write a summary (st)

Scholars Befiore Researcherss On tlre 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- spintion for substantial, useful research. The complex naure of edu- cation research demands such thorough, sophistjcated reviews. Although doctoral education is a key means for improving education rsearch, the literature has given shon shrift to the dissertation liter- ature review. This anicle sugtests criteria to evaluate the quality of dissenation literature reviews and reports a study that e:<amined dis- serEtions at three universities. Acquiring the skills and knowledge required to be education scholars, able to anal;ze and synthesize the research in a field of specialization, should be the focal, integrative actiyit), of predisseration doctoral education. Such scholarship is a prerequisite for increased methodological sophistication and for im- proving the usefulness of education research.

t, .e ;[Re have all heard the joke before-as we move

Ei .g.5 through graduate school, we learn more and more

E E about less and less until we know everything about nothing. It is expected that someone earning a doctorate has a thorough and sophisticated undentanding of an area of research and scholarship. Unfortunately, many doctoral dissertations in education belie the joke, their authon failing to master rhe liter- ature that is supposed to be the foundation of their research. If their dissertation literature reviews are any indication, many of these now-doctors know bjts and pieces ofa disorganized topic. Yet we cannot blame them for their failure to demonstrate what we, the education research community, have not clearly articu- lated or valued.

Acquiring the skills and knowledge required to be education scholars should be the focal, integrative activity ofpredissertation doctoral education. Preparing students to analyze and synthesize research in a field of specialization is crucial to undentanding ed- ucational ideas. Such preparation is prerequisite to choosing a productive dissertation topic and appropriating fruidul methods of data collection and analysis.

In this article, we fint argue tlat a tlrorough, sophisticated re- view of literature is even more important in education research, with iLs messy, complex problems, than in most other fields and

Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 3-l5

Features -

disciplines. We tben argue that current initiatives and faculty fo- cuses have ignored the centrality of the literature review in re- searcb preparation, in turn weakening the quality of education research. This oversight has its roots, we believe, in a too-narrow conception of the literature review-as merely an exhaustive summary of prior research-and a misundentanding of its role in research. By building on the extant literature that supports the centrality of the literature review, we offer a practical framework from which to analyze the quality of doctoral dissertation reviews of the literature. We end by further developing our understand- ing of the literature review and indicating some means of im- proving the situation.

The Role and Rrrpose of the Literafr.re Review 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- standing. To advance our collective understanding. a researcher or scholar needs to understand what has been done before. the strengths and weaknesses of existing studies, and what they might mean. A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field. Not under- standing the prior research clearly puts a researcher at a disadvan- tage. Shulman argues that genentjv'i4-along with discipline, publication, and peer review-is one of the hallmark of schol- anhip (1999, p. 162-163). He defines generativity as rhe ability to build on the scholarship and research of those who have come before us. Generativity grants our work integrity and sophistica- tion. To be useful and meaningful, education research must be cumulative; it must build on and leam from prior research and scholarship on the topic.

Yet the messy, complicated nature of problems in education makes generativity in education research more difficult than in most other fields and disciplines (Berliner, 2002) and demands that we develop more sophisticated literature reviews. ln tradi- tional disciplinary research, where a researcher is communicating with a well-defined audience about commonly accepted problems and where disciplinary research often is based on a canon of shared knowledge, the researcher's literature review is somewhat easier to construct. However. in education research we are often faced with the challenge of communicating with a diverse audi- ence, and it is very difiicult for us to assume shared knowledee.

AUGUST/SEPTEI'IBER 2OO5

methodologies, or even commonly agrced-upon problems (Boote & GaudelLi, 2002). Few of us work within a subfield of education research that approaches "normal science" (T. S. Kuhn, lgT}}- there are very few clear, cumulative research progams in educa- tion. Because such well-formed research communities are the exception rather than the rule, it is all the more important that novice education researchers learn the craft of constructing a foundation on which their research can be built.

As the foundation of any research project, t}te literaturr rcview should accomplish several important objectives. It sets the broad context of the study, clearly demarcates what is and what is not within the scope of the investigation, and justifies those deci- sions. It also situates an existing Uterature in a broader scholarly and historical context. It should not only report the claims made in the existing literature but also examjne critically the research methods used to beffer understand whether the claims are wai- ranted. Such an examination of tle literature enable,s the author to distinguish what has been learned and accomplished in the area of study and what still needs to be learned and accomplished. More- over, this rype of review allows ths author not only to summarize the existing literature but also to synthesize it in a way that permits a new perspertive. Thus a good literature review is the basis of both theoretical and methodological sophistication, thereby improving the quality and usefulness of subse<;uent research.

It is a broadly held assumption that successful doctoral candi- dates need to be'tomprehensive and up to date in reviewing the literature" (8arry,1997) and that their dissertations demonstrate this prowess. For most education researchers, the doctoral dis_ sertation is the capstone to formal academic training and, as such. should be high quality and comprehensive and should re_ flect emerging research. The academic community ought to be able to assume that a dissertation iiterature review indicates a doctoral candidate's ability to locate and evaluate scholarly in- formation and to synthesize research in his or her field.

Despite the assumption that dissertation literature reviews are comprehensive and up-to-date, the dirty secret known by those who sit on dissertation committees is that most literature reviews are poorly conceptualized and written. Our secret is made pub_ lic by editors and reviewers who openly lament the inadequacy of hterature reviews in manuscripts submitted for journal publi_ cation (Alton-Lee, 1998; Grant & Graue, 1999; I*Compte, Klingner, Campbell, & Menk, 2003). From Alton-Lee's com- pilation of reviews of manuscripts submitted to Teaching and TeacherEducation,we can begin to see the problems associated with research by scholan who do not know fle literature in their fields. For the 58 manuscripts submitted for review over a I -year period, she idenrified 369 distinct criricisms in the 142 reviews. which she divided into 13 broad categories. Methodological is_ sues were most common, but reviewen also identjfied theoreti- cal shortcomings (31 times), inadequacies in literature review (29), parochial focus (23), failure to add to the international lit- erature (21), and failure to link findings to lirerarure (20).

ln short, it appears that either many of the authon who sub_ mit manuscripts to this international journal do not know the Iiterature in their fields or else their knowledge of their fields does not inform the presentation of thejr manuscripts. Moreover, a better understanding of the research in t}eir field might have aided them with the other methodological problems that the re_

viewen identified. We speculate that the shortcomings &at edi- ton and reviewen bemoan stem from insuffrcient preparation in doctoral programs. Methodological training cannor occur in a vacuum, and increased training in research methods alone will not lead to better research. Instead, we must recognize the cen- trality of the literature review in doctoral research preparation and broaden our understanding of what literature reviewing entails.

Educdion Research and Doctoral Prepardion

There is an emerging consensus tlrat the perceived lack of qual- ity in education research stems from problems with doctoral peparation and that improving doctora.l education is key to im- proving education research. Initiatives by several foundations have spawned a small but healthy literature analyzing the prob- lems of doctoral education, describing revised pnograms, and mak- ing recommendadons.r

When considering the criteria and standards used to evaluate a dissertation, we need to keep in mind that most people with doctorates in education do not go on to punue research careers. Most teach, administer, or lead (Passmore, 1980). yet anyone earning a doctorate ought to be a steward of the field of educa- tion (Richardson, 2003), with all the rights and responsibilities thereto appertaining. One of our responsibilities-whether we become a researcher, teacher, administrator, or leader-is to know the literature in our field. And the best avenue for acquir- ing knowledge of the literature (beyond taking courses and com- prehensive examinations) is the dissertation literature review.

Yet it is apparent tlrat for many, if not most, doctoral candi_ dates and dissertation committees, the literature review is of sec- ondary importance. This was not always the case. Until the lgth century, the doctorate was primarily a teaching degree, certify- ing that one had a thorough and sophisticated grasp ofa partic_ ular field of study. As such, the dissertation and accompanying oral examination served primarily to assess one's suitability as a scholar and a teacher. Graduate education in the United States developed in a period when German universities were ascendant and when "America copied the German version of advanced studies . . . unfortunately the period when the Berlin positivists were in the ascendancy" (Berelson, 1960, p. l2; see also Storr. 1969). As a result, the U.S. doctorate was designed to focus on research training, and the dissertation became a vehicle for demonstrating research prowess.?

Consistent with the assumption that the doctorate is primar_ ily for rasearch uaining, the limited U.S. literature on education doctorates has focused primarity on methodological and episte_ mological issues and to a lesser extent on the core and canon of education knowledge. Barger and Duncan (1996) raise difficult questions about the assumption tlrat doctoral candidates should be expected to do creative scholarly work, and outline what they feel are the psychological, theoretical-methodological, and insti_ tutional contexts required for sreative work. Based on a collec_ tion of anecdotes and experiences, Schoenfeld (1999) identifies a number of difficulties and dilemmas facing doctora.l education. Among these are specialization that leads to compartmentaliza_ tion, theorizing that leads to superficiality, and simplistic ap- proaches to methodology that hinder a deep understanding of what it means to make and jusufy a claim about educational phe_ nomena. Schoenfeld suggests that many graduates complete their

ED UCATIONAL RESEARCHER

degrees unable to identify and frame workable research prob- lems.

ln a theme issue of &lucational Researcher, several autlon (Metz, 2001 ; Page, 2001; Pallas, 2001) discussed similar chal- lenges that they had faced in educating doctoral students and methods that they had used in their programs to address those challenges. On the basis of his experience coordinating and teaching in a doctoral program, Labaree (2003) outlined some of the general problems facing doctoral education. He framed the problems in terms of a clash between school and univenity cul- tures that occurs when we ask teachers to shift from a normative to an analytic way of thinking, from a penonal to an intellectual relationship with educational phenomena, from a particular to a universal penpective, and from an experimental to a theoretical disposition.

An important exception to the emphasis on methodology is Richardson (2003), who develops rhe concept of doctors of ed- ucation as stewards ofboth the field ofstudy and the ente{prise of education. She uses this conceptual frarnework to argue for the knou'ledge. skills, and dispositions tbat doctoral programs in ed- ucation should inculcate

The U.S. Iiterature on the education doctorate is reminiscent of the early research on leaming to teach (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, I999); with ilttle or no suppod from solid data, the authoni rely on their personal prestige to discuss the problems of practice and make recommendations for improvement. But like the literature on learning to teach, the literature on learning to research must move from anecdotes, generalizations, and reports of programs to systematic investigation and recommendations based on evidence.

The Liter:atrre Review: A Necessary Chore?

The perceived lack of importance of the dissertation literature re- vie!\, is seen in the paucity ofresearch and pubtications devoted to understanding it. Doctoral students seeking advice on how to im- prove their iiterature reviews will find linle published guidance *orth heeding. Every introductory educational, social, and be- havioral research textbook contains a chapter or section on re- viewing prior research as parl ofthe research process (e.g. Babbie, 1 99 8 ; Creswel l, 2ffi2: Fraenket & Wallen, 2003 ; Gay & Airasi an, 2000; McMillan & Schumacher, 200 I ). These chapten typically indicate the importance of the literature review, albeit in vague terms, and brieffy summarize techniques for searching electronic databases and methods for abstracting prior research. We infer from these chapters and sections that the authon of these text- book acknowledge the importance of the literature review, at least in a salutatory way, but place a much greater emphasis on an understanding of methods of data collection and analysis.

In accordance with other textbooks, Creswell (1994) suggests that the literature review should meet three criteria: ,,to present results of similar studies, to relate tle present study to the ongo- ing dialogue in the literature, and to provide a framework for comparing the results of a study with other studies" (p. 37). To accornplish these criteria Creswell (2002\ recommends a five- step process: "identifying terms to typicaily use in your literature search; locating literature; reading and checking the relevance of the literature; organizing the literature you have selected; and writing a literature review" (p. 86) With guidelines like these,

Eaduate students could be forgiven for thinking that writing a literature review is no more complicated than writing a high school term paper.

These chapters and sections in introductory research text- book are not the extent of the literature, but other sources de- vot€d to the topic of literature reviewing and dissertation writing are little more sophisticated (e.9., Galvan, 2004; Lester, 2002; Mauch, 1998; Nickenon, 1993;Ogden, 1993;Pan,2003). More advanced research textbook and handbooks ignore the subject, focusing entirely on methods of data collection, interpretation, and philosophical issues. In other words, with the very few ex- ceptions noted below, most graduate students receive little or no formal training in how to analyze and synthesize the rssearch lit- erature in their field, and they are unlikely to find it elsewbere.

Bruce's (1994) phenomenographic study of metaphors for the literature review sheds further light on the limitations of pub- lished criteria for reviewing literature. She found that research students perceive themselves in quite diverse metaphorical rela- tionships with the literature in their field, ranging from listing, searching, and surveying to acting as a vehicle for leaming, facil- itating, and reporting. Note that the metaphor of vehicle for leaming. facilitating. and reporting suggests more sophisticated, developed, and integrated literature reviews. Although a litera- ture review consistent witb any of these metaphors can fulfill textbook criteria, candidates may view themselves as anywbere from metaphorically standing aside and haphazardly cataloguing prior findings to critically analyzing and synthesizing the field of study. Bruce's account offers further support for the view that criteria published in popular textbooks are too vague and do not provide clear stand ards.

That doctoral candidates would espouse such naive concep- tions of literature reviewing and perceive it as relatively low in importance would seem to be a product of the culture of doctoral pro$ams in education. Taporozhetz (1987) reponed that doc- toral candidates felr their library skills were inadequate, while their faculty advisors admitted expecring their candidates to pos- sess advanced bibliographic skills even though the advisors them- selves had ljttle knowledge of information retrieval. Facultv also ranked the review-of-literature chapter the lowest in imponance when considered in relation to the other standard dissertation chapters. 7-aporozhetzalso reported that most dissertation chairs and students saw the literature review as a relatively routine ac- tivity that doctoral candidates should be able to complete alone with little help from their advison. And Labaree (2003) reminds us that most doctoral students in education have little formal training in education research and scholarship before they start their doctorate, with their undergraduate and master's degrees usually in other fields or disciplines or focused almost entirely on education practice. Both Zaporozhetz and Labaree note that ed- ucation doctoral students tend to be mature, accomplished pro- fessionals who are committed to improving education practice. Yet these qualities make it more difficult for them to admit thar they may lack library search and jnformarion synthesis skills and knowledge. We may speculate that, for similar reasons, it is dif- licult for education faculty to admit to lacking such skills and knowledge-and the skills and knowledge that they can claim in that area probably are tacit and hence difficult to teach.

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2OO5

A product of this doctoral program culture is that the litera- ture review is not valued, and because it is not valued it is rarely an explicit pan of doctoral curriculums. Perhaps the conflicting messages and lack of formal training explain why it is not un- heard of for education doctoral candidates to rcsearch and write their literature reviews after they have decided on tleir research problems and methods. This unsystematic approach is not sur- prising when we consider how difficult it is to find a clear artic- ulation of the criteria and standards for quality in a literature review. Students often lack the knowledge and skills even to completetborough summaries of the existing literature, let alone more sophisticated forms of research synthesis. And, because ljt- erature review is not valued, it is also not evaluated. Dissertations pass despite their poor literature reviews, and another generation ofeducation researchen fails to learn that generativity is the core of scholanhip-fails to learn what it means to undentand and justify an educational idea in a thorough, sophisticated way.

Librarians have been aware of these issues for some time and have offered many suggestions for improving tle situation (see Libutti & Kopala, 1995, for a review). Yet many librarians suf- fer from some of the same narve conceptions about the role of the dissertation literature review as do doctoral candidates and education faculty. Library instruction has tended to focus on the mechanics of database search strategies and on the varieties of in- formation available.

Bibliographic skills and knowledge are necessary for ensuring that a researcher can locate and evaluate the available literature, but a literature review should not be undentood as merely an ex- haustive summary of prior research. Instead, we need to under- stand that the ability to write a thorough, sophisticated literature review is a form of scholarship requiring a broad range of skills and knowledge-skills and knowledge that we ought to expect of anyone earning a doctorate.

The titeraqre Review: Our Fornddion and lrnpirafion

Despite the scant attention paid to literature reviewing in re- search textbook and programs, a few authors have clearly artic_ ulated its centrality in research. Commenting on the importance ofreviews, Lather (1999) argued that a synthetic review should serve a critical role in gatekeeping, policing, and leading to new productive work, ratherthan merely mirroring rcsearch in a field. In an editoria.l in Review of frlucational Reseanh,LeCompte and colleagues (2003) wrote on the importance of convincing emerg_ ing scholars that

stale-of-the-art literature reviews are legitimate and publishable scholarly documents. Too many new scholan believe that empiri- cal research is the only "real" research; they avoid the deep levels of inrestigation needed to crcate the kinds of manuscripts sought by RFat This leaves education research without an integrative and critical grounding in prior investigations and weakens subsequent work. (p. 124)

Strike and Posner (1983, pp. 35G357) further suggest that a good synthetic review has three characteristics. First, it clarifies and perhaps resolves the problems within a field of study rather than glossing over those problems. Second, it resulrs in a ..pro-

gressive problem shift" that yields a new perspective on the liter-

ature with more explanatory and predictive power than is offered by existing penpectives. Finally, it satisfias the formal criteria of a good theory. Standards such as consistency, panimony, elegance, and fruitfulness characterize a good synrhesis. Lather (1999), kCompte et al. (2003), and Strike and Posner seem to suggest that revicwing the literature in a field perhaps docs require more training than is needed to write a high school term paper and that learning to perform substantive literature reviews should be part of doctoral education.

An interesting contrast to the U.S. literature is provided by sev- eral studies from the United Kingdom and Australia, where dis- sertations and research tieses are normally adjudicated by outside examinen who submjt written reports (Delamont, Atkinson, & Parry, 2000; Johnston, 1997; Nightingale, 1984; Pitkethly & Prosser, 1995; Winter, Griffiths, & Green, 2000). Noting the vagueness and ambiguity of commonly espoused goals for dis- sertations, these studies analyzed the examiners'reports to better undentand the criteria and standards of evaluation. Many of these studies ind.icate that examiners often found problems witlr literature reviews, although criticisms of methodology were a more serious concern.

However, a later study by Mullins and Kiley (2002) estab- lished a link between methodology and the literature review. They interviewed experienced Australjan dissertation examiners and found that examiners typically started reviewing a disserta- tjon with the expectation that it would pass; but a poorly con- ceptualized or written literature review often indjcated for them that the rest of the dissertation might have problems. On en- countering an inadequate literature review, examjners would proceed to look at the methods of data collection, the analys,is, and the conclusions much more carefully. In that way, Mullins and Kiley found that for examiners there was a tacit link between candjdates' knou,ledge of the field and their ability to do sub- stantive, well-justifi ed research.

ln contrast to the vague suggestions of the U.S. research meth- odology textbooks, Hart (1999) suggesls a much more central role for the literature review in doctoral dissertations. By main- taining that a candidate simply cannot do original or substantial research without a thorough understanding of the field, Hart runs contrary to the assumption that data collection and analy_ sis constitute the centerpiece of a doctoral dissertarion. In addi_ tion to the commonly discussed criteria of summarizing similar studies, linking the dissertation research to ongoing research in the field, and providing a basis for comparing the dissertation findings to prior studies, Hart contends (p. 27) that a disserta_ tion literature review should clearly articulate what research needs be done in a field and why it is important, articulate the practical significance of the research, synthesize prior research to gain a new perspective on it, and critically analyze the research methods used.3 He also analyzes the most commonly discussed criteria and subdivides them into more undentandable compo- nents. By introducing these new criteria and setting higher ex_ p€ctations, he communicates the importance not only of the literature review in a dissertation but also ofthe criteria and stan- dards against which it should be judged.

It is important to emphasize here that Hart's crjteria-sup- ported by Lather (1999), LeCompre et al. (2003), and Srike and Posner (1983)-give us quite a different conception from that

EDUC* TTONAL RESEARCHER

seen in most published accounts of dissertation literature re- viewing. Hart clearly articulates that doctoral students must be successful scholan-able to critically synthesize ideas and meth- ods in ther field*before they are to have any chance of being generative researchen. Contrast this with the most common con- ception, which seems to entail a mechanical process of summa- rizing a supposedly exhaustive collection of prior studies. Piqued by our own experiences witlr doctoral students' lack ofexpertise in literature reviewing, we adapted Han's (1999) criteria to in- vestigate systematically how well doctoral students were learnins the skills of scholarship.

Standards and Criteria sf a Literatre Review

ln our recent study (Boote & Beile, 2ee,{) we used Han's (1999) criteria to develop a framework from whjch to analyze literature reviews in doctoral dissertations in the field of education. We also sought to understand wbether the criteria are reasonable for a dissertation literature review. Hart's criteria were adapted and incorporated into our l2-item scoring rubric, which can be gouped into five categories (see Table I ).

The first category, "Coverage," consists of a single criterion that \4'as not one of Hart's. Criterion A assessed how well the au- thor of the dissertation justified criteria for inclusion and exclu- sion from review. Cooper (1985) argues thar

coverage is probably the mosl distinct aspect of literature revie\\,- ing. The extent [o which reviewen find and include relevant works in their paper is the single activity that sets this expository tbrm apart from all others. Hou'reviewers search the literature and how thev rni*s decisions about the suitability and quaiity of materials involve rnethods and analytic processes that are unique to this lbrm ol scholanhip. (p. 12)

Although it is u,orth noting that Cooper is referring here to lit_ erairiie reviewing as a distinct form of scholarship, we believe that the same expectation should be applied to a literature review tnat t\ a precursor to research.

Vv-e are encouraged in this beliefbv Cooper's (19g5) observa_ tron that there are interesting differences among the ways that authoi! ssarch the literature and make decisions about suitabil_ ity and quality. Relative novices to a topic of the review, mea- sured b1' the number of previous pubiications on the topic, tend to be very explicit about their search strategies and criteria and are more likely to use databases and indexes to identify and se_ Ject research to review. Relative experts, on the other hand, tend to not be as explicit about their search strategies and criteria and often rely on personal communications with leading researchers as their main means of identifying relevant research. We might infer that part of the reason that relati ve experLs on a topic do not need to justify their criteria for inclusion and exclusion is that readers will assume that the well-recognized authors know the literature. Doctoral candidates are novice researchers almost by definition and do not have the luxury of being assumed to know the literature. For that reason we believe that the onus is on doc- toral candidates to convince their readers that they have thor- oughly mined the existing literature and purposefully decided what to revie\,. Hjorland (1988) provides a vivid case study of what happens when a doctoral student lack sophisticated library search skills; rhe case study shows the effects on both the origi-

nality and the exhaustivity of the resulting dissertation. The dis- sertation tbat Hjorland analyzed would probably have been ad- equate for most dissertation committees, but the candidate's inability to mine the existing literature led to many eroneous claims about the stare of knowledge in the field.

Yet library search skills are not enough. Too often, coverage is interpreted by doctoral students as exhaustive coverage ofevery- thing previously written about their topic (Bruce,200la). This naive approach to searching and selecting prior research can make it very difficult for researchers to critically synthesize the literature in their field. especially when the literature is relatively small or large, or when it is highly fragmented empirically. con- ceptually, or ideologically. Bruce suggests that coverage should be looked at more broadly. He proposes eight criteria: topicality, comprchensiveness, breadth, exclusion, relevance, cunency. avail- ability, and authority. Thus, for example, a student reviewing the literature on a topic about which very little has been writren may need to broaden the search to examine analogous research in other fields or topics. A student reviewing the literature on a topic about which a great deal has been written may need, in- stead, to focus on the best available evidence or on a smaller number of key conceptual pieces. Whatever the strategv adopted, the burden is on the doctoral candidate to convince the aucJience that inclusion has been purposeful and thorough. Criterion A is included in our rubric to measure the degree to which selection criteria are clearly justified in the disseftation.

The second category, "synthesis," consists ofCriteria B through G and is designed to gauge how well the author summarized, analyzed, and synthesized the selected literature on a topic. The individual criteria ask how well the aurhor (B) distinguished what has been done in the field from what needs to be done. {C) placed the topic or problem in the broader scholarly literature, iDl placed the research in the historical context of the fielcj, (E) acquired and enhanced the subject vocabulan, (F) articulated important vari- ables and phenomena relevant to the topic. antJ (G) synthesized and gained a new perspective on the literature. As Lather ( I 999 ) and Strike and Posner (1983) suggest, this endeavor should en- able the author to synthesize the literature, gain a new perspec- tive on it, and clarify what has been done and still needs to be done. Such a synthesis enables the dissertation author to clarify and resolve inconsistencies and tensions in the literature and thereby make a genuine contribution to the state of knowledge in the field, by developing theories wirh more explanatory and predictive power, clarifying the scope and limitations of ideas, posing fruitful empirical investigations, and./or identifying and pursuing unresolved problems. This kind of theorizing is central to our conception ofwhat it means to earn a doctoral degree.

Criteria H and I constitute the third category,..Methodolog1,." Criterion H measures hou. well the author identified the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field. and analyzed tleir advantages and disadvantages.4 Cnterion I evaluates how well the author's literature review related ideas and theories to research methodologies (a criterion not included in Hart's [1999] list). At minimum, an aurhor should recognize how previous resealchers' methodological choices affected the rssearch findings. Any sophisticated review of literature should also con- sider the rssearch methods used in that iiterature and consicler the strenghs and wealinesses of those research methods in relatjon the

AUG UST/SEPTEI.4BER 2OO5

(!

P i. s o : ' a'= F E v o

o . = E 3 E X < :

a.i: € ; 9 2 6- . e

c? ii A . = l - a

: r o ( 9 c <- u ) o > 9 c D' 6 9 E v ,

o .Y, 9 :

^ - v o = 6

l u : v

o < a o -

s J

P o t G X

.:

F b- E ; 5

. = o > ' - 9 r s o -

= i N ; N=

= v

. e ? ' E

c ( )

: 6

s e E p ; c

g d ; 9 E

6 v )

E o , c ' a H E o s

E r O O a q

- P e

E R = :

o

O @

c ) o q

a a E = 6 e

x E E E o E O O

9 e ' i E c

E - o ( D q

E O > ( ! E c o t F ! E o G a . =g : = E E 5 o b . O E * o

' 6 o = . P € > = o ! P i o

= o ( ' ) O ( D = t r . E . c a c - c L - 6 = :

E E e E E E E E = 9 ; = 9 r = o =' = - - ' = - c ) - o =

. r ? = 6 ' = ' =

. = o E c t r @ - o

3 s 3 E = = E ? ; = > * . 6 5 = ; i : Fe ., .= E 'x g€ g € E . € ; ' = I : - ' = 6 E ; E g = : - . = = 3 E 5 . E E E E F E E E A E' " - E E e E ; E - i E g . F= = 6 > = 9 = = . 9 8 a oE = 5 = E = 6 . . : e E + 3 e ; E 3 E : E = ' = g ; F E : E o . = ( E - l - O ( J O ?E g g ' I p o E z z : = = . a E , E ; . a E € E C , = - ( J F 6 . ) O Z O ( J

: E * : . E ? E g E = F = " g EE - : : : F € g E ; = = E E E E i E = s s:;=:: EE*C=-; EgEs=gE: 3EEEe' E, E=g E ; E E E E F E ; E E s i E c ; E i E = c E E ; i g : =s = c i ! . c E - i E F 5 ; E = E e E E E E g E = E = g = s E 6 ; q

E * 3 E E a = E c X = C = C = N= - i l ' E - c a - c 3 = E 3 3 H ; ; ' E E P P € * * s q i s E 3 ; = : - o I - ( E o E > E 3 6 = : . E E : . E f ' F ? c , E o E . c o o 3 . !& i A c L

e

E F E E - : € E E p E g I a - E F : E E E : F F ; - E E a- P - € 6 - € 6 E o - = - o : - = - ? 6 7 � EEE €igE€EiEEgEFgiE;g ; E X ; E E i E i E E a E a a E E . E i i EE E € 4 - - <

* - E B g T € E r Y E i g H E E ; E E E F a E 3 - c ? ; = f r e E 5 = = E = E = P E o E - - - =

R = R E . E E E : E S S E g ; E E E FE SEE

E = E E € i E i o i e F : gE E = E S E g E : : : Eg €E EE ;*E EE aEEE;E EE EF ;= EE E:€EFE EEEgE;gEg E€ EEEFE FEFgEEEgEEEEEEEi < c r i d c i d E c j - j

o

|r) U) trf

o o

o = c.j

O q ) a = ' @

6 . c) - - - Y > 9 Ct)

- c . i

:<

c

E] G

I

' t

a(

t ' { , ( ' t

r ! . : F >

c( t

state of the field. In many cases, the body of literature on a topic is limited by the research methods used and advances within the field can be traced back to increased methodological sophistica- tion. Very sophisticated literature reviews might recognize the methodological weaknesses of a field of study and propose new methodologies to compensate for those weaknesses. Criteria H and I measured how well the doctoral candidates identified the main methodologies and research techniques used in the field, analyzed their advantages and disadvantages, and related the ideas and theories in the field to the research methodologies. To score well, the candidates could justify their own methodologi- cal choices and perhaps even suggest and justify new research methods.

The fourth category, "Significance," includes Criteria J and K, which measure how well the dissenadon rationalized the practi- cal (J) and scholarly (K) significance of the rcsearch problem. We would expect that, at minimum, a dissertation should discuss both the scholarly and the practical implications of the existing research on a topic and, preferably, note any ambiguities or short- comings in tlre literature. Some disseftations clearly are more scholarlv in their orientation and othen are more practical, but we prefer that any dissertation explain both the practical and the scholarlv significance and limitations of prior research on t}re topic (Richardson, 2003). This expectation acknowledges the im- portance of iinkrng research and practice in the field ofeducation.

The final category, "Rhetoric," also consistr of a single item, Criterion L, which me&sures whether the literature review was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the re- r.ieu,. This criterion, too, was not included in Hart's list, but it emerged as an important one as we read through our sample of dissertations. Once an author has summarized, analyzed, and synthesized the literature, he or she will want to make some claims about that literature. Those claims should be articulated clearlr', and the writing should be organized to support them. This may seem like an obvious point, but our experience even before undertaking this research gave us many examples of liter- ature rer,iews that lacked rhetorical structure and were very poorly written. Cooper's (1985) study of graduate students reading lit- erature reviews reported that rhetorical structure and organiza- tion were key determinants in how influential and persuasive readers believed the review to be.

More generally, Granello (2001) has argued that focusing on the formal aspects of writing is a means of increasing students' cog- nitive complexity, moving students from lower to higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy of the cogniuve domain (see also Libutti & Kopala, 1995). Having to organize one's thoughs is important not merely for persuading an audience but for better undentanding what one is writing (Klein, 1999;D. Kuhn, 1992; Rivard, 1994). Cnterion L measures how well the dissertation articulated clear claims based on its analysis and synthesis of the literature and sup pofted those claims through purposeful organization and cogent writing.

Taken together, these twelve criteria and associated stan- dards set ambitious expectations for doctoral dissertation liter- ature reviews. A literature review that meets high standards on these criteria indicates that the doctoral candidate has a thor- ough, sophisticated understanding of a field of stud,v-*a pre- condition for substantial. useful research.

Llteraturc Review Anatfsis Findirqs

After developing our rubric, we initially examined 30 dissertations awarded in the year 2000 from Oree state-funded colleges of ed- ucation in the United Statesl we selected l2 of those dissertations for full analysis. The three colleges all offered doctoral degrees in addition to significant involvement with preservice teacher edu- cation, had similar rates of acceptance to their graduate pro- grams, and had a comparable number of faculty members. One college was ranked by U.SNervi & World Repn among the top 15 U.S. colleges of education; one was among the top 30; and one was not ranked. Although we are cautious regarding the methods used by USNe*r & World Reportto rank schools, our sample represenls something of the diversity among state-funded education doctoral programs. From these schools we chose a stratified random sample ofthirty dissertations representing the general topics of education leadership, educational psychology, instructional or leaming theory, and teacher edueation. Our analy- sis ofdissertation literature reviews supports Scboenfeld's (1999) contention that doctoral students may not be learning what it means to make and justify educational claims.s

Our findings raise interesting questions about doctoral candi- dates' ability to write a thorough and sophisticated literature re- view and what doctoral dissertation committees will accept as adequate. Although our analysis of scores revealed differences in quality of dissertation literature reviews among the institutions, mean scores across all the institutions were surprisingly low. These results must be interpreted cautiously because of our small sample, but we cannot deny that the wont literature reviews we analyzed were mere disjointed summaries of a haphazard collec- tion of literature. We developed a very clear sense that for many of these doctoral candidates, reviewing prior research on their topic was a hollow exercise from u,hich thel'learned nothing of substance and which contributed little to their understanding of their research project. Moreover, tle common failure to synthe- size literature, critique methodologv, or explain scholarly signif- icance supported Schoenfeld's (1999) asserrion. Such lack of sophistication does not bode well for the studentr' ability to stay abreast of research in their field as teachers. administrators or leaders-let alone to lead productive research careers after re- ceiving their doctorates.

That said, we are happy to report that the best literature re- views were thorough, critical examinations of the state of the field that set the stage for the authors' substantive research proj- ects. These high-quality reviews lead us to believe that our cri- teria and standards are not unreasonable. They also suppon Han's (1999) claim that the criteria are important for doctoral students' understanding of their field and prerequisite for fram- ing fruitful research problems and appropriating sophisticated research methods (Richardson, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1999).

Perhaps even more remarkable than the differences among in- stitutions is the range of scores and amount of variation within each institution. The variance within all three institutions im- plies that literature reviews were not held to consistent criteria or standards, or that standards for acceptable literature reviews u,ere of little or no importance. We were not surprised bv this finding, considering tlat we suspect that Zaporozhetz'(1987) report is generally true and that most faculty supervising doctoral disser- tations do not value the role of reviewing literature in a research

AUGUSTi SEPTEf'4BER 2C/35

project. We are inclined to attribute the differences to faculty expertise and effectiveness at communicating scholanhip ex- pectations, and we can only infer that some faculty have higher, albeit uncodified, minimal standards for acceptable work than do otlers.

The assumption that all doctoral candidates are on tle cutting edge of current research in their field was not well supported by our study, nor can our study justify the assumption that all doc- toral candidates have learned to critically analyze and synthesize research in their field. Although we must still exercise caution with our small sample from a limited number of schools, our re- sults suggest that not everyone with a doctorate in education un_ dentands the norms of scholarly communication orthe processes of warranting scholarly claims. The existing titerature and our analysis of dissertation literature reviews suggests that the crite_ ria and standards for a high-quality literature review are nor pan of the formal curriculum or graduation expectations of even na- tionall.v ranked doctoral prograrls. Doctoral faculty and programs must pay rnore attention to explicitly teaching and assessing stu_ dents on the norms and methods of scholanhip and scholarly communication.

Refining Our Conception of Litmtrre Reviewing The primary purpose of this article is to highlighr the general weakness of dissertation literature reviews and, in so doing, to argue their centrality in preparing doctoral candidates to be bet_ ter scholars and researchers. We developed our rubric as a re- search tool to assess suggested criteria but have discovered that many graduate faculty members and graduate students seem more interesred in using it as a pedagogical tool to teach or learn literature review skills. As we hear from these colleagues, how- ever, it becomes clear to us that education researchen have quite varied beiiefs about the literature review and its role in learnins how to do research.

One of the most common concerns raised about our research is whether the criteria and standards that we have developed should apply to the two types of doctoral degrees in education and to various dissertation formals. Fint, should a literature re- view from an Ed.D. dissertation and a literature review from a Ph.D. dissenation be assessed by means of the same criteria? Some rnight say, for example, that an Ed.D. dissertation should be more concerned with the practical implications of researcb, whereas a Ph.D. dissertation should be morc concerned with its scholarly importance. Although there is much debate about the role and purpose of each degree, we take the position that any- one eaming a doctorate in education ought to know the literature in his or her area of specialization-indeed, it is quite unclear to us what, exactly, earning a doctorate might signify ifone does not know the literature in one's field. For that reason, we did not dif- ferentiate between Ed.D. and Ph.D. degrees in our study, and we do not believe that the corresponding literature reviews should be held to different standards and criteria.

The second concern often raised is whether our criteria ought to apply to the various formats of dissertations. The concern here seems to be that our criteria may inadvertently valorize the tra_ ditional five-chapter, empirical dissertation and may be inap- propriate to apply to other dissertation formats. This certainly was not our intent, nor do we think it will be the effect.

Paltridge (2002) differentiates among four general disserration formats, each of which is seen among education dissertations. The taditionalnhple dissertation presents a single study in five chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, and Conclusions. Twenty-nine of the 30 dissertations that we sampled used this format.

What Paltridge (2002) calls the traditionalcompkxformat pre- sents several related studies, each prasenting ils own introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. The traditional complex dis- sertations that he found tended to use a single fiterature review for all of the studies. We did nor have any dissertations of this type in our sample, but we are aware that they are often used in the field of education, especially for behavioral-science-inffuenced topics.

The topic-baseddissertation is also often used in education, especially for theoretical, philosophical, humanities-based, and qualitati ve dissertations @altridge, 2002). In topic-based disser- tations, authon divide the larger work into chapters that best support the rhetorical structure and often do not use separate chapters for the literature review. methodology, results, or con- clusions. Our sample contained one such dissefiation. a narra- tive of a professional development collaboration in which tlre literature revjewed was interspersed throughout the dissertation. We had no difficulty applying the rubric to this formar: indeed. it scored fairly well against our criteria and standards.

Finaf ly, the compilation of rcseanh articles format for disserta- tions, advocared in these pages by Duke and Beck (1999), pre_ sents a number of discrete articles often written in the format of journal articles. framed with introductory and concluding sec- tions. Each article must be complete unto itself, including its own literature review. Although tlris kincJ of dissertation has been of increasing popularity in tlre sciences (Dong. l99g), we are not certain how often it is used in education. One notable difference between article compilations and other dissenadon formats js that dissertations in the compilation format tend to be written "more

as 'experls writing for experu', than novices ,writing for admission to the academy'" (Paltrictge, 2OAZ. p. 132). As such, they contain much less writing that se€ms to serve the purpose of merely displaying rhe author's knowledge.

Nothing in our arguments or analysis is intended to justify the all-too+ommon practice, in a five+hapter, traditional simple dis- senation, of isolating tlre literature review in the second chapter. A doctoral candidate who has a thorough, sophisticated under_ standing of the literature should clearly be expected to demonstrate an undentanding throughout the dissertation, from introduction through conclusion. We can only speculate that the tendency to isolate the literature review reflecls doctoral candidates' less-than_ thorough understanding of their literature and inability to see how the literature should inffuence their choice and justification ofresearch topic, choice and justification of methods of data col_ lection and analysis, and discussion of the findings, conclusions, and implications. The choice of format for a dissertation ought to fit its rhetoncal structure, including the derision whether to write the literature review as a stand-alone chapter or to integrate it tlroughout the dissertation. Whatever format the author chooses. a thorough, sophisticated review ought to be influential and ev_ ident in the entire dissertation.

EDUCATIONAL RESFARCHER

We would expect to find significant differences among the dis- sertation literature reviews according to format, including pre- sentation, format, degree of integration, and authorial voice. We can see noreason, however, to suggest that the various disserta- tion formats ought to be judged against different criteria in their literature reviews. A dissertation of any format should demon- strate that the author thoroughly undentands the literature in his or her arsa of specialization. The fact that 29 of the 30 disserta- tions we examined were of the traditional-simple format made our data collection easier but is not relevant to the application of the criteria.

A related concern seems to originate from the practice, perhaps common among students, of writing literature revjews as part of dissertation proposals and then using the same literature in the dissertation with little revision. Thus the literature review be- comes a static artifact rather than a dynamic part of the entire dis- sertation. ln contrast, we would normally expect candidates to continually revisit their undentanding of the literature through- out the dissertation experience. This might mean rereading the literature in light of subsequent findings or analysis, or reading new literature to address emerging findings or ideas. Without viewing the literature review as a dynamic, integral part ofthe re- search process, we are much more likely to find the problems that Alton-Lee (1998) identified in the submissions to Teachine and Teacher Education.

Several critics have also raised concerns about Criterion A, "Justified

criterja for inclusion and exclusion from review," not- ing that it was not stipulated by Hart (1999) and that even the best of the dissertations that we analyzed did not score well on this criterion. Of all of the criteria we used in our study, we suspect that this will be most contentious. Our decision to include this criterion was based on our experience working with dissertation students and noting how haphaz.ardly many approached tbe lit- erature search. We also are aware that review journals increasingly expect authors to describe explicitly how they identified research to indicate the conditions for inclusion and exclusion, implicitly following Cooper's ( I985) recommendations. We continue to believe that it is important for all researchers, especially novices, to begin to take this more methodical approach to literature re- views. We also contend that its use holds the most potential for improving tlre quality of dissertation literature reviews, as it forces candidates to be more methodical.

Other crjtics have worried that providing detailed criteria to evaluate the quality of a literature review will lead to yet more dissenations that are formulaic.6 This outcome seems unlikely to us, but u'e acknowledge that clear criteria alone will never lead to better scholanhip. As Bargar and Duncan (1986) write, a ,,thor-

ough undentanding and sincere commitment to problems of im- poftance can and very often do lead to pedestrian, unimaginative solutions" (p. 35). Less-successful researchers have perhaps never Iearned to develop productive research guestions because they have superficial undenranding of the problems of their field, they tend to follow unproductive habits learned in their dissertation research projects, or they misundentand the changing norms and expectations of their research community.

We need to s$ess that a good literature review is necessary but not sufficient for good research. A good review of the literature cannot guarantee either a rigorous study or significant findings.

Just because authors understands the research that others have done does not mean that they will necessarily be able to collect, analyze, or interpret data well. It certainly does not mean that their interpretation of prior research in the field will lead them to focus on research problems that will yield significant and im- portant studjes. Ofcourse, even having a significant insight into the literature in a field does not guarantee that researches will then be able to do significant research on the topic. But, again, it is unlikely if not impossible to do signilicant research without productive insight into the field.

It is productive insight that distinguishes a synthetic review, in Lather's (1999) sense, from the plodding research summaries that characterize most dissertations. Productive insight can never be routine. But we contend that requiring doctoral candidates to engage in substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature reviews creates and fosters conditions that will greatly increase the likelj- hood of their developing productive insight.

Lookirg Forrvard

Doctoral studenls must be scholars before they are researchers. Fint and foremost, a dissertation should dernonstrate a thorough and sophisticated grasp of one's field of study; secondarily and antecedently. it should demonstrate the ability to do research that advances tle collective understanding of important educa- tion issues. Education research is diftlcult because of the complex nature of the phenomena studied. ln the face of perennial con- cerns about the quality ofeducation research and contemporary pressures to reform it, U.S. education research joumals have em- phasized methods of data collection and analysis and related issues of epistemology. In turn, the emerging literature on preparing doc- toral students in education has emphasized methodological so- phistication as the key to improving education research. yet to try to improve education research by focusing on methodologi- cal sophistication is to put the cart before the horse.

Researchen cannot appropriate sophisticated research methods if their undentanding of the phenomena they are investigating is rudimentary and unsystematic. To be able to identify workable and potentially important research problems @ichardson, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1999), thev musr be able to shifi the problem to fincl perspectives that are progressively more explanatory and insight- ful; they must become more sophisticated theoretically without being superficial (Strike & Posner, 1983). This requires much more than the mere summaries of existing literature tlat we found in most of the dissertations we analyzed. Doctoral students should be expected to move through Bloom's stagas of cognitive development, from comprehending to applying, to analyzing. and on to synthesizing and evaluating (Granello, 2001). Moreover, simply expecting students to meet these criteria and standards is not enough-the skills required must be taught explicitly.

Yet the most obvious means of improving the situation- adding a class on literature reviewing to doctoral programs-is t}te least likely to be effective. Such a curricular solution. as Briuman (1991) noted about learning to teach, would leave the hardest task-integrating and applying the lessons from various classes in the doctoral program-to those who are least capable of doine it. That is, to review the literature in the uay thai we have sugl gested here is a very complex task that requires the integration and application of a variety of skills and knowledge that few in- dividual faculty members have mastered.

t lAUGUST/SEPTF|4BER 2OO5

For example, this approach to Iiterature reviewing requires ad- vanced bibliographic methods for searching and locating re- search from a variety of sources, skills usually associated with library instruction and the traditional domain of [brarians. And, indeed, there is a healthy literature on the importance of doctoral faculty teaming witlr librarians, because neither atone typically have the skills and knowledge needed (Bailey, 1985; Bruce, 2001b; Caspers & lrnn, 2000; Isbell & Broadsus, 1995; Libutti & Kopala, 1995).

Yet even this approach is inadequate, because to do the kind of critical synthesis that we suggest also requires diverse skills on the part of doctoral faculty. These include a substantive under- standing of the topic being reviewed, the skills and knowledge required to critically evaluate and synthesize concepts, advanced understanding of writing and rhetoric, and the sophisticated un- derstanding of research methodology that is required to critically evaluate methods used jn prior studies and suggest means of overcomin g prior metlrod ological limi utions.

For reasons like these, we suggest that a stand-alone class in literature reviewing is inadequate. Rather, literature reviewing should be a central focus of predissertation coursework, inte- grated throughout the program. Demonstrating the scholarly ab.ilities required for good literature reviewing ought to be a pre- requisite tbr passing into candidacy. Such a process will require the joint efforts of not only subject experts but also librarians, writing teachers. methodologists, and perhaps others from across campus.

The current interest in improving doctoral education and ed- ucation research coincides with changes in instruction on infor_ matlon access and use. Only recently have libraries redefined library instruction. with irs traditional emphasis on mechanical searching skills, ro include information literacy, which employs a more conceptual approach to information use. The Association of College and Research Libraries (2000) defines information lit- eracy as

an intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating, and using intbrmation-activities which may be accomplished in part b.v- fluency with information technology, in part by sound in_ vestigative methods, but mosr importantly, through critical dis- cernment and reasoning. (pp. H)

The new focus of librarjes on teaching students to critically en- gage with information offers the possibility of successful fac- ulty-librarian collaboration, especially in the realm ofgraduate literature reviewing and writing. Green and Bowser (2003) de- scribe an initiative whereby faculty and librarians guided stu- dents in determining appropriate study subtopics, organizing literature reviews, evaluating resources, and establishing relation- ships with the literature (for other examples, see Bruce, 2001; Caspen & Lenn,2000;Heller-Ross, 1996;Stein & Lamb, l99g; Wright,2000).

Taking the idea a step further, Isbell and Broaddus (1995) discuss the possibility of integrating writing instruction into the process. Many doctoral students have not explicitly studied writing and rhetoric since their freshman composition classes. Doctoral faculty expect doctoral students to possess nor just bibliographic skills but also advanced skills in the mechanics of witing and the art of rhetoric. Yet the writing in many of the dis-

l 2

sertations we read wu linle more sophisticated than that of fresh- men. Admittedly, this is part of a larger discussion, but the point is tlat we cannot expect students to write more sophisticated lit- cature reviews if they lack sophisticated witing skills. Students enter doctoral programs with a range of skills and abilities. Suc- cessful supervision and development of doctoral students entails integrating the expertise of a range of univenity personnel. Indi- vidual faculty members cannot be responsible for teaching the necessary skills in isolation-these skills must be integrated into the curriculum at the program level, and clearly communjcated and evaluated.

Ifthe dissertations we reviewed had faiied to properly collect and analyze data the education community would blame their authors or their dissertation committees. Wjth few exceptions, the procedures and standards of data collection and analysis used in dissenations are well articulated and w.idely disseminated. However, we are not so fortunate in the case of literature re- viewing-tie methods and expectatjons of literature reviewing are at best haphazardly described. Cooper (1985, p. 33) asserts, "Students in education . . . can take five or six statistics or meth- ods courses without ever directly addressing the problems and procedures of l-iterature review." If Cooper's clairn remains true , the situation must be remedied.

Our concern is that by focusing on methodological issues, the education research community is addressing the symptom rather than the cause. That is. rqsearchers must understand prior researclr in their field, and its strengths and weaknesses, before they can be expected to choose appropriate methods of data collection and data analysis. Moreover, sophisticated methods of data collection and analysis are of little use if one is studying an unproduct.ive problem. They are also of little use if one lack the sophisticated understanding ofthe literature needed to understand the mean- ing of the data. If doctoral programs and dissenation committees have not been attending to the literature review as a key compo- nent of a research project, we might find that increased attention to this aspect of our tradecraft will in turn improve the quality and usefulness of research.

Further, if we, the education research community, are to teach our doctoral students, then we must begin to value the literature revjew in our own work. Imagine if we were to devote one tenth as muclr energy, care, and thought to being better scholars as we do to developing our methods of data collection and analysis. That we have not done so is a symptom of the broader culture of education research that artificially distinguishes between ljrera_ ture review, on the one hand, and methods and analytic tech_ niques, on the other.

As a result, empiricism and methodological issues have been ascendant at the expense ofscholarship, generativity. and theory building. Theorizing is fundamental to research and scholarship. It is an undentanding ofthe literature that leads to increasingly sophisticated inquiry, connecting research methods and claims with their warrants. That our doctoral candjdates often graduate without a sophisticated understanding of tlre literature in whiclr they are supposed to be expert indicates a failure not only of doc_ toral programs but of the education research enterprise in gen_ eral. Doctoral students need to see us engaged in systematic analysis and synthesis of the literature if they are going to value those activities for themselves. Dissertation committees must hold

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

the literature review to standards at least as high as those for methodology-arguably higher. Our failure to do so will leave us with fragmented and disjointed research, unconnected to theory.

Requiring doctoral students in education to approach the ex- isting literature in their field in the ways that we have suggested is a means of inculcating the norms and practices of academic culture, with its emphasis on the analytic, the intellectual, the universal, and the *reoretical (kbaree, 2003). We suggest that the standards and criteria of good literature reviewing are part of the hidden curriculum of good graduate programs and perhaps pan of the tacit knowledge passed on from mentors to candidates. Neither of these propositions can be tested with our current data, and further research will be needed to undentand the pattern. In- deed, future researcb may show tlat a thorough, sophisticated undentanding ofthe field is what separates the best doctoral can- didates and education researchen from evervone eise.

NOTES

The authors wish to thank Aldrin Sweeney, Bill Gaudelli. Ann Austin, and three anonymous reviewen for their very helpful suggestions.

I For example, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (Camegie Foundation, 2003) is investigating the structure of the doctorate across six disciplines, including education, and irs implications for the future vigor, guality. and inregriry of the field. Similar initiatives have been started by the Spencer Foundation (Young, 2001), the pew Charitable Trust (2001), the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundarion (2001), the National Research Council 0999), and the Nationai Edu- cation Association (Lageman & Shulman, 1999). In the Carnegte Foun- dation iniriative, forexample, participating departments are from notable schools such as Arizona State University; Indiana University, Bloom- ington; Michigan State Univenity; Ohio State University; the Univer_ sity ol Colorado, Boulder; the Univenity of Michigan; the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the University of Southern California; ard Washington Srate Univenity. All of the participating deparrmenrs are housed in nationally ranked schools of education (America's Best Colieges, 2004). Emerging from these initiatives, recent chapters b_v, Schoenleld (1999) and Siddle Walker (1999) and articles by Labaree (2003), Metz (2001), Page (2001), Pallar (2001), and Richardson (2fi)3) have, in turn. addressed the problems of doctoral education and made suggestions ibr improvement.

This lirerature has initiated an important diarlogue in ow field. bur it is lacking for at least two reasons. First, although the aforementioned initirtives suggest helpful strategies for improving education research. they ignore the facl rhar, ofthe approximately 7,000 recipients ofdoc- toral degrees awarded in education every year, only a small percentage graduate from these nationally ranked institutions (National C-enter for Education Staristics, 2002). We cannot assume that the experiences of doctoral students in these resource-rich institutions are representative of the experiences of most doctoral students. As a result, we need to look carefully at any generalizations and recommendations that these initia, tives generate. Second, although the reflections of leading scholan on doctoral education are valuable in initiating convemations about im- proving doctora.l education, they are only the beginning and must be followed by systematic examinations of doctoral education.

2 It is worth noting that in the middle lgth century, U.S. univeniries misundentood the ch:urges in Germlrn univenities. At that time the new U.S. graduate research univenities emphasized the utility of empirical research (a theme that continues today), whereas the German universi- ties emphasized the importance of frecly pursuing investigations, both empiriciLl and scholarly, without regard for the immediate needs of so- ciet;'(Veysey, 1965, p. I26t.

3 Specifically, Hart (199) argued that the dissertation literature re- view plays a central role in

L distinguishing what has been done from what needs to be done; 2. discovering important variables releyant to the topici 3. synthesizing and gaining a new penpective; 4. identifying relationships between ideas and practices; 5. eslablishing the contexr of the topic or problem, 6. rationalizing the significance of the problem; 7. enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary; 8. understanding the structure of the subject; 9. relating ideas and theory to applications;

10. identifying the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used;

I l. placing the research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments. (p. 27)

We found that these criteria gave us a much more robust and thorough set of criteria with which to evaluate the quality of the dissertations we were examining. However, as we tried to operationalize the criteria, we found that we needed to combine some, rewrite others, add several. and rcorder the list to group similar ones. For example, we combined Hart's ( 1999) Criteria 4 nnd 9 inro our Criterion J, "Rationaliz_ed the practical significance ol the research problem." Also, we omitted Hart's Criterion 8 because it was too ambiguous to operationalize and evaluate.

a Criterion H is the onlv one that is measured on a 4-poinl scale. While pilot-testing this rubric, we lbund that we could not reiiably use a4-point scale in measuring the other criteria, so we converted all ol'the others to 3-point scales. However, we needed a 4-point scale to include the possibility of an aurhor's proposing and justifying the need for neu, research methods within a field of study.

5 A complete description of the research methodology crur be found in Boote and Beile (2004). Summiry statistics are included here. Mean scores 1br the individual items ranged from a low of 1.08 (.iD= .29) on Criterion A, "Justified criteria for inclusion and exclusion from review" to a high of 2.33 on three separate criteria: "Placed the research in the historical context o1'the field" (.9D=.78), "Acquired and enhanced the subject vocabulary" (SD = .49), and "Articulated important variables and phenomena relevanr to the topic" 1SD= .49). It would seem thar. by common agreement, these latter three criteria are expected in any dis- sertation. And, indeed, these are the most common criteria listed in the introductorv- research te.rtbook. On the other hand, we were more trou- bled by the low ayerage ssores in criteria such irs "synthesizerl and gained a new perspective on the literature" (M= 1.42, SD = .6j),..Identifiecl the main methodologies and research techni<;ues that have bcen used in the field, and their advanlages and disadvantages" (M= 1.92, SD= .1.9), and "Rationalized the scholarly significance ol'the research problem" ( . M = 1 . 9 2 , S D = . 7 9 ) ,

Inter-university difl'erences also revealed potential concerns. Scores on each ofthe twelve criteria were averaged to arrive at an overall qual- ity score for the literature review. The mean of the literature review qual- ity scores ranged from a low of t.42 to ahigh of 2.91 (M = 2.09, gD = .50). By institution, the top-ranked college's literature review quality scores (Iy'= 2.12, SD=.55) ranged from 1.67 to 2.91tthe mid-tier col_ l e g e ' s s c o r e s ( M = 2 . 4 0 , . ! D = . 4 1 ) r a n g e d f r o m l . 4 Z t o 2 . 9 l ; a n d t h e nonranked college's scores (M= 1.73, SD= .37) ranged from 1.42 to 2 . 2 5 . A K r u s k n l - W a l l i s s a l c u l a t i o n , I / ( 2 ) = 3 . 9 0 , p = . 1 4 , r e v e a l e d n o statistica.lly significant difference among institurions, yet practical dif- ferences are indicated by the nonranked college's average placement of 3.88, as compared with the top-tiered college's average o1 6.75 and the mid-tier college's average of 8.88.

6 Passmore (1980) reminds us that "the Ph.D did not, of course. cre- are pedantry-" (1980. p. 53).

REFERENCES

Alton-Lee, A. (1998). A troubleshoorer's checklisr for prospective au- thors derived from reviewers' critical fbedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, /4(8), 887-890.

I JAUGUST/SEPTEI'4 BER 2OO5

America's Best Colleges. (20&l). USNews & World Repo4 Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.usnews.com/usnewVrankguide/ rghome.htm

Babbie, E. (1998). Tlrc pnclce of social rcyarch(8th ed.). Belmonr, CA: Wadsrvorth.

Bailey, B. (1995). Thesis practicum and the librarian's role. Ioumal of Academic Librarianship, I l, 79-81.

Barger, R. R., & Duncan, J. K. (1986). Creativity in doctoral research; A reasonable expectation? The &lucational Forun, 5l(l),3343.

Barri', C. A. (1997). lnformation skills for an electronic world: Train- ing doctoral research candidates. loumal of Information Science, 2-73r,22s-238.

Berelson, B. (1960). Gnduate education in the lJnited Sutes. New york: N{cGraw-Hil1.

Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of ali. Ed u catio nal Researchen Jl(8), 1 8-20.

Boote, D. N., & Gaudelli, W. (2002). The use and abuse of historical educational theorists: Comments on recent Dewey scholanhip. Iit- sighs' A publication of the John Dewey Srieq tbr the Study o!'kluca- tion and Culture, 3fl?),9-13.

Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. Qn4, Apil). The quality of disxrtation liter- atut rcviews: A mhsin_e link in rcseanh Fepltration. paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ- ation, San Diego, CA.

Bntzman. D. (1991) Practice maka practice: A critical study otteaming to teach, Albany: State Univenity of New york press.

Bruce. C. S. (1994). Research students'early experiences ofthe disser- trili on li teral ure rev iew . S tu dies i n H igher Ed uca t i o n, I qD, 2l'l -ZZg .

Bruce, C. S. (2001 a). lnterpreting the scope of their literature reviews: Significant differences in research studenls concerns. New Libray lvorld, I AA4). 158-166.

Bruce, C. S. (2001b). Faculty-librarian partnenhips in Australian higher education: Critical dimensions. Refercnce Senice Revhv,, 29, 106-l 15.

Camegie Foundation. (?003\. Camegie initiative on the doctorate. Re- tneved Januarl, 4, 2m5, from http;//www.cunegiefoundation.org/ CllDiindex.htm

Caspers, J.. & I*nn, K. (2000). The future of collaboration between librarians and teaching faculty. In D. Rupa & D. Ward (Eds.), The coilaborative imperative: Librarians and facultl working together in ttu inlbrmation univene (p. la8-154). Chicago: American Library Association.

Coopr. H. M. ( I 985 ). A ux on omy o{ li un tun re views. P apr presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction Servicps No. ED254541.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Renanh daign: Qualitatiw and guantitatire ap- pmachet Thousand Oalcs, CA: SAGE.

Creswell. J. W. (2002). Hucational rcseanh: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantiutive and gualitative rcsearch. Upper Saddle River, Nl: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Delamont, S., A&inson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The dutoral experi- ence: Suces and failurc in gnduak school. Ne$'York: Falmer.

Dong, Y. R. (1998). Nonnative graduate students' thesis dissertation writing in science: Self-rcports by students and their advison from two US institutions. English tor Spific Ptrp6es, In4),369-390.

Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alterna- tive forms for the dissertation. Educational Raearher, 2&.3),31-36.

Fraenkel. J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to daign and eyaluate rc- seanh in education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Galvan, J. L. (2001). Writing litentut rcviews: A guide for studenr of the social and behavioral scienca (Znd ed.). Los Angeles: furczalr.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2m0). klucational rcearch: Compten- cia lbr analssis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ; Merrill.

Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate writlen work: Using Bloom's tiuonomy as a pedagogical tool to im- prove literature reviews. Coumelor Education and Supnision, 4Q4), 292-307.

Grant, C. A., & Graue, E. ( 1999). (Re)Viewing a review: A case history of the 'lReview of Educational Research." Review of Educational Re- search.6\4),384-396.

Han, C. (1999). Doing a literaturc rcview: Releasing the social science rc- search imagination London: SAGE.

Hjorland, B. (1988). Information rerieval in pychology: Implications of a case study. Behavioral and Srcial Scienca Librarian, q34),3944.

Isbell, D., & Broaddus, D. (1995). Teaching writing and research as in- separable: A faculty-librarian teaching team. Refetence Senicet Li- brarian, 48,5-25.

Johnston, S, (1997). Examining the examinen: An analysis of examin- ers' reports on doctoral theses. .9rudr'a in Higher Education, 243), 333-347.

Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes of learn- i ng-to-write. Ed uc a ti o n al h I chol ogy R e v ie v', I l, 203-27 0.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Tbinking as argument. Hawad &lucational Revjew, 642\ 155-178.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The saucture of scientific nvolutions (Znd ed.). Chicago: Univenity of Chicago Press.

Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Ed uc a t i o n al R ese arch e r, 3 1l ), 13-22.

Lagemann. E. C., & Shulman, L. S. ( 1999). Isues in education nsearch: Pmblems and possibilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use; The work of reviewing. Revie*' ot' Hu- cational Reseanh, 6q1), 2-7.

leCompte, M. D., Klingner. J. K., Campbell, S. A., & Menk, D. W. (2003). Edi ton' i ntrodu crion. R evie *t' of Ed uc a ti o n al R eseatt h, 7-l(2), t23-124.

Lester, J. D. (20021. The esential guide; Reseuc-h writing acrus the disci- p/rizes. New York: Longman.

Libutti, P., & Kopala, I\,1. (199,5). The docroral srudenr. the disserta- tion, and the library: A review of the literature. Relbrcnce Libruian, t R l ) \

Mauch, J. E. (1998). Guide to the succesful thesis and djssertation: A handboo* lbrstudeng and fitculn. Neu'York: M. Dekker.

McMillan, i. H., & Schumacher, S. A. (2001). Reseunh in education. A conceptual inuoduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Metz, M. H. (2001). Intellectual border crossing in graduate education: A report lrom rhe field, Educational Reseanher, -7fi5). l2-18.

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). "Ir's a PhD, nor a Nobel hize": How experienced examiners assess research theses. .t/udrbs in Higher Edu- cation, 2Z.4),369-386.

National Center for Education Statistics . Q0[,U. Digest of education su- tistics, 2aol. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (19991. Impmvin" student leaning; A strate- gic plan {or education rcsearch and ia utilization. Washingron, DC: National Academv Press.

Nickerson, E.T. ( 1993). The dissenaion handbnk: A guide to succesful d*senad ons. Dubuque, IA : Kendall,rHunt.

Ni ghtingale, P. ( I 984). Exiuni nation of rcsearch the*,s. Higher kl uca - tion Rescarch and Development, 3, 137-150.

Ogden, E. H. (1993). Comphting rour dutoral dissenation or master's thesis in two senL.sten or.less. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Page, R. N. (2001). Reshaping Eaduate preparation in educarional re- search methods: One school's experience. Educational Researcher, 3q5), r9-2s.

Pallu, A. M. (2001 ). Preparing education docloral students for episte- mological diversity. Educational Raeanhen 3qS), 6-l l.

l 4 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and disserration writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English lbr Sperific pupua, 21,125-t43.

Pan, M. L. (2003). Prcparing litentun reyiews: eualiutire nd quanti- tative appmachel Los Angeles: Pyrczak.

Passmore, J. (1980). The philosophy of gr:rduate education. In W. K. Frankena (Ed.\, The philosophy and fututt of graduate education (pp. aG-59). Ann Arbor: Univenity of Michigan press.

Pew Charitable Trust. (2001). Re+ndsioning the ph.D. Retrieved Jan- uary 4, 2W5, from http://www.Ead.washington.edu./envision/

Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (1995). Examiners'comments on the in- ternational context of PhD theses. In C. McNaught & K. Beattie (Eds.), Researrrl inn highereducation: Dilemma, dircctions and diver- sions(pp.129-136). Melbourne: Higher Education Research and De- velopment Society of Australasia Victoria.

Richardson, V. (2003). The Ph.D. in education. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/ClD/essays/CID_ educ_Richardson.pdf

Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implica- tions for practice and research. loumal of Raearh in Science Teach- ing,31,969-983.

Schoenfeld, A. H. ( 1999). The core, the canon, and the developmenl of research skills. ln E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shuiman (Eds.), .lssaesrr education rcsearh : Ptoblems and pusibili tia (pp.l 66-223).San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scl.rools of Education. (2000, April l0). U.lNe*'s & Wortd Repon,ll4. Shuhnan, L. S. (1999). Professing educational scholarship. In E. C.

Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Isues in education rcsearch; hob- lems and possibilities (pp.l59-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siddle Walker, V. ( 1999). Culture and commitment: Cha.llenges for the future training of education researchen. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulmzrn (Eds.), lsrues rb educatjon reseanh: ptoblems and pusibitities (pp. 224-244). San Francjsco: Jossey-Bass.

Storr. R. J. ( 1 969). The beginning of graduate education in America. New York: Arno Press and New York Press.

Strike, K.. & Posner. G. (1983). Types of synthesis and their criteria. In S. Ward and L. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge srructure and use: Implica-

tions for synthesis and interpreration (pp. 343-362). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Veysey, L. R. ( I 965 ). The emeryence of tlrc Ameica n un i veni ty. Chicago: Univenity of Chicago Press.

Wideen, M. F., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1999). A critical analy- sis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an eco- fogical penpective on inquiry. Review of klucatianal Reseurh, 6$2), 130-178.

Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The "academic" quali- ties of practice: What arre the criteria for a practicc-based PhD? .ftud- ies in Higher Education, 2.J(l), 25-37 .

Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. (2ffi1). The mpon- sive PhD. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.woodrow. ory'responsivephd/

Young, L. J. (2001). Border crossings urd otherjourneys: Re-envisioning the doctoral preparation of education researchen. Hucational Re- searcher, 3q5),3-5.

Taporozhek. L. E. (1987). The dissenation literatue rcview: Hou,[ac. ulq advhon prcpan their doctoral candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

AUTHORS

DAVID N. BOOTE is an fusistanr Protbssor of Curriculum Studies in the College of Education, University of Central Florida. Orlando. FL 328 1 6- I 250; dboote @mail. ucf.edu. His research interests include edu- cation research studies. teacher educators, mathematics and physics problem solving, and moral education.

PENNY BEILE is an Associate Librarinn ar the University of Cenrral Florida, P.O. Box 1626f,6, Orlando. FL 32816-2666: pbeile@mail. ucf.edu. Her areas ol sper:ialization are lhe production and use of schol- arly information in education and the information titeracy abilities of education studenls. She is completing the development and va.lidation of the In{ormation Literacy Assessment Scale for Education (ILAS-ED).

Manuscript received December 10, 2003 Revisions received January 4, April 28, 2005

Accepted May 6, 2005

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2OO5 t 5