Structure of a literature review
Writing a literature review is a hybrid act of literacy in that the literature review requires you to be both a reader and a writer. You are reading texts by others in order to create your own new text, a research story that sets up your discussion of your own research. Perhaps the following analogy will explain this point. In a group conversation, somebody may tell a story of something that happened to him or her (or someone else), say, a story about having a difficult time at Customs. At the end of this story, it is likely that another person may begin to tell another story. This phenomenon is known as second-storying to discourse analysts. The first point to note is that this second story must somehow be connected to the first. In the case of the example, the second story could be yet another story about a difficult Customs experience. The second point is that for the story to "succeed", it must go beyond the first one in some way; for example, the second story should describe an even more difficult time than the first one did. We can now see that you, the researcher, have, in essence, a second story to tell after your first story -the literature review. The first story must carefully be constructed so that the second story both is thematically related to and goes beyond the first one.
Introduction
Introduce both the passage under analysis and the author. State the author's main argument and the point(s) you intend to make about it. Provide background material to help your readers to understand the relevance or appeal of a passage. This background material might include one or more of the following: an explanation of why the subject is of current interest; a reference to a possible controversy surrounding the subject of the passageor the passage itself; biographical information about the author; an account of the circumstances under which the passage was written; or a reference to the intended audience of the passage. In the introduction you not only explain generally the subject matter covered in the works you are reviewing but also briefly preview the conclusions you will offer at the end of the paper about the field. If necessary you may, in addition, state which criteria you will use to review and evaluate the published works.
Review
In the second part you review the publication, which implies summarizing and evaluating. Summarize the author's main points and make sure to state the author's purpose for writing. Here, you'll alsoassess the presentation, which means evaluating the validity of the author's presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement or disagreement. Comment on the author's success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing three or four specific points. You might base your review on one or more of the following criteria:
- Is the information accurate?
- Is the information significant?
- Has the author defined terms clearly?
- Has the author used and interpreted information fairly?
- Has the author argued logically?
If you have multiple publications, then you have basically two options: either you try & tie everything together in a synthetic text, or you treat each publication individually.
Discussion
Now it is your turn to respond to the author's/authors' view. With which views do you agree? With which do you disagree? Discuss your reasons for agreement and disagreement, when possible, tying these reasons to assumptions -both the author's/authors' and your own. Where necessary, draw upon outside sources to support your ideas. Here's where you not only explain similarities, differences, and other relationships in the works that you've reviewed, you are also making an argument, defending the key points that have emerged from the reviews and often defending a position that serves as the next step for your research or the research of some other scholar. In other words, you bring the reader to a point where you've proven: X is known or has happened; now we need to proceed to continue the scholarly debate.
Conclusions
State your conclusions about the overall validity of the piece -your assessment of the author's/authors' success at achieving his/her/their aims and your reactions to his/her/their views. Remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage.
If you have multiple publications you may also consider grouping the sections review & discussion in an all-encompassing section that summarizes and evaluates your publications on the one hand, and offers your critical view on the matter on the other hand. If your literature publication does not stand alone, but instead is part of a larger essay such as, for instance, the bachelor/master paper or a PhD dissertation, then you will be forced to review entire books or even a collection of books instead of single articles. The methodology, however, remains the same.If you have multiple publications you may also consider grouping the sections review & discussion in an all-encompassing section that summarizes and evaluates your publications on the one hand, and offers your critical view on the matter on the other hand. If your literature publication does not stand alone, but instead is part of a larger essay such as, for instance, the bachelor/master paper or a PhD dissertation, then you will be forced to review entire books or even a collection of books instead of single articles. The methodology, however, remains the same.