chapters 5 and 2

I have put it off long enough. Now I need to begin my review of literature. Well, “begin” isn’t the right word, really, because I actually wrote the review of literature a year ago. But it needs major revision. At the very, very least, I need to add a section on reader comments on drafts and rework the way I grouped things. Major revision. I am so not looking forward to it because every time I think about revising it, I think of another section I should probably add (a whole section on instructor response, a whole section on peer response, a whole section on computers and the writing process. . . . ). At a certain level I know I am making the review of literature bigger than it needs to be. I try to keep reminding myself that it needs to be a review of relevant literature. Relevant.



In true dissertator fashion, instead of working on the review of literature this morning, I’ve surfed the ‘net looking for stuff on writing reviews of literature. Here’s what I’ve found:

• A good review of the components of a review of literature


• Some strategies for finding focus in the review


• More on organizing the review of lit


• Great explanation of how to use a summary to set context in a review of lit

Mine will be organized thematically, with these themes:

1.      Studies on revision

1.1.   studies that quantify revision and articulate types of revisions

1.2.   studies that treat revision as part of a dialogic writing process

1.3.   studies that treat revision as a process of engaging (rather than erasing) dissonances

2.      Studies on reader comments on drafts

2.1.   studies that focus on instructor comments

2.2.   studies that focus on peer comments

Chapter five is drafted and sucks. I’ve sent the sucky draft to my advisor with an email that basically says, “This sucks. Help.” I feel like chapter 5 repeats the good parts of chapter 4 and adds nothing new. It’s supposed to analyze themes that are common to the four case studies discussed in chapter 4, which is does, but it feels like it lacks any context. In looking for Websites that deal with reviews of literature I came across this one , and although it doesn’t say anything I didn’t already know, for some reason, this passage jumped out at me:

Chapter Five is a “Discussion.” You tie in Chapter 2 with Chapter 4 and discuss how your results fit with the review of literature. You write about how your study complements or disputes other studies that you found in your review of literature. Did your study agree with some authors? Disagree with others?

This passage reminds me that I need to tie in my analysis with the literature. Duh. There’s the context that’s missing.

links: del.icio.us    technorati