LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Each research study builds upon previous research. This previous research needs to be found and discussed in what is known as the literature review. There are two main reasons for literature reviews. Firstly one needs to read about pre-existing research in order to determine where one’s own ideas fit – what other ideas influence one’s own - and secondly to determine what ways one’s own questioning, research and findings can contribute to this body of knowledge. One’s own study “engages with the known literature and adds something else” (Wisker, 2001, p.127). According to Andersson and Beveridge (2007) a literature review is not a merely a historical summary of the topic under study; nor is it a summary of the sources used or a listed bibliography, instead it is an integral part of a dissertation as serves to describe, compare, contrast and evaluate the arguments, themes, approaches, theories and controversies in the scholarly literature on a subject. It is a “critical synthesis of previous research” (Hart, 1998, p.1). Essentially the literature review serves to identify what has been written before on the chosen topic and then evaluating this information to determine relevance as well as any gaps that may exist. For it is the gaps in the existing research that the new knowledge intended by the study hopes to fill. Without establishing what previous research has been undertaken, however, it is impossible to establish “how the new research advances the previous research” (Randolph, 2009, p.2).
By ‘literature’ I am broadly referring to all information that is relevant to the chosen topic.
This information is drawn from a wide range of sources that are primary, secondary and tertiary in nature. By primary I am referring to original research that appears in journals,
19
articles or conference papers. However, these sources may also include creative works of art or creative writing as well as historical and other documents. By secondary I am referring to evaluations, reviews or descriptions of original research. And by tertiary I am referring to broader sources of information or overviews such as information that appears in textbooks (Andersson & Beveridge, 2007). There are a number of criteria that must be kept in mind when selecting literature. The first is relevance – the information should serve to contribute to the development of one’s argument or positioning. Second is authority - the information should be published in a reputable journal that has been peer reviewed or critically evaluated in other sources and the third is currency – the research should be recent and still hold weight in the field (Andersson
& Beveridge, 2007). Furthermore, it should have appropriate breadth and depth; clarity and conciseness and detail rigorous and consistent methods (Hart, 1998).
When embarking on the literature review it is like climbing a tree – a tree that is continuously growing (Gravetter & Forzano, 2009, p.48). You have to climb onto the trunk of existing knowledge and then find your way along the branches in order to reach the tips – which is the cluster of the most recent and relevant research. The trunk represents the foundations of the research in one’s chosen area – “the classics”
(Gravetter & Forzano, 2009, p.48). The branches represent more specific areas of research that takes one closer in both time and specificity to research aligned to one’s own study. In the case of my research I first had to climb onto the trunk of research making up masculinity. Thereafter I had to embark on the next branch, a foundation one from which other branches grew, that was the study of history education. Thereafter the climb moved from branch to branch each focusing on the connection of masculinity to history. It was no easy climb as I had had no previous experience in climbing a trunk of masculinity. I knew that the branch that I needed to climb onto next was history education but at times the stretch from the trunk to this branch was almost out of reach but once I had made this connection, the climb was a bit easier. However, as with all branches of trees, the climb along some of them took me closer to the centre and at times far out. All the time, however, I had to be mindful that in traversing each branch I
20
was ultimately trying to get to the top of the tree which was my study – how do boys understand history?
There are five C’s that are critical to the writing of a literature review: compare; cite;
contrast; critique and connect. The first is to compare the similarities in the various arguments, theories, methodologies, approaches and findings. The second is to cite the literature correctly. The third is contrast - the differences in the various arguments, theories, methodologies, approaches and findings should be contrasted. The fourth is to critique the literature in order to indicate which literature agrees with your standpoint and finally is to connect the literature to your research topic (Andersson & Beverdige, 2007). In the process it is necessary to be wary of a number of pitfalls too: vagueness and generalizations should be avoided; the range of research should not be limited; the material should be sufficient and relevant and finally there should be no omissions of contrasting views and recent research (Hart, 1998).
Literature reviews are organized chronologically, thematically or conceptually. My literature has been organized conceptually focusing on three sections: (i) masculinity (ii) history education and (iii) masculinity and history education. I have decided to structure my literature this way purposively as in order to come to some understanding of how and why masculinity influences boys’ understanding of history. I first had to come to some understanding of what masculinity is. Masculinity is integral to the identity formation of boys. Masculinity informs who the boy is and who he is will come to bear on his understanding of history. But I needed to come to grips with this body of knowledge first. In order to do this I have structured my review of the literature by looking at the evolution of the study of masculinity. This is in keeping with my history background – I have to look back before I can move forward. Secondly I needed to find out what history education is – particularly who the major scholars are in the study of history education in the last fifty years and what the latest trends are in this field. Once again I hoped to reach an understanding by looking at the evolution of history education. Having done that I needed to find out what literature – if any - has been
21
produced in the interconnected field of masculinity and history education. This enabled me to then frame my study.