Clayton Thyne PS 235: World Politics Spring 2010 Note: This is best viewed as a slide show (otherwise the animations will be screwed up). Hit F5 now to proceed.

What is a Lit Review? A lit review summarizes and evaluates a body of writings about a specific topic 2 key elements: 1. concisely summarize the key findings/claims from prior research 2. reach a conclusion about how complete/accurate the knowledge is (what’s right/wrong, conclusive/inconclusive?) It is not a summary list (i.e., annotated bibliography) Notes based on Knopf (2006)

Why write a lit review? Gives a general overview of lit that is not familiar to you Reveals what has already been done Gives you new ideas on your research Tells you what holes you can fill Helps you place your research in a broader context Notes based on Knopf (2006)

Types of Lit Reviews 1. End in itself – excellent if you can find them 2. Preliminary stage in a larger project – what you’re doing 3. Component of a finished research report – finish project by addressing previous literature Notes based on Knopf (2006)

Your Contribution to Knowledge May be theoretical or empirical May overthrow previous theories and/or findings, or may support them Regardless, the reader must know the current state of knowledge in order to understand your contribution Notes based on Knopf (2006)

How to Create an Effective Review Consider your sources – peer-reviewed is always the best; avoid biased sources Imitate published work Summarize each work in 1-2 sentences Focus on what is relevant; avoid tedious details No item-by-item lists; group into ‘camps’ or ‘schools of thought’ Look for review articles – Annual Review of International Relations; Annual Review of Political Science; PhD dissertations are a great sources; textbooks often do a decent job; journal articles often skip the lit review or make it very brief Notes based on Knopf (2006)

Nuts & Bolts: What the Lit Review Should Accomplish 1. Be clear about the purpose of each article (in terms of theory, DV, and Ivs) 2. Identify main argument; did the author find support? 3. Summarize articles from steps 1-2 in terms of 1. Areas of agreement 2. Areas of disagreement 3. Gaps/holes that need filled – may be theoretical (new way of thinking about an issue) or empirical (new way of testing the issue) or both 4. Evaluate the overall state of knowledge; consider… 1. Assumptions 2. Logic 3. Evidence 4. Methodology Notes based on Knopf (2006)

What if there are too few/many sources? Think in terms of 2 tiers: Tier 1: studies that directly address your research question Tier 2: studies that overlap somewhat w/ your question Begin w/ tier 1… …if too few sources, broaden to tier 2 …if too many, consider… Leading authorities (e.g., only journal articles) Recent studies (e.g., published since 2002) Studies most relevant to your topic Notes based on Knopf (2006)

Some examples Notes based on Bartilow & Eom (2009) Quickly identifies 3 areas of lit Then point to the hole in the literature

Clearly states both a (1) theoretical and (2) empirical contribution Notes based on Bartilow & Eom (2009)

Morey & Kadera’s contribution is primarily theoretical, so they review the literature on dynamic modeling. They conclude by pointing to the hole in the literature – the need to use a dynamic model to approach this question. Notes based on Kadera & Morey (2008)

Thyne & Moreno focus primarily on policy. Notes based on Thyne & Moreno (2008)

They note a disjuncture between policy expectations and reality… …and then critique previous scholars’ attempts to explain this disjuncture. Notes based on Thyne & Moreno (2008)

Wallace reviews the dominant literature in this area, which focuses on domestic factors. He then critiques the literature for its methodology. Notes based on Wallace (2008)