The Literature Review 3 edition Six Steps To Success Lawrence A. Machi Brenda T. McEvoy

Step Five: Critique the Literature 5 Step Five: Critique the Literature Interpreting the Research There is a difference between findings and conclusions. Findings are the facts about the subject in question. Conclusions are the legitimate positions or the actions to be taken that logically follow from an examination of the findings. Findings must be critically analyzed to create a logical argument that leads to a warranted conclusion. Given the findings, what legitimate conclusions can be drawn to address the topic query? Step 5, the critique of the literature, conducts this analysis, producing the advocacy argument and its resulting thesis statement. This chapter defines the process of critiquing the literature.

Covered in this Presentation This chapter defines the process of critiquing the literature. It addresses the descriptive and implicative reasoning needed to draw logical conclusions. Nine logic patterns are presented for use in constructing advocacy arguments. The conditional rules, which are the criteria for testing the legitimacy of these logics, are also provided. The chapter closes with a discussion of the pitfalls and fallacies that create fallacious arguments. The Chapter is built on seven concepts that provide the principles for completing the three tasks of the literature critique process.

CONCEPT 1. MAKING THE CASE FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW Chain reasoning is the logical pattern for diagramming the if/then argument used to build the case for a literature review. The first argument is constructed citing certain facts as evidence (R1 . . . . Rn), logically leading to the conclusions (C1). The conclusions drawn from the first argument become the evidence (C1) for the second argument. Using the evidence (C1) as their bases, conclusions (C2) are drawn to directly address the question posed, thereby creating the thesis (T). Page reference: 109-110. Speak to the slide. Review Chapter 4 for the background for the particulars regarding chain reasoning and complex argumentation. Refer to Chapter for the initial discussion of the literature review case.

CONCEPT 2. DESCRIPTIVE ARGUMENT PATTERNS: FACTUAL REASONING The descriptive argument follows an if/then pattern, where the then part is true whenever the if part is true. Comparison or contrast logic schemes are used to form these advocacy arguments. Convergent and divergent mapping, such as a Venn diagram are employed to organize argument premises. Side-by-side logic patterns serve as the warranting schemes for the descriptive argument. In descriptive arguments, warrant validity relies on the strength authority of the claims that form the premises of the advocacy argument. Page reference: 110-112. Speak to the slide. Use the bulleted points in the right column to explain the graphic to the left.

CONCEPT 3. IMPLICATIVE ARGUMENT PATTERNS: IMPLICATIVE REASONING Implicative reasoning, by definition, is a logical interpretation of evidence that produces propositions that signal a specific conclusion. If A is true, then we can assert that B is also true. The advocacy argument asks the questions: “If the premises stating what is known about the research question are X, then what can I conclude?” “What logical link makes the if/then connection?” Wayne Grennan identified nine basic implicative argument patterns that are used to create the logical link between the evidence and conclusion. Page reference: 112-114. Use bulleted points in the right column to explain graphic to the left. When addressing bullet point one, you might also discuss the if/then case as a form of deductive logic. Also add that the logical reasoning employed to warrant the case is critical to reaching a valid and credible conclusion- a defensible thesis.

CONCEPT 4. THE IMPLICATIVE ARGUMENT: NINE BASIC PATTERNS Page reference: 114- 120 Speak to the slide. For further explanation and examples refer to the referenced pages.

CONCEPT 5. BACKING Backing is the presence of those conditions that justify the warrant. For a reasonable implicative pattern for the argument to be valid, but two questions must be satisfied: Is the argument pattern type legitimate? Have the prerequisite conditions associated with the argument type been satisfied? Each of the argument pattern types has a rule of logic that makes it operable. Each relies on this rule as a specific condition that you must fulfill to use the argument pattern type correctly. Without meeting these conditions, the rule of logic that forms the argument pattern type is not valid. Page reference: 120. Speak to slide. Emphasize the second bulleted point.

Doing a Critique of the Literature: Building the Advocacy Argument Page reference:120-123. Task One The topic of study can be stated in the form of a question or a declaration. To determine the appropriate implicative logic pattern, look for the keywords in the topic statement or research question that signal the implicative logic needed to form the argument of advocacy. Once these keywords are identified, refer to the nine logic types and select the appropriate one that will make the connection between the claims made in the discovery argument to form the premises of the advocacy argument. Use Chapter example if needed. Task Two Once we have identified the appropriate logic type and its prerequisites, we do the critique of the literature. This critique is an analysis of the claims and evidence of the discovery argument. The criteria for this analysis are the prerequisite conditions established by the logic type. The purpose of the analysis is to align or reframe discovery claims so they become valid premises for the argument of advocacy. Task Three If Tasks 1 and 2 have been done correctly, Task 3 becomes a simple exercise. Having the correct premises organized and defined and knowing the appropriate logic type makes drawing conclusions easy. These declarative statements will quickly become evident when we complete this statement: “Since these are the facts of the case, we can only conclude. . .

Building the Literature Review Case: An Example, the Discovery Argument Page Reference:123-127 Refer to the referenced pages, if you decide to use the example.

Building the Literature Review Case: An Example, the Advocacy Argument Page Reference:123-127 Refer to the referenced pages, if you decide to use the example.

CONCEPT 6. FALLACIES Fallacies are arguments that lead to a mistaken or misleading conclusion. jumping to a faulty conclusion. When a researcher asserts a conclusion based on skeletal evidence or by an incomplete evaluation of the evidence. presenting a conclusion without properly addressing other alternatives. Presenting a one-sided argument usually occurs when the researcher either was blinded by a preferred conclusion or did not delve deeply enough into the data to find alternative possibilities. name-calling. Research that attacks data, a position taken, or an expert by impugning the personal character of the author. appeals to emotions. Research that bases its argument on an emotional rather than an evidentiary position. appeals to ignorance. Research that uses a backdoor logic that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false. Misplaced causality. Often occurs when research uses the arguments of cause to effect or effect to cause, to prove causality without considering other actions or events that could have a bearing on the connection. begging the question. The researcher asserts a claim and uses that claim as the evidence for the assertion. This is circular reasoning. disconnected conclusion. Research that reaches a conclusion without evidence to support it. everybody knows that. Research that reaches a conclusion based on some ill-defined or vague notion of a case. No evidence is presented. Instead, the researcher bases the claim on false premises or on opinion. loaded question. Research based on a research question that contains one or more false or questionable presuppositions. poisons the well. Research that biases the argument by using controlling language. Here, the researcher uses descriptive language to sell the argument, either negatively or positively, without respect for the evidence. Page reference: 127-129 Speak to the slide.

CONCEPT 7. THE CASE IS EVERYTHING The thesis case is the critical part of any literature review. The literature review must present a sound case that backs up its thesis. If the case isn’t made , the review fails to meet its purpose and lacks credibility. Presenting the case, the soundness of its arguments, and the clarity of its logic are the primary concerns of the literature survey and critique. When building a literature survey and critique, you must constantly decide whether you are making a case correctly. Page reference: 129. Speak to the slide.