. That's a really good point, Lauren. I think this is why I think C&C has been so successful is they've kind of established the guardrails and the kind of the cultural notion of commercializing while not foregoing the principles of open source. So the operationalizing of open source is really huge. Well, I'm kind of laughing over here because I started the open source organization at Cisco and Cisco was new to open source.  It was really something that we wanted to do differently. We wanted to fast track it. We had the exact license that we wanted. We had the players that we wanted to, you know, and we really wanted to have it to be something community-based, which I think, you know, Kelsey, you've said it right there. It's really the communities that are coming together that you're seeing here. You know, what else are you seeing here? Like, what are the interesting projects that you see that are kind of, you know, popping up? You know, we have some, but are there others that you see? Well, so now these same enterprises, now they have the talent, or at least not letting the talent leave. The talent now is like, well, we have an idea and it's not core to our business. Let's open source it. So Attuit just inquired this workflow, small little starter project, Argo. They are Attuit now and maybe they had a need internally, suck in the right people, let the project continue, throw that Attuit logo there, and then sometimes you just see tools that are just being built internally also be productized from this open source perspective, and it's a good way for these companies to stay engaged and also to say, hey, we're having this problem, so are other people. So this is new, right? This open source used to come from the vendors, maybe a small group of developers, but now you're starting to see the company say, you know what? Let's open source our tool as well and it's really interesting because those tools are pretty mature. They've been baked, they've been used, they're real, someone depends on them, and they're out. Interesting to see where that goes. Well, you know, Dirk von Del from VMware, former Linux early guy, brought the same question. He says, don't confuse project with product. That's right. And to your point about being involved in the project, you can still productize. That's right. And then still have that dual relationship in a positive way. That's really a key point. Exactly, we're all learning how to share and we're learning what to share. Okay, so let's get, let's do some self-awareness here for you. Program's great, give you some props on that. You did a great job, you guys are a team, a lot of high marks, question marks that are here that we've heard is security. Obviously, love Kubernetes, everyone's high-fiving each other, getting back to work with reality. Security is a conversation. Your thoughts on how that's evolving, obviously front and center conversation with all the service meshes and all these new services coming up, security is now being fought in the front end of this. What's your view? So I think the problem with security from certain people is that they believe that a product will come out that they can buy to do security. Every time some new platform, oh, virtualization security, Java security, any buzzword then someone tries to attach security. It's a bull-on. Yeah, so most people think it's a practice. A lot of stuff that I've seen in security space still applies to the new stack. It's not that the practice changed. Some of the threat models are the same. Maybe some new threat models come up or new threat models are aggravated because of the way people are using these platforms. But I think a lot of companies have never understood that. It's a practice. It will never be solved. There's nothing you can buy or subscribe to. Not a silver bullet. Like antivirus, right? Oh, I'm going to buy antivirus. As long as I run it, I should never get a virus. It's just like, no, that's not how that works. The antivirus will be able to find things it knows about. And then you have to have good behavior to prevent having a problem in the first place. And I think security should be the same way. So I think what people need to do now is they're being forced back into the practice of security. Security everywhere, basically. It's a thing you have to do no matter what. And I think what people have to start doing with this conversation is saying, if I adopt Kubernetes, does my threat model change? Does the container change the way I've locked down the VM? In some cases, no. In some cases, yes. So I think when we start to have these conversations, everyone needs to understand the question you should ask of everyone, what threat model should I be worried about? And if it's something that I don't understand or know, that's when you might want to go and look for a vendor or go get some more training to figure out how you can solve it. Yeah, and I think Tyler Jewel was on from Ballerina. And he was talking about that yesterday in terms of how they actually won't, they assume that the code is not secure. That is the first thing that they do when they're looking at Ballerina and their programming language and how they actually accept code into it. Is they just assume it's not secure? Oh, exactly. That's the thing, like at Google, we had a thing, we call it BeyondCorp. And there's other aspects of that. If you assume that it's going to be bad if someone was inside of your network, then pretend that someone who's already inside of your network can act accordingly. Yeah, exactly. It's almost the reverse of doing a white listing. All right, so we're going to ask you a question. So, An, you're in a unique position. Glad to have you here in the queue. Thanks for coming on and sharing your insights and perspective. But you're also the co-chair of this program. So you get to see the landscape. You see the 20-mile stair. You have to have that long view. You also work at Google, which just gives a perspective of things like BeyondCorp and all the large-scale work at Google. A lot of people are buying into the cloud native, no doubt about it. There's still some educational work on the people side and process and operationalizing it with open source, et cetera. But they want to know where the headroom is. They want to know, as you said, where is the directionally correct vector of the industry? So I got to ask you, in your perspective, where's all this going? For the folks watching who just want to have a navigation, paint the picture. What's coming directionally? Shoot the arrow forward as service matches, as you start having this service layer, highly valuable, creative freedom to do things. What's the Kelsey vision on? So I think this is where the computing, after the mainframe. The mainframe, you want to process census data. You walk up, give it, spits it back out. To me, that is beautiful. That's like almost the ultimate developer workflow. In, out. Then everyone's like, I want my own computer. And I want my own programming language. And I want to run it in my basement without the proper power or chords or everything. And we're all going to learn how to do computing from scratch. And we all learned and we have what we call it legacy. All the mistakes I've made, but I maintain. And that's what we have. But the ultimate goal of computing is like the calculator. I want to be able to have a very simple interface and the computer should give me an answer back. So where all this is going, Istio, service mess, Kubernetes, cloud native, all these patterns. Here's my app. Run it for me. Don't ask me about auto scale groups and run it for me. Give me a security certificate by default. Let's encrypts. Makes it super easy for anyone to get a Taylor certificate rotated to all the right things. So we're slowly getting to a world where you can ask the question, here's my app. Run it for me. And they say, here's the URL. And when you hit this URL, we're going to do everything that we've learned in the past to make it secure, scalable, work for you. So that may be called OpenShift in this current implementation with Red Hat. The Amazon may call it Lambda. Google Cloud may call it GKE plus some services. And we're never going to stop until the experience becomes. Here's my app running for me. A resource pool, just programmability. And it's good. I mean, I think the enterprises are used to lifting and shifting. I mean, we've been through the evolution of IT. Used to build the legacy. Okay, consolidation. Server consolidation, oh, hello VMs. Now you have lift and shift. This is not a lift and shift kind of concept cloud native. It is a- It doesn't have to be a lift and shift. So some people are trying to make it a lift and shift thing where they say, look, you can bolt on some of the stuff that you're seeing in the new.  And I think that's an independent thing from where we're pushing towards. If you're ready, there's going to be a world where you give us your code and we run it. And it's scary for a lot of people because they're going to be like, well, what do I do? What now do whites twist in that world? So I think that's just, that's where it's going to- Well, in a world of millions of services coming out on the line, it's an operating, automation's got to be key. These are principles that have to get bought into. You got to understand, administration is the exception, not the rule. This is the new world. It's kind of the Google world and large scale world. So it could be scary for some.  Hey, Kelsey, what do I do? And what do you say to them? Say, hey, you know, what do I do? What's the playbook? Well, I said, and so it's early enough. I wasn't born in the mainframe time. So I'm born in this time. And right now when you look at this, it's like, well, this is your actual opportunity to contribute to what it should do. So if you want to sit on the sidelines, because we're in that period now where that isn't the case. And everyone right now is trying to figure out how to make it the case.  And then maybe in about 10 years, you'll be asked to just use what we've all produced. Or since you're actually around early enough, you can participate. That's what I tell people. So if you don't want to participate, then you get the checkpoints along the way. Here's what we offer, here's what they offer. You pick one, and then you stay on this digital transformation to the end of the time.  Well, jumping in the deep end of the pool has always been the philosophy. Get in, learn, and you'll survive without a community to support you. Kelsey, thanks for coming on. Final question for you. Surprises, you're no longer going to be the co-chair. You've co-chaired at this point. You've done a great job. What surprised you about KubeCon? The growth, the people, what are some of the things that have jumped out at you? Either good surprise, what you did expect, not expect. Let's share some commentary on this movement, KubeCon and how it's created. Definitely surprised that it's probably this big, this fast. Right, I thought people, definitely when I saw the technology early on, I was like, this is definitely a winner regardless of who agrees. So I knew that early on. But to be this big, this fast, and all the cloud providers agreeing to use it and sell it. That is a surprise. I figured one or two would do it. But to have all of them, if you go to their website and you read the words Kubernetes, strong competitors. All right, we all agree that Kubernetes is okay. That to me is a surprise that they're here, they have booths, they're celebrating it. They're all innovating on it. And honestly, this is one of those situations that no matter how fast they move, everyone ends up winning on this particular deal just the way Kubernetes was set up and the foundation as a whole. That to me is surprising that it's still true four years later. I mean, rising tide floats all of Boston. You have a booths when you have an enabling disruptive technology like Kubernetes that enables people to be successful. There's enough cake to be eating for everybody. Awesome. Kelsey Hightower, big time influencer here inside the Kube cloud computing influencer also works at Google as a developer advocate, also co-chair of KubeCon 2018. I wish you luck in the next chapter. You're stepping down from the co-chair role. Stepping down from the co-chair, but always in the community. Always in the community. Great voice, great cut I have on the Kube. Check them out online, great Twitter feed. Check them out on Twitter. Kelsey Hightower here in the Kube. I'm John Furrier, Lauren Cooney. Be right back with more coverage here at KubeCon 2018. Stay with us, we'll be right back.


So the heart sounds happen, I have always thought, because the valves themselves snap shut, and what you hear is the snapping of the valves. This is not true. What you're actually hearing is the turbulence in the blood as a result of the valves closing. So I don't think there's a problem functionally or practically with thinking about the valves making noise when they close. I always envisioned it being the snapping of the actual valve pieces together, but it's the turbulence of the blood that you're actually hearing with your two heart sounds. So it makes sense that if you are having ventricular systole, the ventricles are contracting, and they are creating a high pressure zone inside those ventricles, it makes sense that the shape of the AV valves is going to prevent backflow, that the blood is going to want to go back through, not going to happen, and that's going to create, when we close it off, that's going to create some turbulence in that blood, a little bit is going to get through backwards, but then it's going to snap off, like, no, sorry for your luck, and so what was going to try to get through there, there's going to be some turbulence that you can hear with the first heart sound, which is lube. And then systole is associated with the lube. The dub is associated with the semi-lunar valves contracting, and those guys are not contracting, closing. Those guys are going to close when ventricular systole happens. The blood, you push all the blood out in systole of the ventricles, squish it all out there, there it goes, and now you relax the ventricles, the blood wants to come backwards, those semi-lunar valves are going to say, sorry for your luck, dog, they are going to close, it's going to create turbulence, that's what you're going to hear is that second sound, which is a dub. All right, so that's the mechanics of how you get the heart sounds.  Think through all the stages and make sure you're super comfortable being able to analyze, like, when you're going to hear these different heart sounds. It's showing a third heart sound that you don't have to be concerned about. All we care about are the lube and dub. Let's measure some stuff that is possible to measure thanks to our friendly Wigger diagram.


Welcome friends. Today I'm going to talk about literature reviews and as I spoke in my previous presentation, when we're talking about research papers, then probably literature reviews occupy a part along with the introduction. But when we have to do dissertations or thesis, then probably almost 15 to 20% of the writing is about literature reviews. And that is where literature reviews are so important that before we start talking about literature reviews, let me first discuss about what a literature review is not. So to begin with, it is not an annotated bibliography where we're just summarizing and describing sources. So here we are not only summarizing and describing, but we are going somewhere beyond that. And that's where a literature review talks about synthesizing and synthesizing sources that relate to particular themes and concepts. And if I have to draw a similarity between or if I have to draw differences between what an annotated bibliography and literature review is, people have compared them to still pictures and a movie. In a movie, we have still pictures, but we use all those still pictures to tell stories. So that is the difference. So it is a summary at one point, but that summary has to be synthesized into a cogent argument. And that's what we have to be clear about. There are very many different approaches to a similar theme and we must be very careful not to cherry pick sources, because often the impulse is to cherry pick sources that support our point of view. And probably that will not be the right thing to do because we must be open to acknowledging all the different approaches and perspectives. So we have to weave together all the arguments in the summary that we spoke of. So we have to be careful to take in the other point of view as well. If we have to draw a parallel between what a research literature review is and what the methodological sections are, then there is a very strong parallel that I can talk about. And the parallel is that just like the method section talks about the methodological choices that have shaped our project, the literature review discusses the theoretical choices that have shaped our project. So we will be talking about the theoretical foundations of our work through the literature review. And that is why the purpose is a lot more than, as I said at the beginning, it's a lot more than just summarizing all the various strands of argument in the field. For today's presentation, I have followed these six books and more. So I would want to acknowledge all these authors from Dave Harris's book on Literature Review and Research designed to Arlene Fink's book to this book by Mashi and Make-A-Boy, where they talk about literature review six steps to success. Then this book by Chris Hart, this one by Sarah Efron and Ruth David, and there are a lot more books. But for today's presentation, I have relied mainly on these six books. So right at the beginning, we must be very clear that literature review combines both summary and synthesis. Summary, as we know, is just a recap of the important information of the source. But synthesis is reorganizing and reshuffling that information that informs us how we are planning a research problem. So that way it's a combination of both summary and synthesis. There are a lot of ways literature review is important. And one of it is that it helps us distinguish what has been done and what needs to be done. So in a way, it provides me with a reason for why I'm doing this particular research. And it also helps me discover important variables relevant to the topic that I'm researching. So synthesizing is one strand that I will keep repeating as I go on with the presentation. But the research literature review is also something that helps me establish the context of the topic. And it also helps me enhance and acquire the subject vocabulary and at times it helps me understand the structure of the subject as well. So it helps me place each work in the context of its contribution to the problem that I'm discussing. And it also the review helps me to provide an overview of the relationship of the work with each other. So for example, if there is a work on computer mediated communication which suggests that the lack of social cues is what helps communication, there might be other works which speak in a different language. So my review will help me place this work in that particular dimension. And it also helps me identify the new ways to interpret prior research because it's not just about the microstructure. We are also able to see the holistic view of the subject and that is where I can relate and interpret prior research as well. And if there are gaps existing there, it will help me identify those gaps too. As I said, there could be seeming conflicts between two studies which appear very different. So the literature review will help me resolve those conflicts or to provide the common strands in those conflicts. And also it helps me identify the prior scholarship which has already taken place. So my work is not just a duplication of that work. So in that way it tells me what is the additional work that needs to be done and how I can locate my own research work within the context of the existing literature. This is from Dave Harris' book and he talks about these important structures of the literature review process. So it begins with identification of what the project is. So we start off with defining or suggesting what is the project about and what is the research question. So these are two important things that we must keep in mind before we start on the review process itself. And the second important thing to remember is what are the main general theories that set the context of my work and what are the main specific characteristics or dimensions and whether there are any specific variables that I am looking forward to. And just like a review or writing a research paper, a literature review must also have an outline and the main sections. And for each section we must have certain subsections where we write an introductory sentence and at least four or five important sources that define that section. Then we have four very important things to consider when I'm trying to synthesize the information on literature reviews. First of all is the chronology of events. So if it is any kind of an argument or a debate then how has it proceeded from one place to another. For example, if I'm talking about the public opinion theory by Walter Lippmann then from 1922 onwards what are the various strands of discussion there. So that chronology is something that I must be very clear about. And also at times the publication chronology is important where we discuss about how all these publications by year you know how they have been published. But we must be very careful about translated projects. For example, the structural transformation of a public sphere by Habermas it was written in German in 1962 but it was translated in English only in 1989. So we have to be careful about the chronology that publication year and also the thematic and the conceptual dimensions whether I can categorize them into certain thematic and conceptual categories. And of course what are the different methods they've adopted to answer the same research question. So at its very basic literature review at answers to important questions. One, I'm looking at work with whose research questions are very similar to mine. And also I'm looking at how they have approached that research question or what are their methodological approaches. So this is another thing that I must keep in mind when I carry forth with my literature review process. It's important to talk about various types of literature review before we get into the nuts and bolts of how that these reviews are carried out. So at its very basic we might think of describing the literature review thing or categorizing them into three main categories. One is the summary overview. The second is the research background and the third is the research study or the systematic review. So let's go and talk about all these three things in brief. So the summary review is something which is very common in textbooks for example it gives me a sense of the range of ideas in the subject. So what are the main fields and we are basically trying to summarize those ideas without providing any new analytic insight. Providing an analytical insight is not what I intend to do. My idea is only to summarize what has been done in that field. So this is more of an information and a lot of our research work will not be about summarizing all the work that has been done in the field but we'll have to provide some analytical insight to that work. And there there's no preference for any one kind of voice because in our literature review process we will be talking about the writer's voice the author's voice because it's important to realize that it is our work. So every sentence must be our voice and we'll talk about how to get that voice in the literature review process. So it's not about just putting others ideas one after the other but providing our inputs to those ideas and trying to categorize them or to look for contradictions or to look for certain themes there in those arguments. The other part is the research background review and that is what is probably more important for the kind of literature review that we look for in theses or dissertations. And that provides a background for this specific study that we are doing by discussing the ideas that help frame the research question. So all ideas that are related to this review process they will be there in the research background review where we are looking for those ideas. And as I said at the beginning we are looking at what are the inputs that led me to this particular theoretical formulation that I'm doing in my present research work. Research study is a formal study in itself. It is a kind of a meta-analysis or systematic reviews also as I will suggest in my next slide where it's a formal way of doing research in a manner in which we find out all the other related work that has carried on in this particular field. And the objective is to develop new knowledge and to draw conclusions from newly gathered empirical evidence. So based on this evidence this is a study in itself. And as I said one of the studies is meta-analysis and the other is the systematic review where we are providing an overview of existing work using pre-specified standardized methods. Where we identify and appraise relevant data which are linked to the theme or which are closely associated with the theme that we are talking about. So we are trying to document and critically evaluate and summarize all the research about a clearly defined research problem. So it could be the framing paradigm and everything that is related to the framing paradigm and its related concepts of second level agenda setting and emphasis framing and equivalence framing for that matter. So we are trying to document and critically evaluate using all those methods and to provide the latest updated views and kind of a typology if I can perform on that research problem. Another kind of research literature review is an argumentative review where we are examining literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument. So either we are trying to build up a contrarian argument as I suggest here or we are trying to just support that kind of an argument. So we are looking at different arguments and our review process is supposed to support or contradict that kind of opinion. Historical review focuses on examining research throughout a period of time. So it can start off right from the beginning and how it has emerged over the years. So it can be about the concept of public sphere beginning from the 50s and 60s and how it has developed to incorporate media or new media as we know it of the present age. And of course there is the methodological review where we focus not what somebody is found or what the findings are but how they came about saying what they say or what was the method of analysis. And as I said in the beginning that is also a very important part of the review process because we have to understand how different people have addressed a similar research question. And there is this type of review which is known as the theoretical review where we examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to that particular field. So the theoretical review helps us establish what are the theories that exist, what is the relationship between them and to what degree the existing theories have been investigated and whether new hypothesis can be tested in light of those theories. So that also is a very important review process. There is this work by Cooper where he has very succinctly provided these six characteristics on which we can discuss or we can classify the literature reviews. So he talks about focus and goal and perspective and coverage and organization and audience. So we can be looking at literature reviews which look at the research outcomes for example. What have been the outcomes of this particular work and also research methods that they might have adopted or theories in those particular works. Or how those theories have led to particular applications or practices. So that is one of the ways in which we can categorize different work on a particular field. We can also find out whether the goal of that particular work has been integration or whether it is criticism of particular work or whether the goal of the review process is to identify the central issues. So we can be looking at integrating all the work that is available or critiquing that work or identifying central issues in that particular field. We could have a neutral position where we are just looking at all the various strands of opinion or we could be having our own opinion as I said or we can have our own position and we might try and support our position through available evidence. We can also have a review which is exhaustive of all the content which is existing in the field or we could be looking at representative content or we could be looking at content which is central or pivotal to the field that we are studying or the research questions or the research problems that we are addressing. So it could be organized historically as we have already suggested beginning in a kind of chronological manner or we could be categorizing it in terms of concepts or in terms of methodologies also. And one of the ways in which we can think about literature reviews is also to think about whether it is addressed to specialized scholars, whether it is addressed to general scholars or to policy makers or it is addressed to the general public at large. This is another way of suggesting how to carry forth the literature review process. This is by Mackie and McEvoy and they start with selecting a topic, developing tools of argumentation, searching the literature based on certain keywords and such characteristic and then surveying that literature to look for certain trends and themes and categories and then critiquing that literature and finally writing the review. So in today's presentation I will be talking of some of these things not necessarily in this order but this is just to suggest that this is one of the ways in which we can look at the literature review process in a linear form. This is again from Efron and Rabbit's book. This is describing the review process in this particular linear fashion. So it starts off with choosing a particular topic, then locating the work in various sources or locating the research work in books or it could be articles or it could be documents and other kind of things. Then analyzing and evaluating them and finally synthesizing them. It's important for us to have the writer's voice because it is our work that must come out through the work and it shouldn't be just a collection of other people's words on the issue and finally editing and refining the literature review process. There are quite a few sources and it can range from books and monographs and dissertations and reference works and then journals and periodicals. It could be trade magazines. It could be newspapers. It could be website. It could be blogs. So there are lots and lots of sources that we can go back to for looking for ideas and looking for themes and looking for previous work that would have been done in the particular area. Another important decision that we often have to make is to find out whether to include a particular source in the review or not. Say for example if we do a Google scholar search for the keywords in the project that we are doing then we might land up with hundreds and hundreds of sources in the field. So which are the ones that we should include and which are the ones which we should exclude. So Bruce provides some kind of answer to that and the answers are that first of all whether it is topical or whether the keywords that are similar to the ones that we are looking for. Whether that work is comprehensive enough, whether they are dealing with a similar research question in a comprehensive manner and whether the breadth of that work is wide enough so that they include things related to my central theme that I am working on. Also whether it is relevant. So relevant is slightly different from topicality in that sense so we are looking at the relevance with the work that we are doing. One very important thing to remember is whether the work is current or not because if the work is not current or if you are not including enough current work in our review then there might be some very important gaps that can be easily avoided. Then whether the works that we are using for our review whether they are authoritative in our field and of course access is an important thing whether all the work that I am looking for whether they are easily accessible or not. Important to decide on the structure of the literature review process also. So this is another suggestion by these authors and they say that the first thing is to assemble and collect the data. So catalog all the important work or the most important work in the fields and you could be building list of authors you could be cataloging citations and it is important always to work with some kind of a reference manager or these citation software so that you know you can write at the beginning. You can do that in a very systematic manner that as you go on cataloging the work you keep on adding them to the bibliography or keep them adding them to your reference list. So it could be done on Microsoft Word also for example and you could be adding to the reference list there. So then in stage to you arrange and categorize the major works into categories so it could be through authors it could be key descriptors it could be chronology it could be theory it could be methods. So we arrange them into these different categories and then we organize core maps and outlines according to the theme patterns. And then finally we look for you know the arguments there and we create a storyline and that is important to create a thematic structure or to create a reasonable argument which collates all these arguments and these categories. And that is very important because that is where you know this mind mapping and this outline discovery is important. So I will briefly describe the steps that we need to do in this literature review process. The step one is to get an overview of each of the important work that we have identified. And then we group them by category and we have decided and we have already discussed that which are the categories that we can talk about. And then we conduct a more focused literature review if we find that there are gaps more focused literature search if I can use that. And before we start this process we must be very organized ourselves and we must know where to and how to tabulate all these things and I will discuss that in today's presentation also. So we are advised to use a spreadsheet or a table to compile all the notes that we take. And if we are not doing it systematically then later on when we try to compile all this information into a cogent argument then probably will be in some trouble. So of course if you are already adding it to your reference list then you are writing down the author's name, the title, the publication year, the journal identifier and also you have to on the spreadsheet to have a summary or an abstract and the methodology and the findings. So as experienced researchers we get used to skimming through the document in a manner in which we just find out what are the important information and then summarizing it and writing it into some kind of an electronic notebook also. So that notebook could be like one of these cardinal notes where and this is easily available on Google so you could be searching for cardinal notes and you can be creating these kind of notes for all the work you do where you have the main ideas on one section. You write down notes about that and then you summarize that and if you are doing this systematically then at the end of the process you will have a lot of these notes from which you can draw upon to draw into your categories or to draw into your thematic mapping and all. We have to be very flexible as we compile the notes so we can't afford to be extremely rigid in these kind of things but be very careful in copying author's exact words because we have to paraphrase them. If we use a lot of the author's own words then there will be a lot of problems with similarity and such things. Then we go for what is known as the deep analysis where we look for explicit definition of key terms in the literature that we are reviewing. We are looking for key statistics also because we might be using those statistics in the world that we are doing. We must be very aware, we must be very careful and we must pay special attention to review articles and also take note of short but important quotations. At times we might be needing those important quotations and also looking for the methodological strengths and weaknesses in the work that we are studying. Important to distinguish between assertion and evidence that whether the authors of the work that we are reviewing whether they are providing any evidence for their work or not and also to identify the major trends in the work or after reviewing or after reading or skimming through a lot of similar work what are the major trends and what are the gaps in that particular work and whether there is any relationship. At the same time we must also closely see how each article relates to our topic and we will also keep on looking back at the reference list which we keep on compiling as we carry on with the review process. At every stage we are writing down the author's name and all those things in our database. It could be Microsoft Word or it could be some citation managers that we are comfortable with. It could be Mendeley, it could be Zotero, it could be N notes anything that you are comfortable with. But then you look back and you see whether it is current whether all the updated new development in the field are there and whether the coverage is wide or whether the breadth of the coverage is good enough. So this is one very important advice from one of these authors Dave Harris and this is about starting from the core and working outwards. So this author advises not to look for those search terms and all but the argument is very simple. Let's start with a research project which is very similar to yours or whose research problems or whose research questions are similar to yours and then focus on the specific pieces that explicitly relate to the kind of work you are doing. So related work as well and then structure your review to cover the same general sources and ideas that they did with the addition of any extra concerns that you might add. So you start off with those kind of work and then you keep on adding to that and that's how you start from the core and you work outwards. So that's a very good piece of advice that rather than going from the search items and looking at textbooks and those kind of things looking at central work and then working around that central work. So there are a lot of works on how a proper search should work and in this section I will talk about search. So one of the definitions or one of the ideas is to start with the most recent research you can find on your topic. So say for example if you're doing on COVID-19 reporting then look out for the most recent research through a Google search. It could be Google scholar or whatever and then do an exploratory online search. At home it could be as I said a simple Google search and then record carefully and systematically every source you find to enable you to retrieve this information. More easily later so you have to keep on because you might come across some good work and you're very excited about that work. But later on if you don't record it at that moment you might not recall it and you strain your mind to see that what was that particular work and then a lot of valuable time is lost. So whenever you find out an important work, record it in your database. As I said it can be the Microsoft Office or MS Word, Microsoft Word reference section is one very simple way where we can just add in the new references as we go along. Or we can use some citation managers also but important to record that. And then use our research questions to find keywords which are similar to our research topics or it could be the keywords in the work that I find there through a Google search as well. We might also use a thesaurus, it could be an online thesaurus to look for similar words, keywords or descriptors and then look out for those good articles that we can find out on that particular field. And then do a discipline related database so we can talk about EBSCO for example if you're talking about media and communication and readily available search engines like Google's call for example. So this is again an important idea about when we look for that search we are looking for what are the key theories there. What are the epistemological and ontological grounds so how do they deal with questions of epistemology and ontology. What are the main questions that they've addressed till date. How is the knowledge on the topic structured and organized. What are the origins and definitions of those topics. What are the political standpoints. What are the major issues and debates about the topic and how have those approaches to those questions increased our understanding and knowledge. So that's again a very important thing to look at. So we can as I said use key descriptors as central themes to create core idea maps and this is what I'm going to describe in my next slide. So we can also reorganize them according to authors or we can you know according to citations etc. So we carry forth with this. So this is what a core map a core idea or key term map looks like. So that is the core idea it could be say for example news framing and there could be a lot of sub concepts related to this core idea. For example we could be looking at agenda setting we could be looking at priming we could be looking at equivalence framing we could be looking at emphasis framing. So we are looking at concepts related to the core idea and then we look for relationship between those concepts and that's important. Because those are the relationships that will help me define or help me refine my problems. And then we also list down the elements on those sub concepts. So if we carry forth from the core idea then then what are the related sub concepts and within those sub concepts what are the other elements. So that will help me visualize my core idea as I go along. So I can use all these databases I've already spoken about EBSCO we can use JSTOR which is very easily available. ProQuest is also a collection of databases covering social sciences and it provides index to full text articles in over 1000 social science journals. There is Sage Premier and there are other online databases also so that is what we can look for when we are doing that literature review search. One very important thing that we must understand is the analysis of an argument. So it is important to understand the argument that other authors have provided in their work. And I must also know this for the arguments that I will be providing in my kind of a work. So there are four basic things that we are looking there we are looking at the data we are looking at the claim. That we are looking at something which is known as warrant and we are looking at a backing. I will explain these terms in the next two slides but important to understand how an argument is made and how we address those arguments. So as I said in my previous slide that the first one is claims so it is an arguable statement. So it can be any kind of statement and that statement has to be backed by some evidence. And without that evidence that statement has no meaning scientifically. But there has to be an expectation that links between the evidence and the claim. So that is known as warrant or permit. And finally we have to provide some kind of backing to that warrant and to the evidence. In the next slide I will provide a live example of what these four things mean. But important as researchers to understand these four concepts about what is claim, what is evidence, what is warrant public permit and what is how do we back our warrant and evidence. So as I said in my last slide the first is the claim. The claim here is that car owners should restrict washing their cars. This is based on the data that car washes can use up to 2.5 lakh gallons of water. So this depletes water reservoirs by 20%. So this is the data and the claim is that car owners should restrict washing. And there has to be some link as I said which is known as warrant which has to link the claim and the data. And the warrant here is that water is essential and people should not waste. That is why the claim is backed by data and there is a warrant for that link between claim and data. And finally we must have a backing or we must have a reason why we are talking about that particular warrant. And backing is that water shortages can cause lots and lots of inconvenience to everybody and it is dangerous for people as well. So now to the writing part of literature review and I am very quickly going to talk about some few very important tips on writing literature reviews. So before we begin we must understand the importance of originality. So this is just to give a description of what originality means especially in social sciences. So first of all it must be produced using our own faculties. It must be produced using our own processes, very important. Without copy or imitation it shouldn't be copied. It shouldn't have been done before in certain ways. So that must be some newness to what we are doing. It must be new in style, character, substance or form. So newness we are talking about what are the dimensions of those newness. It should be authentic. It should be the result of thought. So all these elements are important in terms of originality. So we must ensure that the work we are doing is pretty original. This is one of the difficulties of the writing process is that the ideas are typically intertwined and interdependent. But when we are writing down that writing has to be done in a linear fashion because as I said it has to have a structure and it must have a particular thematic discussion or the kind of things that we have discussed earlier. So to write them out in a linear fashion is quite a task and we should be very clear about which are the ideas we should begin with and how to carry forward with that. So important to select the most important points in each of the sources and how they relate to the research problems. It could be thematic, it could be methodological, it could be chronological as I said but how that information is related to the research problem. So the most important point and then how that is related to our research problem. We will not be using direct quotes as we said right at the beginning but at times we might need to quote certain terminologies which have been coined by those authors or we might be requiring that to emphasize certain things but we must make some short quotes and if there are long quotes it's better to go for paraphrases unless there are very strong reasons not for paraphrasing them. And as I said in the beginning we must remember to summarize and synthesize because within each thematic paragraph and as throughout the review also so we must be looking at not only the trees but at the woods also at the same time so that is why summarizing and synthesizing at the same time and recapitulating the important features of any research study that is there in the review but also synthesizing it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to the work that I am doing. Very important to have our own voice because the literature review generally presents others' ideas and of course it is others' ideas and we are trying to synthesize those ideas but our voice should remain front and center because whenever we are weaving reference to other sources we have to maintain our own voice so one of the ways is by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and own wording so you are putting your own ideas and in between you are using those evidences from others' work to just establish your ideas but it is important that our voice comes through in the literature review process so it is not only about others' contents but three or four very important things about others' works so one of this is how are they organizing their ideas what are the methods they have used to study the problem what theories have been used to explain, predict or understand that research problem and what are the sources that those people have cited in their work so all that have to be intervened and weaved into our literature review writing process I am going to talk about some of the mistakes that are generally seen in the literature review process one of it is that sources do not clearly relate to the research problem so if they are not related to my research problem they should be there in the review in the first place and often it relies on secondary analytical sources so for example our work is on public sphere it should not be only about what other people have written about Habermas' work but we must also be citing his own work so if my literature review relies only on secondary analytical sources then there is a major gap that we should have filled long ago we should not uncritically accept others' findings so we must have a point of view or we must critically examine their findings and their interpretations often people want the literature review process also to describe the search procedures but as I said in the earlier slide this may not always be necessary we must not report isolated statistical results we must think of synthesizing them so we must also include a research which does not validate our assumption we must not be cherry picking which I said right at the beginning so to sum up I will just repeat two or three very important things that I have already discussed literature review process involves these four things first of all the first thing is the problem formulation so what is the topic that is being examined and what are the component issues what are the related issues to the topic then finding material relevant to the subject being explored so looking for all relevant material which are relevant to my topic then we evaluate the data we determine which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic so they are important for my work and then discussing the finding and conclusion of a pertinent literature so of a similar literature we are also discussing the conclusions and findings so if I have to represent that in a diagrammatical format we start off with the research questions we choose keywords for search we choose which databases we should be searching for and what are the subjects that we must be looking for then we locate those things we expand at times the search if it is too narrow or generally it's the other way that it's too huge and we'll have to narrow the search so there are those boolean expressions like and for example which can be used to narrow down the sources and at the same time we have to keep on recording all the citations and create a bibliography as we go along I will talk about just some of the popular citation managers so EndNote is one of them Zotero is also very popular with many researchers and so is RefWorks and of course Benderly is what a lot of researchers talk very highly about thank you so much for your patience and I'll keep coming back with a lot more on media and communication, theory and research thank you very much


Hello, I'm Araita Kashkai, a PhD student in health sciences and master's student in engineering. My research is to understand how children with hypermobile ilustrainal syndrome or HEDS for short move. HEDS is the inherited connective tissue disorder and it happens with deficits in connective tissue and by connective tissue I mean bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, all over the body, you name it. And these changes actually change the way they move. It's an interesting back story of how this research all began. And a compassionate therapist approached us with the challenge that she had with her patients. And we at UWM Mobility Lab teamed up a genetic center at Union's Hospital to solve this challenge. And here's the challenge. There is no validated genetic test to diagnose this disease and there's no accurate solid plan for treatment for physicians, occupational therapists or physical therapists. And this challenge is critical for children, especially as immature. Our goal was to analyze body movements in 3D with professional cameras and calculate angles, forces, it's happening in their joints as they walk. So far we could see that children with HEDS showed more effort and energy demand as they walk compared to healthy children. And this could be the cause that they get tired so fast even by walking 2-3 blocks. This research is one of the few research on HEDS. And the big picture of this research is actually to use artificial intelligence to connect genetic test results with the data that we capture at Mobility Lab to help clinicians to understand this syndrome and help their patients.


Welcome to All Hands Update, I'm Petty Officer Jessica Bidwell, and these are your headlines from around the fleet. USS Theodore Roosevelt departed Norfolk from around the world deployment March 11th. Theodore Roosevelt will conduct operations in the U.S. 5th, 6th, and 7th Fleet areas of responsibility before arriving to her new home port of San Diego. The Sea Warrior Program Office launched a mobile app that gives junior officers and chief petty officers access to frequently used resources. The app called E-Devo is the first mobile leadership tool specifically designed for division officers. E-Devo includes over 8,300 pages of the most frequently needed information, including basic military requirements, evaluation writing, and enlisted advancement. The app is free and works disconnected from cell service or Wi-Fi, enabling use of shore and at sea. It is available from multiple platforms. Download your copy of the app today.