Analyzing a Literature Review from a Scholarly Journal Article

Assignment Brief

Week 6, Discussion 1 , Analyzing a Literature Review from a Scholarly Journal Article

This discussion thread is designed to help you see how a synthesis of sources essay, or literature review, is organized.

Please download the article, “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect,” by Evelyn Maeder and Richard Corbett. The article is available in the e-reserves of your class.

On pages 84-85, the authors provide an introduction to the research study they conducted. You can read this section if you would like to. However, for this discussion thread, please read from page 85 “(“The CSI effect defined”) to page 94 (up to the section entitled “Method”).

Then answer the following questions:

1. In the first section (“The CSI effect defined”), do the authors ever give you their opinion on the CSI effect? How do they support their definition and their expansion on the definition? How many different sources do they cite in this section?

2. From pages 86-88, the authors discuss lawyers, police officers, judges, and community members. In this section, do the authors ever give you their opinion on any of the issues discussed?

3. Examine the section entitled “Verdicts” (pp. 90-92). How do the results from the study by Shelton et al. differ from the results of the study by Kim, Barak, and Shelton? How do the results of the study by Baskin and Sommers differ from the results of other studies?

4. As a result of having read this article, please write a few sentences about what you might have learned about a) synthesizing sources or b) the CSI effect.

Sample Answer

Analysing a Literature Review from “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect” by Maeder and Corbett

The article “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect” by Evelyn Maeder and Richard Corbett explores how exposure to forensic television dramas influences public understanding of criminal trials, evidence, and justice. The authors use a structured literature review to synthesise existing studies on the CSI effect, demonstrating how researchers have debated whether crime shows shape juror expectations, legal strategies, and verdict decisions.

In the section titled “The CSI Effect Defined” (p. 85), the authors never express their own opinion on the issue. Instead, they maintain an academic and neutral tone throughout, presenting various scholarly definitions and interpretations of the CSI effect. They describe it as a phenomenon where the portrayal of forensic science in television dramas leads viewers, particularly jurors, to develop unrealistic expectations about the availability, accuracy, and importance of forensic evidence in real trials. The authors support this definition through extensive referencing of previous research rather than by asserting personal beliefs.

They cite a range of studies from criminology, psychology, and media research, including works by Cole and Dioso-Villa (2007), Shelton (2008), and Podlas (2006), among others. In total, they reference around seven to nine sources within this section alone. These citations serve not only to define the concept but also to illustrate how scholars disagree on its extent and implications. Some view the CSI effect as an exaggerated media myth, while others see it as a genuine influence on courtroom outcomes. By bringing these differing perspectives together, Maeder and Corbett effectively synthesise rather than summarise the literature, which helps readers understand both the origins and ongoing debates surrounding the CSI effect.

From pages 86 to 88, the authors explore how the CSI effect has been perceived by various professional and community groups, including lawyers, police officers, judges, and members of the general public. They present the evidence in a comparative and objective way, avoiding personal commentary. For example, they note that many prosecutors believe jurors now expect to see DNA or forensic proof in every case, even when such evidence is unnecessary or unavailable. Police officers also report frustration with how forensic shows glamorise investigations, giving the false impression that real-life forensics are quick and always accurate. Judges, however, often remain sceptical of the CSI effect, suggesting that while jurors may have heightened expectations, these do not necessarily influence their verdicts.

Continued...