In some ways, I follow the annotated bibliography methodology. However, this is not quite what works best for me, as I need the thoughts to be put together in a framework in order for me to work with them. If I annotate each source as it’s own piece, I end up with disjointed ideas and writing, and it takes forever to put all the pieces in order. Instead, I prefer to read through all my sources and make brief comments on the themes, values, purposes, etc. Then, I am able to generally structure my writing, at which point I go back and do my deep dive into the literature. This is when I do all of my synthesis, pull quotes, and generally get any information I might need from the articles. As I am doing this, I place all quotes, synthesized thoughts, etc. into the framework of my review that I created previously, along with my own thoughts and comments about how ideas might flow into each other, where there is significant disagreement, or how one author presents an idea differently than another.
I prefer my method, as it makes the most sense to me for how I conceptualize the Literature Review. One of my biggest frustrations last year was working with Beth’s rigid structure for building sources for a Literature Review, considering I had already written several successful reviews using my own method, a method that I thought more productive, more efficient, and better able to produce a valuable product. Nonetheless, it was useful for me to be forced to deeply read the literature, as I will sometimes blast through articles to get a general idea and miss important nuances that crop up later and force me to revamp sections of my writing. I am trying to move forward with this lesson and do a better job on my first read-through but still maintain my own general workflow.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Julian SpringerMath Department - Animas High School Archives
December 2019
Categories |