next »

[praise_of_folly]

Has anyone out there mastered the art of the literature review in a scholarly journal article? I have no trouble formulating arguments that build on other scholar's arguments. I find it much more difficult, in the context of the literature review, to show how my research takes theory in new directions, which have been understudied or overlooked by the scholarship within my discipline. I would appreciate suggestions about how one moves from merely marking arguments that draw on the scholarly literature, to actually contributing to it in a significant way, particularly in the context of the literature review. For what it's worth, I am a social scientist working with qualitative research material. 

[msparticularity]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking here. I do qual work also, and my usual approach is to use the lit review to provide an overview of the relevant work--just as you say. I then conclude by explicitly discussing where I think the gaps are, and how I am going to approach them in this paper. I don't necessarily write a formal method section in the quant mode, but this discussion sort of bridges the lit review and methodology.

Are you trying to avoid actually saying, "It seems clear that there is a gap between x and y. In the discussion that follows, I will employ a theoretical framework that draws from z to consider how...?"

[praise_of_folly]

It seems that one approach to the literature review is showing how your research fills a gap in the existing literature. But another is to actually take existing categories or concepts that are dominant in the field, and to show how they need to be further developed in relation to, for instance, new socio-historical shifts, such as globalization, modernization, neoliberalism, etc etc. Maybe I'm overblowing the need for novelty here, but it seems like this takes the ability to rise above the literature and to take theory a new direction--rather than merely filling a gap in our scholarly understanding. (Apologies if I misunderstood your point).

[msparticularity]

Thanks for the clarification--but I'm still not seeing the problem, I'm afraid. Even in the case you suggest, it seems like you would do the lit review, and then just say that this existing model completely fails to account for x, y, or z. I am working on one like this right now, and what I have done is to examine the historic and repeated failures of the existing "paradigm" (to get all Kuhnian for a moment) to address the empirical problems that it claims to deal with.

[praise_of_folly]

Which comes first? Do you develop your argument, and then go back and review the literature (to figure out how your argument contributes to the existing debates)? In the case of the article I am working on, I developed an argument that draws on a number of theorists to explain my material in an interesting way. But what is missing from the piece is a good summary of the literature on the topic, and how the approach I take in the piece contributes to it. It feels as if I am missing a section, at least in terms of a journal publication, where I review approaches X, Y, and Z to my topic, and then state how mine makes an important contribution, charts a new course, etc. Perhaps what I'm missing is a clear research question that is formulated in relationship to the literature in the first place.

[msparticularity]

Ah--yes, that makes things clearer. I am of the "research is a conversation" perspective, so believe that a research article must explain clearly how it contributes to the existing discussions. Now that we're having this discussion (which is interesting!) I'm wondering whether this is, for me, what helps to differentiate an interesting essay from an actual researched piece.

[canadatourismguy]

Try putting your literature into a table first.  I do this and it really helps me see the forest through the trees.

[praise_of_folly]

Re: MS's post--I agree that research is a conversation. The conversation is there in the piece in question, but too much in the background. The challenging part is triangulating between the qualitative material, theoretical approaches that make sense of it, and the development of the scholarly literature. I've found certain theorists to be incredibly useful in illuminating my material. It's the next step that I find challenging--relating the material and my interpretation to a set of broader scholarly debates.

[frogfactory]

Is this a lit review in the sense of a full paper, or an intro section?

[msparticularity]

It's the next step that I find challenging--relating the material and my interpretation to a set of broader scholarly debates.

It seems to me that it is perfectly appropriate to reserve this discussion for later in the paper, rather than cramming it into the lit review up front. Using a quant paper structure as the model for a moment, this would seem to fall into the "results and implications" rather than into the early parts.

[praise_of_folly]

One of the challenges that I find is limiting the literature review. How does one engage in a conversation without becoming overwhelmed by the literature. Related to this, is choosing literature that one's material can actually contribute to in a significant way. I went back to Huff's Writing for Scholarly Publication, and she suggests choosing three to four written works as the primary conversants for  a paper. Her idea of having a small, focused set of articles or books whose arguments one attempts to debate, extend, or discuss is helpful. Have others found useful ways to bound the literature review process? Thanks again for the helpful suggestions.

[tinyzombie]

Don't mind me: just bookmarking.

[msparticularity]

I think the trick is to balance ensuring that one has made clear one's familiarity with the wide range of literature on the topic, and limiting active and in-depth discussion to a manageable number. One way that I have approached this is to make a fairly global statement early in the piece with a longish list to demonstrate that I have looked at the relevant works: "A great deal has been written in recent decades on the topic of underwater basketweaving (cf: Jones, 1996; Merryweather, 2003; Smith, 1995; Weston, 1992; Young, 2009...)." And then I go on to the ones I really want to discuss: "Of particular interest to this discussion, Frederick (2002) has argued that..."

Very honestly, the extensive list is mostly for the purpose of fending off reviewers whose kneejerk reaction is always to suggest that one needs to gain more familiarity with some other source--even when that source is not really relevant to the specific issue under discussion. 

 

[john_proctor]

Which comes first? Do you develop your argument, and then go back and review the literature (to figure out how your argument contributes to the existing debates)?

For me (humanities), the "lit review" comes first.

I would say that your fundamental, original question seems to have its root in the above quote.  In other words, I think you're asking superficially about a research or writing procedure, but that your question is ultimately about the research and writing process.

I maintain a pretty broad reading program both in and out of my specialized field and sub-field.  I find, as I read, that certain questions or texts or methods or theories/paradigms become interesting to me (either because I like them or understand them or find them intuitively useful or dislike them or don't understand them or find them intuitively senseless, whatever).

I then begin reading more indepth on what's caught my eye.  As I read, I take narrative notes, summarizing and reviewing the literature (with annotation as relevant).

This generally congeals into an idea or thesis "x is inadequate for y" or "x is actually also useful for y" or "x is limited by not addressing y" or some such.  Normally, these ideas or theses have emerged because of the cross fertilization of prior reading.  Not every rabbit that I chase ends up being a paper, itself.  Some lines of reading only intersect with others to form a unique thesis at a much later time.

From that idea, a paper/essay/lecture series/monograph emerges.  When it's time to do the lit review portion, I can normally just draw it off my various reading files on the computer; often, it is word for word cut and paste.  By the time I get to the thesis/composition stage, I've pretty well honed in on where (at least where I think) the literature's "center of gravity" can be found - what are the key writers, arguments, data, etc.  These are summarized (with relevant support) for the lit review  portion of the argument.

For me, I think the process of scholarly writing is best done as a holistic and organic, ongoing endeavor.  I try to have time every week for work at every stage.  Right now, I've got a couple of journals and catalogs I'm just reviewing.  I have a couple of ideas I'm reading more in depth about (at the moment, via the ideal of building them into "special topics" and senior/capstone seminars I'm teaching right now), a conference presentation that's under composition (from some work I was reading last Winter/Spring), an essay in the mail, and another essay I'm doing final proofs for.  I try to keep something cooking at each level of work.  I also like to keep at doing some reading "just because" (often wildly outside of my area).  It hones my thinking, I find, and gives new analytical and interpretive techniques (plus satisfies curiosity).  There have been a few cases where these seemingly "outside" interests got pulled back into my "real" work.

As you might imagine, it does take time. I don't begrudge it, because I love doing it (and would be doing it regardless of my occupation).  During the semester, I "work" about 60-80 hours per week, but I'd wager that a third to half of that is this "research" process.  During summers (I don't teach; I travel and read), I'd say I still was doing about 20 hours per week average (more if I've got a project or manuscript that is struggling to "crown").

I think that kind of procedure works best (at least for me); I've never really understood how someone could just "develop" an idea of merit, then go backwards and establish it (though, there are people I know - and whose work I like and trust - who assure me that this is their technique.  I can't do it, however).

[madhatter]

As another person in the social sciences, though more heavily quantitative than qualitative, I use the lit review to flesh out the relationships and prior knowledge about constructs or models that are relevant to my research question.

It's important to critique the literature, not just review it. Just because something has been published in a peer-reviewed setting doesn't mean that it was done well or correctly. If you know your methodology well enough (as you should), then you can identify where prior researchers made errors or took short cuts and determine if they harm the validity of their conclusions. I also often find it helpful to not assume that prior researchers' citations of antecedent literature are accurate. If I see a citation in an article that I don't understand or doesn't seem to make sense, I'll go back to the cited source -- and sometimes back even further, if necessary. It's surprising how often you'll find that a commonly cited claim can be tracked back to an earlier author who misinterpreted a primary source or makes a leap of judgment that isn't supported by the primary. Those are rich fodder for your own literature review.