Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars Before Researchers”
TL;DR: Boote and Beile as discussed by the authors argue that the literature review is the fundamental task of dissertation and research preparation, and they conclude that literature reviewing should be a central focus of predissertation coursework, integrated throughout the program.
Abstract: n their article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation" (Educational Researcher, August/September 2005), David N. Boote and Penny Beile argue that the literature review is the fundamental task of dissertation and research preparation. They claim that doctoral students receive minimal formal training, and little guidance from faculty or published sources, in how to analyze and synthesize research literature (p. 5). As a result, they argue, most dissertation literature reviews are poorly conceptualized and written (p. 4), and "Doctoral students may not be learning what it means to make and justify educational claims" (p. 9). They conclude that "Literature reviewing should be a central focus of predissertation coursework, integrated throughout the program" (p. 12). Many of Boote and Beile's claims are consistent with my experience in teaching and advising doctoral students, and the authors perform a valuable service in raising important, and often neglected, issues that bear on conducting a literature review for a doctoral dissertation in education. I agree with their assessment of the majority of dissertation literature reviews, and with their emphasis on the importance of learning to identify, analyze, and integrate research literature competently. In my view, however, the authors' conception of a proper dissertation literature review undercuts the value of their insights. They repeatedly use the terms "thorough" and "comprehensive" to describe the type of dissertation literature review they recommend, and although they criticize the idea, held by many doctoral students, that such reviews should be "exhaustive" (p. 7), the authors' overall message is clearly that dissertation reviews should be a broad and comprehensive review of the literature dealing with a particular field or topic. "Comprehensiveness" and "breadth" are two of their criteria for assessing "coverage," the first of their standards for evaluating dissertation literature reviews and the one to which they devote the most discussion.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This article presents a methodology for conducting a systematic literature review with many examples from IS research and references to guides with further helpful details, and provides detailed guidelines to writing a high-quality theory-mining review.
Abstract: This working paper has been thoroughly revised and superseded by two distinct articles. The first is a revised and peer-reviewed version of the original article: Okoli, Chitu (2015), A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (37:43), November 2015, pp. 879-910. This article presents a methodology for conducting a systematic literature review with many examples from IS research and references to guides with further helpful details. The article is available from Google Scholar or from the author's website. The second extension article focuses on developing theory with literature reviews: Okoli, Chitu (2015), The View from Giants’ Shoulders: Developing Theory with Theory-Mining Systematic Literature Reviews. SSRN Working Paper Series, December 8, 2015. This article identifies theory-mining reviews, which are literature reviews that extract and synthesize theoretical concepts from the source primary studies. The article demonstrates by citation analysis that, in information systems research, this kind of literature review is more highly cited than other kinds of literature review. The article provides detailed guidelines to writing a high-quality theory-mining review.
1,274 citations
Cites background from "Literature Reviews of, and for, Edu..."
...…for Information Systems (37:43), November 2015, pp. 879- 910. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/43 Many scholars are not well trained in conducting a standalone literature review, a scholarly paper that in its entirety summarizes and synthesizes knowledge from a prior body of research....
[...]
TL;DR: This comprehensive guide extends the base methodology from the health sciences and other fields with numerous adaptations to meet the needs of methodologically diverse fields such as IS research, especially those that involve including and synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative studies.
Abstract: Many scholars are not well trained in conducting a standalone literature review, a scholarly paper that in its entirety summarizes and synthesizes knowledge from a prior body of research. Numerous guides that exist for information systems (IS) research mainly concentrate on only certain parts of the process; few span the entire process. This paper introduces the rigorous, standardized methodology for the systematic literature review (also called systematic review) to IS scholars. This comprehensive guide extends the base methodology from the health sciences and other fields with numerous adaptations to meet the needs of methodologically diverse fields such as IS research, especially those that involve including and synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative studies. Moreover, this guide provides many examples from IS research and provides references to guides with further helpful details for conducting a rigorous and valuable literature review. Although tailored to IS research, it is sufficiently broad to be applicable and valuable to scholars from any social science field.
554 citations
Cites background from "Literature Reviews of, and for, Edu..."
...Other helpful resources help authors to write in a way that prioritizes the ultimate audience (Donovan, 2007; Keen, 2007), lay out the review while considering their preconceived expectations for each section (Maxwell, 2006), ensuring the text’s structure and consistency (Hartley, Pennebaker, & Fox, 2003), and setting a definite voice for the review, especially in the case of multiple collaborators (Allen, Atkinson, Morgan, Moore, & Snow, 1987)....
[...]
...On the other hand, graduate student training on writing literature reviews is quite sparse beyond perhaps one or two seminar sessions that might briefly address the topic (Boote & Beile, 2005; Hüttner, 2008; Maxwell, 2006; Rempel & Davidson, 2008)....
[...]
...…the ultimate audience (Donovan, 2007; Keen, 2007), lay out the review while considering their preconceived expectations for each section (Maxwell, 2006), ensuring the text’s structure and consistency (Hartley, Pennebaker, & Fox, 2003), and setting a definite voice for the review,…...
[...]
TL;DR: The authors describes two practices that can be considered signature pedagogies of doctoral education, one in neuroscience (the journal club) and one in English studies (the list) and considers the value of adapting these practices into education doctoral programs and offers suggestions for how to modify the practices to suit education.
Abstract: This article describes two practices that can be considered signature pedagogies of doctoral education, one in neuroscience (the journal club) and one in English studies (the list). The practices are routinely found in these and neighboring disciplines but are not found in other fields. The journal club and the list share the goal of acquainting students with the literature of a field, but apart from that, they are very different. In addition to teaching students to work with the literature, they serve other pedagogical goals, including socializing students into disciplinary norms and identities. Thus they serve as windows into the underlying culture of their home disciplines. This article considers the value of adapting these practices into education doctoral programs and offers suggestions for how to modify the practices to suit education.
123 citations
Cites background from "Literature Reviews of, and for, Edu..."
...As Maxwell (2006) argues, “there may be extremely relevant theories, findings, or methods in other fields or disciplines” (p. 29)....
[...]
...…connect research studies to one another, synthesize and reappraise others’ work, and learn the stylistic conventions of written work, such as norms of what to say and what to omit (Boote & Beile, 2005, 2006; Delamont & Atkinson, 2001; Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Maxwell, 2006; V. Richardson, 2006)....
[...]
...These skills are “often neglected or taught inadequately” (Maxwell, 2006, p. 30)....
[...]
...Students of education must undertake the following (this list is not exhaustive): Absorb the content of what they read, determine what is known and what needs to be known, identify important ongoing disciplinary debates, develop the judgment to discriminate between work of high quality and mediocre efforts, extract useful information on which to build, juxtapose multiple theoretical perspectives and explanations, connect research studies to one another, synthesize and reappraise others’ work, and learn the stylistic conventions of written work, such as norms of what to say and what to omit (Boote & Beile, 2005, 2006; Delamont & Atkinson, 2001; Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Maxwell, 2006; V. Richardson, 2006)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a literature review examined empirical research conducted between 2004 and 2014 regarding 1:1 technologies in K-12 educational settings, focusing on the following themes: effects on student achievement, changes to the classroom environment, classroom uses, effects on learner motivation and engagement, and challenges to classroom integration.
Abstract: This literature review examined empirical research conducted between 2004 and 2014 regarding 1:1 technologies in K–12 educational settings. Our overarching research question was: What does research tell us about 1:1 technology in K–12 classrooms? We used the constant-comparative method to analyze, code, and induce themes from 46 relevant articles. Findings showed that the studies selected for analyses primarily concentrated on the following themes: effects on student achievement, changes to the classroom environment, classroom uses, effects on learner motivation and engagement, and challenges to classroom integration. In this article, we define each of these themes, describe the implications of the use of technologies on a 1:1 basis in classrooms, and offer suggestions for future research.
115 citations
Cites background from "Literature Reviews of, and for, Edu..."
...In this literature review, we “summarized and synthesized” (Maxwell, 2006, p. 28) empirical research about the use of technologies in K–12 classrooms on a 1:1 basis that was published between 2004 and 2014....
[...]
TL;DR: An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reader and writer practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
Abstract: Title. Reading, writing and systematic review.
Aim. This paper offers a discussion of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review.
Background. Although increasingly popular, systematic review has engendered a critique of the claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews.
Discussion. An alternative understanding of systematic review is as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between resisting readers and resistant texts. Reviewers of research exemplify the resisting reader when they exclude reports on grounds of relevance, quality, or methodological difference. Research reports exemplify resistant texts as they do not simply yield their findings, but rather must be made docile to review. These acts of resistance make systematic review possible, but challenge claims of its greater capacity to control bias.
Conclusion. An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
86 citations
References
More filters
Book•
12 Jan 1994
TL;DR: This book presents a step-by-step guide to making the research results presented in reports, slideshows, posters, and data visualizations more interesting, and describes how coding initiates qualitative data analysis.
Abstract: Matthew B. Miles, Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook, Third Edition. The Third Edition of Miles & Huberman's classic research methods text is updated and streamlined by Johnny Saldana, author of The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Several of the data display strategies from previous editions are now presented in re-envisioned and reorganized formats to enhance reader accessibility and comprehension. The Third Edition's presentation of the fundamentals of research design and data management is followed by five distinct methods of analysis: exploring, describing, ordering, explaining, and predicting. Miles and Huberman's original research studies are profiled and accompanied with new examples from Saldana's recent qualitative work. The book's most celebrated chapter, "Drawing and Verifying Conclusions," is retained and revised, and the chapter on report writing has been greatly expanded, and is now called "Writing About Qualitative Research." Comprehensive and authoritative, Qualitative Data Analysis has been elegantly revised for a new generation of qualitative researchers. Johnny Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Second Edition. The Second Edition of Johnny Saldana's international bestseller provides an in-depth guide to the multiple approaches available for coding qualitative data. Fully up-to-date, it includes new chapters, more coding techniques and an additional glossary. Clear, practical and authoritative, the book: describes how coding initiates qualitative data analysis; demonstrates the writing of analytic memos; discusses available analytic software; suggests how best to use the book for particular studies. In total, 32 coding methods are profiled that can be applied to a range of research genres from grounded theory to phenomenology to narrative inquiry. For each approach, Saldana discusses the method's origins, a description of the method, practical applications, and a clearly illustrated example with analytic follow-up. A unique and invaluable reference for students, teachers, and practitioners of qualitative inquiry, this book is essential reading across the social sciences. Stephanie D. H. Evergreen, Presenting Data Effectively Communicating Your Findings for Maximum Impact. This is a step-by-step guide to making the research results presented in reports, slideshows, posters, and data visualizations more interesting. Written in an easy, accessible manner, Presenting Data Effectively provides guiding principles for designing data presentations so that they are more likely to be heard, remembered, and used. The guidance in the book stems from the author's extensive study of research reporting, a solid review of the literature in graphic design and related fields, and the input of a panel of graphic design experts. Those concepts are then translated into language relevant to students, researchers, evaluators, and non-profit workers - anyone in a position to have to report on data to an outside audience. The book guides the reader through design choices related to four primary areas: graphics, type, color, and arrangement. As a result, readers can present data more effectively, with the clarity and professionalism that best represents their work.
41,986 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the uses of literature and open coding techniques for enhancing theoretical sensitivity of theoretical studies, and give guidelines for judging a grounded theory study.
Abstract: Introduction Getting Started Theoretical Sensitivity The Uses of Literature Open Coding Techniques for Enhancing Theoretical Sensitivity Axial Coding Selective Coding Process The Conditional Matrix Theoretical Sampling Memos and Diagrams Writing Theses and Monographs, and Giving Talks about Your Research Criteria for Judging a Grounded Theory Study
28,999 citations
Book•
01 Mar 1989
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an approach for recording, managing, and analyzing data in the context of qualitative research, defending the value and logic of research, and managing time and resources.
Abstract: Introduction The Substance of the Study Framing the Research Question How To Conduct the Study Designing the Research Data Collection Methods Recording, Managing, and Analyzing Data Managing Time and Resources Defending the Value and Logic of Qualitative Research
15,421 citations
Book•
12 Apr 1996
TL;DR: A model for Qualitative Research Design is presented and an Example of a Qualitative Proposal is presented for Presenting and Justifying aQualitative Study.
Abstract: Chapter 1. A Model for Qualitative Research Design Chapter 2. Goals: Why Are You Doing This Study? Chapter 3. Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think Is Going On? Chapter 4. Research Questions: What Do You Want to Understand? Chapter 5. Methods: What Will You Actually Do? Chapter 6. Validity: How Might You Be Wrong? Chapter 7. Research Proposals: Presenting and Justifying a Qualitative Study Appendix A. A Proposal for a Study of Medical School Teaching Appendix B. A Proposal for a Study of Online Learning by Teachers
13,249 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: This book presents a meta-coding pedagogical architecture grounded in awareness contexts that helps practitioners and students understand one another better and take responsibility for one another's learning.
Abstract: The teaching of qualitative analysis in the social sciences is rarely undertaken in a structured way. This handbook is designed to remedy that and to present students and researchers with a systematic method for interpreting qualitative data', whether derived from interviews, field notes, or documentary materials. The special emphasis of the book is on how to develop theory through qualitative analysis. The reader is provided with the tools for doing qualitative analysis, such as codes, memos, memo sequences, theoretical sampling and comparative analysis, and diagrams, all of which are abundantly illustrated by actual examples drawn from the author's own varied qualitative research and research consultations, as well as from his research seminars. Many of the procedural discussions are concluded with rules of thumb that can usefully guide the researchers' analytic operations. The difficulties that beginners encounter when doing qualitative analysis and the kinds of persistent questions they raise are also discussed, as is the problem of how to integrate analyses. In addition, there is a chapter on the teaching of qualitative analysis and the giving of useful advice during research consultations, and there is a discussion of the preparation of material for publication. The book has been written not only for sociologists but for all researchers in the social sciences and in such fields as education, public health, nursing, and administration who employ qualitative methods in their work.
11,846 citations