While normally I write Twitter threads or blog posts in response to requests, particularly of my students and research assistants, but also when I hear from scholars across the globe, this post (based on my Twitter thread) comes from my own needs, both as a writer (I am writing and revising a literature review section myself) and as a student and RA supervisor (I wanted to have a resource to share with my team).
In this blog post, I walk through my process of mapping out the literature, relying on systematic reviews, and situating my work within the broader debates around a particular topic. Finding a gap in the literature requires us to really map out the different ways and approaches in which different authors have approached a specific topic. The only way to do this, unfortunately, is to read.
A LOT.
AND READ BROADLY.
ACROSS DISCIPLINES.
As my PhD students are nearing completion, I want them to be able to really clearly spell out where the gap in the literature is for each of their papers, and where their contribution resides. I’ve discussed this here https://t.co/GfcLAHLQlR (gap filling) and here …
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
In this post, I showed how I approach a new field of scholarship https://t.co/lz8TcgWCVt so this thread zeroes in on the “finding where my research fits” narrowing component though I also discuss the “mapping of who is saying what where and about what” question.
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
Well, enter Geography Compass, Progress in Human Geography, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, Annual Review of Political Science, etc. There are journals that offer those reviews. Also, reviews within a traditional journal (search for “research agenda”) pic.twitter.com/HtSyjt0aoN
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
I will confess that I’m somewhat skeptical of anthropology NOT having paid attention to plastics (one can say that “certainly *not enough* attention”). But I’m definitely respectful of the research Pathak and Richter 2019 have done, so I look for the paragraph where they…
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
I always tell my students to look for the “HOWEVER” turn of phrase when searching for the contribution of a paper/book/chapter. “This has been done in this field, HOWEVER this remains to be discussed”. In the first paragraph of Pathak and Nichter 2019 (note my purple scribbles)
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
The right hand side of my mind map is my actual mapping. As an engineer who reads up on the literature, I know that there are at least three areas where STEM has been examined plastics (and even I am missing health effects, which would be a new branch of the mind map/tree).
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
So (note my scribbles in pink and green), my interpretation of P&N’s positioning is “yes, there are emerging MedAnthro studies on toxics and human lives but nobody has made the connection with plastics directly as of yet”. This IS a contribution. Mapping from “toxics” to plastic. pic.twitter.com/BCJ3ygrIPX
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
Given that I’m doing neither, and grateful for their research, when I cite them I’ll say “In a systematic review of medical anthropology scholarship, Pathak and Nichter suggest the existence of the following main strands of the literature X, Y, Z. Gaps remaining include W, R”
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
In this draft memorandum, I’ve mapped out what I’m going to be writing regarding other disciplines’ engagement with the literature. My notes of Pathak and Nichter can be found in the third paragraph. I just wrote a bit on anthro of plastics, I haven’t even scratched the surface! pic.twitter.com/Bb68U95TSL
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
… to do a thorough literature review. Because there’s so much published and it’s quite likely you’ll end up missing some stuff. But pointing out how our work is positioned in the discipline and across disciplines is fundamental. This thread has helped me clarify MY own thinking
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
Links a) the Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) https://t.co/LuNbAcwzhX b) the importance of doing thorough citation tracing until reaching conceptual saturation, and of mind-mapping the results https://t.co/hihmBsjlFZ
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
Two important things escaped me the first time I wrote this thread. The first one is posted here (links to topic-sentences-focused blog posts).
Personally, I’m a fan of topic sentences. They make my reading easier, thus saving time, https://t.co/8m3hn2J0Yp and they also help me structure my own writing and thinking https://t.co/ShoFDhoyob for those of us who struggle with writing (I certainly do) the method of using…
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
(this is also why I encourage my students to think and consider writing their paper outlines either by answering questions or by writing topic sentences) https://t.co/1zaznh4Zse (and with this, </end thread> because I have to finish the damn paper I’m revising!
— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) August 13, 2019
Hopefully my process as broken down can help others as well!
2 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion