Writing an Effective
Literature Review
Framing Your Project and Making the Case for
its Relevance
1
Three Ways to Think of the
Literature Review
Proof that you’ve done the necessary
research to understand a topic sufficiently
A tool to set the scope and boundaries of
your own research or project
An argument (including justification) that
makes the case for the relevance and value
of your research or project.
LET’S CONSIDER EACH OF THESE
INDEPENDENTLY
2
The Proof (Part I)
Why do you need to prove how much you know
about a topic?
The proof is still contingent on what others discover
and learn.
But you want to prove to the reader than you know a
lot about your topic and that your approach to
studying or writing about it is reasonable.
3
The Proof (Part II)
When organizing your sources, you’ll likely
have a handful of main points and a
somewhat greater number of sub-points and
so on.
When I was in my Ph.D. program I recall a
professor telling me that I should have a
“pedigree chart three deep” for each of my
‘main points’.
Thus, for each main point, I should be able to
trace it back three generations so I could say
something like… (see next slide).
4
The Proof (Part III)
“The study of environmental ethics has borrowed much
from the traditions of the field of moral
reasoning.” (One of my main points)
Kahn, P.H.J. (1999). The Human Relationship with Nature:
Development and Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(First order supporting proof)
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for
moral education. In C.M. Beck (Ed.), Moral Education:
Interdisciplinary Approaches. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press. (Second order supporting proof)
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. (Third order supporting proof).
NOTE: YOU MAY NOT REFERENCE ALL THREE PEDIGREE UNITS IN YOUR LIT. REVIEW. IN FACT, I
DIDN’T CITE PIAGET HERE, BUT I KNEW THAT HE INFORMED KOHLBERG, WHOSE METHODOLOGY
WAS BORROWED BY KAHN > THUS, THREE GENERATIONS DEEP.
5
A Tool (Part I)
This should be the part of the document that you
use to frame your particular take on the topic.
By looking at what others have done, you can more
easily identify the area that you want to dwell in.
This, in sense, helps you figure out the boundary
variables for your project—What is and isn’t
important to consider?
It is easy for the literature review to spin out of
control.
My literature review for my dissertation was 76
pages—probably way longer than it needed to be.
6
An Argument
The literature review is not just a sterile,
objective treatment of the topic. The choices
you make on what sources to include and
where to draw your boundaries yield the
result that you are making the case for a
particular field of study.
Obviously, you want to guard against bias by
presenting as circumspect and
comprehensive coverage as possible, but
ultimately, you will—through—the literature
review make a suggestion for what you want
to study and why.
7
Literature Review vs. Research
Paper
Lit. Reviews and Research Papers both rely
upon trusted sources and properly cited
references to tell a story.
However, they differ, in that the argument is the
primary purpose of a Research Paper while the
Primary Purpose of a Literature Review should
be a thorough survey of the literature in the
field.
The argument portion of a literature review should
not be the primary emphasis.
8
Organization
Figuring out how to organize the literature can be
one of the more creative chores.
Depending on the ‘story’ you’re trying to tell with
the literature review, the order and organization
can take different forms.
A literature review is both summary and synthesis—
the synthesis reflects your own unique take on the
literature.
9
Organization (Part II)
It is probably helpful to think of organizing your lit.
review in the same way you think of any written
document—1. Introduction, 2. Body, and 3.
Conclusion.
Intro—Tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em.
Body—Tell ‘em.
Conclusion—Tell ‘em what you just told ‘em.
10
Organization (Part III)
There are three main approaches to organizing the
literature review: Chronological, Thematic,
Methodological.
Depending on the type of thesis or project you’re
doing, that decision may help guide which of these
organizing approaches seems best.
11
Chronological
Organization
Organizing the lit. review based on chronology
suggests that it is important to document and see
the evolution of ideas or knowledge.
Thus, tracing the earliest works forward in time tells
the story that your study or project is a natural
progression from this line of thinking.
12
Thematic Organization
Your survey of the literature is grouped into
meaningful and logical units (subheadings) whereby
the reader can better see how different ideas relate
to each other.
Most literature reviews follow this format.
13
Methodological
Organization
This organizational method tends to be restricted to
projects where the method, itself, is the object of
interest.
This can be valuable when you want readers to really
focus in on your methods as unique approach from
what was previously done.
14
Organizing Approaches
While the Chronological, Thematic, and
Methodological approaches are each uniquely
distinct, there is some overlap to them as well.
For example, it would make sense even within a
thematic organization to trace some history of
thought and vice-versa.
15
Step One: Read
What’s the first thing you do when putting together
your literature review?.... Read!
There will be no substitute for reading a lot in your
area—you are building an expertise in your field,
solid familiarity with the literature is foundational.
16
Step Two: Think
(Organize)
After a while of reading articles, books, reports, etc.,
you’ll naturally start to notice things: patterns, gaps,
shared conclusions and so on.
This process of condensing your observations (tied
to the things you’ve read) is where you begin to
outline the structure and organization of your
literature review.
17
Step Three: Organizing
Techniques
Notecards
Annotated bibliography
Color-coded highlighting
Obviously it doesn’t matter which technique you use
so long as you find it helpful and reliable.
During my dissertation, I relied upon a multi-color
organizing system based on different color
highlighters.
18
A part of—or apart from—the Introduction?
There are competing views about how
singular the literature review should be.
Should it be a significant part of the first
chapter—The Introduction and followed by
the second chapter—Methodology?
Or should it be its own stand-alone Chapter?
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 3: Methodology
Decide what seems best for you. Consult
your thesis adviser.
19
Overall Purpose
At the conclusion of the literature review two things
should be clear.
You (as the writer) confident that you are indeed an
expert in the field.
The reader should likewise feel confident that he/she
has a pretty solid understanding of the topic and that
your approach to studying the topic is reasonable.
20