This document discusses key concepts for analyzing empirical literature, including identifying value positions, mapping arguments, and developing selection criteria. It emphasizes that the reviewer's argument should be developed from their analysis of the selected studies rather than bringing a predetermined argument. The document provides guidance on winnowing an initial dataset by establishing selection criteria tied to the research question. It also discusses finalizing the dataset, organizing studies for comparison, and determining when enough studies have been selected.

1. TETD 819: Analytic Review of
Empirical Literature
Week3

2. Reading deeply: Value positions

3. Value positions
• Always signaled by language choices, theoretical
framing and “positioning” of the literature
drawn on
• Often signaled by what is studied or the
examples drawn upon
• Often signaled by what the author criticizes
• Typically linked in different ways to normative
claims

4. So let’s examine Ladson-Billings’
value positions

5. Reading deeply: Mapping arguments

6. Argument analysis
• “An argument involves putting forward reasons
to influence someone’s belief that what you are
proposing is the case” (Hart 1998: 79)
• An argument comprises “giving reasons for
some conclusion: the reasons [claims] are put
forward in order to establish, support, justify,
prove or demonstrate the conclusion” (Fisher
1993:140).
• An argument typically comprises at least two
parts: reason(s)/evidence + conclusion

7. Hart (1998)
• Types of argument: Inference, assertion &
supposition

8. Toulmin’s approach (from Hart 1998)
• Claim
an arguable statement
• Evidence data used to support the claim
• Warrant an expectation that provides the
link between the evidence and
claim
• Backing context and assumptions used to
support the validity of the warrant
and evidence

9. Fisher’s approach (Hart, p. 93)
Let’s begin with mapping L-B’s argument (and
nested arguments) on pp. 466-468.
then
Ladson-Billings, p. 472

10. What is Ladson-Billing’s main
argument in this paper, and
how do you know?

11. Remember
• Your argument in your analytic review must
necessarily “grow out of” your data set
• In an analytic review, you cannot use your
data set in the service of a pre-determined
argument

12. More on writing analytic reviews

13. Winnowing your initial data pool
• Initial pass: Toss out anything that’s not a fullblown report
of a study
• Prior to second pass: Develop and refine your selection
criteria. These need to be documented, tied super closely
to your research question, and justified. You will report
your criteria in your methodology section.
• Second pass: Apply your selection criteria consistently to
your data pool. This generates your final data corpus with
which you will work.
• Watch for doubling up (multiple reports of the same
study)
• Attention to replicability

14. Finalizing & organizing your corpus
• Looking at Spencer, Knobel & Lankshear, for
example.

15. Sample selection criteria
• qualitative study
• article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal
• conducted from a sociocultural theoretical
orientation
• the study focused on "non-school" literacy
• the study focused on children aged between 4
and 8 years
• the study focused on literacy practices outside
school

16. Organizing your corpus
• Decide what dimensions of the studies as a
whole are likely to be useful and draw up a
table to summarize key elements for easy
comparisons

17. For example

18. Reminders
• Liaise with your advisor re your research
question and search boundaries.

19. When is enough enough?
or
When is too much too much?