Generative Scholarship and Literature Reviews
This is a reading response for the Research Colloquium course as part of the week seven tasks. The readings this week focus on the literature review and its place within doctoral scholarship.
The notion that students studying in doctoral programs should become scholars before they become researchers stems from writing by Boote & Beile (2005) where they outline what good literature reviews should include in terms of coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric. According to Boote & Beile (2005), by generatively examining the field of study prior to venturing into research, doctoral students and candidates can “demonstrate a thorough and sophisticated grasp of one’s field of study” in order to research that “advances the collective understanding of important education issues” (p. 11).
Maxwell (2006) refutes the intention of literature reviews as being thorough, comprehensive and foundational, as suggested by Boote and Beile (2005), and proposes that literature reviews should focus on relevance. Maxwell further considers the primary purpose of the literature review, whether for a dissertation, publication, or funding proposal, to inform and support an argument or decision rather than merely summarize or synthesize a body of literature. Maxwell’s argument questions the use of ‘foundational’ metaphors when considering the positionality of the literature review within doctoral research. The notions of a ‘conceptual framework’ and ‘research design’ are mentioned by Maxwell (2006) as a means to integrate concepts and research findings into an amalgamation of iterative parts (goals, research questions, methodology, methods, validity, results) since they “inform and influence one another” (p. 30). This concept is mirrored by Grant and Osanloo (2014) in their examination of theoretical and conceptual frameworks using the metaphor of a blueprint to differentiate the role each element plays in the structural aspects of the work done by doctoral researchers. The blueprint, once used to create the research and report, becomes irrelevant and unseen. It’s the product, not the process or underlying structures, that is seen.
The task of new doctoral researchers is to go back to the blueprints to examine how the dissertation has been constructed, by drilling down to the component parts and deconstructing the dissertation to figure out how it’s put together. That’s where the rubric proposed by Boote & Beile (2005) comes in handy. It frames the work to be done in light of what a good construction should look like. It doesn’t just set the foundation, but examines the design and integration of each moving part. As Boote and Beile (2006) state, in their response to Maxwell’s counter-argument, doctoral programs focus beyond the production of good research reports to four specific goals – “understanding the research and scholarship in the field; develop intellectual independence; develop information fluency; and systematically and continually reappraise ideas and practices” (p. 32). This includes the ability to justify and warrant their decisions in research reports, in order to fully participate in knowledge building academic communities (Boote & Beile, 2006). As suggested by Boote & Beile (2006) a “repurposed literature review is an antibiotic that kills the bad ideas that infect education, and the scholarly habits candidates learn help to strengthen our collective immune system” (p. 34).
With this in mind, I’ll take my immunization shot in this course, build up my immunity, establish my generative scholarship, build a theoretical and conceptual framework, and develop academic independence by using tools such as the rubric designed by Boote & Beile (2005) to deconstruct and examine the elements of a good literature review and it’s foundational relevance within a good doctoral dissertation.
References:
Boote, D. N., & Biele, P. (2006). On “Literature reviews of, and for, educational research”: A response to the critique by Joseph Maxwell. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 32–35.
Boote, D., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
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.
