top of page
Search
hello
Mar 8, 20226 min read

That Time I Wrote a Lit Review



One of my projects for the first quarter of 2022 is writing a literature review for a client, and I thought some readers might benefit from my reflection on the process and the tools I used. Specifically, I will offer some insight into my strategies for reading the literature, discovering a narrative, and creating an initial draft.


First, let me share a few details about the project. I have a predetermined list of sources—that is, a set of references that my client identified for inclusion in a literature review. The review will be in support of a framework guiding their work. That framework, in effect, offered me a rough outline of the argument for the literature review at the outset. Ordinarily, the first tasks in developing a stand-alone literature review would include coming up with a tentative thesis (i.e., what is my purpose for writing this review?) and identifying and vetting potential sources for inclusion. Because these tasks had already been completed, I could begin reading and taking notes right away.


Reading and Notetaking

To facilitate taking notes on the sources, I created a database in Notion that included fields for citation information, keywords, research purpose or problem, research site or context, subjects, study design, data analysis, key findings, and implications. I also created a field for an abstract to summarize the source in my own words. I completed the fields as I read, taking additional notes on the associated page in my Notion database.


On reflection, one of the things that I still need to work on as a scholarly writer is taking fewer notes. I will admit that working with electronic sources makes me a bit lazy; it’s pretty easy to copy and paste a quote from an article into my notes rather than spending time recasting that idea in my own language. The danger of this practice is that I may inadvertently plagiarize something because I haven’t done enough processing of the material. Wendy Belcher has an excellent discussion of unintentional plagiarism and how to avoid it in the second edition of Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks.


Limiting myself to the template would be one way to streamline notetaking and speed up my reading timeline. However, for items that don’t neatly fit into these categories, perhaps I simply note a very general reference with a page number so that I can go back to it later if need be.


I may also give Wendy Belcher’s approach to reading and notetaking a try. She uses a system of check marks or different color highlights as she reads a piece, where

  • one check mark = something she find’s interesting

  • two check marks = something that might be useful for her manuscript

  • three check marks = something she wants to be sure to include

She only captures items with three check marks when taking notes on that source.


(1) Initial draft of mind map created in ClickUp. (2) Underlying "task list" associated with mind map. (3) Header outline.


Discovering the Narrative

Once I finished reading and taking notes on all the sources, it was time to begin thinking about how they fit together. In reality, I made some tentative connections between sources while reading. But I had not spent much time actively reflecting on those—probably because my client had provided me with an a priori framework (and as I noted above, I can sometimes be a lazy note-taker). Still, I needed to figure out the connections between the different pieces of that framework: How might the literature I was reviewing give order to that framework? Which sources fit under the various topics connected to that framework?


To answer those questions, I did something I had never really done before: I created a mind map. I have taught mind mapping as an invention strategy in college-level writing courses but had never used it myself. In truth, I have been resistant to it, and when I have tried to use mind mapping apps in the past, I have found the effort needed to figure out the software just wasn’t worth it.


But I decided to try it because the project management software I am using (ClickUp) has a mind map feature. I started by creating a simple branching diagram based on my client’s framework. Then, I went back through the literature in my Notion database, assigning different sources to the various nodes. Because ClickUp is designed to support task and project management, each source became a separate task connected to its parent node. As I created new branches in the diagram, I came up with a list of tags that I also entered into the Notion database for the related sources to facilitate pulling that group together more efficiently. At the end of this process, I had an unordered topic outline.


I found several sources that didn’t neatly fit into any category. All three were literature reviews, and I suspected that their organizing structures might offer some insight into how the primary categories of my framework fit together. So, I decided to reread each of these sources with a hard copy of the mind map in front of me. I assigned each article a different color and, as I read, I noted how the central ideas from each piece fit within the nodes, raised questions about them, or suggested possible new relationships. At some point, I realized these ideas weren’t meshing with the current map, so I flipped the sheet over and sketched a new one.


Drafting the Literature Review

With this revised mind map in hand, I was ready to begin writing. I started by describing the relationships suggested by my map and writing a tentative thesis that suggested what those relationships meant relative to the framework I was trying to support. This very loose writing would form the core of my introduction as the literature review evolved. During this first drafting session, I also created a header outline. Using embedded Word styles, I created primary and secondary headers in the order they would appear in the manuscript. In some cases, I jotted some quick notes or inserted a bulleted list under a header, suggesting the content of a section.


This strategy for starting a draft is one I use frequently. I find that the headline outline forestalls the anxieties associated with staring at a blank page when I sit down for a writing session. It allows me to focus on one section at a time while still keeping the entire draft in mind. It also lets work on the draft in any order since the larger organizational structure is already in place.


In revising the mind map, I found that the order of the nodes and their relationship to one another had changed, but the underlying structure of individual nodes (i.e., their tags, the sources I had assigned to them) had primarily remained the same. As I approached each new section of my manuscript, I went to the task list associated with that node in ClickUp. I worked with the three or four sources listed there, considering how they shaped the topic for that section and related to one another. The targeted task list streamlined the drafting process because I didn’t have to sift through my entire source list to figure out which sources applied to a section. Instead, I simply filtered the references in the database by the tags I had created during mind mapping, or I could search for a keyword and pull up any sources where that appeared. I also found that I could lift whole sentences from the summaries I had written and drop them into my draft.


As the draft developed, I reworked the primary and secondary headers I had created initially. In most cases, I reworded them to focus less on cues to support drafting and more on orienting readers and helping them move through the draft.


So, how much time did this take? I read the 28 sources for this lit review over several months, spending about 30 hours reading and taking notes. My writing time included creating an organizational frame (i.e., the mind map), embedding sources within that frame, rereading several key sources, revising the organizational structure, and actively drafting a 4,200-word manuscript. I spent approximately 20 hours writing. As with all scholarly writing projects, I anticipate revising and editing this lit review once I receive some feedback from my client.


Tools

I used Notion to organize my notes for this project. You can access the template I created for this project here. Alternately, you may want to consider using a citation manager. Three of the most commonly used apps are listed below. All three of these have similar features, allowing you to copy and paste a citation into your database, organize citations into folders, create custom tags, add notes about the source, and export a formatted citation to your works cited or reference list.

I used ClickUp to create a mind map, but here are some other options for dedicated mind mapping applications:

Other strategies for creating a mind map include pen and paper, sticky notes on a blank wall, or index cards on a corkboard.


You may also want to check out my self-paced course, Crafting the Literature Review.


So how about you? What strategies and tools do you use when writing a lit review?

0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page