On reading, Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation by David Boote and Penny Beile, I wonder what sort of “scholar” would simply review the research and summarize it as a book report and believe there is any point in that. I have to hope they are at least thinking about the implications and the foundational points that the literature provides. I can’t believe they are just reading the literature and doing nothing with it. If they are, in fact, reading it and more importantly, understanding it, of course they must be allowing it to affect the decisions they make about their dissertations. I suspect they are not failing to consider prior literature before they embark on their dissertations but instead, are failing to document their consideration of it, thus failing to aid future generativity.

I do find it plausible that a student could read just enough literature to set the course of their dissertation. In this case, the candidate is putting in the minimum effort knowing that the evaluators likely won’t go into a detailed analysis of the literature review since it is routine and generally undervalued. Then, if there is a need for the appearance of a more thorough literature review, the candidate can pad it out with what they can skim from abstracts of literature they found in the bibliographies of the literature that they read. I don’t necessarily think these people are bad people, but when you are budgeting your time, you aren’t likely to spend a lot of it on something when the advisors aren’t advising you of its importance. In that regard, I agree with Boote and Beile, improving doctoral education is the key to improving educational research.

Cresswell wrote his literature review criteria way back in 1994 and the five step process back in 2002! These appear to be the standards that many have followed. Yet Strike and Posner published their 3 characteristics of a good synthetic review back in 1983. Hart’s criteria were published in 1999. Were they the unpopular kids? Didn’t Cresswell read their criteria before he published his five steps? Now Boote and Beile have produced a 12-step rubric that proposes to make literature reviews more of a foundation to be built before beginning research that has the potential to create new knowledge. How was that received? Are they now generally accepted or are they still waiting for the popular kids to give them their due?

Here’s the difference in 2019. Now we have social media and digital access. I think these topics can be more easily debated. I think that means the tight circles of experts are now opening up access to novices. Boote and Biele cited Cooper (1985) in saying that novices were more likely to use databases and indexes to find research for their reviews while experts would draw theirs from personal chats with the leading researchers. Now, with Professional Learning Networks (PLNs), novices have access to the experts. If I find a research article I think I can use, sure I can go digging around in their references and bibliographies but also, if the article is recent enough, I might be able to follow the author(s) on Twitter or subscribe to their blog(s). Then I may be able to dig around in their PLNs. I can draw my literature from around the world (as long as it’s in English). It’s very exciting but I can’t just take advice from anyone. I still have to find connections through people I trust, branching out, but watching for bad apples.

In terms of the Researcher, the Research, the Researched, and the Reader, a deep thinking literature review would definitely be beneficial. As a researcher, I need to know what is out there. I don’t want to reinvent the wheel. If my predecessors have completed good foundational literature reviews then they will contribute to my own. Building on that foundation with my own thoughtful literature review, using up to date resources and a far reaching network of experts would provide me with a solid direction to take my project. This would ensure that the project/research is a step forward, contributing to something new based on something tried and tested. This, in turn, will ensure that the researched, or students in my case, are subjected to the best practices I can find or create. Readers of my literature review would, in turn, build on my research and continue to move forward with research/projects of their own.

Now that I understand the importance of the literature review as the foundation for my own project, I am excited to get going but I’m also anxious about its seeming enormity. I am glad we had some time with Pia Russell today. I’m going to do some exploring in the UVic digital library, plus work on my PLN and see where that takes me. I am a slow, slow reader on my best day and the challenging language in scholarly literature is often overwhelming. I enjoy reading and learning in my own time and I want a strong foundation for my project, I really do, but I can see the appeal of the 1994 book report.