Review structure: two views
Here is one view of the review structure:
- Develop between 7-12 paragraphs according to this rough structure, though you can rearrange some of the paragraphs to suit your preferences, relyaing on short, clear topic sentences with clear transitions between paragraphs.
- Beginning (hook with strong opening, establish credibility of author(s), introduce context for research)
- Middle (select three or four points to share, devoting one paragraph per point)
- End (close with your commentary on application, controversy, idea for new research, and perhaps a limitation on the research)
Think of the overall shape as that of a lemon: think the cognitive wedge as the tapered end of the lemon, build to complexity in the middle, then taper off.
Here are the types of paragraphs to futher arrange the review, as a second, finer grain view:
- Hook paragraph, establish exigence
- Brief context of inquiry in field
- Metadiscourse-Announce your structure and intentions (how you will use the articles together)
- Definitions/descriptions for the audience (like the I in IMRAD, but less detail)
- Ethos paragraph for one article
- Pt. 1
- Pt. 2
- Pt. 3
- Pt. 4?
- Shift to other article?; ethos paragraph for second article
- Critique paragraph (ideas from Pts.1-3)
- Comment on experiment design and statistics
- Closure
These items (ROUGHLY) can be paragraphs in an order. Some variations exist. In other words, you can vary these somewhat.
What three or four points do you want to make? These three points form three body paragraphs, nicely transitioned, of course.
Now, on to writing an effective opening paragraph. Think exigence. Let's review some opening strategies at this digital page. Notice that you can include another point in this opening or preview a coming point. This is up to you and depends in part on what you found in your two articles. How will we bind all this together for clarity and coherence?
Style pointers, using 1st person voice and metadiscouse:
- bind the review with counting techniques (Three implications of this research come to mind. I see two problems with this research. Among the findings of Jones' research on epigentics, two applications seem clear. In addition to the two findings mentioned previously,..)
- use first person voice in commentary (I was surprised at the small sample size and would like to see more data. These results have bearing on my interests in neural peptide formation. I am familiar with other studies on clinical aspects of gene therapy....)
- connect the two articles (Understanding the implications of Wentworth's research is enhanced by reading Jones literature review on a related topic. These new findings on plant hormone signalling fit well with the groundbreaking meta analysis done by USDA researchers in 2008.)
We are using short paragraphs, strongly connected to present complex information for a busy reader.
Paragraphs/Cognitive Threading (two metaphors or visuals to help you)
Marybeth Shea