Today we're here to ponder that age-old question:
Which came first - the annotated bibliography or the literature review? When reading this excerpt from the UNA Writing Center, I felt validated in my own process. Yes, the annotated bib and the lit review are two different pieces of writing with different structures and purposes, but I have almost always created an annotated bibliography when I'm working on a literature review. I like organizing my notes in annotated bib form when I'm starting the research process. This helps me keep track of citations, and the summaries remind me which article was which. When working on heavy-duty research this organization is super important. However, the annotated bibliography fails to show the connections between readings. So, eventually, when the reading is done, even though the reading is never really done ... My annotated bib morphs into a matrix. I reorganize things according to theme - my preferred organization method. From the matrix the words of the literature review flow. The literature review exists in long-form prose. Readers gain an understanding of how ideas are related or how those ideas have changed over time. My big trouble with the literature review is my urge to insert my own voice. The prose form lends itself to my criticism of the literature, but I should only act as a curator weaving together established research.
0 Comments
|
AuthorI'm just a math teacher, trying to figure it out. Archives
December 2019
Categories |