Critical literature reviews

I have spent some time over the last few days reading about the nature, function and structure of successful literature reviews. This has been both interesting and enlightening as it is not something I have really focussed on before, especially at the higher level of the MEd course.

Here are my thoughts and what I feel I have learned:

I found the reading very interesting and informative. I thought there was a clear message and indeed many similarities between the texts, in particular the second section of Poulson and Wallace (2004, p. 25 -36) and the chapter from Wallace and Wray (2011). They present a clear definition as to the function, nature and structure of a successful critical literature review and the pitfalls to avoid.

A key overarching theme that was presented was the importance of the critical nature of literature reviews. We must not be “merely the passive receiver of others’ wisdom, or the over-active promoter of unjustified opinions that leave others unconvinced” (Poulson and Wallace, 2004, p. 6). Being critical will allow us to evaluate others’ views, see the wider picture of research that is out there and our place within it, and present our views from a stance of informed knowledge and understanding rather than unjustified opinion. All of which leads to a greater chance of success.

Another key idea presented was that it is valuable and acceptable to question and critique published works and theories for, as Poulson and Wallace (2004, p. 5) state, “There is a widely held belief among academics working in this tradition that no one can have a monopoly on what is to count as knowledge or on what will work in practice”. It is important to read literature with a questioning mind, looking to the unstated assumptions, values, purposes, ideologies and perspectives that underpin the work and evaluating how these affect the research, the methodology and the conclusions drawn.

In order to structure my own literature reviews in the future, I will endeavour to define a clear focus and specific question around which to work as well as to identify and be aware of the audience to which I will be presenting. At the outset I will outline the scope and limitations of the review and offer stipulative definitions of terms and concepts as appropriate to ensure clarity of consensus.

Texts reviewed will be carefully selected and relevant and I will take care to discern which texts require more in depth analysis and which only a cursory overview. When reviewing I will ensure that I have engaged critically with the texts and interpreted them, offering a synthesis of knowledge from a range of sources, rather than simply offering a regurgitation of knowledge or descriptive account. I will also ensure that the review is balanced and that both the extent and limits of what is known in the field are presented. Any criticism offered will be constructive.

The literature review will be clearly expressed and structured in such a way as to build convincing arguments and draw conclusions relevant to my focus. I will include interim conclusions throughout, which are clearly evidenced from the text, and provide signposting for remaining sections before offering an overall conclusion to the review.

Poulson, L. and Wallace, M., 2004. Critical reading for self-critical writing. In L. Poulson and M. Wallace, eds. 2004. Learning to Read Critically in Teaching and Learning. London: Sage.

Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (2011) Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates (2nd ed). London: Sage.