Literature Review - The Sequel

I previously wrote virtually my method of tackling the giant mount of papers I desire to read for my literature review.

As suggested inwards the comments, I changed my trend of organizing the printed copies of the papers. Instead of having them organized past times plain of report - which was becoming to a greater extent than as well as to a greater extent than complicated, I've followed the proposition to organize them alphabetically on final elevate of the kickoff author.

Since I had already worked my trend through to a greater extent than than 300 documents, it took me virtually 2,5 hours to reorganize my binders total of material. But I don't mean value that was a waste product of time, contrarily, it gave my really interesting insights.

As I was organizing the papers past times author, I started to inquiry myself. I had 1 modest binder alongside my "most important" papers. Somehow, I discovered that most of the papers I read were truly plumbing fixtures into the storey I  am edifice upwardly inwards my mind.

My enquiry topic is somewhere inwards the midpoint of 3 dissimilar topics. I'm pulling cloth from papers on brace applied scientific discipline (slab bridges), papers on beam shear as well as papers on punching shear. I've noticed that non that many authors bring published cloth on, for example, both beam shear as well as punching shear. Some authors earlier the 1960s explored the borders of these subject, only after on researchers started to focus on 1 topic inwards particular.

Now that had all this cloth going through my hands again, I started to run into or then links. I started to notice how a basic thought was employed inwards dissimilar topics, as well as too, felt similar I straight off tin run into my topic from dissimilar angles, without thinking likewise much inwards stiff subjects.

Thanks over again for the comments on my previous post! As you lot tin see, it gave me or then really skilful ideas.