Literature Review: Reaction to Articles

In their article, Scholars before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation, David Boote and Penny Beile identify the following problems with much of today’s literature reviews:

• Doctoral students lack the preparation necessary to produce quality research. Thus, they do not know how to go about writing a good literature review.
• Research preparation often overlooks the centrality of the literature review.
• Most literature reviews are simply summaries of past research that are not comprehensive or current.
• Communicating with a diverse audience is difficult because shared knowledge and experiences cannot be assumed.

Boote and Beile argue that doctoral students (and educational researchers) must be better prepared to write literature reviews, as these reviews are central to producing quality research that is useful and meaningful. Their literature reviews must be comprehensive and generative (meaning that students/researchers must understand the literature in the field so that they can identify its strengths and weaknesses and then build on that knowledge).

Joseph Maxwell, in response to Boote and Beile’s article, also identifies a lack of research preparation and instruction in writing literature reviews as a major problem in current educational research. However, Maxwell disagrees with their stance on the centrality of the literature review and the need for it to be comprehensive. Maxwell argues that a literature review is not central to a dissertation or study, and that relevance, rather than comprehensiveness, should be the driving force of a literature review. He also argues that all the literature that is reviewed does not need to be included in a dissertation or study. Maxwell believes that the inclusion of literature should be more selective than Boote and Beile suggest.

In previous courses, I have been asked to write literature reviews. While samples of a literature review were provided, I still didn’t feel as though I had a good grasp on what a good review should include. As Boote and Beile suggest often happens, my literature reviews were summaries of studies previously conducted. In truth, my search for research turned up dry at times, and I found myself trying to grasp at straws just to include the number of citations necessary. I appreciate the suggestions provided by Boote, Beile, and Maxwell because it gives me a better idea of what I should try to accomplish within my literature review. Maybe I will need to go beyond my field of study to get a better understanding of a problem. If I do, that’s okay. My previous literature reviews may have been stronger had I done so. Maybe I will need to look beyond summarizing previous literature and begin to address its strengths and weaknesses so that I can build on it in my own proposal or study. That’s okay too. My previous literature reviews may have supported my inquiry proposals better had I done so.

References

Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Maxwell, J.A. (2006). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A commentary on Boote and Beile's "Scholars Before Researchers." Educational Researcher, 35(9), 28-31.

Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2006). On "Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A response to the critique by Joseph Maxwell. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 32-35.