next »

[john_proctor]

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.

You get this all the time in the humanities, too.

Somebody has a throw-away sentence or footnote where they muse aloud "I've begun to wonder if x imight also be y."  Some people read and cite the article saying "Dr. Everybodyknows has suggested X is Y." In a short time, even more people begin to write "leading authorities agree that X is Y" (citing those who cited dr. Ebkns).  In the end, it's just down to a disciplinary adage "x is y."

[runwithscissors]

I think this is an interesting thread and I'm eager to see what others have to say.

In my experience of writing qualitative work I find that I personally tend to 'bookend' the qual data with literature reviewing. In the opening paragraphs I try to get to a problem quickly and show a distinct analytical framework (this paper is about X, viewed through the lens of Y), so I use literature mostly to set out a problem and then fend off reviewers with the relevant citations. It's only once the data is 'revealed' (for want of a better term) that it can be used to fit back in to the 'conversation' with the established literature.  If that makes any sense.

[msparticularity]

In my experience of writing qualitative work I find that I personally tend to 'bookend' the qual data with literature reviewing. In the opening paragraphs I try to get to a problem quickly and show a distinct analytical framework (this paper is about X, viewed through the lens of Y), so I use literature mostly to set out a problem and then fend off reviewers with the relevant citations. It's only once the data is 'revealed' (for want of a better term) that it can be used to fit back in to the 'conversation' with the established literature.  If that makes any sense.

Yes, I think this what I was trying to convey above. Like John_Proctor, I certainly develop the idea through deep engagement with the existing sources. At the same time, the truly robust discussion of my idea in relation to what's already out there has to follow after I've gotten the basic parts of my own approach out there. So, in a sense, I'm having two cycles of lit review/discussion.

And I definitely agree with Madhatter that a good lit review has to do far more than just repeat what has been said before! I've been blown away by some of the over-simplified characterizations of the "standard" research citations that are typical for my discipline. If you actually go back and read these works, they are far more complex and interesting and/or problematic.

[mountainguy]

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

Chime on this suggestion. My dissertation director made me do this when I was having a tough time synthesizing my prospectus argument, and it really helped to clarify things.

[tt_wannabe]

The "table" idea is intriguing. Can whomever uses this provide more detail about the process?

[marigolds]

The "table" idea is intriguing. Can whomever uses this provide more detail about the process?

Yes, I'd like to know more too.

[msparticularity]

The "table" idea is intriguing. Can whomever uses this provide more detail about the process?

Yes, I'd like to know more too.

I'm interested in this, too. I also wonder if it's related at all to mind-mapping. I downloaded the free version of XMind last year, and I've found it enormously helpful for plotting out grant applications. I haven't tried it yet for an article, since I tend to do a lot of my thinking through the act of writing itself--a pattern Laurel Richardson writes about.

[slack]

Interesting thread.  John Proctor's strategy sounds great.  Truly admirable.  I wish I had the discipline to follow it.

As for what stage you conduct the lit review, there is a debate amongst qual soc science folks in regards to whether inductive or deductive approaches are most valid.  The grounded theory folks would say develop your ideas and concepts organically, then go back to the lit and see how to frame your results.  The deductive folks would argue the opposite. 

Although I don't do a "true" grounded approach (I'm worried about the theoretical contribution early and often), I do believe that confining your analysis too rigidly to the concepts created by others stifles creativity and--worse--comes across as stale. 

My approach is to design a thesis that answers a question.  Then, I design my literature review section (although I don't use that label) to show how other studies have answered different questions... until I get to the one question that has been left unanswered--which, surprise!, ends up being the question I had in mind all along. 

[mountainguy]

At the request of a PM, I'm posting an explanation of what I mean by "putting literature into tables."  It's a process I devised based on combining advice from my advisor and from Sonja Foss's book Destination Dissertation.

Here's my process:

1) I make typed notes in MS Word about books or articles I want to cite. Sometimes I use direct quotations and sometimes I paraphrase. I always make sure to include a complete parenthetical documentation with the author's last name and page number for each note. (If you're having a hard time visualizing what this looks like, PM me and I'll e-mail you an example).

2) Once I've typed up all the notes for five or six related sources, I print out a copy of the notes. Then here comes the weird part--I cut up the pages so that each note is it's own smaller piece of paper.

3) I then organize the cut-up pieces into stacks based on category. So for example, my categories might be "history of X Theory,"  "criticisms of X theory," etc. I use paper clips to keep the different pieces of paper together. If something doesn't seem to fit into any of the categories, I just put them in a "don't know/other" pile for the time being.

4) In a different word document, I then make a 2-column table and type up a summary of the ideas in each category. The key here is not to re-type up everything (that would take forever!), but to focus on key themes or ideas that I see emerging from the previous literature. I can refer back to the specific notes/quotations later if necessary.

Based on this process, I have a fairly clear idea of what other researchers have said and I want to write up.  It's not a fool-proof system, but it's helped me manage large amounts of scholarly literature.

[madhatter]

At the request of a PM, I'm posting an explanation of what I mean by "putting literature into tables."  It's a process I devised based on combining advice from my advisor and from Sonja Foss's book Destination Dissertation.

Here's my process:

1) I make typed notes in MS Word about books or articles I want to cite. Sometimes I use direct quotations and sometimes I paraphrase. I always make sure to include a complete parenthetical documentation with the author's last name and page number for each note. (If you're having a hard time visualizing what this looks like, PM me and I'll e-mail you an example).

2) Once I've typed up all the notes for five or six related sources, I print out a copy of the notes. Then here comes the weird part--I cut up the pages so that each note is it's own smaller piece of paper.

3) I then organize the cut-up pieces into stacks based on category. So for example, my categories might be "history of X Theory,"  "criticisms of X theory," etc. I use paper clips to keep the different pieces of paper together. If something doesn't seem to fit into any of the categories, I just put them in a "don't know/other" pile for the time being.

4) In a different word document, I then make a 2-column table and type up a summary of the ideas in each category. The key here is not to re-type up everything (that would take forever!), but to focus on key themes or ideas that I see emerging from the previous literature. I can refer back to the specific notes/quotations later if necessary.

Based on this process, I have a fairly clear idea of what other researchers have said and I want to write up.  It's not a fool-proof system, but it's helped me manage large amounts of scholarly literature.

I do something similar to this, too. However, as an Old Person, when I started my academic career, my process began with taking a bag of nickels (yes, nickels) to the library and using a highlighter on a big stack of photocopies.

[synecdoche]

Commenting to subscribe.

I'm in an MLA field and find lit reviews to be very frustrating. My supervisor tends to discourage them—when he's seen them in my writing he usually tells me to put it in a footnote.

[canadatourismguy]

I was asked to add chime in about how I set up my literature review tables.  Here is the style to which I follow:

Table 1:  Variable relationships with hotel satisfaction
Author              Variables Tested             Major Findings
Smith, (2002)         Gender, Age                  Age was found to be significant.
                                                             Gender was not.                                           
___________________________________________________________________
Jones (2004)          Gender, Age, Ethnicity    Age not significant independently however, when merged with
                                                             age was found to be significant. 
                                                             Ethnicity was not.

I do my tables before I write my literature review.  It helps me organize my thoughts and present a logical flow to the review.  I also often put the table into the article and refer to it and that allows me to worry about the critique of the work rather than reporting on the findings.  I have had several reviewer in my field comment on how much they like my tables.

Hope this helps,

CTG

[lorem_ipsum]

Also commenting to subscribe.

I'm attempting to make in-roads in a research field that's fairly new and interdisciplinary, where a lot of the existing literature is, quite frankly, exceedingly bad. (The kind where one or two people jumped on the subject back when no one was writing about it, published a slew of ill-informed books and articles, and now have to be dealt with in the lit review of anyone writing about it.) I'd like to write more in this field, but the lit review's stymied me so far -- my usual approaches are tailored to much more established fields where the drek to decent ratio is significantly better.

[madhatter]

Also commenting to subscribe.

I'm attempting to make in-roads in a research field that's fairly new and interdisciplinary, where a lot of the existing literature is, quite frankly, exceedingly bad. (The kind where one or two people jumped on the subject back when no one was writing about it, published a slew of ill-informed books and articles, and now have to be dealt with in the lit review of anyone writing about it.) I'd like to write more in this field, but the lit review's stymied me so far -- my usual approaches are tailored to much more established fields where the drek to decent ratio is significantly better.

Then you critique it thoroughly, instead of just summarizing.

[msparticularity]

Also commenting to subscribe.

I'm attempting to make in-roads in a research field that's fairly new and interdisciplinary, where a lot of the existing literature is, quite frankly, exceedingly bad. (The kind where one or two people jumped on the subject back when no one was writing about it, published a slew of ill-informed books and articles, and now have to be dealt with in the lit review of anyone writing about it.) I'd like to write more in this field, but the lit review's stymied me so far -- my usual approaches are tailored to much more established fields where the drek to decent ratio is significantly better.

Then you critique it thoroughly, instead of just summarizing.

"While a great deal was written on the subject of x in the early 1990s, remarkably little from that early wave of discussion has withstood more recent inquiry..."