An Alternative Conception of The Literature Review

I hate the term literature review. I have not figured out a better term for it yet, and since it is the accepted nomenclature, I will, in the words of "The Dude," abides.

Yet, the notion of literature review is problematic. It is a remnant from dissertation work, where we form so many bad habits--bad, at least, when it comes to transitioning to articles and books. Since we learned to conduct our literature review during our doctoral days, many scholars hold a wee bit of trauma about the whole concept, and become anxious when approaching it. This anxiety often leads to inertia.

The model of literature review that most of us learn during their dissertations is to include every reference that you can find, so your advisor and committee will not call you out and shame you.  In other words, you try to throw in everything under the sun in hopes of passing!

When writing articles, scholars who internalize and do not deconstruct and challenge this "method" often write literature review sections that are disjointed and disconnected from the rest of their article. Seminal and "the newest" work might only be tangentially connected to what you are trying to accomplish.

And what is it that you need to do in this section, whatever it is called?

You need to tell a story, or interlocking stories, that help the reader understand and contextualize the rest of the article. That is pretty much it. We want literature that provides us with a narrative of the drama of the march of ideas, be they about the substantive area of the paper, methodological issues, or some key contextual factor. If it is done well, this story leaves the reader feeling included in the work, not excluded-they feel as if the literature review, which may have a different title than literature review, was written for them, not as part of some hazing.

And that is that for now-- more later.

Yes, Write First!

I know I posted this somewhere, but I cannot find it! No worries, its always good to hit old topics in new ways.

So, let me keep it simple.

Write first, then read.

Literature review sections?

Write first, then read.

Any section?

Yes, any section.

Every day?

Yes, every day.

If it is true that writing is am method of inquiry (and it is), than one of the functions of writing is to discover that which we have forgotten, that which we may have slightly forgotten, and the connections between ideas that are not fully clear. By the time you have gotten even half way through a doctoral program, you have read enough that you have background knowledge that can be useful for almost anything you write, even if it is new topic.

For example, some of what I read in my first year doctoral class on epistemology is really useful for my work on autoethnography. I find some of the ideas are hazy, but as I write, I am able to access some of it. Once I am done with my initial thoughts, I can go back to the literature, and dig into it a bit more. But, it is now THERE, on the page, and so I can relax as I know I have generated some new words. I have also probably drawn connections to those original ideas that I would not have had I not written first.

Writing first does not mean you don't read. It means you exhaust what you have to say and then go into the literature. Once you have something new, you write more.

The review of literature should be an iterative process that helps you build your article, not an exhaustive exploration that must be completed before you write. That was for undergraduates, and masters students. Your a scholar now, right? You are allowed to have your own thoughts, dog forbid.

So, write first, then read. Each day. Trust that you know more than you think you do. Let the magic of writing, of writing as method of inquiry, work for you.

The Neglected Third Factor: An Article by Robert Boice

I frequently advise my students that a good literature review means looking into recent publications and, God forbid, writing from "the good ol' days" (in many of their eyes, more than five years old!!).

So, listening to my own advice, I reread an article I have not looked at in some time: Boyce, R. (1985). The neglected third factor in writing: Productivity. College Composition and Communication, 36(4), 272-480.

This is one of the seminal, foundational articles on writing and faculty life. Of course, you may not be as excited about the literature on faculty writing as I am, and may just wish for a distillation of a few lessons that I learned.

Here are a few, but certainly not all.

First, this article was based on a small, experimental design that tested the relationship between writing productivity and creativity. It used three groups: scheduled faculty writing with contingency (potential punishment), unscheduled writing, and a control group.

So, a few lessons.

1) Scheduling writing sessions beats unscheduled writing for production and creativity.
2) Creativity depends on writing and production; it is not based on inspiration alone.Good ideas come from your butt being in the chair, slugging it out, day after day, year after year.
3) Regular writing beats binge writing.

These are all things I have written about in depth, but it is important to go back and look at the source of your ideas, even if you are not conscious of where that source was from. Boice has been one of the (perhaps the) most important scholars in the area of faculty writing and production- I suggest you read some of his work. Good research builds off of the work of others; be generous in your acknowledging the work of others. It is a good writing practice.

Architecture: Part 1

Each article has an architecture, a structure. It is important to develop your architecture as early as you can in the process of writing your article for several reasons. First, it will help you stay on track. Second, it is far easy to write a series of 4 page sections than a daunting 20 page article. Third,  it is easier to find collaborators if you have a clear idea of the building blocks of the article.

The most basic article architecture is: Introduction, literature review, methods, findings, implications, conclusion.

Non-empirical have slightly different structures, as the architecture depends upon the aims of your article. I will explore how to conceptualize the potential structures of non-empirical articles another time. For now, know that you must keep the structure as simple and tight as empirical articles, or you are more likely to get "lost" in the process of writing.

Why Writing Is Not Hard #6

Ok. You have not written in a month. It’s too hard. You just can’t do it, no matter how much you try.

How about this: if I gave you a million dollars to write a 500 word “literature review”  about a topic you know, by midnight tomorrow, would you do it?

Beyond Self Published Books: The Concept for Book Two

After scholars and authors publish a first book, they can have many conflicting feeling. Of course, there is a profound sense of joy, pride, and gratitude. Often, the feeling of personal and professional competence that one experiences is profound.

Yet, sometimes these more positive feelings are mixed with some more difficult emotions. I have talked to some scholars and writers who have felt a profound sense of sadness and fear, as they wonder if they have another book "in them."

This may be particularly true for those who self-published their first book.  Since there book was not vetted through the sometimes rigorous peer- review of university presses, or the scrutiny of an editor of a commercial press who has to insure that the book meets consumer needs, self-published scholars at times wonder about the actual value of their first book, and wonder if they can pull off a " real" second book. Not that self published books are not real, but I have heard these self doubts many times.

When such fears and doubts attack, you may wish to consider developing the concept for your second book.  Working on the concept for book two can help reduce some of your fears. After all, you already wrote a full length manuscript, so you know that you can write the words

There are several ways of thinking about the concept for your second book, First, consider what would be a valuable extension of your first book. What did the writing of this book suggest was missing from the literature? What needs to still be done in this area? What do you need to still say? Do a freewrite on these issues.

Second, you may wish to consider how you can "reapply" the analytical tools and approaches of your first book to a different area or sub-area.

Third, now that you have your first book out of the way, what would you "really" like to write?

Forth, think strategically. What would help your career along?

These are just a few ideas to help you develop your next book concept. This does not mean that you have to immediately begin writing on the first concept you think of. In fact, I would suggest a bit of a cooling off period. However, knowing that you have a second concept on hand can be empowering.

Most importantly, make sure you celebrate your first book. You did it! Feel good about it. Take it in.