DISSERTATION 101 :

So, You’ve Completed Your Coursework, Aced Your

Exams, and Gained Topic Approval. What’s Next?

Sherry Wynn Perdue, Director

Oakland University Writing Center
wynn@oakland.edu
Anne Switzer, Assistant Professor
Outreach and Social Sciences Librarian
switzer2@oakland.edu
 Part I: Composing the Literature
Review

•WHAT is (and is not) a literature review?

•HOW should you frame the literature you locate?

•How should you draft the literature review?

•WHAT role does the committee play in your project?

•WHERE is institutional support available?

 Getting Started
• Do you understand the purpose and scope of a literature
review?

• Do you comprehend the difference between an abstract

or an annotation and a literature review?

• Have you examined dissertations that your chair values?

Have you (and your chair) annotated these models to
demonstrate why and how authors have succeeded?
• If your dissertation is qualitative, look for qualitative models, etc.
 What is the Dissertation Literature Review?

• A professional conversation framed by a guiding concept

• A comprehensive exploration of existing scholarship on a

specific topic

• “ An account of what has been published on a topic by

accredited scholars. . .” (Taylor & Procter, 2001)

• An answer to a persistent question (R. Elmore, Harvard

Graduate School of Education)

A well-framed (by theme, method, chronology, etc.)

presentation of the current state of topic knowledge, which
is designed to highlight past research findings and to pave
the way for your study
Characteristics of a Dissertation Literature Review

• An introduction that shares the persistent question(s) the

reviewed literature will address and indicates how the reviewed
scholarship will be framed

• An organizational frame, which groups relevant scholarship by

topic, chronology, theoretical approach, methodology, etc.
and/or a combination of approaches

• A series of transitions organic to the discussion that indicate

how different studies approach the same issues both within
individual paragraphs and between paragraphs
 Characteristics of a Dissertation Literature Review

• Evidence of how conflicting findings within the literature might

be understood or potentially resolved by addressing the
methodology, sample size, questions asked (and not asked), etc.

• A conclusion that clarifies how the literature demonstrates the

efficacy of the dissertation study. Does it demonstrate a gap in the
literature? Does it identify a conflict that needs resolution? In
many cases the specific research questions for the student
author’s proposed study will be shared here too
Literature Review Pitfalls: Forgetting to Frame
Failing to synthesize ideas and information from your sources into
a narrative account of what the professionals currently know with
the purpose of credentialing your study

•This synthesis could be framed by date, theoretical

orientation, method, issue, etc.

•The literature review, however, is not an annotated

bibliography. In other words, you organize the literature
review by issues and ideas rather than by individual sources.
Your goal is to create a conversation between and among the
scholars on each important issue reviewed.
Literature Review Pitfalls: Overreliance on Quotations

Excessive quoting undermines your authority, drowns out your voice,

and creates disturbances in the narrative flow. You gain your reader’s
trust by sparingly and strategically using other people’s words.

•In most cases, you should paraphrase the material, selecting only
the portions of the original quote that you need.

•Generally when you use consecutive words from the original, you
must place quotation marks around all directly quoted material
and use a parenthetical citation that includes the page number.
This advice does not include the names of theories or tests, which
are often quite long and should be included as used in the
literature.
Literature Review Pitfalls: Patching not Paraphrasing
“ Patching” occurs when you insert a series of borrowed ideas and
phrases; these strings often differ only slightly if at all from the original
wording, whereas paraphrasing involves both rewording and reorganizing
the original material; “ synonym swapping” is not a paraphrase. Patching
is a form of plagiarism, even if the writer provides a parenthetical
citation.

•You can mediate the potential for plagiarism by taking accurate

notes in your own words, carefully noting the source and page
number.

•You can ensure that the relationships between ideas and sources are
clear by using rhetorically accurate transitions. For examples, see
Graff and Birkenstein’s They say/I say: The moves that matter in
academic writing (2010).

Note: To avoid patching, practice making this material your own.

You will need to read a great deal more material than you cite.
 Literature Review Pitfalls:
Cursory Overview or Biased Sample
Haphazardly collecting research on your topic
• You must implement a specific search strategy and a culling strategy,
which you can justify to your readers.

Failing to ensure that your literature review is comprehensive because

you were unaware of the seminal studies on the topic
• ISI Web of Science is helpful for locating such works.

Consciously choosing to omit scholarship that challenges your initial

hypothesis, methodology, etc.
• If you narrow your review to two of three pedagogical approaches or to
three potential antagonists among many, you must indicate the rationale
for this decision.

Note: Whether intentional or not, these omissions will invalidate your claims.
Further, you may find it necessary to consider this pitfall as you evaluate other
scholars’ research.
 Literature Review Pitfalls: Failing to Connect
Foundational Studies to Your Project

Citing “ seminal” works—studies that are most cited by others—

without demonstrating how these significant, early studies
complement, qualify, or contrast with the approach taken in your
research.

•While it is helpful to consult reviews of the literature most

crucial to your subject (because they can guide your
understanding of your own source base), it is essential to gain a
firm understanding of the foundational studies that will contribute
to the argument you make.

Note: Everything you discuss in your literature review needs

to pave the way for your project.
 Getting Started: The Source Grid

• A graphic organizer that helps you document your

“ talking points,” the level one headers of your
literature review

• A non-linear outline of the major topics that your

literature review will synthesize
 Drafting from the Source Grid
• Read, evaluate, and group the literature by major topics or talking points,
which become the columns of the source grid.

• Draft one column at a time. In other words, compose the text like a quilt.

• Each paragraph/section develops an idea rather than simply summarizes

the results of one article. While there are times that an individual study
might occupy a whole paragraph (it could be the only study on an
important issue), usually the paragraphs situate studies on similar topics in
relationship to one another using transitions that indicate the relationship
between and among the sources (similar/different method,
similar/different result, similar/different explanation of a problem, etc.)

Caution: Never compose a draft without including an citation for each source
as you go. For a sad example of what can happen when this advice is
neglected, listen to this story about Pulitzer Prize winning historian Steven
Ambrose.
 Example Paragraph

Unwilling to equate research and legitimacy with the quantitative

methods that Braddock et al. endorsed, some compositionists began
employing qualitative methods in the late 1970s and early 1980s:
Donald Graves (1979) used case studies, Linda Flower and John Hayes
(1981) turned to speak-aloud protocols, Shirley Brice Heath (1983)
explored community literacy via ethnography, and Nancie Atwell (1987)
advocated reflective practice (Herrington, 1989). Increased qualitative
scholarship, however, was not the only factor contributing to the
methodological debate. Smagorinsky (2005) has attributed these
methodological choices to the emergence of identity politics and to the
growing influence of poststructuralism in academe. The works of
Derrida, Foucault, DeMan, and Bakhtin, founded on semiotics and
poststructuralist theory, encouraged English literature and composition
scholars to resist what they claimed as the objectivism in data-driven
research (Smagorinsky, 2005). While most critics argued that the
method should fit the rhetorical situation (audience and purpose), many
advanced an implicit (later explicit) assumption that social science
methods were not adequate to the task (Johanek, 2000).
 Drafting and Integrating the Parts
• To mediate distractions, Sherry finds it helpful to open a separate document for each
talking point into which I paste its grid material. If a good idea for a different part of the
paper intrudes on my process, I quickly click on that document and record the idea before
returning to the issue on which I am currently writing.

• Continue to draft new talking points and redraft previously composed talking points until
you have good fragments (quilting squares) of the paper’s body.

• Once you have the parts, you need to examine them in relationship to one another to
determine which talking points must come first.

• After you determine the order of information within the body of the review, it is time to
insert and refine your transitions.

• After composing the body, draft the introduction and the conclusion. Caution: It is never a
good idea to draft these before you know how the literature will come together.
 Committee Concerns: Your Chair
• With whom do you work best? Under what circumstances have you
worked with this person in the past?

• Is s/he good at meeting deadlines and responding to questions and

submitted work? Will s/he read each chapter in a timely manner and
offer feedback on higher order concerns?

• Does this faculty member understand and appreciate your research

question and your methodology?

• Will s/he work well with the rest of the committee?

• Will s/he agree to let you seek guidance from members of the
committee before your proposal defense?

• Is s/he in a position to be both your coach and your buffer, as needed?

• Will s/he provide you a model from which to follow?

 Committee Concerns: Members
• Do potential members know you, your work, and your chair?

• Will each potential committee member’s expertise complement

your project?

• Can those you select work well with and defer to your chair?

• Will they meet with you to offer guidance before you draft the
proposal?
 Time Management
• Develop a timetable that breaks down the dissertation
into a series of manageable weekly tasks.

• Start the process early!

• Leave plenty of time for rewrites and edits.

• Request feedback as you go, rather than waiting until a

chapter is done.
 When Should You Schedule a Writing Consultation?

• After the research consultation (but before you start writing) to make a plan
and review the project specifications

• After you have located and started reading your sources to discuss potential
talking points/headers for a source grid

• After you have created a source grid to explore potential ways to situate the
issues within each major topic

• Once you have drafted a section of the paper

• Whenever you need help with documentation

• Once you have a solid working draft, etc.

• Anytime you get stuck or need a second set of eyes

 Selected References
Elmore, R. Some guidance on doing a literature review. Retrieved on January 15,
2010 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/library/services/research_instruction/elmore_lit_re
view.pdf
Feak, C. B. & Swales, J. M. (2009).Telling a research story: Writing a literature
review. Volume 2 of the revised and expanded edition of English in today’s
research world. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social
and behavioral sciences. 5th Edition. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2006).They say/I say: The moves that matter in
academic writing. New York: W.W. Norton.
Taylor, D. & Procter, M. (2001). The literature review: A few tips on conducting
it. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from: http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html
University of Washington Psychology Writing Center. (2004). Writing a
psychology literature review. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from
http://depts.washington.edu/psywc/handouts/pdf/litrev.pdf
Part II. Information Literacy
 Thank You!
Anne and Sherry appreciate the opportunity to speak
with you about this high stakes manuscript. Please feel
free to schedule a Research Consultation or a Writing
Consultation for assistance at any stage of the research
and writing process as you move forward.