Two Lit Reviews Reviewed

¶ … Pitcher literature review was not particularly strong. The author expended too much energy researching leadership, instead of mentorship, without first establishing a credible link between the two. The justification for this tangent, as found on p.8, is "due to the vastness of reference on the topic." Tangents should be justified by the literature.

There are structural issues as well -- the lit review starts with a bit of fluff, moves quickly into detailed material, then reverts back to a discussion about the Odyssey and the Bible that would only make sense in the first paragraph. A lit review should begin with grand concepts, and drill down to specific details, not bounce aimlessly between such material. The lit review as follows is overly long, without any cohesiveness, seemingly constructed to fill a page count rather than follow specific, vital threads of knowledge.

The format makes no sense -- the headers make no sense. This is poor organization. What takes 17 pages to say could have been said in two pages, and no in-depth material is presented. It is unclear how the research in the lit review supports the hypothesis of the paper, or how this research design fills a gap identified in the research.

This is more like an extended, rambling term paper than a dissertation, babbling on about the meaning of the word eureka on page 18, when the author should be well into meaningful material. In essence, I do not find many strengths in this lit review. It is actually hard to tell how much Pitcher knows about this subject -- the inclusion of so much unrelated material leads one to think there are shortfalls in the author's understanding of what mentorship actually is, and where the current literature on the subject is.

Kyrou's literature review is fairly well-structured, beginning with overarching theories, then drilling down to more focused material. While the structure is good, it is nonetheless rather sparse, and could use more material to demonstrate that adequate scholarship has been undertaken -- these theories are well-covered in the literature. Some pop management books were referenced, which is a weakness.

A strength relating to structure is that the material flows well, including literature to support the links between the theories covered and the study's research questions -- the study seems to flow from the li review. These two lit reviews actually highlight some interesting things for my own. First, it highlights the importance of structure. The Kyrou lit review is a lot easier to follow, and the reader can see how all the material builds up to and relates to the research study.

The poor organization of the Pitcher lit review makes it tough to follow, and results in a lot of superfluous information being left in. The Pitcher lit review highlights the need for editing, to ensure that the material presented is relevant and coherent. For my own research, I would want to begin with a discussion of different leadership theories, demonstrating command of the material.

Then, any evidence that can be gathered with respect to the two companies I want to study should be presented, because it is from that evidence that I will be.