Reviewing the Literature
Reviewing the literature is your opportunity to define the contribution your research makes. To do so, you relate what scholars already understand about your research question, and then show how that existing knowledge is incomplete or unsatisfactory. In this way, reviewing what other scholars have done creates a foundation on which you will build your own theory or argument.
“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
– Isaac Newton
What does a literature review do?
What is a literature review?
“A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. [...] In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.” (Yale University Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews)
One important aspect of literature reviews is the elaboration of the theory being studied. When you test a theory, you need to define that theory and explain where that theory comes from. You should explain:
- What do the important terms mean?
- What is the logic of the theory? How does the theory explain the outcomes or events you are trying to explain?
It is also important to articulate what different scholars have said about the theory and what evidence exists for it. For example, you should address to the following:
What have scholars found about that theory? Have they found evidence to support it?
To what extent do scholars disagree with each other about whether the theory is right?
Practice it:
Read the example literature reviews below. For each, identify the questions that each review is answering about the existing research, and explain how you know that the review is answering those questions. Use the forms in the right column to submit your answers.
Example 1 :
“…Thus, the related question must be: why does economic disadvantage seem to engender support for ethno-nationalist and anti-immigrant platforms? Why does the populist right win working-class support on identity issues?
For answers to these questions and a better understanding of how economic and cultural factors work in tandem to generate support for right populism, we look to the role that subjective social status might play in these political dynamics. A century ago, Weber (1968 [1918]) identified social status – understood as a person’s position within a hierarchy of social prestige – as a distinctive feature of stratification in all societies. Because the quality of a person’s occupation and level of income or education usually confer status, the distinctiveness of this dimension vis-a-vis standard definitions of social class has sometimes been obscured in the sociological literature; but, as Weber noted, social status is not synonymous with occupation or social class (cf. Blau and Duncan 1967; Chan and Goldthorpe 2007; Savage 2015). Similarly, the ingredients that combine to determine a person’s social status can be relatively diverse. What is sometimes termed ‘objective social status’ depends on ‘widely shared beliefs about the social categories or “types” of people that are ranked by society as more esteemed and respected compared to others’ (Ridgeway 2014: 3).”
[From Gideon and Ridgeway, 2017, S61]
Example 2:
Although scholars of comparative political behavior have devoted attention to the impact of material interests and values on citizens’ attitudes and votes, few have considered how concerns about social status might condition political preferences. But sociologists and psychologists have long seen the desire for social esteem as a fundamental feature of social life and a critical factor motivating action (Weber 1968; Ridgeway and Walker 1995; de Botton 2004). On this point, there is ample evidence. Based on decades of research, Ridgeway (2014: 2) observes that “people care about status quite as intensely as they do about money and power.” In part, that is because social esteem is closely coupled to self-esteem, a feature of personality consequential for physical health and mental well-being (Marmot 2004; Fisk 2010). Therefore, it stands to reason that concerns about social status might enter into the political decisions people make.
[From Gideon and Ridgeway, 2017, S62]
How do I incorporate and reference literature?
When you refer to existing ideas and findings, your readers need to know what literature the ideas come from and what you think they mean. You should do this by providing the following for each finding or idea you reference from existing literature (not necessarily in this order):
Cite it
Explain to your readers what the literature says that is pertinent
Explain how this is relevant to the point of the paragraph, your research question and/or argument.
Click the image to download the file!
Putting it into practice:
Download the document to the left (taken and modified from Iyengar and Westwood (2015)). Annotate your copy by underlining when literature is cited, highlighting when the authors explain what the literature says, and bolding when the authors explain its relevance to the main point of the paragraphs, research question, and/or theory. After you finish both paragraphs, determine which of the ways Iyengar and Westwood are using literature by revisiting the italicized questions above.
If you have been assigned this exercise for class, you can use the button below to submit your annotated paragraph via an online form. (Note: Please do NOT open this version in Google Docs and annotate it without downloading or making your own copy.)
How do I communicate what the literature says?
How, exactly should you communicate the information in the literature? We generally communicate information from sources (whether scholarly literature or other sources of information) in three ways:
Quote the source by using its exact language with quotation marks or in a block quotation.
Paraphrase the source by restating a short passage in your own words.
Summarize the source by restating its ideas in fewer words than the original.
When should you quote versus paraphrase versus summarize?
If it’s long, summarize. If a passage is more than a paragraph or two, summarize it. Never quote or paraphrase long passages.
Don’t quote too much. If you use many passages from sources, do not quote them all. Too many quotations will make readers wonder whether you have contributed any of your own ideas.
Quote only when exact words matter. Where the results or ideas matter, communicate those, not the words used to report them. If a passage from a source is your primary evidence, quote it (or, if it is too long, quote parts of it). If the exact words of a secondary source matter, quote them.
How do I structure my literature review?
Earlier, you were encouraged to write a literature review that “is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.“ If you should not structure your literature review as a descriptive list, then how should you structure it? The structure of your literature review should reflect some larger point about the contribution your argument makes to the existing knowledge. There are many ways to accomplish this, but you can find three suggested frameworks below.
Arranging a Debate
Arranging a debate means reviewing the literature in a way that a establishes a “conversation” between two schools of thought on a question. In doing so, you demonstrate your grasp of the literature by unpacking why they disagree (have authors made different assumptions? Explained different outcomes? Worked under different scope conditions, or in different contexts?). To contextualize your argument, show how it can reconcile this debate.
Example:
Building blocks of one potential review of this literature:
Why do these schools disagree? They disagree about which types of forces are the most relevant for explaining regime change (norms versus formal institutions).
What theory could be built from this? Perhaps certain norms matter in presidential systems, but are less consequential in parliamentary systems.
How would this theory intervene in and reconcile the debate? If the theory is true, then the relationship between norms and democratic stability may depend on the type of formal institutions delineated in the constitution.
Identifying a Gap
Identifying a gap means showing that a “hole” exists in what we know. It entails defining the edge of existing knowledge, beyond which we still have unanswered questions. In doing so, you demonstrate your grasp of literature by explaining why we haven’t filled the gap yet (Has nobody asked this question yet? Do explanations exist but fall short? Is a new method or approach required? Are we moving to a new context?) To contextualize your argument, show how it can fill the gap in existing knowledge.
Example:
Building blocks of one potential review of this literature:
Why is there a hole in this literature? Because most existing work on ethnic identity formation has focused within a single generation, rather than over longer periods of time.
What theory could be built from this? One theory that could fill this hole may be: beliefs about ethnic identity will be passed down chiefly in parochial regions without robust public education.
How would this theory intervene in and fill this gap in the literature? This theory would account for the mechanisms of how ethnic identity persists over time.
Picking a Fight
Picking a fight, here, means identifying a problem with an existing explanation or research agenda (Does it fail to explain an important case, or something you observe? Does it rely on an unsubstantiated assumption? Is there a logical flaw? A missing mechanism? Have scholars focused on the wrong outcome?) In doing so, you demonstrate your grasp of literature by explaining why this is a problem – what potential knowledge do we lose due to this problem? What potential mistakes have we made? To contextualize your argument, show how it revises the conventional wisdom and fixes that problem.
Example:
Building blocks of one potential review of this literature:
What is the problem with the conventional wisdom? The conventional wisdom makes a broad assumption that rising income moderate people’s political beliefs.
Why is this a problem? The evidence suggests this may be a poor assumption: we may observe cases (e.g., Ukraine; U.S.) where high GDP coexists with extremist beliefs.
What theory could be built from this? Perhaps rising incomes moderate political beliefs and bolster democracy only in places that already have a strong civil society.
How would this theory intervene in and fix this problem with the conventional wisdom? This theory would add nuance to the conventional wisdom by pointing out how rising income may shape beliefs differently across different contexts.