Draft standalone literature review sections that follow the introduction. Produces a progressive argument across two subsections, arriving at research questions as the earned conclusion.
References
- references/literature_review_template.md — structural guidance (draft dynamically, not verbatim)
- references/interview_questions.md — interview protocol and refinement diagnostic
- ../references/apa_style_guide.md — APA formatting, numbers, notation, formulas
Core Principles
- Purely conceptual and theoretical; measurement methodology belongs in methods
- Progressive argument: theory exposition, prior research, limitations, new approach, earned RQs
- Narrative prose; no bullet points, em-dashes, or italicized sublabels within paragraphs
- Prefer 3-12 sentence paragraphs; no standalone introductory paragraphs
- Dense citation support with specific findings woven into prose, not cataloged
- Two subsections with descriptive headers naming the dimension or activity
- Each paragraph has one clear through-line advancing the argument
- Research questions emerge as the logical conclusion, not restatements of the introduction
Argumentative Architecture
The templates describe what goes where; this section describes why each element appears where it does.
Subsection 1 (Theoretical Framework and Domain Application)
- P1: Establish the framework (core constructs, key evidence, mechanisms)
- P2: Show it applies beyond its original context (digital, mediated, computational extensions)
- P3: Show the study's domain needs it (what existing frameworks capture and miss)
- P4: Show where it has not yet been applied (the specific understudied context)
Each paragraph opens by extending or complicating the prior paragraph's conclusion.
Subsection 2 (Prior Research Tradition to New Approach)
- P5: What the field knows and how (foundational studies, methodological pattern)
- P6: How the environment has changed (platform dynamics, new metrics)
- P7: Why existing tools cannot capture the new reality (limitations)
- P8: The approach that can (content-side framing, earned RQs)
Subsection Headers
Use descriptive headers: "[Theory] in [Domain]: [Construct 1] and [Construct 2] in [Context]" and "[Field]-Mediated [Activity]: From [Existing] to [New Approach]."
Research Question Framing
RQs should feel earned by the argument, connected to the preceding analysis rather than restating the introduction's wording.
Workflow
| Step | Action | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Interview: if an introduction exists, read it first to identify literature it previews | references/interview_questions.md |
| 2 | Outline: map progressive argument across 8 paragraphs (4 per subsection) | Architecture above |
| 3 | Draft: write flowing paragraphs of 6-10 sentences | references/literature_review_template.md |
| 4 | Coordination (if intro exists): verify intro compresses, lit review elaborates; theory defined here; concrete examples here; coined phrases in one section only; RQ framing differs | — |
| 5 | Refinement (existing drafts): run diagnostic, then revise per Architecture | references/interview_questions.md |
Scope
Include: Theoretical framework (origins, dimensions, mechanisms, extensions), synthesis of prior research with specific contributions, gaps as narrative consequences, conceptual motivation for the analytical approach, earned research questions.
Checklist
- Purely conceptual (no measurement methodology or analytical procedures)
- RQs feel earned by the argument (not restated from intro)
- Dense citations woven into narrative (not cataloged)
- No standalone intro paragraphs or single-sentence paragraphs
- Cross-section coordination verified (if intro exists)
- Appropriate length for venue