Representing Academic Knowledge: The Micro Politics of a Literature Review

Abstract

One of the tasks that all researchers have to undertake, whether for postgraduate study or for funded research, is a literature review. Such reviews are particularly significant in the light of current policy and professional concern for ‘evidence based practice’ (Muir Gray 2001). At the same time, we have seen an explosion of academic and research publications in recent decades, making it an increasingly daunting task to develop and maintain a knowledge base in our areas of interest, so that we become reliant on other people’s summaries. What is entailed in a literature review, however, may be quite variable, and has been the subject of considerable discussion, and a focus for increasingly ‘sophisticated’ guidance and instruction (e.g. see Hart 1998, 2001; Rowley and Farrow 2000). And, as with any piece of academic writing, the reviewer may feel able to take varying levels of control and authority in the process, in terms of what to select, how to critique it, and how to shape it into an argument.

Although this chapter represents my views alone, I would particularly like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Julie Jessop, another member of the Womens Workshop, who worked with me on aspects of the literature review, and who made the original suggestion for writing this particular piece from it.