Beile, Penny and Boote, David On "Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research": A Response to the Critique by Joseph Maxwell. Educational Researcher, 2006, vol. 35, n. 9, pp. 32-35. [Journal article (Paginated)]
Preview |
PDF
On Literature Reviews.pdf Download (71kB) | Preview |
English abstract
We thank Joseph Maxwell (this issue of Educational Researcher, pp. 28–31) for accepting our invitation to examine the roles and expectations of dissertation literature reviews. We agree that most are inadequate but disagree why. Maxwell argues that dissertations should emulate research articles and include a conceptual framework that only discusses relevant literature. Candidates need not present a thorough analysis and synthesis of the scholarship and research, Maxwell argues, or justify claims made about the literature. Finally, he asserts that we misunderstand the relationship between literature and research, leading to an accusation of “foundationalism.” However, these specific disagreements ignore fundamental differences about the purposes of the doctoral dissertation and the relationship between those purposes and doctoral program goals. In this rejoinder, we briefly explore these conceptual and normative differences.
Item type: | Journal article (Paginated) |
---|---|
Keywords: | Library instruction, academic libraries |
Subjects: | B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information. B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods D. Libraries as physical collections. > DD. Academic libraries. G. Industry, profession and education. > GG. Curricula aspects. G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education. |
Depositing user: | Penny Beile |
Date deposited: | 03 May 2012 |
Last modified: | 02 Oct 2014 12:22 |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16910 |
References
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Actions (login required)
View Item |