Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4124800?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and American Educational Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Educational Researcher.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:13:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research:
A Commentary on Boote and Beile's "Scholars
Before Researchers"
by Joseph A. Maxwell
2811EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCHER
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:13:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
My disagreement with Boote and Beile on the centrality of rel- conception which was supplanted in the 20th century by the Ger-
evance reflects a division within the educational research com- man emphasis on research training), provides the proper model
munity as a whole over the proper form and goal of literature for contemporary doctoral training and dissertations. This model
reviews that are part of dissertations and dissertation proposals' downplays the importance of relevance to the specific study for
(Krathwohl & Smith, 2005, pp. 197-198). This division is be- which the literature is being reviewed, and is thus less appropri-
tween faculty who expect a thorough review of the research lit- ate for researchpreparation than is a model focused on relevance.
erature in the area of the dissertation (the traditional view), and Relevance is also important for goals other than research
those who want a selective review of the literature that relates di- preparation. Most doctoral students in education will pursue ca-
rectly to what the student plans to do, showing these works' im- reers other than teaching the subject area of their dissertation,
plications for the proposed study. Krathwohl and Smith (2005, and it is less important for them to attain a thorough, compre-
p. 50) taking the latter position, describe the essential tasks of a hensive understanding of a particular topic or field than it is to
literature review for a dissertation proposal as follows: learn how to identify and assess relevant research findings and to
* survey a select group of studies that provide a foundation apply these in evaluating and supporting some claim or action.
for the proposed project, This is particularly true for students who will continue their ca-
* discuss these studies in detail sufficient to provide an un- reers as educational practitioners rather than researchers.Aside
derstanding of their relevance, from specialists in a particular field such as reading, teachers and
* describe how they contribute to the study, administrators are generalists, needing to understand and use re-
* indicate how the study moves beyond them. search findings from a wide range of topic areas rather than being
Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (1999, p. 68) similarly state, "A experts on a particular area.
research proposal [in which they prominently include disserta- Finally, Boote and Beile repeatedly state that the literature re-
tion proposals] is not the place to review the body of literature view should be focused on the dissertation's field of study (e.g.,
that bears on a problematic area, or even the place to examine all p. 11); their only exception is for a topic "about which very lit-
the research that relates to the specific question." tle has been written," for which a student "may need to broaden
Boote and Beile have stepped unknowingly into the middle of the search to examine analogous researchin other fields or topics"
an ongoing (though mostly implicit) debate about the proper (p. 7). They do not acknowledge that even for a study of a well-
form and function of a dissertation literature review, and their researchedtopic, there may be extremelyrelevanttheories,findings,
failure to recognize and address the differences between these two or methods in other fields or disciplines.
views undermines the value of their recommendations for im- In particular,conducting a review limited to a particularfield or
proving dissertation literature reviews. A relevant research report topic increases the danger that the student will become a prisoner
contributes an important concept, finding, or method to the of the theoretical or methodological perspective that dominates
study's conceptual framework or design, provides a necessary this literature,and fail to see alternativeways of conceptualizing or
piece of the argument that explains and justifies this study, or studying the issue or problem. Becker (1986, pp. 146-149) pro-
both (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1999, p. 69). A study is rel- vides an example of how his own researchon marijuana use was
evant if failing to discuss it would create a significant gap in this distorted by the prevalent perspective in this field. Alternative per-
explanation or justification, leave unanswered an important spectives can come from other fields or theoretical approaches
question that a reader of the dissertation might raise, or miss a (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, pp. 28-35), or from the student's
potentially valuable contribution to the research. observations and personal experiences (Grady & Wallston, 1988,
The centrality of relevance as a criterion for dissertation liter- pp. 40-42).
ature reviews also applies to literature reviews for funding pro- Some of the problems created by Boote and Beile's conception
of a literature review as a comprehensive summary and synthesis
posals, research reports, and other forms of scholarly writing in
which the primary purpose is not to summarize and synthesize of a defined "field of study" are manifested in two parts of their
some body of literature, but to use this literature to inform and paper: the literature review for their article, and their criteria for
support some decision or argument external to the review itself. assessing reviews.
Krathwohl and Smith (2005, p. 198) describe the traditional lit- Literature Review
erature review format as "something of an anachronism" that is
Boote and Beile'slack of attention to the relevanceof the works they
employed only in a review journal or annual review volume, and discuss leads to a review (pp. 4-6) in which much of their discus-
even then must be "more targeted and more critical of flaws and
sion is unconnected to the argument of their article. For example,
weaknesses."Similarly, the American Psychological Association's
their entire presentation of one work they report on is as follows:
Publication Manual (2001, p. 328, cf. p. 28) states, "Be selective
in the references that are reported in the literature review," and Bargerand Duncan (1986) raisedifficultquestionsabout the as-
repeatedly uses the term "relevant"to characterize what should sumption that doctoral candidatesshould do creativescholarly
be discussed in a review. Relevance, rather than thoroughness or work,and outlinewhatthey feel arethe psychological,theoretical-
methodological,and institutionalcontexts requiredfor creative
comprehensiveness, is the essential characteristic of literature re- work. (p. 4)
views in most scholarly work; self-contained literature reviews for
publication are the exception, rather than the norm.2 They do not indicate what Barger and Duncan actually said
This fact undermines Boote and Beile's argument (p. 4) that about these issues, or discuss how this work relates to their own
the 19th century conception of the doctorate as a teaching degree, argument or conclusions. This description of Bargerand Duncan's
requiring a thorough grasp of the literature in the chosen field (a article could be appropriate in a published review of literature on
29
DECEMBER
2006
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:13:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
preparation for doctoral work, but it serves no purpose in Boote on sources other than published literature) as one of several
and Beile's article. major components of researchdesign (Grady & Wallston, 1988;
In addition, the authors' claim that "doctoral students seeking Martin, 1982; Maxwell, 2005), rather than as the basis and start-
advice on how to improve their literature reviews will find little ing point of the research. Other components of the design in-
published guidance worth heeding" (p. 5) is based on a review of clude perceived problems, goals, research questions, research
researchmethods texts and handbooks, which are one important methods, and validity threats. None of these components is a
possible source for such advice. This topic-based focus on methods "foundation" for the others; instead, they form an interacting
texts leads them to overlook relevant works outside of this area. system in which "each influences the others and each is a major
Valuable, and often detailed, guidance on using literature in a factor in the outcome of the research"(Grady & Wallston, 1988,
doctoral dissertation or other research can be found in books on p. 12). This model draws attention to the relevance of the dif-
reading researchliterature (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2004), ferent components of the design for one another.
designing research (Light, Singer, & Willett, 1990; Maxwell, Krathwohl and Smith (2005, p.49), although they sometimes
2005), preparing a dissertation proposal (Krathwohl & Smith, use the term "foundation," invoke more explicitly the metaphor
2005; Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1999), completing a doc- of the literature review as an "anchor," which is not prior to the
toral dissertation (Rudestam & Newton, 2001), and doing schol- structure it anchors, but connects and steadies it. Another ap-
arly work in general (Becker, 1986; Booth, Colomb, & Williams, propriate metaphor for a literature review is a tool rather than a
1995; Mills, 1959), as well as in works on qualitative research foundation, similar to a hammer and power drill for a carpenter.
methods (Delamont, 1992; Glesne, 2006; Schram, 2003; Strauss, A literature review is an essential tool, and any researcher must
1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These works provide the kind learn to use it competently and appropriately, but it is no more
of advice that Boote and Beile failed to locate; in addition, most the foundation of researchthan a hammer, or even an entire tool-
of these authors place considerably more importance on selec- box, is the foundation of carpentry.
tivity and relevance in locating and using researchliterature than
do Boote and Beile. Implications for Doctoral Training
As stated earlier, I agree with Boote and Beile that learning to un-
Criteria
derstand and apply published research and scholarship is a key
Boote and Beile describe their criteria for evaluating dissertation
goal of doctoral training, and one that is often neglected or
literature reviews as establishing "ambitious expectations" for
taught inadequately. In my experience, relevance is the most dif-
such reviews, and state that "a literature review that meets high ficult concept for doctoral students to grasp in learning to use the
standards on these criteria indicates that the doctoral candidate literature effectively, and lack of relevance is the most common
has a thorough, sophisticated understanding of a field of study-
problem with dissertation literature reviews. A major reason for
a precondition for substantial, useful research"(p. 9). However, this is the traditional concept of the "review of the literature,"
as noted above, the concept of relevance is entirely missing from which Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (1999, p. 68) consider a
these criteria. Their criterion for assessing "coverage," the one
"misleading if not completely inappropriate title" for this section
standard for which relevance is mentioned earlier in their article, of a dissertation proposal. As argued above, the dissertation
does not address relevance at all, only whether the review "justi- writer's goal in reading and using published research is quite dif-
fied [the] criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature"(p. 8). ferent from that of the traditional literature review, and most
Thus, a review could score highly on their formal criteriaand still doctoral students receive little help in grasping this difference.
be almost completely lacking in direct relevance to, or important I use several strategies for helping students to identify rele-
implications for, the dissertation research. In addition, as indi- vance and use this effectively:
cated earlier, some faculty do not want all of the results of se- 1. I emphasize the idea of a "conceptual framework" for a
lecting and analyzing literature to be presented in the dissertation study, rather than a "literature review." Examining, assess-
itself. This makes their criteria, which can be used only to ana-
ing, and connecting published research is an important
lyze the latter document, a problematic indicator of the student's source for this conceptual framework, but the goal is an in-
understanding of this literature as a whole. tegrated set of theoretical concepts and empirical findings,
Foundationalism a model of the phenomena they are studying that informs
One possible source of the difficulties with Boote and Beile's and supports the research, rather than a review ofa body of
conception of the dissertation literature review is the central literature.As Boote and Beile note, "Researcherscannot ap-
metaphor that informs their article, the metaphor of "founda- propriatesophisticated researchmethods if their understand-
tion." The authors clearly hold a foundationalist conception of ing of the phenomena they are investigating is rudimentary
the place and function of literature reviews in research. They re- and unsystematic"(p. 11).
peatedly refer to the literaturereview as the "foundation" or "pre- 2. I present a model of research design (Maxwell, 2005) that
condition" of research, and to its "centrality" in the research highlights the ongoing interaction of their conceptual
process, and assert that the ability to analyze and synthesize re- framework with other components of their research design
search "should be the focal, integrative activity of predissertation (goals, researchquestions, methods, and validity concerns),
doctoral education" (p. 3). This foundational metaphor may be and how these components should inform and influence
part of the motivation for their view of the dissertation literature one another. Boote and Beile likewise emphasize that the
review as necessarily broad, thorough, and topic-focused. dissertation literature review should be a "dynamic, integral
An alternative, non-foundationalist view is of a literature re- part of the research process" (p. 11), rather than a static
view (or more broadly, a conceptual framework, which can draw artifact, but do not discuss how this can be accomplished.
30 EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCHER
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:13:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3. I encourage students, rather than simply analyzing, summa- Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams,J. M. (1995). Thecraftof
rizing, and critiquing the literature they read, to look con- research.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
stantly for things that they can usefrom this literature.Locke, Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholarsbefore researchers: On the
Silverman, and Spirduso (2004, pp. 9-21) provide an exten- centralityof the dissertationliteraturereviewin researchpreparation.
Educational Researcher34(6), 3-15.
sive discussion of the kinds of useful information that can be
found in researchreports,encompassing much more than re- Cooper, H. M. (1985). A taxonomyofliterature reviews. Paper presented
at the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssoci-
search findings. Becker (1986, pp. 141-146) also discusses
ation, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
effectiveways to use the literaturein research,emphasizingthe
ED254541)
concept of "modules"that can be borrowed and employed in Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in education settings:Methods, pitfalls,
constructing an argument or conceptual framework. and perspectives.London: Falmer Press.
4. I teach the technique of concept mapping (Miles & Huber- Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers(3rd ed.). Boston:
man, 1994; Novak & Gowin, 1984) as a way to integrate Pearson.
both the conceptual framework itself, and the research de- Grady, K. A., & Wallston, B. S. (1988). Researchin health care settings.
sign as a whole. Concept mapping is a powerful tool for see- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
ing and developing connections, particularly for students Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005). How to preparea dissertation
who are primarily visual learners,because it visually displays in educationand the socialand behavioral
proposal:Suggestionsforstudents
the relevance relationships that they are establishing. sciences.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
5. Complementary to concept mapping, I promote the strategy Light, R. J., Singer,J., & Willett, J. (1990). By design:Conductingre-
search on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
of outlining the argumentof a proposal, dissertation,or paper
Press.
(Maxwell, 2005, pp. 128-136). Such an outline is quite dif- Locke, L., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2004). Reading
ferent from a traditionaloutline, which lists the topicsthat are and understanding research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
to be covered. An argument outline summarizes the actual Publications.
argument of a work, explicitlystating the points that are being Locke, L., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (1999). Proposalsthat
made and the links between them. It thus forces students to work (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
identify how these points are relevant to one another. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research.
In summary, I am arguing for a different conception of a dis- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
sertation literature review from Boote and Beile's, one focused Martin, J. (1982). A garbage can model of the research process. In J. E.
on relevance rather than comprehensiveness, and one that sees McGrath, J. Martin, & R. Kulka (Eds.), Judgment calls in research.
this review as an essential component of research rather than the Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
foundation for research. I believe that such a conception can bet- Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative researchdesign:An interactiveapproach
ter address the problems with dissertation literature reviews that (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
the authors identify, and can better inform and support the train- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
ing of doctoral students as competent scholars, researchers,and Publications.
practitioners. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociologicalimagination. London: Oxford Uni-
NOTES versityPress.
'Severalof the works I cite in this paperdeal with dissertationpro- Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cam-
posals, ratherthan dissertationliteraturereviewsper se. This is not a bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation
problemformy argument,fortwo reasons.First,the proposalliterature
reviewis normallythe basisfor the dissertationreview;indeed,a wide- (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
spread(though, in my view, inappropriate)model of the dissertation Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry. Upper Sad-
proposalis that it consistsof the firstthreechaptersof the dissertation. dle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Second, it is the proposalreview,ratherthan the final dissertationre- Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysisfor social scientists. Cambridge,
view, thatconstitutesthepreparation forconductingthe research,which England: Cambridge University Press.
is preciselywhat is at issuehere. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
2Evenfor literaturereviewsfor publication,relevanceis an impor- grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA:
tant criterion.The guidelinesfor reviewersof manuscriptsfor the Re- Sage Publications.
view OfEducationalResearchinclude in their "coverage"criterianot
AUTHOR
only "Is the processfor selectingstudies for reviewclearlydescribed?"
but also "Arethe criteriausedfor selectionbroadenough to includeall JOSEPH A. MAXWELL is an Associate Professor in the College of
relevantliterature?" Education and Human Development at George Mason University,
4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444; jmaxwell@gmnu.edu.
REFERENCES
His research interests include qualitative and mixed method researchde-
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation(2001). Publication
manual(5th ed.). sign, qualitative methods, and the philosophy of social research.
Washington,DC: AmericanPsychological Association.
How to startandfin-
Becker,H. S. (1986). Writingforsocialscientists: Manuscriptreceived January17, 2006
ishyourthesis,book,orarticle.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Accepted July5, 2006
DECEMBER
2006E3
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 02:13:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions