1. The Literature Review

2. A Literature Review is:
An up-to-date analysis and synthesis of the scholarly conversation on a given topic. It should tell the reader what arguments scholars have made / are making, how they are making them (method) if necessary, and how the conversation has changed over time. The Lit. Review should demonstrate that you can see the outlines of the larger scholarly conversation on your given topic.

3. The steps for writing a Lit. Review
Research Question – of course…
Find your Sources
Organize and Synthesize your Sources
Write the Review

4. How NOT to write a Lit. Review
All summary, No synthesis

5. One way of thinking about a Lit. Review
A large thought
bubble with
multiple sections
or themes
When you read all of the lit in a certain field you will begin to notice that authors cover some of the same themes, and subjects, or use similar methods. As you move through the literature, begin to group the larger conversation by these themes. Soon you will have clearly definable groups.
You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.
The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.
Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

6. Another Way of thinking about a Lit. Review
A series of buckets into which you groups different takes on a field or topic

7. How TO write a Lit. Review

8. Remember the Burkean Parlor Metaphor
“Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress.”
-Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form,