Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Developing a structure for a literature review requires an understanding of the taxonomies of knowledge that
apply in the field of research:
Authors of academic texts often create new taxonomies to describe their research findings or to develop
explanatory models or theories.
However, sometimes these taxonomies are deeply embedded in the text, especially if the writer assumes
that the reader does not require reminding of them (Kaldor & Rochecouste forthcoming).
'Top-down' readers may not immediately recognise the subcategories of knowledge that make up their
research field. They may not have read widely enough to encompass many of them or the distinctions
within the field may be too subtle for a non-native speaker of English to identify.
Frequently students, and particularly 'bottom up' readers, are not able to 'stand back' sufficiently from the
content material to look at the whole organisation of knowledge with the specific field.
'Bottom-up' readers may be fixed on their own area of interest and reluctant to consider as relevant
anything that does not immediately relate to their initial focus. This group might ignore possible related
areas of knowledge within the field.
Application of the authoritative approach to writing a literature review requires students
to develop their own taxonomy of knowledge from their readings. The structure of this taxonomy may be
based on:
the historical development of the field of research,
its application in different geographical locations or with different populations, or
its interpretation through different theoretical perspectives.
References:
Kaldor, S. & Rochecouste, J. (forthcoming) General Academic Writing and Discipline Specific Academic
writing.
Structuring your literature review
Developing a structure for a literature review requires an understanding of the taxonomies of knowledge that
apply in the field of research:
Authors of academic texts often create new taxonomies to describe their research findings or to develop
explanatory models or theories.
However, sometimes these taxonomies are deeply embedded in the text, especially if the writer assumes
that the reader does not require reminding of them (Kaldor & Rochecouste forthcoming).
'Top-down' readers may not immediately recognise the subcategories of knowledge that make up their
research field. They may not have read widely enough to encompass many of them or the distinctions
within the field may be too subtle for a non-native speaker of English to identify.
Frequently students, and particularly 'bottom up' readers, are not able to 'stand back' sufficiently from the
content material to look at the whole organisation of knowledge with the specific field.
'Bottom-up' readers may be fixed on their own area of interest and reluctant to consider as relevant
anything that does not immediately relate to their initial focus. This group might ignore possible related
areas of knowledge within the field.
Application of the authoritative approach to writing a literature review requires students
to develop their own taxonomy of knowledge from their readings. The structure of this taxonomy may be
based on:
the historical development of the field of research,
its application in different geographical locations or with different populations, or
its interpretation through different theoretical perspectives.
References:
Kaldor, S. & Rochecouste, J. (forthcoming) General Academic Writing and Discipline Specific Academic
writing.
Reporting verbs
Reporting verbs are those verbs which we use when talking about text. Without a strong command of these verbs, we cannot
engage authoritatively with the knowledge gained from reading. Very often student writers describe previous research in
isolation, divorced from or with only tenuous links to the broader context of academic research. But as Buckingham and
Nevile (1997) point out, the academic world is "complex multi-member" community where "any individual researcher's
'studying', 'finding', arguing' etc. occurs always in the context of other researchers 'studying' etc." (p98) and demonstrating
the contribution of one's current or intended research to the broader field of study, a necessary requirement of graduate
study, requires engaging with the ongoing discussion of the community.
Thompson and Ye's (1991) distinction between:
the 'author act' which denotes what the author has done, eg. 'found', 'argued', 'believed', and
the 'writer act' which represents a point which the student writer is responsible for, eg. 'X's claim has become...', 'X's model
corresponds to..'.
A second dimension, also from Thompson and Ye (1991) is the distinction between:
'denotational' reporting verbs or those which impose no attitude on the part of the writer, eg. 'X reports that...', 'X has
studied...', and
'evaluational' speech act verbs which show some deeper involvement by the author, eg. 'X believes that...', 'X argues that...'.
Further evaluation can also be added with modifying adjectives and adverbs, eg:
'X argues convincingly..',
'X's excellent review of...',
'In a comprehensive study by Y,...'
References
Buckingham, J. & Nevile, M. (1997) Comparing the citation choices of experienced academic writers and first year students.
In Golebiowski, Z. (ed) Policy and Practice of Tertiary Literacy: Selected Proceedings of the First National conference on
Tertiary Literacy: Research and Practice. Volume 1, pp96-107.
Kaldor, S., & Rochecouste, J. (forthcoming) General Academic Writing and Discipline Specific Academic Writing
Thompson, G. & Ye Yiyun (1991) Evaluation in reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics 12 (4) 365-
382.
Academic phraseology