Swales, J.M. and Feak, C.

(2000) English in todays research world: a

writing guide.
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Weaknesses in literature reviews
Below are five comments from professors and others on draft literature
reviews written by graduate students or junior researchers. They are
compilations of large numbers of comments we have received over the
years. The last specifically refers to the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
literature review.
1. "Your draft literature review is basically little more than a list of
previous research papers in the field. While it is clearly well
researched, it doesn't give me a sense of what has been more
significant and less significant. It is hard to know where you stand."
2. "You have given me a chronological account, which might be fine for an
encyclopaedia entry or a historical background section to a textbook,
but it doesn't function well as a prefacing mechanism for your own
research. Although I know what your research hypothesis is, I don't see
it informing your characterization of the previous literature. Somehow
we need to see the relevant themes and issues more clearly."
3. "The first part of your review deals with theory, often invoking big names
from the past. The second half deals with practice-in other words, more
contemporary empirical findings. I don't see at the moment these two
parts in any kind of coherent relation. I know it's hard, but ... "
4. "This draft literature review describes adequately each piece of
relevant research but does so as a kind of anthology, piece by piece. It
needs a higher pass, something that does more to evaluate and
connect."
5. "Interdisciplinary reviews are hard, and I am basically sympathetic to
your dilemma. However, what you have done is keep everything within
its original disciplinary boundaries. To be innovative, you need to make
more connections across disciplinary areas, so that we can see the
new connections and relations that you will ultimately be able to
establish. Good luck!"
What are the main problems?
How can the writers overcome these problems?
Which of these observations might apply to you?