Unit 5 · Academic Discourse & Scholarly Voice · Lesson 23
The Literature Review
From summary to positioned narrative
By the end of this lesson
You'll be able to:
- move a literature review from list to positioned narrative
- group sources by argumentative function, not chronology
- name the gap a paper proposes to fill in one sentence
- decide what to cite, what to summarise and what to bracket
Stage 1
Warm-up
Here's what you'll do
Two structures for the SAME literature. Which one is a contribution?
You produce
You compare and defend.
- Structure A: Smith (2018) found X. Jones (2019) found Y. Patel (2020) found Z. Lee (2022) found W. (Then a conclusion paragraph.)
- Structure B: Three lines of work meet on this question. The first (Smith, Jones) treats it as a measurement problem. The second (Patel) treats it as a causal one. The third (Lee, in conversation with both) reframes it as institutional. This paper sits in the third line and addresses the gap left by Lee's analysis.
Group extension (optional)
Pairs argue; group names what structure B has that A doesn't.
Stage 2
Language Discovery
Here's what you'll do
Four moves that turn a list into a narrative.
You produce
You name the move.
From list to positioned narrative
Each move does something a chronological list cannot.
Group: Three lines of work meet on this question: a measurement strand, a causal strand and an institutional strand.
Relate: Within the institutional strand, Lee follows Patel's framing but departs sharply on the question of whether opacity is endogenous.
Name the gap: What this literature has not yet asked is whether opacity is itself a response to prior trust losses, rather than a cause.
Position: This paper sits in the institutional strand, takes seriously Lee's concern about endogeneity, and proposes one identification strategy not yet attempted in the literature.
The rule you'll arrive at
A C2 literature review is built on: (a) GROUPING by argumentative function ('Three lines of work meet on this question…'); (b) RELATING sources within each group ('Following Smith but extending Jones…'); (c) NAMING THE GAP ('What this literature has not yet asked is…'); (d) POSITIONING THE PAPER ('This paper sits in the third line and addresses…'). Chronology is a backup, not the default.
Try three
1. Group three sources on screen time into TWO lines of work.
Reveal
'Two lines of work meet on this question: one treating screen time as a behavioural input (Smith 2018, Jones 2019), another treating it as a proxy for displacement of other activity (Patel 2020).'
2. Name the GAP in a literature on remote work and innovation.
Reveal
'What this literature has not yet asked is whether innovation declines are concentrated in early-career hires, who never had the in-person network to begin with.'
3. POSITION a paper that joins an institutional account but qualifies it.
Reveal
'This paper sits in the institutional account, follows Lee on opacity, and qualifies the deterministic version of the claim by introducing two scope conditions.'
Stage 3
Vocabulary in Use
Here's what you'll do
Six items for synthesis.
You produce
You match each to a review article you've read.
strand (of work / argument)
a distinct line within a broader literature
"Three strands of work meet on this question."
to sit within / sit against (a tradition)
to locate the paper inside or outside a school of thought
"The paper sits within the institutional strand and against the cultural one."
the gap (in the literature)
what existing work has not yet addressed
"The gap is not what the literature has answered badly — it is what it has not yet asked."
to synthesise (rather than summarise)
to draw a unified position from multiple sources
"I synthesise three sources into a single claim rather than reviewing them one by one."
an identification strategy
a method designed to isolate a causal effect
"The paper proposes an identification strategy not yet attempted."
to extend (a finding) to
to apply a result beyond its original context with care
"I extend Patel's finding to a non-Western sample, with appropriate caveats."
Guided practice
1. Fill: 'Three ____ of work meet on this question.' (1 word)
Reveal
strands
2. Fill: 'I ____ three sources into a single claim.' (1 word)
Reveal
synthesise
3. Fill: 'The paper sits ____ the institutional strand.' (1 word)
Reveal
within
Stage 4
Speaking Task
Here's what you'll do
Build a literature review aloud, in 5 minutes.
You produce
You speak the strands, the gap and the position.
Pick a question in a field you know. In 5 minutes, you SPEAK a 4-part literature review: (1) name the strands (with at least one source per strand), (2) relate sources within each strand, (3) name the gap, (4) position your own (hypothetical) paper. Teacher asks one clarifying question per part.
Use these
Prompts
- · Question: does early bilingual exposure improve later cognitive flexibility?
- · Question: does urban density predict mental-health outcomes?
- · Question: do four-day-week trials change measured productivity?
Group extension (optional)
In pairs, peers identify any strand they would have argued differently.
Stage 5
Reading / Listening Input
Here's what you'll do
A 240-word literature review paragraph organised by FUNCTION, not date.
You produce
Five close-reading calls.
Reading — Excerpt — literature review on opacity and trust
The literature on declining institutional trust now organises itself, after twenty years of work, around three argumentative strands rather than three time-periods. The structural strand, exemplified by Wilkinson and Pickett (2011) and extended by Putnam's later work, treats trust decline as downstream of widening material inequality. The cultural strand, drawing on Lin and Park (2022) but with roots in earlier comparative-values work, treats trust decline as downstream of generational value shifts. The institutional strand, more recent and smaller, treats trust decline as endogenous to the institutions themselves and their increasing opacity (Carter 2019; Adisa and Rao 2021; Lee 2023). What this literature, taken together, has not yet asked is whether the three strands name three distinct mechanisms or three faces of one. The present paper sits in the institutional strand but addresses the integrative question; specifically, it proposes an identification strategy that allows the opacity effect to be measured against material-inequality and cultural-value covariates simultaneously, rather than serially. The contribution, if any, is structural: not 'a new finding' but a way of asking the question that the three strands can recognise as theirs.
Comprehension
1. How is the literature organised?
Reveal
By argumentative strand (structural, cultural, institutional), not by chronology.
2. Where is the gap named?
Reveal
'What this literature, taken together, has not yet asked is whether the three strands name three distinct mechanisms or three faces of one.'
3. Where is the paper positioned?
Reveal
'The present paper sits in the institutional strand but addresses the integrative question.'
4. What is the contribution claim?
Reveal
Structural — a new way of asking the question — rather than a new finding.
5. Why is the closing line ('a way of asking the question that the three strands can recognise as theirs') a strong move?
Reveal
It positions the contribution as legible across strands, increasing its chance of being read and engaged.
Stage 6
Analysis Task
Here's what you'll do
Find the architecture.
You produce
A short diagram + one proposed cut.
Draw the paragraph's architecture on paper: the three strands, their key sources, the gap, the position. Then propose ONE sentence to cut and defend the cut against teacher's pushback.
- · Where does the writer resist over-citing?
- · Could the gap have been named without naming the three strands first?
- · What would be lost if the writer led with their own paper rather than the strands?
Group extension (optional)
Pairs swap diagrams; group debates whose proposed cut is most defensible.
Stage 7
Communication Challenge
Here's what you'll do
Collaborative literature planning: 20 minutes to a usable review skeleton.
You produce
A one-page outline both of you sign off.
You + teacher co-author a literature-review SKELETON for a paper in your field. The skeleton MUST contain: 2–4 named strands; 2 sources per strand (real or plausibly invented); one named gap; one positioned-paper sentence; one decision about what to bracket. Use today's vocabulary throughout.
Topic chosen in 60 seconds. Use scratch notes; do not draft prose.
Use these
Deliverable
A one-page outline (max 250 words) + 30 seconds defending the named gap.
Group extension (optional)
In groups of 3, third person plays a sceptical reviewer and flags the weakest strand.
Stage 8
Exam Connection
Here's what you'll do
C2 Proficiency Reading & Use of English Part 6 — gapped text on academic register.
You produce
One strand-naming sentence drafted live.
C2 Proficiency — Reading & Use of English Part 6 (gapped text)
Task: Academic gapped texts often hinge on cohesion across strands rather than within paragraphs.
Strategy: Predict the missing sentence by asking what STRAND or POSITION the paragraph requires next.
Mini-task
Pick a topic. Write ONE sentence that names two strands and ONE sentence that names a gap. Aloud.
Stage 9
Writing / Production
Here's what you'll do
300 words. A literature review section that argues, not lists.
You produce
A 300–340-word literature review section handed in.
Write a 300–340-word literature review section for a paper you might write. You MUST: (a) organise by AT LEAST two strands, (b) cite at least two sources per strand, (c) name the gap in one sentence, (d) position the paper in one sentence, (e) bracket one question, (f) use at least four target items.
Word count: 300–340 words
Must use
Stage 10
Reflection & Homework
Here's what you'll do
End of L23. Two questions, one prep.
You produce
Spoken 30-second reflection.
Reflection
- · What review have you read that did this WELL — what made it different from a list?
- · What gap in your field can you name in one sentence?
Homework
Find a published literature review. Re-organise it into strands on paper. Bring to Lesson 24.