The Literature Review

A “literature review” is an extended analysis of the extant critical discussion surrounding a topic in which you are interested. Often, this topic takes the form “subject in author’s text”: “Parentheses in Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass,” “Cannibalism in David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas,” “Queer desire in Toni Morrison’s Sula.” Any critical analysis of a text—or as Kenneth Burke suggests, any critical thinking about anything—relates new ideas to what’s known, responds to questions or problems, which are themselves in response to what is given. The literature review provides context for the new and the known. It is you listening attentively in Burke’s parlor before you put in your oar.

In our studies this semester, we have seen literature reviews sometimes in the introduction, used to set up the argument before the author presents evidence in the body; we have also seen reviews emerge in the body of an article, used to advance evidence and borrow (and/or distinguish) previous critical readings or theoretical insights. Versions of this component of scholarly composition can thus be found in most of the articles you have read for this class this semester. Going back through the readings and studying these moments, normally towards the beginning of a given article, will be very helpful.

Assignment Guidelines: In approximately 1500-2000 words, review 8-10 critical sources on/around/adjacent to your topic. This might sound like a ton, but do not despair! You do not have to (and indeed, shouldn’t) write an equal amount on all sources. Instead, you should focus on outlining the conversation surrounding your topic in broad strokes: which sources seem to be in agreement? Where is there disagreement? Where are there gaps (or “lacunae,” an academic commonplace) or limitations in the research, and why do you think this is the case? (This is where the review sets the stage for your argument in progress: how you will fill those gaps and respond to those limitations). Which sources deserve lengthier explanation and response, and which can attach to these more major ones as footnotes or asides? Most importantly, what kind of narrative do your sources build: what kind of story do they tell about how this author/text/topic/etc. has been treated?

At the top of your review, provide the latest and most refined version of your abstract (this will take the place of your introduction and provide context for what is motivating this critical review of the literature). At the bottom of the review, provide a works cited list of the secondary sources you are reviewing.

For further guidance on the Literature Review, consult this resource from the University of Toronto. Also, revisit the various critical articles we read this semester and observe how those critics engaged in the rhetoric and poetics of the literature review.

Evaluation Rubric [100 points]

[1]Critical Reading and Thinking [25 points]

Focuses on the comprehension, analysis, and interpretation of texts.

The author recognizes possible implications of the text for contexts, perspectives, or issues beyond what’s already given; uses strategies for relating ideas and textual features to build insight and scholarly significance; uses appropriate epistemological theoretical or critical lens to engage in reading as part of continuing dialogue within and beyond a community of readers.

[2]Rhetorical Knowledge [25 points]

Focuses on the clarity, complexity, and coherence of the argumentation.

The author articulates a stake for the argument, answering “So What? Who Cares?”; uses keywords and terms effectively, complicating simplistic ways of thinking about the topic, using the arguments of authors including views counter to your own; refines and reiterates the threads of the argument while avoiding logical fallacies.

[3]Writing Process [25 points]

Focuses on the arrangement, development, and revision of the composition.

The author moves/transitions the reader effectively from introduction through the body of the argument to the conclusion; develops the argument with supporting evidence; actively uses feedback and revision strategies to move from initial drafting to final product.

[4]Awareness of Conventions [25 points]

Focuses on the author’s grasp of language, usage, and audience.

The author is deliberate in attention to word choice and sentence style; edits for violations of academic and print writing conventions not deliberately chosen for effect; attends to the formal presentation of the narrative such as titles, signposting, and other ways of addressing the audience of the composition.

Scale: Each of the categories will be worth 25 points. The scale I will use is the following:

23-25: excellent; the element is prominent in the composition, demonstrating a thorough and impressive grasp—ready to work on other elements from the rubric and/or to-do list.

20-22: strong; the element is present and effective, demonstrating a good grasp with room to continue development to enhance effect—keep on list, but almost ready to check off.

17-19: emerging; the element is present in spots, but not effectively or consistently present, demonstrating an emerging grasp in need of further development—keep on list and follow up in conference.

15-16: weak; the element is mostly absent, not effective in the composition, demonstrating a limited grasp in need of more extensive development—keep on list and take into conference with me and/or writing center before next project.

10-14: insufficient; the element fails to be present or is not addressed as expected, demonstrating a poor grasp in need of immediate attention—plan a conference right away to discuss further what should be improved for the next project.

0-9: not completed as expected.