On 'Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research': A Response to the Critique by Joseph Maxwell
Saved in:
| Title: | On 'Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research': A Response to the Critique by Joseph Maxwell |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Boote, David N., Beile, Penny |
| Source: | Educational Researcher. Dec 2006 35(9):32-35. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 4 |
| Publication Date: | 2006 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Opinion Papers |
| Education Level: | Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Research, Literature Reviews, Student Research, Doctoral Dissertations, Research Problems, Research Skills, Meta Analysis, Reader Response, Criticism, Schematic Studies, Correlation, Concept Formation |
| ISSN: | 0013-189X |
| Abstract: | This article is a response to the critique by Joseph Maxwell on the article written by these authors entitled "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation". 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 the authors have misunderstood the relationship between literature and research, which led to an accusation of "foundationalism." However, these specific disagreements ignored fundamental differences about the purposes of the doctoral dissertation and the relationship between those purposes and doctoral program goals. In this rejoinder, the authors briefly explore these conceptual and normative differences. (Contains 2 notes.) |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Number of References: | 14 |
| Entry Date: | 2007 |
| Access URL: | https://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=38&id=2038 |
| Accession Number: | EJ759780 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This article is a response to the critique by Joseph Maxwell on the article written by these authors entitled "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation". 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 the authors have misunderstood the relationship between literature and research, which led to an accusation of "foundationalism." However, these specific disagreements ignored fundamental differences about the purposes of the doctoral dissertation and the relationship between those purposes and doctoral program goals. In this rejoinder, the authors briefly explore these conceptual and normative differences. (Contains 2 notes.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0013-189X |
