I’m procrastinating finishing a lit review by reading and
writing about writing lit reviews. My head hurts from the meta nature this
sentence and my soul hurts because this is how my weekend was spent. (In fact
this is how most of my weekends are spent.) Stupid grad school.
All self-loathing and snark aside, I do find it useful to think
about the process while engaged in the process (ugh) and I particularly
appreciated the discussion of technology related to the lit review/research process.
If I look back on past readings and notes I’ve taken during other inquiry
courses I tend to have comments in the margins addressing the antiquated
research suggestions about checking microfilm and going into the stacks. (Much
of this was supplemented by strong suggestions to use Endnote – which I find
interesting in light of Hensley’s (2011) analysis and concerns related to
Endnote.)
It was refreshing to read Anderson and Kanuka’s (2003)
discussion of e-research even if it is over a decade old and (understandably)
did not include a discussion of Web 2.0 applications – which as we have
discussed possess their own affordances and constraints. The reminders about
validity checks when using online sources were helpful. They mention of
difficulties in shifting through the sheer volume of information available,
particularly what Paulus et. al. (2013) defined as gray literature which “includes
conference proceedings and reports produced by government agencies, research institutes
of other organizations” (p. 54). Anderson and Kunka’s focus was on sorting out
what was good quality research verses what might entail bias or not be of the caliber
of research expected for a literature review. For me, the problem hasn’t been
so much determining the validity of research, but the ease of access in
locating research. I read one article, and find a particular quote or reference
interesting. Like Anderson and Kanuka suggest I know that I can’t rely on the
primary authors interpretation, I need to look at the original source. So I look
at the references and find at least three more articles I need to read. With each
of these articles, I then feel the need to read even more thus spiraling down a
research rabbit hole.
It is important for me to keep in mind that a literature
review doesn’t, and in fact can’t, encompasses everything that has ever been
written on the subject. I tend to “get stuck in the reading phase” (Paulus et.
al., 2013, p. 65) particularly since there isn’t much directly written about my
research topic. I’ve had to
broaden my search into other fields (Boote & Beile, 2005) which means joining several academic
conversations. This has been overwhelming to say the least as I’ve become relatively
paralyzed with fear of misunderstanding any one of these fields! Along with the
ease of access I’m just convinced that there is a whole body of research that
looks at exactly what I hope to better understand and I’ve just not hit on the
right search terms to unearth it yet! I know this isn’t true, I’ve been told
this isn’t true by several of the authors I'm reading! I just can’t shake the feeling I’m missing something huge! I’m sure it has to do with my own academic
insecurities and need to overcome a case of imposter syndrome. So with that
confession of my own neurosis and insecurities, I will close this relative
incoherent discussion of concerns regarding e-research and attempt to get back
to work on this lit review.
:) Oh, the clever ways we procrastinate! One thing that resonates me (and something I remind myself of continually) is that a literature review CANNOT include everything and must serve to sharpen the focus of the argument. I was thinking about this over the weekend, actually. I'm working on a paper that is methodological in scope, meaning I'm really making a methodological argument (not drawing upon empirical work). As I've been reviewing relevant literature, I've had to push myself to keep my focus on methodological critiques, rather than running off on the 5,000 empirical tangents that seem really fascinating. Over the years, I've learned to develop a list of inclusion/exclusion criteria to keep myself focused.
ReplyDeleteAnd, one last thing...I really appreciate how you shared the concerns around not getting it all. One thing to keep in mind is that the review process is intended to highlight literature that perhaps we didn't realize was related. The review process, be it for a journal or a dissertation, is meant to highlight how we can further build our argument. In the best of worlds, it is there to support our lit review process (although this doesn't always happen).