What Is A Critical Literature Review?

A literature review is a type of critical review in which you analyze and evaluate many sources on a specific topic. The purpose is to provide your reader with an overview of the research that has been done on your topic, and to evaluate the sources you are reviewing.

What is the difference between systematic literature review and critical literature review?

Tabular presentation of the systematic review and critical review –

	Used in studies that cover broader topics like child obesity, primary healthcare, and so on.	Used in studies that are much focused on nature like the role of diet in child obesity, the significance of hospital infrastructure in primary healthcare, etc.
	The systematic review is generally arranged in a chronological manner based on the date of publication. But no comparison of one source with the other is made.	The critical review is arranged in descending order based on their date of publication. Nevertheless, a focal point of one empirical source is found and then compared with the one that appears next in order to estimate the similarities and differences in the perspectives of the scholars.
	The systematic review is ideal for research topics that are broader in nature and have been studied from that broader perspective by many scholars.	The critical review is applicable in studies where there are contradictory views of different scholars on a particular research topic.
	A researcher must always select the most recent sources for conducting a systematic review of a topic	The selection of sources for critical review must be such that they cover a long span of time to show how the research topic has improvised and become precise over time. Moreover, each of the sources should be critically reviewed.
	A researcher is not supposed to compare and contrast empirical studies that have been referenced in a research	A researcher cannot present sources randomly one after the other in the critical review instead of making the critical estimation.
	The systematic review is important in creating a database on a topic of research by consolidating the most significant and most recent sources.	The critical review is ideal for deriving at a conclusion when the research topic is focused on nature and subjected to debatable perspectives of different scholars.

What is the difference between systematic review and critical review?

What is a critical literature?

This refers to an analytical technique in the qualitative research method, which entails in-depth analysis and critical evaluation of information collected from many sources for the purpose of generating new and richer insights in research. Published in Chapter: Agricultural Information Systems (AGRIS) as a Catalyst for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: A Critical Literature Review Lukman Raimi (American University of Nigeria, Nigeria), Ferdinand Ndifor Che (W3-Research, USA & APPC Research, Australia), and Rufai Mohammed Mutiu (Yaba College of Technology, Nigeria) Copyright: © 2021 | Pages: 25 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4849-3.ch007 Abstract The absence of well-developed agricultural information systems (AGRIS) has continued to hinder agricultural development in Africa.

• Efforts designed to modernize agriculture through AGRIS by the public and private sectors have been hindered by administrative bottlenecks, weak political will from governments, display of ineptitude by farmers/associations, and institutional corruption.
• In view of the foregoing, this chapter discusses AGRIS as a catalyst for SDGs in Africa.

An effective AGRIS will strengthen decisions on the general management of the agricultural sector. Deploying the AGRIS for the management of agriculture will boost food production, increase the GDPs and directly strengthen the actualization of SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 3, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 10, SDG 11, SDG 12, SDG 14, SDG 15, SDG 17, and indirectly impact other SDGs.

What is critical review in research?

Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook—reading from title to literature cited, digesting every word along the way without any reflection or criticism. A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text.

What are the features of a critical literature review?

Fortunately, Mingers (2000) identifies four important aspects to a critical approach, which can be used to provide insights regarding what is meant by a critical literature review. These are: critique of rhetoric; critique of tradition; critique of authority; critique of objectivity.

Why is a critical literature review important?

Benefits of Literature Reviews –

Literature reviews allow you to gain familiarity with the current knowledge in your chosen field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.Literature reviews also help you to gain an understanding of the theory(ies) driving the field, allowing you to place your research question into context.Literature reviews provide an opportunity for you to see and even evaluate successful and unsuccessful assessment and research methods in your field.Literature reviews prevent you from duplicating the same information as others writing in your field, allowing you to find your own, unique approach to your topic.Literature reviews give you familiarity with the knowledge in your field, giving you the chance to analyze the significance of your additional research.

What are the 4 major critical theories in literature?

English 436-04: Major Critical Theories Spring 2011 Jerome Richfield Hall 304 T 4:00 – 6:45 Office Hours: T 2:30 – 3:30, Th 2:30 – 4:30, and by appointment Books : Leitch et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (see suggested readings below) Let’s get theoretical.

Where is the author in the polyphonic novel? What came first, the Oedipus complex or Sophocles? If Shakespeare invented the human, what is multiculturalism? Does the death of man include the cyborg? What do the English gentleman and coffee house have to do with British literacy and nationalism? Gender is a social construction, but sex too? Why would Russian formalist Victor Shklovsky call Tristram Shandy “the most typical novel”—I mean, have you read this book? The answers to these questions might be found in critical theory and literary criticism, including new criticism, poststructuralism, psychoanalytic criticism, and Marxist theory.

We’ll consider theory’s beautiful, daunting language and scope with a transhistorical approach to the subject. We’ll leap across time, text, genre, and continent while never leaving our ostensible postmodern condition. Readings include representative works from classical antiquity through the Enlightenment to postmodernity.

Seven Short Analyses 25% Group Presentation 20% Final Exam 30% Blog 25%

1. Seven Analyses (25%) These short papers (seven @ 250-500 words each, not including Works Cited) require that you apply a theoretical movement discussed in class to a specific primary text. This text may or may not be provided by me. Avoid summarizing your primary text and instead illuminate our critical theory by demonstrating how the theory explains the text.

A logical flow of ideas with unified paragraphs and effective transitions Effective incorporation of research materials, primary text(s), and other texts MLA documentation including Works Cited page Post on blog

These analyses will not be graded individually, but rather as a whole and at the semester’s end.2. Group Presentation (20%) In groups of five to seven lead a 30-minute class discussion on a theoretical movement, e.g., formalism. Please note that your presentation is a discussion not a lecture.

A classroom activity Individual participation in the presentation and group activity A 250-word reflection on your contribution posted to your blog. Your reflection will tell your classmates and me how you contributed to your group presentation.

3. Final Exam (30%) Your final exam will consist of multiple choice and short answer questions representing the entire course content.4. Blog (25%) During the first week of class, create a blog devoted to critical theory. NOTE: Your blog is important! Each week, you’ll post a 250-500-word reflection on our readings, discussions, and/or other issues related to critical theory.

• You’ll also post your 5 analyses to your blog.
• Your classmates will read your blogs as will scholars from around the world-anyone doing research on critical theory and/or issues related to theory could potentially land on your blog.
• Since this is your personal blog, it may be tempting to write informally, as if you’re chatting to a friend.

All of your work, however, must meet high academic standards including a formal tone. Feel free to be creative; experiment with new media! In sum, your blog will feature the following:

Introduction to blog @ 500 words Weekly 250-500-word reflections Seven short analyses Individual reflection on your contribution to group presentation

Please put your preferred email address on your blog, Begin here: http://www.blogger.com Grades You must complete all work to pass the course. Your short analyses will be graded as one project and at the semester’s end. Your blog, presentation/reflection, and final exam will also be graded as individual projects and at the semester’s end.

I may email you a midterm grade range, though not all of you will have completed the same amount of work by midterm, e.g., presentations. Please feel free to come by my office or email me if you’d like to discuss your progress and/or other concerns during the semester. Attendance This class is a workshop of peers and attendance is absolutely necessary.

Please do not come late to class since repeated late arrivals will count as a full absence. You cannot pass this course if you miss more than two classes, miss an assignment, or plagiarize. Academic Honesty You must be scrupulously honest in documenting the work that you have drawn from others.

1. Like other institutions, CSUN maintains a strict academic honesty policy.
2. Plagiarism is illegal and dishonest.
3. All cases of academic dishonesty must be reported to the Dean, who may suspend or permanently dismiss you from CSUN.
4. You will receive a course grade of F if you plagiarize in E436.
5. SPRING 2011 Syllabus Course requirements and policies are subject to change; not all readings and assignments are represented below.

Work is due on the date it appears,1/25 Introduction: Let’s Get Theoretical Syllabus and Course Overview 2/1 Classical Literary Criticism “Introduction” Gorgias. Encomium of Helen Plato. Republic Books II, III, X Form discussion groups Create a blog ! 2/8 Classical Literary Criticism (cont’d) NOTE: CLASS WILL MEET IN MZ 130 AT 4:00 FOR GUEST SPEAKER KEVIN O’NEILL Aristotle.

Poetics, On Rhetoric Longinus. On Sublimity Your first short analysis asks that you write an analysis of any YouTube clip based on our classical antiquity readings (i.e., Gorgias, Plato, Aristotle, and Longinus). Avoid summarizing your YouTube clip and instead illuminate the classical theory by demonstrating how the theory explains the text.

Draw from our readings and class discussions. Like the short analyses to follow, this one should include:

500 words (not including Works Cited) A logical flow of ideas with unified paragraphs and effective transitions Effective incorporation of critical readings MLA documentation including Works Cited page

Please post on blog and bring in a paper draft for class review. NOTE: To include your YouTube clip on your blog do the following: 1. Open a new post on your blog.2. Find a YouTube clip at www.youtube.com.3. Look for the word “Embed,” directly to the right of your clip.4. Scroll over the Embed code and right click-copy with your mouse.5. Paste Embed code in your blog’s new post.6. Write/paste your YouTube clip classical theory analysis underneath embed code.7. Click save and view blog.2/15 DUE: Group Presentation #1 (Classical Literary Criticism) DUE: Analysis #1 (Classical Literary Criticism) Enlightenment Theory and Criticism Pope. An Essay on Criticism Kant. Critique of the Power of Judgment Kant. “What is Enlightenment?” < click on link for text Burke. Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful Hegel. Phenomenology of Spirit ; Lectures on Fine Art 2/22 Eagleton. "The Rise of English" Formalism Shklovsky, "Art as Technique" < click on link for text Bakhtin. "Discourse in the Novel" Bakhtin. "Rabelais and His World" < click on link for text 3/1 Structuralism and Semiotics Saussure. "Course in General Linguistics" Frye. "The Archetypes in Literature" Todorov. "Structural Analysis of Narrative" 3/8 DUE: Analysis #2 (Enlightenment Theory/Criticism, Formalism, or Structuralism) DUE: Group Presentation #2 (Enlightenment Theory/Criticism, Formalism, and/or Structuralism) Psychoanalysis Freud. "The Interpretation of Dreams " Freud. "Fetishism" Lacan. "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I" Lacan. "The Signification of the Phallus" 3/15 Phenomenology and Reader-Response Theory Heidegger. "Language" Sartre. "Why Write?" Iser. "Interaction Between Text and Reader" Barthes. "Death of the Author" 3/22 DUE: Group Presentation #3 (Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory, and/or Psychoanalysis) DUE: Analysis #3 (Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory, or Psychoanalysis) Marxist Theory Marx. The German Ideology Marx. The Communist Manifesto Marx. Capital: " Commodities " and " The Working Day " Williams. "Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory" 3/29 DUE: Analysis #4 (Marxist Theory) DUE: Group Presentation #4 (Marxist Theory) Marxist Theory (cont'd) Gramsci. "The Formation of Intellectuals " Althusser. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" Ross. "The Mental Labor Problem" 4/5 NO CLASS: Spring Recess 4/12 Poststructuralism and Postmodernism Lyotard. " Defining the Postmodern " Foucault. " Discipline and Punish " Baudrillard. The Precession of Simulacra 4/19 Poststructuralism and Postmodernism (cont'd) Derrida. Of Grammatology : "Exergue," "The Exorbitant. Question of Method" Habermas. "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article" and "Modernity: An Incomplete Project" Deleuze and Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia Scenes from American Psycho 4/26 DUE: Analysis #5 (Poststructuralism and Postmodernism) DUE: Group Presentation #5 (Poststructuralism and Postmodernism) Feminism and Gender Studies Beauvoir. The Second Sex < click on link for text Foucault. The History of Sexuality Butler. Gender Trouble Bordo. "The Body and the Reproduction of Femininity" Gilbert and Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic 5/3 DUE: Analysis #6 (Gender Studies and/or Feminist Theory) DUE: Group Presentation #6 (Gender Studies and/or Feminist Theory) Ethnicity Studies and Post-Colonial Theory and Criticism Hughes. The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain Said. Orientalism Anderson. Imagined Communities Spivak. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Anzaldua. Borderlands/La Frontera : The New Mestiza 5/10 DUE: Analysis #7 (Ethnicity Studies and/or Post-Colonial Theory) DUE: Group Presentation #7 (Ethnicity Studies andor Post-Colonial Theory) Conclusion: Cyborgs and Posthumans Haraway. A Manifesto for Cyborgs Hayles. How We Became Posthuman Course Review 5/17 FINAL EXAM 05:30 PM - 07:30 PM Much of the following list comes from Kristi Siegel's excellent theory site at Suggested Readings : Note: the following comes from http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm : Formalism

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, Austin: U Texas P, 1990. -. The Dialogic Imagination: Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984. -. Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: U of Indiana P, 1984. -. Speech Genres and Other Essays, Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. Bennett, Tony, Formalism and Marxism, London, 1979. Ehrlich, Victor. Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. Garvin, Paul L. (trans.) A Prague School Reader, Washington DC: Georgetown Academic P, 1973. Holquist, Michael. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World, London: Routledge, 1990. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” Ed. Sebeok, Thomas. Style in Language, pp.350-377. Jefferson, Anne and David Robey. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction, Lemon, Lee T. and Marion J. Reese. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lodge, David. After Bakhtin: Essays on Fiction and Criticism, London: Routledge, 1990. Medvedev, P.N. and Mikhail Bakhtin. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics. Mukarovsky, Jan. Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts, Trans.M.E. Suino. Ann Arbor: Michigan State UP, 1979. Thompson, E.M. Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism, Wellek, René. The Literary Theory and Aesthetics of the Prague School,

New Criticism

Brooks, Cleanth and Robert Penn Warren, eds. Understanding Poetry, New York: Holt, 1938. Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity, New York, 1955. Lentriccia, Frank. After the New Criticism. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Jefferson, Anne and David Robey. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Ransom, John Crowe. The New Criticism. New York: New Directions, 1941. Richards, I.A. Practical Criticism, London: Routledge & Paul, 1964.

Archetypal Criticism

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1953. Bodkin, Maud. Archetypal Patterns in Poetry, London: OUP, 1934. Campbell, Joseph. Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Pantheon Books, 1949. Frazer, J.G. The Golden Bough, Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism and Fables of Identity: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957. Graves, Robert, Greek Myths and The White Goddess. Jung, Carl Gustav. Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature and various other works Knight, G. Wilson. The Wheel of Fire: Interpretations of Shakespearean Tragedy, Lentriccia, Frank. After the New Criticism, Pratt, Anais. Archetypal Patterns in Women’s Fiction, Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982. Seboek, Thomas A., ed. Myth: A Symposium. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1955.

Psychoanalytic Criticism

Bloom, Harold. Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Elliott, Anthony. Psychoanalytic Theory: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Ellmann, Maud, ed. Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism, London: Longman, 1994. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams, Gay, Peter, ed. The Freud Reader. London: Vintage, 1995. Jefferson, Anne and David Robey. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Lacan, Jacques. Ecrits: A Selection. Sarup, Madan. Jacques Lacan, London: Harvester, Wheatsheaf, 1992. Weber, Samuel. The Legend of Freud.

Postcolonialism, Globalism, and Globalization

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso, 1983. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis, U of Minnesota P, 1996. Ashcroft, Bill, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Helen. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures Ashcroft, Bill. Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, eds. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. Bauman, Zygmunt. Globalization: The Human Consequences, New York: Columbia UP, 1998. Berger, Peter L., and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. -. Bhabha, Homi, ed. Nation and Narration, London: Routledge, 1990. Guneratne, Anthony R. The Virtual Spaces of Postcoloniality: Rushdie, Ondaatje, Naipaul, Bakhtin and the Others. Harding, Sandra and Uma Narayan, ed. Border Crossings: Multicultural and Postcolonial Feminist Challenges to Philosophy 2, Indiana University Press, 1998. Fanon, Frantz, Black Skin. White Masks, Trans. by Charles Lam Markmann. London: Pluto, 1986. Said, Edward. Orientalism, -. The World, the Text, and the Critic, Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983. Smith, Paul. Millennial Dreams, London: Verso, 1997. Soyinka, Wole. Myth, Literature, and the African World. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, London: Routledge, 1988. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues, Ed. Sarah Harasym. London: Routledge, 1990. Trinh, T. Minh-Ha, Woman. Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Zheng, Yongnian. Discovering Chinese Nationalism in China: Modernization, Identity, and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.-. Globalization and State Transformation in China, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.

Marxism

Adorno, Theodore W. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, Ed.J.M. Bernstein. London: New York, 1991. Aglietta, Michel. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience, London: Verso,1979. Althusser, Louis. For Marx, London: Verso, 1996. Aronowitz, Stanley. How Class Works, New Haven: Yale UP, 2003. Bernstein, Eduard. The Precondtions of Socialism, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, New York: Monthly Review, 1974. Cary, Nelson, and Lawrence Gross berg, eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, London: Macmillan, 1988. Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology, New York: Schocken, 1978. Gramsci, Antonio. The Prison Notebooks, New York: Columbia UP, 1991. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge: MIT P, 1998. Harvey, David. The Limits to Capital, London: Verson, 1999. Jay, Martin. Marxism and Totality, Berkeley: U of California P, 1935. Jameson, Fredric. Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. Princeton: PUP, 1971. Lukacs, Georg. History and Class Consciousness, London: Merlin, 1971. Lenin, V.I. The Essential Works of Lenin, New York: Dover, 1966. Therborn, Goran. The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology, London: Verso, 1980. Marx, Karl. Capital I, London: Penguin, 1976. -. Communist Manifesto. New York: Norton, 1988. -. Economic and Philosphic Manuscripts of 1844, Amherst: Prometheus, 1988. -. Grundrisse, London: Penguin, 1973. -. The Poverty of Philosophy, Amherst: Prometheus, 1995. Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class, New York: Vintage, 1966. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York: Penguin, 1979. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Los Angeles: Roxbury, 1996. -. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York: Free Press, 1964. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: OUP, 1977.

Feminism

Brooks, Ann. Postfeminisms: Feminism, Cultural Theory, and Cultural Forms, 1997. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” 1993, Crow, Barbara A., ed. Radical Feminism: An Historical Reader, 1999. Flax, Jane. Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West, 1990. Gallop, Jane. The Daughter’s Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis, 1982. Grosz, E.A. (Elizabeth A.) Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists, Boston : Allen & Unwin, 1989. Irigaray, Luce. Speculum of the Other Woman, Ithaca, N.Y : Cornell University Press, 1985. HQ1154,I7413 1985 Kristeva (kris-TAYV-veh), Julia. The Kristeva Reader, Ed. Toril Moi, 1986. Marks, Elaine, and Isabelle de Courtivron, eds. New French Feminism. Brighton: Harvester, 1980. Moi, Toril. Sexual/textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory, London ; New York : Methuen, 1985.PN98.W64 M65 1985 Oliver, Kelly, ed. French Feminism Reader, Rowman & Littlefield.2000. Showalter, Elaine, ed. Speaking of Gender, 1989.

Reader Response Theory

Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words.1962 Bleich, David. Readings and Feelings: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism,1978 Bloom, Harold. A Map of Misreading,1975. Booth, Stephen. An Essay on Shakespeare’s Sonnets, New Haven: Yale UP, 1969. Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader.1979. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. Holland, Norman.5 Readers Reading, New Haven: Yale UP, 1975. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1974. -. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974. Jauss, Hans Robert. Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics, Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982. -. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. U of Minneapolis P, 1982. Mailloux, Steven. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction.1982 Holland, Norman. The Dynamics of Literary Response,1968, 5 Readers Reading,1975 Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy, New York: Methuen, 1982. Richards, I.A. How to Read a Page,1942. -. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment,1929. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935. Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry,1978. Rosenblatt, Louise. The Reader, the Text, the Poem, Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1978. Suleiman, Susan R., and Inge Crosman, eds. The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation. Princeton UP, 1980. Tompkins, Jane, ed. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980.

New Historicism

Bercovitch, Sacvan. The Puritan Origins of the American Self, New Haven: Yale UP, 1975. Brannigan, John. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism, New York: St. Martin’s 1998. Brantlinger, Patrick. Crusoe’s Footprints: Cultural Studies in Britain and America, New York: Routledge, 1990. Cox, Jeffrey N. and Larry J. Reynolds, eds. New Historical Literary Study: Essays on Reproducing Texts, Representing History, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993. Dollimore, Jonathan. Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology, and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1984. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader, Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984. -. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1979. -. The Order of Things, New York: Pantheon, 1972. Gallagher, Catherine and Stephen Greenblatt. Practicing New Historicism, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books, 1983. Greenblatt, Stephen. Hamlet in Purgatory, Princeton: PUP, 2001. -. Introduction. “The Forms of Power and the Power of Forms in the Renaissance.” Genre 15 (Summer 1982): 3-6. -. Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture, New York: Routledge, 1991. -. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980. Hunt, Lynn, ed. The New Cultural History, Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1989. Levine, George. Darwin and the Novelists: Patterns of Science in Victorian Fiction, Chicago: U Chicago P, 1988. McCann, Jerome. The Beauty of Inflections: Literary Investigations in Historical Method and Theory. OUP, 1985. Montrose, Louis. “New Historicisms.” Redrawing the Boundaries: The Transformation of English and American Literary Studies. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt and Giles Gunn. New York: Modern Language Association, 1992. Morris, Wesley. Toward a New Historicism, Princeton: PUP, 1972. Vesser, H. Aram, ed. The New Historicism, New York: Routledge, 1989.

Phenomenology and Hermeneutics

Blanchot, Maurice. The Space of Literature. Derrida, Jacques. Speech and Phenomena, and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method, New York: Crossroad, 1982. Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Beacon, 1968. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Hirsch, E.D. The Aims of Interpretation. Husserl, Edmund. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, Trans. David Carr. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1970. Magliola, Robert R. Phenomenology and Literature: An Introduction. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, Trans. Colin Smith. London: Routledge, 1962. Palmer, Richard. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schliermacher. Ricouer, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretation: Essays in Hermeneutics.

Postmodernism and Post/structuralism

Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology, Trans.R. Howard. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1972 -. S/Z,1970. Trans. Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang, 1975. Baudrillard, Jean. America, Trans. Chris Turner. London:Verso, 1988. -. The Mirror of Production, Trans. Mark Poster. St. Lois: Telos P, 1973. -. Simulations, New York: Semiotext(e), 1983. Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation and Cool Memories. Bloom, Harold, Geoffrey Hartman, Paul de Man, Jacques Derrida, and J. Hillis Miller. Deconstruction and Criticism. New York: Seabury, 1979. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature, New York: Cornell UP, 1973. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976. Doherty, Thomas, ed. Postmodernism: A Reader. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language New York: Pantheon, 1972. -. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage, 1995. -. Madness and Civilization, New York: Vintage, 1965. -. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences, New York: Vintage, 1994. Foster, Hal. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity, Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism, Huyssen, Andreas. After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism, Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language and Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Leitch, Vincent B. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction, New York: Columbia UP, 1983. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Raw and the Cooked,1964. Trans. John and Doreen Weighman. New York: Harper, 1975. -. Structural Anthropology, Trans.C. Jacobson and B.G. Schoeph. London: Allen Lane, 1968. Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, McHale, Brian. Postmodern Fiction, Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics, Trans.W. Baskin. London: Fontana/Collins, 1974.

What are the 4 critical approaches in writing a critique?

This slide contains the topic on how to use appropriate critical approaches in writing a critique such as formalism, feminism, reader-response criticism and Marxist criticism (Marxism).

Is literature review the same as critical essay?

5.5 The Difference between a Literature Review and an Essay Chapter 5: The Literature Review So, now that you know what a literature review is and how to write it, it is important to understand how a literature review is different from an essay. First of all, it is necessary to point out that many students struggle with understanding the difference between a literature review and an essay.

1. This is particularly so because a student can use the exact same resources to create a literature review or an essay; however, what is different about the two is where the emphasis in the writing is placed (Thomas 2012).
2. A literature review focuses on everything that has been written about a particular topic, theory, or body of research.

It is focused on the research and the researchers who have undertaken research on your topic. In contrast, an essay focuses on proving a point. It does not need to provide an extensive coverage of all of the material on the topic. In fact, the writer chooses only those sources that prove the point.

1. Most professors will expect to see you discuss a few different perspectives from the materials that run contrary to the point you are trying to make.
2. For example, suppose you want to write an essay about the negative effects of shiftwork on nurses.
3. You would gather material to show that shiftwork negatively affects nurses, and the various ways it affects nurses.

Now in this case, you might find the odd research paper that states shiftwork has no effect – although this seems unlikely because it has been extensively documented to have a negative effect. However, in an essay you are focused on providing information on your topic and proving your point.

What are the components of a critical literature review?

Consider organization – You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level: First, cover the basic categories Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern. Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each). Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario: You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales.

This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century.

So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do.

Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review. History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology. Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

What are the key ingredients of a critical literature review?

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements. Objectives – Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review. Background/Introduction – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.

1. Methods – Describe step by step how your performed your evaluation of the materials.
2. Discussion/Body – The body contains the evaluation or synthesis of the materials.
3. Discuss and compare common themes and gaps in the literature.
4. You may also want to include a section on “questions for further research” and discuss what issues the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies that build on your current findings.

Conclusion – A summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession. Bibliography – A list of the papers you discussed, aka References. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the “Manage References and Citations” tab.