Where’s the Lit. Review?

This week, I decided to focus on reviewing literature reviews using Boote and Beile’s scoring rubric (pg.8) as a means to familiarize myself with what quality literature review should encompass. I chose George Veletsianos’ article simply because it clearly states the section for literature review.

1. Coverage
   • Justification of reviews: 1/4
     • No statements regarding the exclusion (or inclusion) for selection of article reviews, and instead mentions “little is known about faculty harassment online” (Veletsianos et al, 2018). I interpreted that as he’s aware there’s probably some research on it, but didn’t try very hard to look for it. For instance, he notes several other studies looking at women’s experience online, and even Duggan (2014) finding “women who are in the public eye or who use technology to promote their work—such as scholars—are placed at even greater risk”. Now examining Duggan’s in detail, I noticed it examined people between 18-24 years old; probably lacking faculty members. But wait, wasn’t George focused on scholars? Wouldn’t this age group not include some novice scholars who are in their post-secondary studies? This further makes me question what he defines as “scholar”, which he doesn’t explain until later. I strongly believe he should have clarified his terminology sooner, which helps support his claims of having few existing research on them. This was why I gave him a mark of 1 out of 4.
     • On a side note, it’s hilarious reading his assumptions of the online world being egalitarian. It makes one worry about how out-of-touch researchers are with the rest of the world (to all tenured profs teaching first-year undergraduate courses: we have no idea what language you’re speaking).
2. Synthesis
   • What has been/needs-to-be done: 3/4
     • Critically examined how existing research found women experiencing more online harassment than men, but his target group (“scholars”) have yet to been studied. He does not introduce new methodology, just a need to apply same methods to different group.
   • Topic in broad scholarly literature: 3/4
     • Raised issue of online harassment curtailing women’s participation, leading lack of diversity in future literature. Doesn’t offer any methods such as examining publication ratios based on gender to assess whether it has occurred.
   • History of topic: 1/4
     • Does not discuss history of online harassment or history of coping strategies. For instance, has this issue been persistent or increased since the introduction of the internet? Is there a favored coping strategy or is it changing?
     • Honorable mentions to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is epitomizing the coping strategy of “clapback“.
   • Acquired & enhanced jargon: 2/4
     • Defined harassment, scholars, and categories of coping strategies employed by female scholars. Scholars definition perhaps differs from general usage (perhaps my bias in extending scholars to graduate students; given that Bootes & Beile found dissertations that were akin to high school essays). Did not discuss or resolve ambiguities in definitions.
   • Important variables relevant to topic:  2/4
     • Suggested that internet anonymity helps foster toxic behavior, as well as lack or inefficient moderation. In addition, the different strategies to cope with harassment.
   • Gained new perspective: 1/4
     • Generally accepted current literature on the prevalence of disproportionate harassment faced by women online. Which is rather welcoming compared to his 2013 article viewing the world(wide web) with rosy glasses.
3. Methodology
   • Pros/cons of methodologies: 2/4
     • Mainly describes findings from other literature, sometimes provides method employed in those studies (ie. survey).
     • (Regarding his own study) Does not elaborate why methodologies were acceptable, such as iterative interviews (merely common standard) or sample size of 14 (because they “felt” answer was found).
   • Connecting ideas to methodology: 2/4
     • Described research methods, but not critiqued their strengths or weaknesses.
4. Significance
   • Practical benefit: 2/4
     • Adds to existing knowledge – suggest methods to prepare for or cope with online abuse.
   • Theoretical benefit: 2/4
     • Research would add to existing knowledge – show evidence of online harassment and perhaps development of new coping strategies or policies.
5. Rhetoric
   • Eloquence: 3/4
     • Article was fairly well written and used language that, for the most part, would be understood by the general population.

~Quick assessment of the overall article quality~

Researcher: Covered by George introducing himself to our class.
Researched: Covered by literature review, assessed above.
Readers: I’m honestly have trouble with the significance of the research itself as it focuses on Experiences and Coping Strategies of female scholars, as opposed to practical solutions to deal with harassment in general. From past research about online harassment in general, one could safely assume that it would extend/include scholars as well. George’s finding suggest institutions provide training to help navigate social media; seems very un-intuitive. Why not create safeguards to prevent harassment instead of just preparing for harassment? A more useful study would have been implementation of safeguards to prevent or reduce harassment and it’s effectiveness.
Research: we’ve all read the article… right? 🙂