AARHUS UNIVERSITY The Role of the Literature Review

AARHUS UNIVERSITY The Role of the Literature Review in the Dissertation STACEY COZART CENTER FOR TEACHING DEVELOPMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA AARHUS UNIVERSITY Literature review 1

AARHUS UNIVERSITY COMPONENTS OF THE DISSERTATION › Introduction/problem statement › Literature Review › Theory (approach analysis/discuss sources, methods/develop, defend thesis) › Methods (justify chosen texts/ perform analysis/recognize, respond to possible objections) › Results/data analysis (analyze texts/conclude) › Discussion & conclusion Lovitts, p. 13 2

AARHUS UNIVERSITY THE LITERATURE REVIEW (1) ”Provides context for and connects the question/problem to past and contemporary thought and research on the question/problem. ” “Students who write outstanding literature reviews display a deep and sweeping grasp of the literature, often drawing on literatures from other fields. At the same time, they are selective, including only the most relevant and important works. They use the literature to show what is missing, why their project needs to be done, and how their research is going to advance the field. Faculty in the humanities noted that students who write outstanding literature reviews are generous to their sources. While critical, they show empathy for and appreciation of others’ work. ” Lovitts, p. 44 3

AARHUS UNIVERSITY THE LITERATURE REVIEW (2) › Involves text work & scholarly identity work › Knowing the genres, conventions and textual practices › Creating a scholarly identity – a representation of yourself as a scholar and your scholarly practice. › Speaking with authority – assuming a “hands on hips” subject position › Advancing an argument about the state of the field to make a case for one’s own work 4

AARHUS UNIVERSITY WHAT’S IT LIKE TO DO A LITERATURE REVIEW? Can be full of anxiety, of not being able to encompass the literature … 5

AARHUS UNIVERSITY THE LITERATURE REVIEW › The/a – singular, one-time activity › Literature – singular, important (idea of research canon) › Review › noun: implies a collection, showing, summary of what others have done › verb: researcher linguistically positioned as an onlooker › What we do: use & evaluate the research of others to make place for our own work. 6

AARHUS UNIVERSITY WORKING WITH LITERATURES (1) A DINNER PARTY › You are the host and invite whom you choose as guests › Emphasis is on the company and conversation › Guests talk about their own work in relation to yours. › You decide how long to chat with each guest 7

AARHUS UNIVERSITY WORKING WITH LITERATURES (2) Taking a critical stance at the dinner party › Dull if the guests simply speak one after another, without interaction, debate, or challenge › Inappropriate to serially hold the floor, ridicule guests, prevent them from talking back or to each other At the dinner party, you engage, learn, debate, contribute – evolve your argument. 8

AARHUS UNIVERSITY EXERCISE › Read *excerpts A and B › A, Geraldine: part of an LR on school effectiveness literature › B, Sean: part of an LR policy scholarship › Evaluate the extent to which they critically (generously & appreciately) engage with their literatures. *Both excerpts from Kamler, B. & P. Thomsen. (2006) Helping Doctoral Students Write. Pedagogies for Supervision. Routledge. 9

AARHUS UNIVERSITY Mortimore (1998) also contributes to the school effectiveness research agenda. He explains that school effectiveness researchers aim to ascertain whether differential resources, processes and organizational differences affect student performance and if so, how. He is also of the view that school effectiveness researchers seek reliable and appropriate ways to measure school quality. Hopkins (2001) suggests that one of the earliest studies that was done compared the effectiveness of some secondary schools on a range of student outcome measures. Reynolds and Cuttance (1992) also point out that the effective schools research entitled ‘Fifteen Thousand Hours’ characterised school efficiency factors as varied in the degree of academic emphasis, teacher’s action in lessons, the availability of resources, rewards, good conditions for pupils and the extent to which children were able to take responsibility. It was emphasized that effective school researchers claim that there are significant differences between schools on a number of different student outcomes after full account has been taken of students’ previous learning history and family background. Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) also endorse the view by stating that there is evidence to support the argument that the characteristics of individual schools can make a difference to pupils’ progress since certain internal conditions are common in schools that achieve higher levels of outcomes for their students. (pp. 30 -31) 10

AARHUS UNIVERSITY THE INVISIBLE SCHOLAR: “HE SAID, SHE SAID” › Every sentence begins by naming the researcher and a neutral verb: › Mortimer also contributes, Hopkins suggests, Reynolds and Cuttance also point out… › Lack of connection between sentences makes this more like a list, summary of ideas 11

AARHUS UNIVERSITY The Stages Heuristic is widely acknowledged to have been the first formal policy theory established in the ‘new’ field of policy science (Deleon, 1999; Sabatier, 1999; Mc. Cool, 1995. ) Although it is no longer in active use, I mention it here as an historical antecedent to later policy theories. Originally conceptualized by Lasswell (1951), the stages approach was refined by Brewer (1974) and identified six key stages: (1) policy initiation, (2) estimation, (3) selection, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation, and (6) termination. The Stages Heuristic represents a delineated, sequential policy process framework where some overlap between stages is possible, but where each stage has distinctive characteristics. While much of the policy research since the 1970 s has been shaped by this framework, its critics now characterize the approach as disjointed, episodic and linear (Deleon, 1999; Sabatier, 1999). For all practical purposes this theory has become outdated and irrelevant in that it is no longer studied by scholars. But the stages approach represents a point of departure for other theories and more stringent and holistic models. It also served to open policy studies to a range of academic disciplines and provided space for later ideas based on social norms and personal values (Deleon, 1999). (pp. 40 -41) 12

AARHUS UNIVERSITY GENEROUS & GENERATIVE CRITICALITY › Demonstrates grasp of an important body of literature in policy scholarship › Notes critiques and inserts his own evaluation of its importance › Does not resort to “I agree (or disagree)” or “Delon says” ØGraceful recognition of the work of other scholars 13

AARHUS UNIVERSITY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CRITICALITY What kinds of questions could you ask? › What is the argument? › What kind/aspect of X is spoken about in this article? › From what position? › Using what evidence? › What claims are made? › How adequate are these? (blank spots – what the research could have done but does not; and blind spots – what a particular methodology does not do, areas that have been overlooked for theoretical or methodological reasons) 14

AARHUS UNIVERSITY FOR RHETORICAL HELP They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, by Gerald Graff & Cathy Birkenstein. W. W. Norton & Co. , 2009. › Teaches students to frame their arguments in the larger context of what else has been said about their topics › Provides templates to help them make the key rhetorical moves. 15

AARHUS UNIVERSITY MAPPING AND ANALYSING IDEAS ”Mapping ideas is about setting out, on paper, the geography of research and thinking that has been done on a topic. At one level, it is about identifying what has been done, when it was done, what methods were used and who did what. At another level, it is about identifying links between what has been done, to show the thinking that has influenced what has been produced. ” 16 Hart, p. 144

AARHUS UNIVERSITY 17

AARHUS UNIVERSITY REFERENCES › Graff, G. & C. Birkenstein (2009) hey Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. v W. W. Norton & Company. › Hart, C. (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Sage Publications. › Kamler, B. & P. Thomsen. (2006) Helping Doctoral Students Write. Pedagogies for Supervision. Routledge. › Lovitts, B. (2007) Making the Implicit Explicit. Stylus. › The Study Metro. http: //studiemetro. au. dk/en/. 18