As far as I am concerned, a good "Status Quaestionis" chapter is essential in any major study. What you describe, however, is not a "Current State of Research" but a glorified bibliography. What is the difference? An analysis of the current state of research examines trends and shifts in research questions, methodologies, theoretical frameworks and the like, and identifies past biases - personal, political, ideological - and their impact on previous research.

This is important because it is impossible to divorce data from the theoretical and methodological frameworks through which they were and are presented. This is true even of the most mundane facts. For example, it is widely accepted that in the mystery cult of Mithras, December 25 was an important feast day. Most scholars repeating that datum appear to be unaware of the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for this. That may seem a minor detail, easily cleared up, but if one pursues the question _why_ the error arose in the first place, it soon becomes apparent that it is not an isolated slip of the pen. It is one of the many problematic legacies of a very particular understanding of the dynamics of religious change in the Roman Empire.

A good "Current state" gives you the background you need to recognize the potential implications of such an error, But that is just one example.

The rationale for a 'Current State of Research' refers to a principle coined by Bernard of Chartres in the 12th century: „nanos gigantum humeris insidentes“ or „dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants“. The giants embody the corpus of work done by precedent generations of scholars, and the dwarfs represent the current generation, which adds new insights to the large body of work already done. Although the new insights might be negligible in sum, the dwarfs can nevertheless look further, as they have incorporated the work of the giants (thus standing on their shoulders). So a good 'Current State of Research‘ is equivalent with having a good and solid base.

A further aspect, as stressed already by Steven, is the potential bias. Preceding generations of scholars were subject to different mindsets and societal pressures, which might have (more or less) affected their work and methodology. Depending on their virtues, integrity and independence, their research interests or even interpretations could have become distorted to „harmonize“ their work with the socio-political agenda of the day. Therefore past research must be also reviewed with regard to the societal pressures that were excerted on those scholars, for instance in the early 20th century lots of archaeological and anthropological studies were concerned with race and ethnicity (not only in Nazi Germany), because that’s what got funded and there were enough opportunists to „sell their souls“.

And I feel in a few decades our generation will be scrutinized for incorporating some politically-driven agendas into the field as well, like we see manifested in Gender Studies (e.g. "gender is a social construct rather than a biological") or other branches within post-processual archaeology, which (and that’s my personal impression) often have an explicit political undertone, which has become dogmatic enough not to be open for polite debate anymore: A clear indicator for societal taboos. So, effectually, the 'Current State of Research' section is also highly relevant in assessing (or becoming more aware of) present bias.

Dissertations routinely contain overly long and overly detailed but largely irrelevant current state of research  chapters.  Previous research should be reviewed in an article or book only to the extent that such review is necessary for the target audience to understand the argument being presented.  I would ask two questions: 1. What is my target audience and how do they relate to the research and 2. what is absolutely necessary background for this audience to understand the research.

Pienso en el porvenir de nuestra ciencia, y siento que deberíamos ubicarnos todos los arqueólogos, aleccionados y documentados por nuestras investigaciones especialmente en el trabajo de campo, donde a partir —y por supuesto absolutamente— de la materialidad arqueológica ya recuperada y si se hace necesario, del incremento de esta materialidad más adelante, hay que llevar a cabo, —en un legítimo, acreditado y genuino pero a la vez comprometido y nada fácil debate teórico-metodológico— un verdadero punto de quiebre, una posición diferente ante el significado de hacer Ciencia Social estableciendo aquí un punto de partida desde el interior de nuestra propia ciencia: la arqueología como disciplina.

Y aquí surge la pregunta ¿Es realmente la Arqueología una Ciencia Social?

Ahora tenemos todos nosotros, arqueólogos y arqueólogas una tarea ardua a la que debemos ponerle un punto final en algún momento.

Las Ciencias de la Naturaleza desde hace ya largo tiempo no han cesado de fabricar marbetes o etiquetas, llevando a cabo una continuada cadena de insultos académicos hacia las Ciencias Sociales o de lo Humano, calificándolas reiteradamente como "Ciencias Blandas", o de un modo más elegante "Humanidades".

Para quebrantar esta arrogancia, que muchos científicos del ámbito de las Ciencias Sociales observan con una actitud autocomplaciente, inclinándose como vasallos ante cierto imperialismo de las Matemáticas Complejas, renunciando totalmente a los métodos cualitativos, y sin importarles incluso que en algún futuro no lejano a pesar de todo, les otorgen un nuevo e insultante calificativo académico de "Pseudocientíficos Sociales", es necesaria una contundente respuesta nuestra hacia las Ciencias Naturales, cuyos Métodos Científicos, por sí mismos, No Están de Ninguna Manera Siendo Cuestionados.

Lo que ocurre verdaderamente es que aquellos que se conciben a sí mismos como "Científicos Duros" —y vinculados intrínsecamente a las manifestaciones de la Naturaleza Orgánica e Inorgánica— deben Comprender la emergencia en estos tiempos posmodernos de una hermenéutica de la facticidad, pues han sido hasta este primer cuarto del siglo XXI, incapaces de crear profundos lazos intersubjetivos entre ellos, todo esto porque en su posición en el aquí y ahora como Científicos de la Naturaleza no han imaginado jamás, de ningún modo, que sus autodenominadas "Ciencias Duras" nunca han sido "Neutrales", pues siempre y constantemente están siendo calibradas por nuestra actual Historia-Cultural que las cobija.

La arqueología entonces, tiene una oportunidad —sin impedir ni desmerecer de ningún modo el innegable aporte que nos brindan las Ciencias de la Naturaleza— de iniciar un valioso debate que comunique Naturaleza versus Cultura, o regularidad y estabilidad versus Dialéctica y Cambio.

Article Concepciones Filosóficas de la Ciencia y su Desarrollo en el siglo XX

Artículo de mi autoría desde el cual se manifiesta la evanescente intención y complicada pertinencia en la frecuente ocurrencia entre las Ciencias de la Naturaleza de lo que llamaríamos "sus planes y proyectos para la acción científica", que pretenden un cuestionable otorgamiento de validez, que en definitiva conducen a un pie forzado, a la manera de una aporía irresoluble al calificarlas como "disciplinas neutrales a la práctica social" y ajenas a "un tiempo historico", al que sin embargo incuestionablemente pertenecen, y que además les otorgan un sentido, al favorecerse el predominio en el pensamiento de una "verdad científica" respaldada en nuestra época, precisamente por la Historia.

I feel that the "current state of research" will always be a necessarily valid topic of discussion, reflection and temporary updating, for all scientific disciplines.

But there is an unsuspected field of validity, which archaeologists will have to address at some point, from now on and forward, and try to offer an answer to which we could have access only and possibly in a future of difficult determination.

I think about the future of our science, and I feel that we should locate all the archaeologists, instructed and documented by our research especially in the field work, where from —and of course absolutely— of the archaeological materiality already recovered and if it is done necessary, of the increase of this materiality later, it is necessary to achieve, —in a legitimate, accredited and genuine but at the same time committed and not easy theoretical-methodological debate—, a true breaking point, a different position before the meaning of doing Science Social establishing here a starting point from within our own science: Archeology as a discipline.

And here the question arises: Is Archeology really a Social Science?

Now we all have, as archaeologists, an arduous task to which we must put an end point at some time.

The Nature Sciences for a long time have not stopped manufacturing labels, carrying out a continuous chain of academic insults to the Social Sciences, calling them repeatedly as "Soft Sciences".

To break this arrogance, which many scientists in the field of Social Sciences observe with a self-satisfied attitude, bowing as vassals to a certain complex Mathematics imperialism, totally renouncing qualitative methods, and not even caring that in some future not too distant despite of everything, they give them a new and insulting academic qualification of "Social Pseudoscientists", it is necessary a forceful answer our towards the Natural Sciences, whose Scientific Methods, by themselves, are not in any way being questioned.

What really happens is that those who conceive of themselves as "Hard Scientists" —and intrinsically linked to the manifestations of the Organic and Inorganic Nature— must Understand the emergence in these postmodern times of a hermeneutics of facticity, since they have been until this first quarter of the 21st century, unable to create deep intersubjective bonds between them, all this because in their position in the here and now as Nature Scientists have never imagined, in any way, that their self-styled "Hard Sciences" never they have been "Neutral", because they are always and constantly being calibrated by our current Cultural-Scientific-History that shelters them.

Archeology, then, has an opportunity —without impede or detract in any way the undeniable contribution that Nature Sciences offers us— to initiate a valuable debate that communicates Nature versus Culture, or regularity and stability versus Dialectic and Change.

Article Concepciones Filosóficas de la Ciencia y su Desarrollo en el siglo XX

Article (in spanish language) of my authorship from which the evanescent intention and complicated relevance is manifested in the frequent occurrence among the Natural Sciences of what we would call "their plans and projects for scientific action", that claim a questionable conferment of validity, that ultimately lead to a forced foot, in the way of an irresolvable aporia to qualify as "neutral disciplines to social practice" and alien to "a historical-cultural-scientific time", which nevertheless unquestionably belong, and that also give them a sense , to favor the predominance in the thought of this "truth-cultural-scientific" supported in our time, precisely by History.