Richardson: A way of finding out about yourself and your topic. I will come clean with my biases here—the voice of the researcher must be present in order for the research to be compelling and interesting. We need confidence in a strong voice behind the work.
Activity: How do you think about literature reviews? How would you define them?
Activity: Look at the list and talk about what you already know based on the work you have done so far.
Activities: What do you do for reading? Is the idea of stance clear? What about categories? Have you done this already?
Ask to hear their paragraphs. Identify key words as a group and individually. Choose what you believe is the most important keyword and then flow write for ten minutes. Talk about the ideas.
Activities: Take the writing that you brought and/or what you wrote today and put into the left hand column. Now in the right hand column, annotate your text.
In a sentence, with the work you have done so far, write your centre of gravity.
Activities: Look at centre of gravity and ideas developed so far. Where do you see connections and groupings?
Activities: Are there any metaphors at work in what you have done so far? This can inform your structure.
See if you can come up with a possible structure for your literature review.
Lit Review Ideas
Academic Writing<br />Writing a Literature Review<br />
Writing: A Method of Inquiry<br />Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Ed.<br />“I consider writing as a method of inquiry, a way of finding out more about yourself and your topic.”<br />
Literature Review as a Genre<br />The literature review is a critical look at the existing research that is significant to the work that you are carrying out. <br />It is not a summary. Although you need to summarize relevant research, it is also vital that you evaluate this work, show the relationships between different work, and show how it relates to your work. <br />From http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/EL21LIT.HTM<br />
Questions Your Literature Review Answers<br />What is already known in the immediate area you are writing about?<br />What are the characteristics of the key concepts or main factors or variables? What are the relationships among them?<br />What are existing theories?<br />What are the inconsistencies or shortcomings in our knowledge and understanding?<br />What views need to be further tested?<br />What evidence is lacking, inconclusive or too limited?<br />Why study the problem further? What contributions can your study make?<br />What research design or methodologies seem unsatisfactory?<br />
Playing the Field<br />Know the field you want to play in first<br />reading/writing<br />flow writing<br />identifying keywords <br />clustering<br />theorizing through annotation<br />
Reading and Writing<br />As you focus on the area in which you are studying, develop a rhythm of reading and stopping to respond. Some people will stop at the end of a chapter or article and write a paragraph. Some will write in margins or use sticky notes. <br />Take a stance with the pieces you are reading—do you agree? disagree? How does this information color your thinking?<br />As you read studies, begin to sort them into categories: possibilities, outliers, discards. Then into themes.<br />
Flow Writing<br />Peter Elbow method--45 minutes of writing.<br />Identifying key words and then writing again.<br />Flow writing—timed, focused, and continuous.<br />Alternative—clustering or mind mapping.<br />
Theorizing through Annotation<br />Important to be clear about your opinions, beliefs and stance.<br />Have an opportunity to develop your voice. <br />“Not only do most readers hear voices in texts as they read, they tend to hear people in the texts. Written words may be silent semiotic signs, but when humans read (and write), they usually infer a person behind the words and build themselves a relationship of some sort with that person.” (Peter Elbow)<br />Two-column method: theories, questions, ideas, comments. What are your hunches? Hypotheses? Connections?<br />
Centre of gravity<br />heart and passion<br />balance and focus<br />extend and deepen<br />
Developing the argument<br />Consider your centre of gravity<br />Identify the main puddles or points—what connects to and strengthens your centre of gravity<br />Consider the structure<br />
Structural Metaphors of Literature Reviews<br />What is the foundation of your theory?<br />Your theory needs support. <br />Let’s construct an argument.<br />The form of your argument needs buttressing.<br />Your position is shaky.<br />Your argument is falling apart. <br />Given your framework, no wonder your argument fell apart.<br />Laurel Richardson<br />
http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/EL21LIT.HTM<br />A lot of people like to organize their work chronologically (using time as their organizing system). Unless developments over time are crucial to explain the context of your research problem, using a chronological system will not be an effective way to organize your work.<br /> Some people choose to organize their work alphabetically by author name: this system will not allow you to show the relationships between the work of different researchers, and your work, and should be avoided!<br />
Circling around the important moment and only eventually showing it directly.<br />A “now” remembering various “thens” at different parts of the past arranged in an order which is not necessarily chronological. <br />Structures<br />
Some Tips <br />Give yourself lots of time to read, think, and edit. Start earlier rather than later.<br />Don’t try to read everything. <br />Write as well as read.<br />Set up a schedule. Planning to work daily on something, even for a few minutes, is more effective than cramming during long days.<br />Work for clarity by using concrete and active language, avoiding jargon, and avoiding long and convoluted sentences.<br />Read books about writing—fiction, memoir, poetry.<br />Keep bibliographic information as you go along.<br />