Telling a Research Story

Online Commentary for Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review Christine B. Feak, Vera Irwin, & John M. Swales Before we get to the actual commentaries on the tasks, a few preliminary remarks would seem to be in order. 1. Regular users of the textbook (whether teachers, tutors, or independent scholars) may find it more convenient to print out this Commentary. 2. As always, we urge selective use of the material in the book because many will find that not all tasks and activities are directly relevant to their working situations; instructors, in particular, may wish to opt for a different order of the material, and may well find it helpful on occa- sion to bring in supplementary texts. 3. For quite a number of the commentaries, we offer the perspective of our research assistant, Vera Irwin, who, at the time of writing, is com- pleting her dissertation in linguistics. We have adopted this policy in order to better establish a dialogue between the tasks and the users of the book. And here it is important to remember that Vera’s perspective is that of somebody on the borderland between the social sciences and the humanities. If your research is situated elsewhere, such as on the borderland between medicine and engineering, your own perspective will often be different. Hence, we hope an enlightening ‘conversation’ between the two perspectives will emerge. 4. An online commentary on the University of Michigan Press website is obviously a more flexible document than a printed volume. We wel- come your comments and suggestions, which we may be able to incor- porate in occasional updates. We can be most easily reached at cfeak@umich.edu or jmswales@umich.edu. © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 2 COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Orientations Task One ��������������������������������������������� General questions on literature reviews: Commentary by Vera Irwin 1. For my field of Sociolinguistics, there are no strict guidelines whether the literature should be reviewed in a separate chapter, a subsection of a chapter, or throughout the text. In fact, there is a wide variety of ways dissertation authors in Linguistics incorporate the review of the literature into their work. In many cases, two approaches seem to be used at the same time: While there is a chapter or subsection entitled Literature Review, authors also provide review of other work through- out the text, especially in the introductory chapters. As for the ques- tion of personal preference versus the preference of your advisor and/or committee members, it might be wise to find out your advisor’s expectations on the form of the review before you begin your work. 2. In the field of Sociolinguistics, articles generally treat the literature review as part of the text, incorporating the survey of the current and/or influential research throughout the body of the article, usually toward the beginning. If the article has separate sections, the literature tends to be addressed in the first introductory section. 3. Currently, I am working on the literature review for my dissertation that deals with questions of language and ethnic identity in migration. I feel that my literature review will have a good mixture of the func- tions identified by Noguchi. This hybrid approach seems necessary in order for the literature review to accomplish a number of functions, such as to position my research within the larger field, to explain where it stands in relation to many other studies on language and ethnicity, and in order to show its relevance and novelty. I also feel that the approaches mentioned here could play an important role at very spe- cific parts of dissertation, and not only be confined to the chapter enti- tled Literature Review. For example, an issue-focused discussion seems to be suitable for an introductory chapter because it can help to iden- tify a potential gap in the field. A historical type of review and what Noguchi calls Current Work might both be necessary when defining Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 fundamental theoretical concepts in the field to show how they have developed over time and how they are treated in the current studies in the field (in my case, defining such concepts as ethnicity or identity might be the case where the two approaches would need to be com- bined). 4. As a graduate student in the field of Linguistics, I have had experience only with the first type of literature review: All the reviews I’ve encountered in dissertations, research articles, or elsewhere were narra- tive reviews. The literature reviews that I have written as parts of course papers or larger research papers were all of a narrative nature. 5. If my dissertation literature review can accomplish what this quote is saying, I will be very pleased. Task Two ��������������������������������������������� Which points are relevant for the writing of your literature review? Vera responds again. ____ 1. The preparation of a literature review is a three-step process: finding the relevant literature, reading, and then writing up the review. This seems rather unrealistic for both article and dissertation for a couple of reasons: first, I found it much easier to write small sections of a potential literature review as I read rather than wait- ing until I was done with all the reading. Second, as my research developed, I felt a need to go back and find more literature to add to the existing body of relevant research. This way, it has been a “back-and-forth” process rather than a three-step one. ____ 2. Your literature review should discuss problems and/or controversies within your field. In the case of a dissertation or research article it is very possible that the literature review would highlight a very specific contro- versy within the field if the research itself later suggests ways to address or overcome it. This can help to position a particular piece of research within a larger field. As for addressing major problems and controversies in the discipline, in my experience, it is more typical in European schol- COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY 3 © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 arly traditions to address larger questions before turning to your specific topic in a piece of research. In the United States, the advisors (and readers) seem to prefer a more focused approach and expect a survey of literature that provides only a very focused overview of the issues directly relevant to the present study. ____ 3. Your literature review needs to explain clearly which potential areas for inclusion have not been covered in the review and why they have been omitted. This would make sense for a dissertation if you deliberately don’t include some of the branches of literature and only cover a spe- cific topic. In this case you can anticipate that the readers will have questions about such decision. In a shorter article, the read- ers are not likely to assume that your literature review will cover a wide selection of literature before turning to your specific research. ____ 4. Your literature review should focus on very recent publications because they are likely the most relevant. I believe this will depend on the field, the focus, and the type of the study. Although looking only at recent publications might make more sense for a relatively new or a fast developing field, research in other fields can benefit from a deeper look into the research history on a specific topic. A dissertation might be expected to look more deeply into the past when discussing rele- vant literature than a research article. ____ 5. Your literature review should be as long as possible in order to per- suade your reader that you have read very widely. No. In a research article, a long literature review will not be pos- sible just because of the space limits. In case of a dissertation, in my opinion, thorough does not mean “long.” Especially in the case of LRs that look at a large number of sources, it is critical to organize them in such a way as to present a manageable and log- ical overview of the important points without making the LR too long. 4 COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 ____ 6. Your literature review should help reveal gaps in the existing body of research. Again, it depends. If your research is indeed filling a gap in an existing body of research, then it would be wise to make it clear to the reader in both research article and dissertation alike. ____ 7. Your literature review should critically evaluate each piece of work you discuss. No. In both research article and dissertation alike, a detailed critical evaluation of each research piece would make a literature review too long, too boring, and not to the point. Instead, a good literature review should deal with aspects of the existing studies that are directly relevant for the current research and help the author to make their own case. ____ 8. An overall chronological ordering of the literature is a good approach. While it can work in some cases, this should not be the default approach for organizing the literature in an LR. It is important to order the literature in a way that will help the reader to see the major developments of the field, organizing it in a logical manner, be it chronologically or according to a type of study, position of the author on a specific issue, type of methodology used, etc. ____ 9. Your literature review can safely ignore work not in your immediate discipline. No, especially today when more and more researchers turn to interdisciplinary projects. It would be wise for a researcher to check whether the object of his/her study had been researched in related disciplines, especially when attempting to survey the literature for such extensive pieces of research as dissertations. ____ 10. Your literature review can help you discover conceptual traditions and frameworks that have been used to examine problems as well as help you show how your work might contribute to a cumulative scholarly or research process. Yes, for both research articles and dissertations. COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY 5 © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 Task Three ��������������������������������������������� Research Priorities After some discussion, we divided the six areas in this manner. HP 1. Significant discoveries or findings in your research area HP 2. Significant and relevant concepts, models, and theories HP 3. Relevant methodologies in your research area HP 4. Gaps and needs in your field LP 5. The relationship between your field and other LP 6. The early history of your research area Vera reported to us that for her own research dealing with language and ethnic identity, she would find it useful to address a specific issue and also to discuss the way this issue had been (or hadn’t been) treated from the historical perspective, thus highlighting the need to (re-)address it. Task Four ��������������������������������������������� Citation theories: Vera responds again. 1. The least relevant for me are: Theory 4 (citations as the reward system). This is probably because of a lack of experience. It is unlikely that as a graduate student or junior researcher you have published enough to be cited. This view of cita- tion use was unfamiliar to me. Theory 2 (showing respect for other scholars). Most of the time, advisors seem to steer graduate students toward more concise writing, in which citations are expected to do more than just show respect for previous research. The main functions would rather be establishing a research space, orienting the reader toward relevant work, and helping to add more authority to the author’s own writing. 2. Theory 4 was an unfamiliar perspective for me. 3. There is probably not one straight answer to this question because depending on the course or discipline you would want to highlight 6 COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 different functions of citations. Maybe something along the following lines: Because you are not doing your own research in a vacuum, you need to show what has or has not been done in the field, and where your own research will fit into this picture. Task Five ��������������������������������������������� Scholar or researcher? 1. Vera reported that it is hard to speak for everyone because the balance between being a scholar and/or researcher will vary greatly depending on the field, institutional affiliation, seniority of the student/researcher, as well as personal interests and preferences. One can assume, how- ever, that in faster developing technological fields there will be more stress on innovative research and less attention to the older pieces of research that have become outdated. In others, such as humanities, a more traditional scholarly approach to a literature review might be expected. In addition, as we saw in Task Two, the approach to review- ing the relevant literature might depend on a specific piece of research (such as a shorter research article vs. a dissertation or book). 2. Vera’s advisor distinguished between a junior researcher per se (scholar before researcher) and a junior scholar working on a specific project (Maxwell’s position). 3. Vera referred to a potential difference between fast moving and more traditional disciplines. Chris and John noted that students working as members of research groups could rely on the director of the group for insight into the literature. A note on Malcolm Ashmore Malcolm Ashmore defended his PhD thesis in 1985 at the University of York (United Kingdom). The work was entitled “The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Soci- ology of Scientific Knowledge,” and, as the title suggests, his research area is sociology. The dissertation was published four years later. Ashmore deliberately switches the genres around: The opening chapter takes the form of an introduc- tory lecture by the candidate with the advisor/supervisor sitting at the back; the LR second chapter is cast as a 60-page encyclopedia on the topic with entries COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY 7 © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 for people, terms, and schools; and the final chapter takes the form of a tran- script of a mock dissertation defense. A flavor of Ashmore can be sensed from this opening to his endnotes. Chapter One Welcome to the notes. I hope you will visit this section of the text reg- ularly. Quite a lot will be going on here and it would be a shame to miss it all. But to get to the business of this particular note: May I ask by which route you arrived at Chapter One, note 1? (227) Task Six ��������������������������������������������� Professor commentaries on literature reviews 1. Vera noted: Although, I never had to do a literature review as a fulfill- ment of a course requirement, I would imagine that both Comment a and b could be unreasonable as a criticism for such a piece of work. It sounds to me that both letting the reader know where you stand and showing how previous research informs your work would be more rele- vant to an LR as a part of a dissertation. 2. Vera noted: Not yet. 3. Vera observed: Both Comments d and e could potentially be relevant for my attempts to write an LR for my dissertation. I find it hard to find and describe higher-level themes and issues that would logically connect different pieces of research, especially when the literature (as in my case) comes from different fields (sociology, ethnic studies, and linguistics). 4. Chris and John’s observation: Some of our students report criticisms regarding style and failure to include certain literature. 8 COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 How Can Order Be Imposed on the Literature? Task Seven ��������������������������������������������� Reordering the literature: Vera responds again. Out of the given categories, two seem most useful for grouping the liter- ature in an LR: field and perspective. Looking at different fields could enable the author to see how a specific concept has been treated from dif- ferent angles or in different disciplines. However, in this case it might be difficult to find a way to connect separate pieces of the LR into one cohe- sive story. That is why perspective could be a better choice in this case. Juxtaposing different perspectives toward the concept can also help to make the LR more revealing about the current trends and attitudes within the academic community, thus making the LR more exciting for the reader. Task Eight ��������������������������������������������� Possible categories for organizing the literature A Physics student stressed theoretical framework; a student in Biostatis- tics emphasized sample size; a student in Environmental Engineering sug- gested practical applications; an Economics student stressed modeling approaches. In addition to these, one student in Psychology mentioned competing methodologies and students in Botany and Post-Colonial Lit- erature thought that geographical location might be relevant. Task Nine ��������������������������������������������� Discourse community review: Vera responds again. 1. a. According to my research, the first paper on the concept of discourse community was published in 1986. This beginning does not seem to do much for opening the LR. It just seems to indicate that the literature will be organized in terms of chronology. COMMENTARY FOR TELLING A RESEARCH STORY 9 © The University of Michigan Press, 2009 Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review, Christine B. Feak and John M. Swales http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309338 Michigan ELT, 2009 b. Many papers have examined the concept of discourse community. This beginning seems to be too general. c. Table 2 provides a listing of 27 studies on the concept of discourse community published between 1989 and 2007. This seems like a possible way to start an LR: In just one sentence, it provides a framework for the LR and gives a specific outline of the studies that will be addressed. However, it does seem to promise only a list. d. The United States has been a leading source of research on the concept of discourse community. Good. This beginning shows that the author is likely to be familiar with the research on DCs not only in the United States but also elsewhere and is able to compare what has been done around the world. It also shows that the author