Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success - Mary Renck Jalongo, Olivia N. Saracho 2016
Evaluative Criteria
From a Class Paper to a Publishable Review
Conference Proposals and Article Types
After a doctoral candidate shared Chap.2 with her committee, all agreed that it was an exemplary review of the relevant literature. One committee member said, “While reading this, I felt as though I were being taken on a tour of a mansion with an exceptionally knowledgeable docent. The commentary followed the pathway of the tour and provided keen insights.” Taking this analogy one step further, a poorly written literature review is comparable to docents who have merely memorized some information and repeat it each time they conduct a tour. They often are confounded by questions because they have surface knowledge rather than a deep understanding. In fact, they rely on memorization so much that pausing to answer a question can cause them to “lose their place” and get confused.
What characteristics distinguish high-quality reviews of the literature from those that are less so? In a fascinating study that “graded” dissertations (Lovitt, 2005), 272 faculty members in 74 departments across 10 disciplines at 9 research universities participated in focus groups that supplied descriptors for “outstanding”, “very good”, “acceptable”, and “unacceptable” dissertations. Collectively they had 6,129 years of experience, had chaired approximately 3,470 dissertations, and had served on 9,890 dissertation committees. In a nutshell, outstanding dissertations had the best literature reviews; they were characterized with statements such as: “exhibits mature, independent thinking,” “has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice,” “displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature,” and “has a conceptual framework and shows a deep understanding of theory”. Merely acceptable dissertations that were “workmanlike” and “a chore to read”. So, how does an author progress to more sophisticated understandings of the work of reviewing? Table 5.4 highlights some of the comments about literature reviews based on Lovitt’s (2007) research.
Table 5.4
“Grading” the literature review
Outstanding |
Very good |
Acceptable |
Unacceptable |
Is original, ambitious, brilliant, clear, coherent, compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful |
Has some original ideas, insights, and observations, but is less original, significant, ambitious, interesting, and exciting than the outstanding category |
Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight |
Lacks careful thought |
Is very well written and organized |
Misses opportunities to completely explore interesting issues and connections |
Is not interesting, exciting, or surprising |
Does not understand or misses relevant literature |
Synthesizes the literature well and is interdisciplinary |
Makes a modest contribution to the field |
Is pedestrian, plodding and a chore to read |
Has a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument |
Connects components in a seamless way |
Is well written and organized |
Contains an acceptable amount of solid work to show that the student can do research |
Does not handle theory well, or theory is missing or wrong |
Exhibits mature, independent thinking |
Shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter |
Tends to be highly derivative, often an extension of the adviser’s work |
Has wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis |
Argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained |
Has a strong, comprehensive, and coherent argument |
Adds little to the field and lacks consequence |
Has unsupported or exaggerated interpretation |
Has a point of view and a confident, independent, and authoritative voice |
Displays a narrow understanding of the field |
Does not make a contribution |
|
Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature |
Does not critique the literature |
||
Conclusion ties the whole thing together |
Fails to present an imaginative, complex, or convincing argument |
||
Is publishable in top-tier journals |