Hi Erik, Good idea. Have you thought of finding exemplars for students to look at for each model in the literature. That would be a proof to students that the models work, have worked for others and will work for them. You might need to point out that literature reviews can work differently in the Humanities, Sciences and Social Sciences. For example the classic Literature Review; Methodology; Results; Discussion; Conclusions; Suggestions for further Research is one approach. In the Humanities in particular a whole piece of work can be an argument advanced through reference to secondary literature and primary sources.

A model that I use with students is the inverted pyramid. Starting with the broadest context, focusing on the specific context and the advancing the question to be addressed by a particular piece of research. It works well with students preparing dissertations, because it gets them to think about two things 1) the scale of their research and 2) creating an argument. I think its really your concentric circles model, but its hard to write in concentric circles! Best Wishes Matt

Very timely Erik. I am meeting with a colleage today to talk about our approach to a literature review for a client on math literacy and mathematical sciences as cultural accomplishment. I will let you know what we come up with.

A literature review worth publishing should follow one important idea independent of the models outlined in the question. It should (or have to) lead/guide to a new view on the literature. Whether this can be achieved chronologically, thematically or whatever.

So, the point is to find a way to contribute novel insights into published materials.

@Veronica - pleased to hear this, can you keep me posted?

@Michael - I agree that the point/purpose of a literature is what is really important but without structure some people have difficulty in establishing just what this point might be. I just feel that, if we can offer individuals frameworks for their literature, they might be in a better place to pass on their central message.

Recently, I learned from Authoraid.info an article that sounds interesting on tips for writing review articles. Here´s the link http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=15161&terms=tips%20for%20writing%20your%20first%20literature%20review%20article

Hi Erik, Good idea. Have you thought of finding exemplars for students to look at for each model in the literature. That would be a proof to students that the models work, have worked for others and will work for them. You might need to point out that literature reviews can work differently in the Humanities, Sciences and Social Sciences. For example the classic Literature Review; Methodology; Results; Discussion; Conclusions; Suggestions for further Research is one approach. In the Humanities in particular a whole piece of work can be an argument advanced through reference to secondary literature and primary sources.

A model that I use with students is the inverted pyramid. Starting with the broadest context, focusing on the specific context and the advancing the question to be addressed by a particular piece of research. It works well with students preparing dissertations, because it gets them to think about two things 1) the scale of their research and 2) creating an argument. I think its really your concentric circles model, but its hard to write in concentric circles! Best Wishes Matt

@ Jose - thanks for the link: it is a good article and I will point my grad students at it. For me point 5 on the 10 point list is the most relevant to my question.

@ Matt - LOL writing in concentric circles! Also, I think your point on different models for different disciplines is useful. I am a social scientist so my writing can be long-winded as I use literature to develop an argument and I envy natural scientists' approach to literature (which seems to me to take the approach 'state it and move on to the data' - I don't mean to be disrespectful to natural science, as an outsider I quite like this structured approach). It would be good to see what colleagues in different fields think about approaches to lit reviews.

@Eric - your 3 models look at the issue of structure from a fairly high level. These are useful for thinking about how to structure a lit review but I often find that it is the topic at hand & the emergent findings that also determine structure. The purpose of a lit review also seems important to me & this can vary according to context - or discipline, as Matt suggests. Also, Matt's inverted pyramid model looks very useful in underscoring the importance of scoping & keeping the research question constrained, otherwise it goes on forever.

But, the conventional approach that decrees a lit review is what is done at the forefront of research is often too constrained for my liking. This historicizes literature too much. The literature may be historical but it is usually also contemporary & it should inform research in an ongoing way. Reflection & research go hand in hand.

There's some useful resources about the "mechanics" of lit reviews at:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/LitReview.html

I use the inverted-pyramid model with my students of Media Studies most of the time (though I never labelled it this way); however, I always stress the need to be selective and reflective about the literature, not just to report other people's findings for the sake of filling pages. They should finish each lit rev section with a clear closing comment on how this particular study informs their own project. This usually turns out to be one of the most difficult things to do.

I've spent the last 3 months grappling with this. I decided that there must be a mathematical expression to conceptualise it. What I've come up with is using a Fibonacci sequence for a concept (not a prescription!) - perhaps a spiral. I've drawn a spiral on a huge piece of paper (see internet for Fibonacci spirals), then written into the compartments theorists/literature.

At the centre of the spiral is your topic (i.e. it hasn't been done before). Next to this is the closest literature to the topic. Next to this, the next closest topic and so on. Of course, as you get further away from the centre (the topic at hand), the number of pieces of writing available to review become more tenuously connected to that topic, and therefore more numerous.

If you start from the outside of the spiral, it's too big and the task seems overwhelming.

This concept is helpful in deciding what literature you are going to review, of all the literature that is available. Once you know what you're going to review you can write it up with its connections to the work in hand. You can say why it isn't at the centre of the spiral with your topic which shows the gap into which your topic fits.

btw, my field is the social sciences too. Just because we're in the social sciences doesn't mean we can't have structure in our work! In fact maybe we need it even more.

@Zoe -- I like your emphasis upon the topic first & the idea of the spiral because it is very much an iterative process. The only thing I would add is that the research question may not manifest immediately from the topic and can emerge from over time from becoming better acquainted with the literature around the topic as well as practice in the field. I am sometimes never satisfied with the first iteration of a research question & it is only after a period of reflection & further reading that it comes into sharper focus.

Jon - I think you make a good point, and one that is a caution for those of us thinking we've done and dusted our lit reviews. Things change, and our lit reviews may need to be revisited.

The hardest part for me with the latest lit review was getting started when things were not clear-cut, the research question an idea, the title a place holder. It can seem like Mission Impossible. Starting out at the smallest place on the spiral was that single step I needed to get going.

You ask above about the purpose of a lit review which is a good question for writers to be asking themselves. My understanding is that in the social sciences it is to provide a context for your writing: to show what has already been written that's close to your topic, and hence where the gaps are that your writing fits into, your point of difference. I can see if I strayed outside of this the lit review could become huge.

This is a useful discussion - thank you. We provide the article by L Talbot and G Verrinder "How to turn a stack of papers into a literature review' to second year students and have found it to be a very useful resource.

Thank you for the reference to Talbot & Verrinder's article Carmel. I've just had a look at it and it's very helpful. The only comment I would make about it is that they suggest writing from the top of the funnel to the bottom. I think this may be difficult for some, including me. I needed to start at the smallest end and work my way out. Sometimes what's at the top of the funnel isn''t clear.

Jon, the link you provided (I know 4 years ago) is not working. Do you know where it has moved to?

intersting information regarding LR