I suppose I was also speaking about a second issue, which was viewing lit reviews as a way in to the question of whether or not anthropology should be cumulative, and how best to do it. It seemed to me that other disciplines were (or I thought they were) and that we lack institutionalized genres that would enable us to be — if that was what we wanted to do. Perhaps the grass is always greener on the other discipline.

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/should-an-ethnography-have-a-focus

There are fields in which scholarly work resembles a jigsaw puzzle. It is easy to see what is already done and what pieces are still missing. There are other fields, of which cultural anthropology is typical, in which the scholar resembles an artist facing a blank canvas or shapeless pile of clay. There is a field in which the scholar competes, but whether the work done is memorable, acquires a small following, or is relegated to history’s ever-growing trash heap is hard to predict.

I have to say that I enjoy anthropology of the jigsaw variety. I think there is a lot of room under the roof of anthropology, but I do think people who decide to stay under the roof should realize that it is a house of social science, not of fine art or humanities. IMHO the anthropology you speak of is neither fish nor fowl and more dilettantism than art, particularly when compared to unequivocal humanities such as art history and folklore.

But suppose we think of it this way. There are fields in which scholarly work resembles a jigsaw puzzle. It is easy to see what is already done and what pieces are still missing. There are other fields, of which cultural anthropology is typical, in which the scholar resembles an artist facing a blank canvas or shapeless pile of clay. There is a field in which the scholar competes, but whether the work done is memorable, acquires a small following, or is relegated to history’s ever-growing trash heap is hard to predict. The only thing we know for sure is that those who succeed once are more likely to succeed again—and even they may burn out. The problem is trying to apply metrics appropriate to jigsaw puzzles to work that is, in fact, more like art.

Much of the work of “doing the lit review,” therefore, is becoming aware of the images or associations that certain authors, kinds of literature have and trying to have a sense of how you are presenting yourself—as well as to guard against what you might inadvertently be “giving off” in the Goffmanian sense.

Cultural anthropology as façon de parler, in a manner of speaking.

One of the things that I notice that drastically differs in what we offer up as lit reviews in Anthro from the STEM meta analysis that Rex discussed above is that we seem to pay far more attention to the context of production—that is who is engaging with whom about what. While a string of clinical studies on the same subject certainly develop in reaction to each other (e.g. they found an effect for 5 mg, let’s see if we can do it with only 3 mg adding vitamin C), the quantitative meta analysis ERASES this conversation by removing time and making everything commensurate. Yet it seems to me that one of the qualities of an excellent literature review is to actually rely the chronology of a developing conversation around a particular problem. Rather than X say Y about power, it’s X said Y about power, which prompted Z to think that it was actually Y’.

The complication in this quality of excellence #1 is how much of the conversation to cover—as indicated in JP’s “since the Manchester School” or Michael’s comment about review that are too small. To write a dissertation, you actually have to write out an overly extensive (and boring) account of the conversation to prove that you know it. Once you choose your audience, you then hack the conversation down to sufficiently get people on the same page and make the topic seem provocative.

This brings me to quality of excellent #2—causing wow. I really think that the point of a lit review is to show that other people have thought about really fascinating things that lead you to wonder about the world. Unfortunately quality #2 has been misrepresented as “finding the gap.” I really don’t care if there is a gap. What I care about is that you have convinced me that this paper that you want me to read actually has the potential to clear up a point that you, and now I, am wondering about.

However, it would seem that even in fields like medicine, with quantitative clinical trials, there is a lack of review of previous work:

Trial in a Vacuum: Study of Studies Shows Few Citations

I’m not sure what anthropology should do about our own lit reviews, but it is important to let people know that other fields are not necessarily doing this any better.

This isn’t to say that exemplary figures never attract imitators. They do. But the imitations are so disregarded that, like dandelion fluff, they soon disappear. “Schools” are never more than two generations deep.

-For grant proposals, especially student grant proposals, my impression is that a major function of the literature review is demonstrating competence within a particular community. You show that you’re reading works that your imagined reviewers think are cool and important and, in doing so, make readers think you’re going to produce something cool and important. Much of the work of “doing the lit review,” therefore, is becoming aware of the images or associations that certain authors, kinds of literature have and trying to have a sense of how you are presenting yourself—as well as to guard against what you might inadvertently be “giving off” in the Goffmanian sense. Perhaps I’m being too cynical, not talking about specific findings, methodologies, approaches, etc.–but as Rex also notes, this sort of thing also tends to be lacking in much of cultural anthropology today. And perhaps it’s not cool to reference Goffman.

-For introductions to recent edited volumes, I’ve noticed an important feature of the narrative structure of these literature reviews—mixed in with continental philosophy or praise about the distinctive features of ethnography and continued relevance of anthropology—is some kind of positive reference to pre-1980s anthropology. Phrases like “Anthropologists have long been interested in…” or “Since the Manchester School…” are quite frequent, even as these earlier anthropologists’ ideas are rarely engaged with in a serious way. I am not necessarily trying to critique this practice, but wondering how to make sense of it. Is it simply a matter of trying to do sound intellectual history? Is it about legitimizing a present line of inquiry as a logical outgrowth of earlier traditions and thus “still anthropology”? Can we speak of a shift from an uber critique mode of the 1980s and 1990s to a superficial and, at times, condescending embrace of earlier anthropologies?

I don’t think there is anything inherent in the nature of anthropology that prevents good review articles. Perhaps some theoretical perspectives don’t lend themselves well to succinct synthesis and analysis, though.

@Kristina – Encyclopedias are the trash-heap of scholarly publishing. I am baffled that publishers are still publishing these things. A very small minority are very good, but most are worthless (including most of those that I have contributed to).

There is an Encyclopedia of Anthropology, although I’ve never had occasion to consult it. Is this a useful form of lit review? For whom is it useful? Should we continue to update encyclopediae, or are they becoming obsolete?