Boote y Beile 2005 Scholars Before Researchers

Features1~--6]
Scholars Before Researchers:

On the Centrality of the Dissertation
Literature Review in Research Preparation
by David N. Boote and Penny Beile
A thorough, sophisticated literature review is the foundation and in- disciplines. We then argue that current initiatives and faculty fo-
spiration for substantial, useful research. The complex nature of edu- cuses have ignored the centrality of the literature review in re-
cation research demands such thorough, sophisticated reviews. search preparation, in turn weakening the quality of education
research. This oversight has its roots, we believe, in a too-narrow
Although doctoral education is a key means for improving education
conception of the literature review-as merely an exhaustive
research, the literature has given short shrift to the dissertation liter-
summary of prior research-and a misunderstanding of its role
ature review. This article suggests criteria to evaluate the quality of in research. By building on the extant literature that supports the
dissertation literature reviews and reports a study that examined dis- centrality of the literature review, we offer a practical framework
sertations at three universities. Acquiring the skills and knowledge from which to analyze the quality of doctoral dissertation reviews
required to be education scholars, able to analyze and synthesize the of the literature. We end by further developing our understand-
research in a field of specialization, should be the focal, integrative
ing of the literature review and indicating some means of im-
proving the situation.
activity of predissertation doctoral education. Such scholarship is a
prerequisite for increased methodological sophistication and for im- The Role and Purpose of the Literature Review
proving the usefulness of education research.
in Education Research
A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a pre-
condition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research.
"Good" research is good because it advances our collective under-
e have all heard the joke before-as we move standing. To advance our collective understanding, a researcher
through graduate school, we learn more and more or scholar needs to understand what has been done before, the
about less and less until we know everything about strengths and weaknesses of existing studies, and what they
nothing. It is expected that someone earning a doctorate has a might mean. A researcher cannot perform significant research
thorough and sophisticated understanding of an area of research without first understanding the literature in the field. Not under-
and scholarship. Unfortunately, many doctoral dissertations in standing the prior research clearly puts a researcher at a disadvan-
education belie the joke, their authors failing to master the liter- tage. Shulman argues that generativi~-along with discipline,
ature that is supposed to be the foundation of their research. If publication, and peer review-is one of the hallmarks of schol-
their dissertation literature reviews are any indication, many of arship (1999, p. 162-163). He defines generativity as the ability
these now-doctors know bits and pieces of a disorganized topic. to build on the scholarship and research of those who have come
Yet we cannot blame them for their failure to demonstrate what before us. Generativity grants our work integrity and sophistica-
we, the education research community, have not clearly articu- tion. To be useful and meaningful, education research must be
lated or valued. cumulative; it must build on and learn from prior research and
Acquiring the skills and knowledge required to be education scholarship on the topic.
scholars should be the focal, integrative activity of predissertation Yet the messy, complicated nature of problems in education
doctoral education. Preparing students to analyze and synthesize makes generativity in education research more difficult than in
research in a field of specialization is crucial to understanding ed- most other fields and disciplines (Berliner, 2002) and demands
ucational ideas. Such preparation is prerequisite to choosing a that we develop more sophisticated literature reviews. In tradi-
productive dissertation topic and appropriating fruitful methods tional disciplinary research, where a researcher is communicating
of data collection and analysis. with a well-defined audience about commonly accepted problems
In this article, we first argue that a thorough, sophisticated re- and where disciplinary research often is based on a canon of
view ofliterature is even more important in education research, shared knowledge, the researcher's Ii terature review is somewhat
with its messy, complex problems, than in most other fields and easier to construct. However, in education research we are often
faced with the challenge of communicating with a diverse audi-
Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 3-15
ence, and it is very difficult for us to assume shared knowledge,
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005 112:::
This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:26:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
methodologies, or even commonly agreed-upon problems (Boote viewers identified. We speculate that the shortcomings that edi-
& Gaudelli, 2002). Few of us work within a subfield of education tors and reviewers bemoan stem from insufficient preparation in
research that approaches "normal science" (T. S. Kuhn, 1970)- doctoral programs. Methodological training cannot occur in a
there are very few clear, cumulative research programs in educa- vacuum, and increased training in research methods alone will
tion. Because such well-formed research communities are the not lead to better research. Instead, we must recognize the cen-
exception rather than the rule, it is all the more important that trality of the literature review in doctoral research preparation and
novice education researchers learn the craft of constructing a broaden our understanding of what literature reviewing entails.
foundation on which their research can be built.
Education Research and Doctoral Preparation
AB the foundation of any research project, the literature review
should accomplish several important objectives. It sets the broad There is an emerging consensus that the perceived lack of qual-
context of the study, clearly demarcates what is and what is not ity in education research stems from problems with doctoral
within the scope of the investigation, and justifies those deci- preparation and that improving doctoral education is key to im-
sions. It also situates an existing literature in a broader scholarly proving education research. Initiatives by several foundations
and historical context. It should not only report the claims made have spawned a small but healthy literature analyzing the prob-
in the existing literature but also examine critically the research lems of doctoral education, describing revised programs, and mak-
methods used to better understand whether the claims are war- ing recommendations.'
ranted. Such an examination of the literature enables the author to When considering the criteria and standards used to evaluate
distinguish what has been learned and accomplished in the area of a dissertation, we need to keep in mind that most people with
study and what still needs to be learned and accomplished. More- doctorates in education do not go on to pursue research careers.
over, this type of review allows the author not only to summarize Most teach, administer, or lead (Passmore, 1980). Yet anyone
the existing literature but also to synthesize it in a way that permits earning a doctorate ought to be a steward of the field of educa-
a new perspective. Thus a good literature review is the basis of both tion (Richardson, 2003), with all the rights and responsibilities
theoretical and methodological sophistication, thereby improving thereto appertaining. One of our responsibilities-whether we
the quality and usefulness of subsequent research. become a researcher, teacher, administrator, or leader-is to
It is a broadly held assumption that successful doctoral candi- know the literature in our field. And the best avenue for acquir-
dates need to be "comprehensive and up to date in reviewing the ing knowledge of the literature (beyond taking courses and com-
literature" (Barry, 1997) and that their dissertations demonstrate prehensive examinations) is the dissertation literature review.
this prowess. For most education researchers, the doctoral dis- Yet it is apparent that for many, if not most, doctoral candi-
sertation is the capstone to formal academic training and, as dates and dissertation committees, the literature review is of sec-
such, should be high quality and comprehensive and should re- ondary importance. This was not always the case. U mil the 19th
flect emerging research. The academic communiry ought to be century, the doctorate was primarily a teaching degree, certify-
able to assume that a dissertation literature review indicates a ing that one had a thorough and sophisticated grasp of a partic-
doctoral candidate's abiliry to locate and evaluate scholarly in- ular field of study. As such, the dissertation and accompanying
formation and to synthesize research in his or her field. oral examination served primarily to assess one's suitability as a
Despite the assumption that dissertation literature reviews are scholar and a teacher. Graduate education in the United States
comprehensive and up-to-date, the dirty secret known by those developed in a period when German universities were ascendant
who sit on dissertation committees is that most literature reviews and when "America copied the German version of advanced
are poorly conceptualized and written. Our secret is made pub- studies ... unfortunately the period when the Berlin positivists
lic by editors and reviewers who openly lament the inadequacy were in the ascendancy" (Berelson, 1960, p. 12; see also Storr,
ofliterature reviews in manuscripts submitted for journal publi- 1969). As a result, the U.S. doctorate was designed to focus on
cation (Alton-Lee, 1998; Grant & Graue, 1999; LeCompte, research training, and the dissertation became a vehicle for
Klingner, Campbell, & Menk, 2003). From Alton-Lee's com- demonstrating research prowess. 2
pilation of reviews of manuscripts submitted to Teaching and Consistent with the assumption that the doctorate is primar-
Teacher Education, we can begin to see the problems associated ily for research training, the limited U.S. literature on education
with research by scholars who do not know the literature in their doctorates has focused primarily on methodological and episte-
fields. For the 58 manuscripts submitted for review over a I-year mological issues and to a lesser extent on the core and canon of
period, she identified 369 distinct criticisms in the 142 reviews, education knowledge. Barger and Duncan (1986) raise difficult
which she divided into 13 broad categories. Methodological is- questions about the assumption that doctoral candidates should
sues were most common, but reviewers also identified theoreti- be expected to do creative scholarly work, and outline what they
cal shortcomings (31 times), inadequacies in literature review feel are the psychological, theoretical-methodological, and insti-
(29), parochial focus (23), failure to add to the international lit- tutional contexts required for creative work. Based on a collec-
erature (21), and failure to link findings to literature (20). tion of anecdotes and experiences, Schoenfeld (1999) identifies
In short, it appears that either many of the authors who sub- a number of difficulties and dilemmas facing doctoral education.
mit manuscripts to this international journal do not know the Among these are specialization that leads to compartmentaliza-
literature in their fields or else their knowledge of their fields does tion, theorizing that leads to superficiality, and simplistic ap-
not inform the presentation of their manuscripts. Moreover, a proaches to methodology that hinder a deep understanding of
better understanding of the research in their field might have what it means to make and justify a claim about educational phe-
aided them with the other methodological problems that the re- nomena. Schoenfeld suggests that many graduates complete their
31 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
degrees unable to identify and frame workable research prob- graduate students could be forgiven for thinking that writing a
lems. literature review is no more complicated than writing a high
In a theme issue of Educational Researcher, several authors school term paper.
(Metz, 2001; Page, 2001; Pallas, 2001) discussed similar chal- These chapters and sections in introductory research text-
lenges that they had faced in educating doctoral students and books are not the extent of the literature, but other sources de-
methods that they had used in their programs to address those voted to the topic ofliterature reviewing and dissertation writing
challenges. On the basis of his experience coordinating and are little more sophisticated (e.g., Galvan, 2004; Lester, 2002;
teaching in a doctoral program, Labaree (2003) outlined some of Mauch, 1998; Nickerson, 1993; Ogden, 1993; Pan, 2003). More
the general problems facing doctoral education. He framed the advanced research textbooks and handbooks ignore the subject,
problems in terms of a clash between school and university cul- focusing entirely on methods of data collection, interpretation,
tures that occurs when we ask teachers to shift from a normative and philosophical issues. In other words, with the very few ex-
to an analytic way of thinking, from a personal to an intellectual ceptions noted below, most graduate students receive little or no
relationship with educational phenomena, from a particular to a formal training in how to analyze and synthesize the research lit-
universal perspective, and from an experimental to a theoretical erature in their field, and they are unlikely to find it elsewhere.
disposition. Bruce's ( 1994) phenomenographic study of metaphors for the
An important exception to the emphasis on methodology is literature review sheds further light on the limitations of pub-
Richardson (2003), who develops the concept of doctors of ed- lished criteria for reviewing literature. She found that research
ucation as stewards of both the field of study and the enterprise students perceive themselves in quite diverse metaphorical rela-
of education. She uses this conceptual framework to argue for the tionships with the literature in their field, ranging from listing,
knowledge, skills, and dispositions that doctoral programs in ed- searching, and surveying to acting as a vehicle for learning, facil-
ucation should inculcate. itating, and reporting. Note that the metaphor of vehicle for
The U.S. literature on the education doctorate is reminiscent learning, facilitating, and reporting suggests more sophisticated,
of the early research on learning to teach (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, developed, and integrated literature reviews. Although a litera-
& Moon, 1999); with little or no support from solid data, the ture review consistent with any of these metaphors can fulfill
authors rely on their personal prestige to discuss the problems of textbook criteria, candidates may view themselves as anywhere
practice and make recommendations for improvement. But like from metaphorically standing aside and haphazardly cataloguing
the literature on learning to teach, the literature on learning to prior findings to critically analyzing and synthesizing the field of
research must move from anecdotes, generalizations, and reports
study. Bruce's account offers further support for the view that
of programs to systematic investigation and recommendations
criteria published in popular textbooks are too vague and do not
based on evidence.
provide clear standards.
The Literature Review: A Necessary Chore? That doctoral candidates would espouse such na'ive concep-
The perceived lack of importance of the dissertation literature re- tions of literature reviewing and perceive it as relatively low in
view is seen in the paucity of research and publications devoted to importance would seem to be a product of the culture of doctoral
understanding it. Doctoral students seeking advice on how to im- programs in education. Zaporozhetz (1987) reported that doc-
prove their literature reviews will find little published guidance toral candidates felt their library skills were inadequate, while
worth heeding. Every introductory educational, social, and be- their faculty advisors admitted expecting their candidates to pos-
havioral research textbook contains a chapter or section on re- sess advanced bibliographic skills even though the advisors them-
viewing prior research as part of the research process (e.g. Babbie, selves had little knowledge of information retrieval. Faculty also
1998; Creswell, 2002; Fraenkel & W alien, 2003; Gay & Airasian, ranked the review-of-literature chapter the lowest in importance
2000; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). These chapters typically when considered in relation to the other standard dissertation
indicate the importance of the literature review, albeit in vague chapters. Zaporozhetz also reported that most dissertation chairs
terms, and briefly summarize techniques for searching electronic and students saw the literature review as a relatively routine ac-
databases and methods for abstracting prior research. We infer tivity that doctoral candidates should be able to complete alone
from these chapters and sections that the authors of these text- with little help from their advisors. And Labaree (2003) reminds
books acknowledge the importance of the literature review, at us that most doctoral students in education have little formal
least in a salutatory way, but place a much greater emphasis on training in education research and scholarship before they start
an understanding of methods of data collection and analysis. their doctorate, with their undergraduate and master's degrees
In accordance with other textbooks, Creswell (1994) suggests usually in other fields or disciplines or focused almost entirely on
that the literature review should meet three criteria: "to present education practice. Both Zaporozhetz and Labaree note that ed-
results of similar studies, to relate the present study to the ongo- ucation doctoral students tend to be mature, accomplished pro-
ing dialogue in the literature, and to provide a framework for fessionals who are committed to improving education practice.
comparing the results of a study with other studies" (p. 37). To Yet these qualities make it more difficult for them to admit that
accomplish these criteria Creswell (2002) recommends a five- they may lack library search and information synthesis skills and
step process: "identifying terms to typically use in your literature knowledge. We may speculate that, for similar reasons, it is dif-
search; locating literature; reading and checking the relevance of ficult for education faculty to admit to lacking such skills and
the literature; organizing the literature you have selected; and knowledge-and the skills and knowledge that they can claim in
writing a literature review" (p. 86). With guidelines like these, that area probably are tacit and hence difficult to teach.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005 I~
A product of this doctoral program culture is that the litera- ature with more explanatory and predictive power than is offered
ture review is not valued, and because it is not valued it is rarely by existing perspectives. Finally, it satisfies the formal criteria of a
an explicit part of doctoral curriculums. Perhaps the conflicting good theory. Standards such as consistency, parsimony, elegance,
messages and lack of formal training explain why it is not un- and fruitfulness characterize a good synthesis. Lather (1999),
heard of for education doctoral candidates to research and write LeCompte et al. (2003), and Strike and Posner seem to suggest
their literature reviews after they have decided on their research that reviewing the literature in a field perhaps does require more
problems and methods. This unsystematic approach is not sur- training than is needed to write a high school term paper and that
prising when we consider how difficult it is to find a clear artic- learning to perform substantive literature reviews should be part
ulation of the criteria and standards for quality in a literature of doctoral education.
review. Students often lack the knowledge and skills even to An interesting contrast to the U.S. literature is provided by sev-
complete thorough summaries of the existing literature, let alone eral studies from the United Kingdom and Australia, where dis-
more sophisticated forms of research synthesis. And, because lit- sertations and research theses are normally adjudicated by outside
erature review is not valued, it is also not evaluated. Dissertations examiners who submit written reports (Delamont, Atkinson, &
pass despite their poor literature reviews, and another generation Parry, 2000; Johnston, 1997; Nightingale, 1984; Pitkethly &
of education researchers fails to learn that generativity is the core Prosser, 1995; Winter, Griffiths, & Green, 2000). Noting the
of scholarship-fails to learn what it means to understand and vagueness and ambiguity of commonly espoused goals for dis-
justify an educational idea in a thorough, sophisticated way. sertations, these studies analyzed the examiners' reports to better
Librarians have been aware of these issues for some time and understand the criteria and standards of evaluation. Many of
have offered many suggestions for improving the situation (see these studies indicate that examiners often found problems with
Libutti & Kopala, 1995, for a review). Yet many librarians suf- literature reviews, although criticisms of methodology were a
fer from some of the same naive conceptions about the role of more senous concern.
the dissertation literature review as do doctoral candidates and However, a later study by Mullins and Kiley (2002) estab-
education faculty. Library instruction has tended to focus on the lished a link between methodology and the literature review.
They interviewed experienced Australian dissertation examiners
mechanics of database search strategies and on the varieties of in-
formation available. and found that examiners typically started reviewing a disserta-
tion with the expectation that it would pass; but a poorly con-
Bibliographic skills and knowledge are necessary for ensuring
ceptualized or written literature review often indicated for them
that a researcher can locate and evaluate the available literature,
that the rest of the dissertation might have problems. On en-
but a literature review should not be understood as merely an ex-
countering an inadequate literature review, examiners would
haustive summary of prior research. Instead, we need to under-
proceed to look at the methods of data collection, the analysis,
stand that the ability to write a thorough, sophisticated literature
and the conclusions much more carefully. In that way, Mullins
review is a form of scholarship requiring a broad range of skills
and Kiley found that for examiners there was a tacit link between
and knowledge-skills and knowledge that we ought to expect
candidates' knowledge of the field and their ability to do sub-
of anyone earning a doctorate.
stantive, well-justified research.
The Literature Review: Our Foundation In contrast to the vague suggestions of the U.S. research meth-
and Inspiration odology textbooks, Hart (1999) suggests a much more central
Despite the scant attention paid to literature reviewing in re- role for the literature review in doctoral dissertations. By main-
search textbooks and programs, a few authors have clearly artic- taining that a candidate simply cannot do original or substantial
ulated its centrality in research. Commenting on the importance research without a thorough understanding of the field, Hart
of reviews, Lather (1999) argued that a synthetic review should runs contrary to the assumption that data collection and analy-
serve a critical role in gatekeeping, policing, and leading to new sis constitute the centerpiece of a doctoral dissertation. In addi-
productive work, rather than merely mirroring research in a field. tion to the commonly discussed criteria of summarizing similar
studies, linking the dissertation research to ongoing research in
In an editorial in Review ofEducational Research, LeCompte and
the field, and providing a basis for comparing the dissertation
colleagues (2003) wrote on the importance of convincing emerg-
findings to prior studies, Hart contends (p. 27) that a disserta-
ing scholars that
tion literature review should clearly articulate what research
state-of-the-art literature reviews are legitimate and publishable needs be done in a field and why it is important, articulate the
scholarly documents. Too many new scholars believe that empiri- practical significance of the research, synthesize prior research to
cal research is the only" real" research; they avoid the deep levels of gain a new perspective on it, and critically analyze the research
investigation needed to create the kinds of manuscripts sought by
methods used. 1 He also analyzes the most commonly discussed
RER. This leaves education research without an integrative and
criteria and subdivides them into more understandable compo-
critical grounding in prior investigations and weakens subsequent
nents. By introducing these new criteria and setting higher ex-
work. (p. 124)
pectations, he communicates the importance not only of the
Strike and Posner (1983, pp. 356-357) further suggest that a literature review in a dissertation but also of the criteria and stan-
good synthetic review has three characteristics. First, it clarifies dards against which it should be judged.
and perhaps resolves the problems within a field of study rather It is important to emphasize here that Hart's criteria-sup-
than glossing over those problems. Second, it results in a "pro- ported by Lather (1999), LeCompte et al. (2003), and Strike and
gressive problem shift" that yields a new perspective on the liter- Posner (1983)-give us quite a different conception from that
~I EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
seen in most published accounts of dissertation literature re- nality and the exhaustivity of the resulting dissertation. The dis-
viewing. Hart clearly articulates that doctoral students must be sertation that Hjorland analyzed would probably have been ad-
successful scholars-able to critically synthesize ideas and meth- equate for most dissertation committees, but the candidate's
ods in their field-before they are to have any chance of being inability to mine the existing literature led to many erroneous
generative researchers. Contrast this with the most common con- claims about the state of knowledge in the field.
ception, which seems to entail a mechanical process of summa- Yet library search skills are not enough. Too often, coverage is
rizing a supposedly exhaustive collection of prior studies. Piqued interpreted by doctoral students as exhaustive coverage of every-
by our own experiences with doctoral students' lack of expertise thing previously written about their topic (Bruce, 200la). This
in literature reviewing, we adapted Hart's (1999) criteria to in- na"ive approach to searching and selecting prior research can
vestigate systematically how well doctoral students were learning make it very difficult for researchers to critically synthesize the
the skills of scholarship. literature in their field, especially when the literature is relatively
small or large, or when it is highly fragmented empirically, con-
Standards and Criteria of a Literature Review
ceptually, or ideologically. Bruce suggests that coverage should
In our recent study (Boote & Beile, 2004) we used Hart's (1999) be looked at more broadly. He proposes eight criteria: topicality,
criteria to develop a framework from which to analyze literature comprehensiveness, breadth, exclusion, relevance, currency, avail-
reviews in doctoral dissertations in the field of education. We also ability, and authority. Thus, for example, a student reviewing the
sought to understand whether the criteria are reasonable for a literature on a topic about which very little has been written may
dissertation literature review. Hart's criteria were adapted and need to broaden the search to examine analogous research in
incorporated into our 12-item scoring rubric, which can be other fields or topics. A student reviewing the literature on a
grouped into five categories (see Table 1). topic about which a great deal has been written may need, in-
The first category, "Coverage,'' consists of a single criterion stead, to focus on the best available evidence or on a smaller
that was not one of Hart's. Criterion A assessed how well the au- number of key conceptual pieces. Whatever the strategy adopted,
thor of the dissertation justified criteria for inclusion and exclu- the burden is on the doctoral candidate to convince the audience
sion from review. Cooper (1985) argues that that inclusion has been purposeful and thorough. Criterion A is
included in our rubric to measure the degree to which selection
coverage is probably the most distinct aspect of literature review-
criteria are clearly justified in the dissertation.
ing. The extent to which reviewers find and include relevant works
in their paper is the single activity that sets this expository form The second category, "Synthesis,'' consists of Criteria B through
apart from all others. How reviewers search the literature and how G and is designed to gauge how well the author summarized,
they make decisions about the suitability and quality of materials analyzed, and synthesized the selected literature on a topic. The
involve methods and analytic processes that are unique to this form individual criteria ask how well the author (B) distinguished what
of scholarship. (p. 12) has been done in the field from what needs to be done, (C) placed
the topic or problem in the broader scholarly literature, (D) placed
Although it is worth noting that Cooper is referring here to lit-
the research in the historical context of the field, (E) acquired and
erature reviewing as a distinct form of scholarship, we believe
enhanced the subject vocabulary, (F) articulated important vari-
that the same expectation should be applied to a literature review ables and phenomena relevant to the topic, and (G) synthesized
that is a precursor to research. and gained a new perspective on the literature. As Lather (1999)
We are encouraged in this belief by Cooper's (1985) observa- and Strike and Posner (1983) suggest, this endeavor should en-
tion that there are interesting differences among the ways that able the author to synthesize the literature, gain a new perspec-
authors search the literature and make decisions about suitabil- tive on it, and clarify what has been done and still needs to be
ity and quality. Relative novices to a topic of the review, mea- done. Such a synthesis enables the dissertation author to clarify
sured by the number of previous publications on the topic, tend and resolve inconsistencies and tensions in the literature and
to be very explicit about their search strategies and criteria and thereby make a genuine contribution to the state of knowledge
are more likely to use databases and indexes to identify and se- in the field, by developing theories with more explanatory and
lect research to review. Relative experts, on the other hand, tend predictive power, clarifying the scope and limitations of ideas,
to not be as explicit about their search strategies and criteria and posing fruitful empirical investigations, and/or identifying and
often rely on personal communications with leading researchers pursuing unresolved problems. This kind of theorizing is central
as their main means of identifying relevant research. We might to our conception of what it means to earn a doctoral degree.
infer that part of the reason that relative experts on a topic do not Criteria Hand I constitute the third category, "Methodology."
need to justify their criteria for inclusion and exclusion is that Criterion H measures how well the author identified the main
readers will assume that the well-recognized authors know the methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the
literature. Doctoral candidates are novice researchers almost by field, and analyzed their advantages and disadvantages. 4 Criterion
definition and do not have the luxury of being assumed to know I evaluates how well the author's literature review related ideas and
the literature. For that reason we believe that the onus is on doc- theories to research methodologies (a criterion not included in
toral candidates to convince their readers that they have thor- Hart's [1999] list). At minimum, an author should recognize how
oughly mined the existing literature and purposefully decided previous researchers' methodological choices affected the research
what to review. Hjorland (1988) provides a vivid case study of findings. Any sophisticated review of literature should also con-
what happens when a doctoral student lacks sophisticated library sider the research methods used in that literature and consider the
search skills; the case study shows the effects on both the origi- strengths and weaknesses of those research methods in relation the
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2oos I~
Table 1
Literature Review Scoring Rubric
Category Criterion 1 2 3 4
1. Coverage A. Justified criteria for inclusion and Did not discuss the Discussed the literature Justified inclusion and exclusion
exclusion from review. criteria inclusion or included and of literature
exclusion excluded
2. Synthesis B. Distinguished what has been Did not distinguish Discussed what has and Critically examined the state of
done in the field from what needs what has and has has not been done the field
to be done. not been done

C. Placed the topic or problem in the Topic not placed in Some discussion of Topic clearly situated in broader
broader scholarly literature broader scholarly broader scholarly scholarly literature
literature literature
D. Placed the research in the histori- History of topic not Some mention of his- Critically examined history
cal context of the field. discussed tory of topic of topic
E. Acquired and enhanced the sub- Key vocabulary not Key vocabulary defined Discussed and resolved ambigui-
ject vocabulary. discussed ties in definitions
F. Articulated important variables Key variables and Reviewed relationships Noted ambiguities in literature
and phenomena relevant to phenomena not among key variables and proposed new relationships
the topic. discussed and phenomena
G. Synthesized and gained a new Accepted literature at Some critique of Offered new perspective
perspective on the literature. face value literature
3. Methodology H. Identified the main methodolo- Research methods Some discussion of re- Critiqued research methods Introduced new methods
gies and research techniques not discussed search methods used to address problems
that have been used in the field, to produce claims with predominant
and their advantages and methods
disadvantages.
I. Related ideas and theories in the Research methods Some discussion of ap- Critiqued appropriateness of
field to research methodologies. not discussed propriateness of re- research methods to warrant
search methods to claims
warrant claims
4. Significance J. Rationalized the practical signifi- Practical significance Practical significance Critiqued practical significance of
cance of the research problem. of research not discussed research
discussed
K. Rationalized the scholarly Scholarly significance Scholarly significance Critiqued scholarly significance of
significance of the research of research not discussed research
problem. discussed
5. Rhetoric L. Was written with a coherent, Poorly conceptual- Some coherent Well developed, coherent
clear structure that supported the ized, haphazard structure
review.
Note: The column-head numbers represent scores for rating dissertation literature reviews on 3-point and 4-point scales (endnote 4 explains our choice of the two types of scales). Adapted from Doing a
Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination (p. 27), by Christopher Hart, 1999, London, SAGE Publications. Copyright 1999 by SAGE Publications. Adapted with permission.
state of the field. In many cases, the body of literature on a topic Literature Review Analysis Findings
is limited by the research methods used and advances within the After developing our rubric, we initially examined 30 dissertations
field can be traced back to increased methodological sophistica- awarded in the year 2000 from three state-funded colleges of ed-
tion. Very sophisticated literature reviews might recognize the ucation in the United States; we selected 12 of those dissertations
methodological weaknesses of a field of study and propose new for full analysis. The three colleges all offered doctoral degrees in
methodologies to compensate for those weaknesses. Criteria H addition to significant involvement with preservice teacher edu-
and I measured how well the doctoral candidates identified the cation, had similar rates of acceptance to their graduate pro-
main methodologies and research techniques used in the field, grams, and had a comparable number of faculty members. One
analyzed their advantages and disadvantages, and related the college was ranked by US News & WorU Report among the top
ideas and theories in the field to the research methodologies. To 15 U.S. colleges of education; one was among the top 30; and
score well, the candidates could justify their own methodologi- one was not ranked. Although we are cautious regarding the
cal choices and perhaps even suggest and justify new research methods used by US News & WorU Report to rank schools, our
methods. sample represents something of the diversity among state-funded
The fourth category, "Significance," includes Criteria] and K, education doctoral programs. From these schools we chose a
which measure how well the dissertation rationalized the practi- stratified random sample of thirty dissertations representing the
cal CT) and scholarly (K) significance of the research problem. We general topics of education leadership, educational psychology,
would expect that, at minimum, a dissertation should discuss instructional or learning theory, and teacher education. Our analy-
both the scholarly and the practical implications of the existing sis of dissertation literature reviews supports Schoenfeld's (1999)
research on a topic and, preferably, note any ambiguities or short- contention that doctoral students may not be learning what it
comings in the literature. Some dissertations clearly are more means to make and justify educational claims. 5
scholarly in their orientation and others are more practical, but Our findings raise interesting questions about doctoral candi-
we prefer that any dissertation explain both the practical and the dates' ability to write a thorough and sophisticated literature re-
scholarly significance and limitations of prior research on the view and what doctoral dissertation committees will accept as
topic (Richardson, 2003). This expectation acknowledges the im- adequate. Although our analysis of scores revealed differences in
portance oflinking research and practice in the field of education. quality of dissertation literature reviews among the institutions,
The final category, "Rhetoric," also consists of a single item, mean scores across all the institutions were surprisingly low.
Criterion L, which measures whether the literature review was These results must be interpreted cautiously because of our small
written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the re- sample, but we cannot deny that the worst literature reviews we
view. This criterion, too, was not included in Hart's list, but it analyzed were mere disjointed summaries of a haphazard collec-
emerged as an important one as we read through our sample of tion of literature. We developed a very clear sense that for many
dissertations. Once an author has summarized, analyzed, and of these doctoral candidates, reviewing prior research on their
synthesized the literature, he or she will want to make some topic was a hollow exercise from which they learned nothing of
claims about that literature. Those claims should be articulated substance and which contributed little to their understanding of
clearly, and the writing should be organized to support them. their research project. Moreover, the common failure to synthe-
This may seem like an obvious point, but our experience even size literature, critique methodology, or explain scholarly signif-
before undertaking this research gave us many examples of liter- icance supported Schoenfeld' s (1999) assertion. Such lack of
ature reviews that lacked rhetorical structure and were very poorly sophistication does not bode well for the students' ability to stay
written. Cooper's (1985) study of graduate students reading lit- abreast of research in their field as teachers, administrators or
erature reviews reported that rhetorical structure and organiza- leaders-let alone to lead productive research careers after re-
tion were key determinants in how influential and persuasive ceiving their doctorates.
readers believed the review to be. That said, we are happy to report that the best literature re-
More generally, Granello (2001) has argued that focusing on views were thorough, critical examinations of the state of the
the formal aspects of writing is a means of increasing students' cog- field that set the stage for the authors' substantive research proj-
nitive complexity, moving students from lower to higher levels of ects. These high-quality reviews lead us to believe that our cri-
Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domain (see also Libutti & teria and standards are not unreasonable. They also support
Kopala, 1995). Having to organize one's thoughts is important not Hart's (1999) claim that the criteria are important for doctoral
merely for persuading an audience but for better understanding students' understanding of their field and prerequisite for fram-
what one is writing (Klein, 1999; D. Kuhn, 1992; Rivard, 1994). ing fruitful research problems and appropriating sophisticated
Criterion L measures how well the dissertation articulated clear research methods (Richardson, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1999).
claims based on its analysis and synthesis of the literature and sup- Perhaps even more remarkable than the differences among in-
ported those claims through purposeful organization and cogent stitutions is the range of scores and amount of variation within
writing. each institution. The variance within all three institutions im-
Taken together, these twelve criteria and associated stan- plies that literature reviews were not held to consistent criteria or
dards set ambitious expectations for doctoral dissertation liter- standards, or that standards for acceptable literature reviews were
ature reviews. A literature review that meets high standards on oflittle or no importance. We were not surprised by this finding,
these criteria indicates that the doctoral candidate has a thor- considering that we suspect that Zaporozhetz' (1987) report is
ough, sophisticated understanding of a field of study-a pre- generally true and that most faculty supervising doctoral disser-
condition for substantial, useful research. tations do not value the role of reviewing literature in a research
project. We are inclined to attribute the differences to faculty Paltridge (2002) differentiates among four general dissertation
expertise and effectiveness at communicating scholarship ex- formats, each of which is seen among education dissertations.
pectations, and we can only infer that some faculty have higher, The traditional simple dissertation presents a single study in five
albeit uncodified, minimal standards for acceptable work than chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results,
do others. and Conclusions. Twenty-nine of the 30 dissertations that we
The assumption that all doctoral candidates are on the cutting sampled used this format.
edge of current research in their field was not well supported by What Paltridge (2002) calls the traditional complex format pre-
our study, nor can our study justify the assumption that all doc- sents several related studies, each presenting its own introduction,
toral candidates have learned to critically analyze and synthesize methods, results, and conclusions. The traditional complex dis-
research in their field. Although we must still exercise caution sertations that he found tended to use a single literature review for
with our small sample from a limited number of schools, our re- all of the studies. We did not have any dissertations of this type
sults suggest that not everyone with a doctorate in education un- in our sample, but we are aware that they are often used in the
derstands the norms of scholarly communication or the processes field of education, especially for behavioral-science-influenced
of warranting scholarly claims. The existing literature and our topics.
analysis of dissertation literature reviews suggests that the crite- The topic-based dissertation is also often used in education,
ria and standards for a high-quality literature review are not part especially for theoretical, philosophical, humanities-based, and
of the formal curriculum or graduation expectations of even na- qualitative dissertations (Paltridge, 2002). In topic-based disser-
tionally ranked doctoral programs. Doctoral faculty and programs tations, authors divide the larger work into chapters that best
must pay more attention to explicitly teaching and assessing stu- support the rhetorical structure and often do not use separate
dents on the norms and methods of scholarship and scholarly chapters for the literature review, methodology, results, or con-
communication. clusions. Our sample contained one such dissertation, a narra-
Refining Our Conception of Literature Reviewing tive of a professional development collaboration in which the
literature reviewed was interspersed throughout the dissertation.
The primary purpose of this article is to highlight the general
We had no difficulty applying the rubric to this format; indeed,
weakness of dissertation literature reviews and, in so doing, to
it scored fairly well against our criteria and standards.
argue their centrality in preparing doctoral candidates to be bet-
Finally, the compilation ofresearch articles format for disserta-
ter scholars and researchers. We developed our rubric as a re-
tions, advocated in these pages by Duke and Beck (1999), pre-
search tool to assess suggested criteria but have discovered that
sents a number of discrete articles often written in the format of
many graduate faculty members and graduate students seem
journal articles, framed with introductory and concluding sec-
more interested in using it as a pedagogical tool to teach or learn
literature review skills. As we hear from these colleagues, how- tions. Each article must be complete unto itself, including its
ever, it becomes clear to us that education researchers have quite own literature review. Although this kind of dissertation has been
varied beliefs about the literature review and its role in learning of increasing popularity in the sciences (Dong, 1998), we are not
how to do research. certain how often it is used in education. One notable difference
One of the most common concerns raised about our research between article compilations and other dissertation formats is
is whether the criteria and standards that we have developed that dissertations in the compilation format tend to be written
should apply to the two types of doctoral degrees in education "more as 'experts writing for experts', than novices 'writing for
and to various dissertation formats. First, should a literature re- admission to the academy'" (Paltridge, 2002, p. 132). As such,
view from an Ed.D. dissertation and a literature review from a they contain much less writing that seems to serve the purpose
Ph.D. dissertation be assessed by means of the same criteria? of merely displaying the author's knowledge.
Some might say, for example, that an Ed.D. dissertation should Nothing in our arguments or analysis is intended to justify the
be more concerned with the practical implications of research, all-too-common practice, in a five-chapter, traditional simple dis-
whereas a Ph.D. dissertation should be more concerned with its sertation, of isolating the literature review in the second chapter.
scholarly importance. Although there is much debate about the A doctoral candidate who has a thorough, sophisticated under-
role and purpose of each degree, we take the position that any- standing of the literature should clearly be expected to demonstrate
one earning a doctorate in education ought to know the literature an understanding throughout the dissertation, from introduction
in his or her area of specialization-indeed, it is quite unclear to through conclusion. We can only speculate that the tendency to
us what, exactly, earning a doctorate might signify if one does not isolate the literature review reflects doctoral candidates' less-than-
know the literature in one's field. For that reason, we did not dif- thorough understanding of their literature and inability to see
ferentiate between Ed.D. and Ph.D. degrees in our study, and we how the literature should influence their choice and justification
do not believe that the corresponding literature reviews should of research topic, choice and justification of methods of data col-
be held to different standards and criteria. lection and analysis, and discussion of the findings, conclusions,
The second concern often raised is whether our criteria ought and implications. The choice of format for a dissertation ought to
to apply to the various formats of dissertations. The concern here fit its rhetorical structure, including the decision whether to write
seems to be that our criteria may inadvertently valorize the tra- the literature review as a stand-alone chapter or to integrate it
ditional five-chapter, empirical dissertation and may be inap- throughout the dissertation. Whatever format the author chooses,
propriate to apply to other dissertation formats. This certainly a thorough, sophisticated review ought to be influential and ev-
was not our intent, nor do we think it will be the effect. ident in the entire dissertation.
We would expect to find significant differences among the dis- Just because authors understands the research that others have
sertation literature reviews according to format, including pre- done does not mean that they will necessarily be able to collect,
sentation, format, degree of integration, and authorial voice. We analyze, or interpret data well. It certainly does not mean that
can see no reason, however, to suggest that the various disserta- their interpretation of prior research in the field will lead them
tion formats ought to be judged against different criteria in their to focus on research problems that will yield significant and im-
literature reviews. A dissertation of any format should demon- portant studies. Of course, even having a significant insight into
strate that the author thoroughly understands the literature in his the literature in a field does not guarantee that researches will
or her area of specialization. The fact that 29 of the 30 disserta- then be able to do significant research on the topic. But, again,
tions we examined were of the traditional-simple format made it is unlikely if not impossible to do significant research without
our data collection easier but is not relevant to the application of productive insight into the field.
the criteria. It is productive insight that distinguishes a synthetic review,
A related concern seems to originate from the practice, perhaps in Lather's (1999) sense, from the plodding research summaries
common among students, of writing literature reviews as part of that characterize most dissertations. Productive insight can never
dissertation proposals and then using the same literature in the be routine. But we contend that requiring doctoral candidates to
dissertation with little revision. Thus the literature review be- engage in substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature reviews
comes a static artifact rather than a dynamic part of the entire dis- creates and fosters conditions that will greatly increase the likeli-
sertation. In contrast, we would normally expect candidates to hood of their developing productive insight.
continually revisit their understanding of the literature through-
Looking Forward
out the dissertation experience. This might mean rereading the
Doctoral students must be scholars before they are researchers.
literature in light of subsequent findings or analysis, or reading
First and foremost, a dissertation should demonstrate a thorough
new literature to address emerging findings or ideas. Without
and sophisticated grasp of one's field of study; secondarily and
viewing the literature review as a dynamic, integral part of the re-
antecedently, it should demonstrate the ability to do research
search process, we are much more likely to find the problems that
that advances the collective understanding of important educa-
Alton-Lee (1998) identified in the submissions to Teaching and
tion issues. Education research is difficult because of the complex
Teacher Education.
nature of the phenomena studied. In the face of perennial con-
Several critics have also raised concerns about Criterion A,
cerns about the quality of education research and contemporary
"Justified criteria for inclusion and exclusion from review," not-
pressures to reform it, U.S. education research journals have em-
ing that it was not stipulated by Hart (1999) and that even the
phasized methods of data collection and analysis and related issues
best of the dissertations that we analyzed did not score well on this
of epistemology. In turn, the emerging literature on preparing doc-
criterion. Of all of the criteria we used in our study, we suspect
toral students in education has emphasized methodological so-
that this will be most contentious. Our decision to include this
phistication as the key to improving education research. Yet to
criterion was based on our experience working with dissertation
try to improve education research by focusing on methodologi-
students and noting how haphazardly many approached the lit-
cal sophistication is to put the cart before the horse.
erature search. We also are aware that review journals increasingly
Researchers cannot appropriate sophisticated research methods
expect authors to describe explicitly how they identified research if their understanding of the phenomena they are investigating is
to indicate the conditions for inclusion and exclusion, implicitly rudimentary and unsystematic. To be able to identify workable
following Cooper's (1985) recommendations. We continue to and potentially important research problems (Richardson, 2003;
believe that it is important for all researchers, especially novices, Schoenfeld, 1999), they must be able to shift the problem to find
to begin to take this more methodical approach to literature re- perspectives that are progressively more explanatory and insight-
views. We also contend that its use holds the most potential for ful; they must become more sophisticated theoretically without
improving the quality of dissertation literature reviews, as it forces being superficial (Strike & Posner, 1983). This requires much
candidates to be more methodical. more than the mere summaries of existing literature that we
Other critics have worried that providing detailed criteria to found in most of the dissertations we analyzed. Doctoral students
evaluate the quality of a literature review will lead to yet more should be expected to move through Bloom's stages of cognitive
dissertations that are formulaic. 6 This outcome seems unlikely to development, from comprehending to applying, to analyzing, and
us, but we acknowledge that clear criteria alone will never lead to on to synthesizing and evaluating (Granello, 2001). Moreover,
better scholarship. As Bargar and Duncan (1986) write, a "thor- simply expecting students to meet these criteria and standards is
ough understanding and sincere commitment to problems of im- not enough-the skills required must be taught explicitly.
portance can and very often do lead to pedestrian, unimaginative Yet the most obvious means of improving the situation-
solutions" (p. 35). Less-successful researchers have perhaps never adding a class on literature reviewing to doctoral programs-is the
learned to develop productive research questions because they least likely to be effective. Such a curricular solution, as Britzman
have superficial understanding of the problems of their field, they (1991) noted about learning to teach, would leave the hardest
tend to follow unproductive habits learned in their dissertation task-integrating and applying the lessons from various classes
research projects, or they misunderstand the changing norms and in the doctoral program-to those who are least capable of doing
expectations of their research community. it. That is, to review the literature in the way that we have sug-
We need to stress that a good literature review is necessary but gested here is a very complex task that requires the integration
not sufficient for good research. A good review of the literature and application of a variety of skills and knowledge that few in-
cannot guarantee either a rigorous study or significant findings. dividual faculty members have mastered.
For example, this approach to literature reviewing requires ad- serrations we read was little more sophisticated than that of fresh-
vanced bibliographic methods for searching and locating re- men. Admittedly, this is part of a larger discussion, but the point
search from a variety of sources, skills usually associated with is that we cannot expect students to write more sophisticated lit-
libraty instruction and the traditional domain oflibrarians. And, erature reviews if they lack sophisticated writing skills. Students
indeed, there is a healthy literature on the importance of doctoral enter doctoral programs with a range of skills and abilities. Suc-
faculty teaming with librarians, because neither alone typically cessful supervision and development of doctoral students entails
have the skills and knowledge needed (Bailey, 1985; Bruce, integrating the expertise of a range of university personnel. Indi-
200lb; Caspers & Lenn, 2000; Isbell & Broadsus, 1995; Libutti vidual faculty members cannot be responsible for teaching the
& Kopala, 1995). necessary skills in isolation-these skills must be integrated into
Yet even this approach is inadequate, because to do the kind the curriculum at the program level, and clearly communicated
of critical synthesis that we suggest also requires diverse skills on and evaluated.
the part of doctoral faculty. These include a substantive under- If the dissertations we reviewed had failed to properly collect
standing of the topic being reviewed, the skills and knowledge and analyze data the education community would blame their
required to critically evaluate and synthesize concepts, advanced authors or their dissertation committees. With few exceptions,
understanding of writing and rhetoric, and the sophisticated un- the procedures and standards of data collection and analysis used
derstanding of research methodology that is required to critically in dissertations are well articulated and widely disseminated.
evaluate methods used in prior studies and suggest means of However, we are not so fortunate in the case of literature re-
overcoming prior methodological limitations. viewing-the methods and expectations of literature reviewing
For reasons like these, we suggest that a stand-alone class in are at best haphazardly described. Cooper (1985, p. 33) asserts,
literature reviewing is inadequate. Rather, literature reviewing "Students in education ... can take five or six statistics or meth-
should be a central focus of predissertation coursework, inte- ods courses without ever directly addressing the problems and
grated throughout the program. Demonstrating the scholarly procedures ofliterature review." If Cooper's claim remains true,
abilities required for good literature reviewing ought to be a pre- the situation must be remedied.
requisite for passing into candidacy. Such a process will require Our concern is that by focusing on methodological issues, the
the joint efforts of not only subject experts but also librarians, education research community is addressing the symptom rather
writing teachers, methodologists, and perhaps others from across than the cause. That is, researchers must understand prior research
campus. in their field, and its strengths and weaknesses, before they can be
The current interest in improving doctoral education anded- expected to choose appropriate methods of data collection and
ucation research coincides with changes in instruction on infor- data analysis. Moreover, sophisticated methods of data collection
mation access and use. Only recently have libraries redefined and analysis are of little use if one is studying an unproductive
library instruction, with its traditional emphasis on mechanical problem. They are also of little use if one lacks the sophisticated
searching skills, to include information literacy, which employs understanding of the literature needed to understand the mean-
a more conceptual approach to information use. The Association ing of the data. Ifdoctoral programs and dissertation committees
of College and Research Libraries (2000) defines information lit- have not been attending to the literature review as a key compo-
eracy as nent of a research project, we might find that increased attention
to this aspect of our tradecraft will in turn improve the quality
an intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating, and usefulness of research.
and using information-activities which may be accomplished in Further, if we, the education research community, are to teach
part by fluency with information technology, in part by sound in-
our doctoral students, then we must begin to value the literature
vestigative methods, but most importantly, through critical dis-
review in our own work. Imagine if we were to devote one tenth
cernment and reasoning. (pp. 3-4)
as much energy, care, and thought to being better scholars as we
The new focus oflibraries on teaching students to critically en- do to developing our methods of data collection and analysis.
gage with information offers the possibility of successful fac- That we have not done so is a symptom of the broader culture of
ulty-librarian collaboration, especially in the realm of graduate education research that artificially distinguishes between litera-
literature reviewing and writing. Green and Bowser (2003) de- ture review, on the one hand, and methods and analytic tech-
scribe an initiative whereby faculty and librarians guided stu- niques, on the other.
dents in determining appropriate study subtopics, organizing As a result, empiricism and methodological issues have been
literature reviews, evaluating resources, and establishing relation- ascendant at the expense of scholarship, generativity, and theory
ships with the literature (for other examples, see Bruce, 2001; building. Theorizing is fundamental to research and scholarship.
Caspers & Lenn, 2000; Heller-Ross, 1996; Stein & Lamb, 1998; It is an understanding of the literature that leads to increasingly
Wright, 2000). sophisticated inquiry, connecting research methods and claims
Taking the idea a step further, Isbell and Broaddus (1995) with their warrants. That our doctoral candidates often graduate
discuss the possibility of integrating writing instruction into the without a sophisticated understanding of the literature in which
process. Many doctoral students have not explicitly studied they are supposed to be expert indicates a failure not only of doc-
writing and rhetoric since their freshman composition classes. toral programs but of the education research enterprise in gen-
Doctoral faculty expect doctoral students to possess not just eral. Doctoral students need to see us engaged in systematic
bibliographic skills but also advanced skills in the mechanics of analysis and synthesis of the literature if they are going to value
writing and the art of rhetoric. Yet the writing in many of the dis- those activities for themselves. Dissertation committees must hold
the literature review to standards at least as high as those for 1. distinguishing what has been done from what needs to be done;
methodology-arguably higher. Our failure to do so will leave us 2. discovering important variables relevant to the topic;
with fragmented and disjointed research, unconnected to theory. 3. synthesizing and gaining a new perspective;
Requiring doctoral students in education to approach the ex- 4. identifying relationships between ideas and practices;
5. establishing the context of the topic or problem;
isting literature in their field in the ways that we have suggested
6. rationalizing the significance of the problem;
is a means of inculcating the norms and practices of academic
7. enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary;
culture, with its emphasis on the analytic, the intellectual, the
8. understanding the structure of the subject;
universal, and the theoretical (Labaree, 2003). We suggest that 9. relating ideas and theory to applications;
the standards and criteria of good literature reviewing are part of 10. identifying the main methodologies and research techniques that
the hidden curriculum of good graduate programs and perhaps have been used;
part of the tacit knowledge passed on from mentors to candidates. 11. placing the research in a historical context to show familiarity
Neither of these propositions can be tested with our current data, with state-of-the-art developments. (p. 27)
and further research will be needed to understand the pattern. In- We found that these criteria gave us a much more robust and thorough
deed, future research may show that a thorough, sophisticated set of criteria with which to evaluate the quality of the dissertations we
understanding of the field is what separates the best doctoral can- were examining. However, as we tried to operationalize the criteria, we
found that we needed to combine some, rewrite others, add several, and
didates and education researchers from everyone else.
reorder the list to group similar ones. For example, we combined Hart's
NOTES (1999) Criteria 4 and 9 into our Criterion J, "Rationalized the practical
The authors wish to thank Aldrin Sweeney, Bill Gaudelli, Ann Austin, significance of the research problem." Also, we omitted Hart's Criterion
and three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions. 8 because it was too ambiguous to operationalize and evaluate.
4 Criterion H is the only one that is measured on a 4-point scale.
1 For example, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (Carnegie
Foundation, 2003) is investigating the structure of the doctorate across While pilot-testing this rubric, we found that we could not reliably use
six disciplines, including education, and its implications for the future a 4-point scale in measuring the other criteria, so we converted all of the
vigor, quality, and integrity of the field. Similar initiatives have been others to 3-point scales. However, we needed a 4-point scale to include
started by rhe Spencer Foundation (Young, 2001), rhe Pew Charitable the possibility of an author's proposing and justifying the need for new
Trust (2001), the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation research methods within a field of study.
5 A complete description of the research methodology can be found
(2001), the National Research Council (1999), and the National Edu-
cation Association (Lageman & Shulman, 1999). In the Carnegie Foun- in Boote and Beile (2004). Summary statistics are included here. Mean
dation initiative, for example, participating departments are from notable scores for the individual items ranged from a low of 1.08 (SD= .29) on
schools such as Arizona State University; Indiana University, Bloom- Criterion A, "Justified criteria for inclusion and exclusion from review"
ington; Michigan State University; Ohio State University; the Univer- to a high of 2.33 on three separate criteria: "Placed the research in rhe
sity of Colorado, Boulder; the University of Michigan; the University historical context of the field" (SD= .78), "Acquired and enhanced the
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the University of Sourhern California; subject vocabulary" (SD= .49), and "Articulated important variables
and Washington State University. All of the participating departments and phenomena relevant to the topic" (SD= .49). It would seem that,
are housed in nationally ranked schools of education (America's Best by common agreement, these latter three criteria are expected in any dis-
Colleges, 2004). Emerging from these initiatives, recent chapters by sertation. And, indeed, these are the most common criteria listed in the
Schoenfeld (1999) and Siddle Walker (1999) and articles by Labaree introductory research textbooks. On the orher hand, we were more trou-
(2003), Metz (2001), Page (2001), Pallas (2001), and Richardson (2003) bled by the low average scores in criteria such as "Synthesized and gained
have, in turn, addressed the problems of doctoral education and made a new perspective on the literature" (M = 1.42, SD= .67), "Identified
suggestions for improvement. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in
This literarure has initiated an important dialogue in our field, but it the field, and their advantages and disadvantages" (M= 1.92, SD= .79),
is lacking for at least two reasons. First, although the aforementioned and "Rationalized the scholarly significance of the research problem"
initiatives suggest helpful strategies for improving education research, (M = 1.92, SD= .79).
they ignore the fact that, of the approximately 7,000 recipients of doc- Inter-university differences also revealed potential concerns. Scores
toral degrees awarded in education every year, only a small percentage on each of the twelve criteria were averaged to arrive at an overall qual-
graduate from these nationally ranked institutions (National Center for ity score for the literature review. The mean of the literature review qual-
Education Statistics, 2002). We cannot assume that the experiences of ity scores ranged from a low of 1.42 to a high of2.91 (M = 2.09, SD=
doctoral students in these resource-rich institutions are representative of .50). By institution, the top-ranked college's literature review quality
the experiences of most doctoral students. As a result, we need to look scores (M = 2.12, SD= .55) ranged from 1.67 to 2.91; the mid-tier col-
carefully at any generalizations and recommendations that these initia- lege's scores (M = 2.40, SD= .41) ranged from 1.42 to 2.91; and the
tives generate. Second, although the reflections of leading scholars on nonranked college's scores (M = 1.73, SD= .37) ranged from 1.42 to
doctoral education are valuable in initiating conversations about im- 2.25. A Kruskal-Wallis calculation, H(2) = 3.90, p = .14, revealed no
proving doctoral education, they are only rhe beginning and must be statistically significant difference among institutions, yet practical dif-
followed by systematic examinations of doctoral education. ferences are indicated by the nonranked college's average placement of
2 It is worth noting that in the middle 19th century, U.S. universities 3.88, as compared with the top-tiered college's average of 6.75 and the
misunderstood the changes in German universities. At rhat time rhe new mid-tier college's average of 8.88.
U.S. graduate research universities emphasized the utility of empirical 6 Passmore (1980) reminds us that "the Ph.D. did not, of course, cre-
research (a theme that continues today), whereas the German universi- ate pedantry" (1980, p. 53).
ties emphasized the importance of freely pursuing investigations, both
empirical and scholarly, without regard for the immediate needs of so- REFERENCES
ciety (Veysey, 1965, p. 126). Alton-Lee, A. (1998). A troubleshooter's checklist for prospective au-
3 Specifically, Hart (1999) argued that the dissertation literature re- thors derived from reviewers' critical feedback. Teaching and Teacher
view plays a central role in Education, 14(8), 887-890.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005 I@
America's Best Colleges. (2004). US News & World Report, Retrieved Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate
January 4, 2005, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/rankguide/ written work: Using Bloom's taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to im-
rghome.htm prove literature reviews. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40(4),
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice ofsocial research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: 292-307.
Wadsworth. Grant, C. A., & Graue, E. (1999). (Re)Viewing a review: A case history
Bailey, B. (1995). Thesis practicum and the librarian's role.journal of of the "Review of Educational Research." Review ofEducational Re-
Academic Librarianship, 11, 79-81. search, 69(4), 384-396.
Barger, R.R., & Duncan, J. K. (1986). Creativity in doctoral research: Hart, C. (1999). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science re-
A reasonable expectation? The Educational Forum, 51(1), 33-43. search imagination. London: SAGE.
Barry, C. A. (1997). Information skills for an electronic world: Train- Hjorland, B. (1988). Information retrieval in psychology: Implications of
ing doctoral research candidates. journal of Information Science, a case study. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 6(3-4), 39-64.
23(3), 225-238. Isbell, D., & Broaddus, D. (1995). Teaching writing and research as in-
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: separable: A faculty-librarian teaching team. Reference Services Li-
McGraw-Hill. brarian, 48, 5-25.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examin-
Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20. ers' reporrs on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3),
Boote, D. N., & Gaudelli, W. (2002). The use and abuse of historical 333-347.
educational theorists: Comments on recent Dewey scholarship. In- Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes oflearn-
sights: A publication ofthe john Dewey Society far the Study ofEduca- ing-to-write. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.
tion and Culture, 35(2), 9-13. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,
Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2004, April). The quality ofdissertation liter- 62(2), 155-178.
ature reviews: A missing link in research preparation. Paper presented Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.).
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ- Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ation, San Diego, CA. Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational
Britzman, D. (1991) Practice makes practice: A critical study oflearning
researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 13-22.
to teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lagemann, E. C., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). Issues in education research:
Bruce, C. S. ( 1994). Research students' early experiences of the disser-
Problems and possibilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
tation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 217-229.
Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review ofEdu-
Bruce, C. S. (200la). Interpreting the scope of their literature reviews:
cational Research, 69(1), 2-7.
Significant differences in research students concerns. New Library
LeCompte, M. D., Klingner, J. K., Campbell, S. A., & Menk, D. W.
World, 102(4), 158-166.
(2003). Editors' introduction. Review ofEducational Research, 73(2),
Bruce, C. S. (200lb). Faculty-librarian partnerships in Australian
123-124.
higher education: Critical dimensions. Reference Service Review, 29,
Lester, J. D. (2002). The essential guide: Research writing across the disci-
106-115.
plines. New York: Longman.
Carnegie Foundation. (2003). Carnegie initiative on the doctorate. Re-
Libutti, P., & Kopala, M. (1995). The doctoral student, the disserta-
trieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
tion, and the libraty: A review of the literature. Reference Librarian,
CID/index.htm
48, 5-25.
Caspers, J., & Lenn, K. (2000). The future of collaboration between
Mauch, J. E. (1998). Guide to the successfal thesis and dissertation: A
librarians and teaching faculty. In D. Raspa & D. Ward (Eds.), The
handbook far students and faculty. New York: M. Dekker.
collaborative imperative: Librarians and faculty working together in
the information universe (p. 148-154). Chicago: American Library McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. A. (2001). Research in education: A
Association. conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Cooper, H. M. ( 1985). A taxonomy ofliterature reviews. Paper presented at Metz, M. H. (2001). Intellectual border crossing in graduate education:
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, A report from the field. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 12-18.
Chicago. ERlC Document Reproduction Services No. ED254541. Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). "It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize": How
Creswell,]. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative ap- experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Edu-
proaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. cation, 27(4), 369-386.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest ofeducation sta-
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, tistics, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strate-
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, 0. (2000). The doctoral experi- gic plan far education research and its utilization. Washington, DC:
ence: Success and failure in graduate school. New York: Falmer. National Academy Press.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Nonnative graduate students' thesis dissertation Nickerson, E.T. (1993). The dissertation handbook: A guide to successful
writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from dissertations. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
two US institutions. English far Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390. Nightingale, P. (1984). Examination of research theses. Higher Educa-
Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alterna- tion Research and Development, 3, 137-150.
tive forms for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36. Ogden, E. H. (1993). Completing your doctoral dissertation or master's
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate re- thesis in two semesters or less. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
search in education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Page, R. N. (2001). Reshaping graduate preparation in educational re-
Galvan, J. L. (2004). Writing literature reviews: A guide far students ofthe search methods: One school's experience. Educational Researcher,
social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Pyrczak. 30(5), 19-25.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2000). Educational research: Competen- Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for episte-
cies far ana/,ysis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. mological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6-11.
Bl EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination tions for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 343-362). Philadelphia:
of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, Temple Universiry Press.
21, 125-143. Veysey, L. R. ( 1965). The emergence ofthe American university. Chicago:
Pan, M. L. (2003). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quanti- Universiry of Chicago Press.
tative approaches. Los Angeles: Pyrczak. Wideen, M. F., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1999). A critical analy-
Passmore, J. (1980). The philosophy of graduate education. In W. K. sis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an eco-
Frankena (Ed.), The philosophy and future of graduate education logical perspective on inquiry. Review ofEducational Research, 68(2),
(pp. 40-59). Ann Arbor: Universiry of Michigan Press. 130-178.
Pew Charitable Trust. (2001). Re-envisioning the Ph.D. Retrieved Jan- Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The "academic" quali-
uary 4, 2005, from http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/ ties of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Stud-
Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (1995). Examiners' comments on the in- ies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25-37.
ternational context of PhD theses. In C. McNaught & K. Beattie Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. (2001). The respon-
(Eds.), Research into higher education: Dilemmas, directions and diver- sive PhD. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.woodrow.
sions (pp.129-136). Melbourne: Higher Education Research and De- org/ responsivephd/
velopment Sociery of Australasia Victoria. Young, L. J. (2001 ). Border crossings and other journeys: Re-envisioning
Richardson, V. (2003). The Ph.D. in education. Retrieved January 4, the doctoral preparation of education researchers. Educational Re-
2005, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/ essays/CID_ searcher, 30(5), 3-5.
educ_Richardson. pdf Zaporozhetz, L. E. (1987). The dissertation literature review: How fac-
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implica- ulty advisors prepare their doctoral candidates. Unpublished doctoral
tions for practice and research. journal ofResearch in Science Teach- dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
ing, 31, 969-983.
AUTHORS
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999). The core, the canon, and the development of
research skills. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in DAVID N. BOOTE is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum Studies in
education research: Problems andpossibilities (pp.166-223). San Fran- the College of Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
cisco: Jossey-Bass. 32816-1250; dboote@mail.ucf.edu. His research interests include edu-
Schools of Education. (2000, April 1O). US News & World Report, I14. cation research studies, teacher educators, mathematics and physics
Shulman, L. S. (1999). Professing educational scholarship. In E. C. problem solving, and moral education.
Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Prob- PENNY BEILE is an Associate Librarian at the University of Central
lems and possibilities (pp.159-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Florida, P.O. Box 162666, Orlando, FL 32816-2666; pbeile@mail.
Siddle Walker, V. (1999). Culture and commitment: Challenges for the ucf.edu. Her areas of specialization are the production and use of schol-
future training of education researchers. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. arly information in education and the information literacy abilities of
Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities education students. She is completing the development and validation
(pp. 224-244). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. of the Information Literacy Assessment Scale for Education (ILAS-ED).
Storr, R. J. (1969). The beginning ofgraduate education in America. New
York: Arno Press and New York Press. Manuscript received December I0, 2003
Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1983). Types of synthesis and their criteria. In Revisions received January 4, April 28, 2005
S. Ward and L. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implica- Accepted May 6, 2005
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2oos j~

Boote y Beile 2005 Scholars Before Researchers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boote y Beile 2005 Scholars Before Researchers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boote y Beile 2005 Scholars Before Researchers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Features1~--6]

Scholars Before Researchers:

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005 112:::

to be done. not been done

You might also like