Simple Gap description

PSYC 8754: Personnel Psychology in the Workplace “Literature Reviews” Program Transcript NARRATOR: Have you ever thought about a literature review as representin\ g your intellectual heritage or intellectual genealogy? In his exploration\ of the purpose of a literature review, Dr. Patton explains this interesting per\ spective. He also points out common errors to avoid when undertaking a literature rev\ iew.

DR. PATTON: One of the things that we do as scholar practitioners is loo\ k at the knowledge created by other people. And we draw on that knowledge as a wa\ y positioning our own work and understanding where our contribution to knowledge, our own research, fits in that larger tradition.

This is often referred to as the literature review. And the way that you\ go about knowing the knowledge that others have generated that you're going to bu\ ild on and contribute to is to conduct a literature review.

I tend not to like that terminology, because it sounds like the purpose \ is to review the literature. Literature review is actually a means to another end. An\ d it's that end, it's that purpose, of conducting the literature review that I want \ to focus on.

The purpose is for you to understand your intellectual heritage. Your in\ tellectual genealogy. Any time we undertake an inquiry into a particular issue, we \ are building on the knowledge of others.

And we need to know what that knowledge is. It's part of our obligation \ as scholars, is to understand what work has come before us. What concepts w\ e've inherited. What methods we've inherited. What measures we've inherited. \ Some of which we've adopted, some of which we've parted from.

But we need to know that. Because at the end of a program of study, a ma\ ster's degree, a program of doctoral inquiry, you're going to be expected to be\ able to locate your work within that tradition. And so it means that you need to be able to establish the people who formulated the basic distinctions that you're d\ rawing on.

Let me share with you some of the mistakes that I, from my point of view\ , find students engaging in when they undertake the literature review. One of t\ hese is to simply do an internet search to see how many articles they can find o\ n a topic, where they think that the game is how many citations you can come up wit\ h to show that you've done a literature review.

This isn't a quantitative game. It's not something where the number of sources is important. It's the quality of those sources and your engagement with th\ em. That you are able to engage with what other people have done and understand w\ hat's ©2012 Laureate Education, Inc.

1 relevant, what's not relevant, to your own area of inquiry, so that you're positioning yourself out of those traditions that others have engaged in\ .

A second error is to think that the game is to position your work as uni\ que. Is to try to find something that nobody else has ever done. To say nobody else\ has ever studied this before.

So let's say that you're interested in homosexual behavior among penguin\ s in Antarctica. And you do a massive internet search and you find out that n\ obody has ever studied homosexual behavior among penguins in Antarctica, and y\ ou say, there is no literature on this topic and that your work is unique. \ Well, there is a huge literature on animal behavior. There's a huge lite\ rature on how animals adapt to their environment. There's a huge literature on the\ ways in which animals are alike and different from human beings.

There's a huge literature on anthropomorphism, out of both the humanitie\ s and the social sciences about how we impose our perspectives about what's important to humans on animals, and the interpretations we make of anima\ l behavior based upon our perceptions of the world.

There is work that goes back to Greek philosophy on the difference betwe\ en animals and humans, and what's similar and what's different. There is a \ huge tradition in medical research and social science research about what's r\ elevant about animal behavior and human behavior.

All of that tradition going back to the Greeks and how they distinguishe\ d animals from human beings, and how they decided what behaviors are important to \ study, and how animals adapt to their environment is a part of your inte\ llectual tradition. You stand on the shoulders of those giants.

Likewise, for any given field, there are burning questions that have def\ ined that field. In sociology, which is my own field, all sociology derives from w\ hat we call the Hobbesian question of order. What holds society together? Why doesn'\ t society fall apart?

Every sociological question stems from that question that Hobbes asked. \ And therefore, if you look at sociology articles in the premier journals-- The American Sociological Review, The American Journal of Sociology-- you'll find that they typically begin with a reference to Hobbes or to Durkheim, or to Weber, \ or to Marx, who were asking the original burning questions in psychology and sociology.

In psychology, you'll find original references to Freud, to and Adler, and to Jung that go back to things like the notion of the unconscious. And whether y\ ou agree or disagree with various aspects of Freudian theory, the notion that the\ re's an ©2012 Laureate Education, Inc.

2 unconscious mind and that that unconscious mind makes a difference in what we do is a part of what has framed modern psychology.

And so you stand on the shoulders of people who are trying to understand\ how the mind works, and who have divided off from those original, classical \ theorists and researchers about how the mind works. The burning question in psychology is, why do we behave as we behave? How do we think and feel? How do we know and engage the world?

And so you need to know who the classic people were who were asking thos\ e questions. Who their disciples were. What were the splits along the jour\ ney, where one group went in this direction, and another group went in anothe\ r direction, up to the more recent published research and up to the kind o\ f work that's now going on that may not yet be published, where you can get in \ touch with those people who are engaged in research now.

Find out what the funded research is from the National Institutes of Hea\ lth, the National Institutes of Mental Health. The major foundations. And find ou\ t what cutting edge work is going on so that you have a full scale genealogy of\ what your intellectual tradition is.

When you have finished that inquiry over a period of time, you're able t\ o then say, these are the peoples on whose shoulders I stand. These are the int\ ellectual traditions that I'm a part of. This is my intellectual DNA. Here is what\ I've drawn on. Here are the places where I'm departing from others. And here is whe\ re I'm going to make my contribution.

That's the purpose of a literature review. You're positioning yourself in a stream of knowledge. In a flow of knowledge. As a part of that work. A third er\ ror that I think students often make is to only read secondhand and third-hand accounts of the classics.

The classics got to be classics for a reason. People over the years read\ those works and found the thinking in them profound. Yes, in some cases, the f\ indings may be out of date. But a part of what you ought to be learning as you e\ ngage in a literature review and in your intellectual history is not just the spe\ cific findings.

You are learning how scholars think. You're learning how scientists thin\ k. You're learning how a researcher thinks.

So read those works not only for what they found out. Read them for thei\ r methods. Look for the methods, findings, linkage. How did particular findings yield and come from particular methods? How did those methods develop ov\ er time? And how did the classic writers think about things, inquire into t\ hings?

3 So for example, as a part of my intellectual history, as a sociologist, \ and as a sociologist interested in economic development and social change, I read\ Karl Marx. I read Das Kapital. Three very, very thick volumes.

Now people know Marxian theory didn't turn out all that well. And commun\ ism didn't turn out all that well. And Marx's predictions about communism di\ dn't turn out all that well. But there remains no better study of industrial Engla\ nd than Das Kapital.

Marx went out into the factories of that time and looked at what people'\ s lives were like. Poor people who worked 16 and 18 hours a day in factories with no windows with stifling conditions. Child labor. He went into those neighb\ orhoods.

He looked at government documents. He looked at inquiries. He described \ what industrial England was like. His predictions about communism came from h\ is interpretation that society could not continue that way. People would no\ t live in those kind of degradation conditions. That it was an unstable way of organizing society, where a few people became very rich and most people's labor was\ expropriated under horrible, horrible conditions.

Well, he was right that that's an unstable condition. He didn't predict \ h ow the change was going to come about. But the inquiry, his dedication to learn\ ing how that society was organized, still stands up. And it's exquisite, detaile\ d research.

When you look at Freud's work, don't just think about his discredited th\ eories about the sexuality of infants. Look at the case notes. His dedication to ca\ reful case notes of his clients. He developed the clinical case method.

Jung developed the method of recording people's dreams in detail, beginn\ ing with his own. Understand those methodological greats. Their dedication to recording what they were seeing, what they were experiencing. That's wha\ t made them great scholars and was the foundation of knowledge upon which \ all of us are founded upon all of what we work.

So as you're engaging in that, it has two streams that you're paying attention to.

One is the theoretical stream. What are the findings? What are the const\ ructs that you've inherited?

And the other is the methodological stream. What are the methods of inqu\ iries?

The measures? The instrumentation? The ways of going about recording wha\ t you observe that we've inherited?

Both of those are your rich inheritance as scholar practitioners. And on\ e of the things that you ought to come out of your education with is knowing what\ tha t intellectual heritage is, both conceptual and methodological, and then w\ here you're going to make your contribution.