Abstract
An effective literature review involves a comprehensive understanding and development of tools of argumentation that make literature reviews a daunting process. According to Machi and McEvoy (2022), chapter two, the main focus of a literature review is on developing logical arguments for literature reviews. Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) book explores foundational elements such as claims, evidence, and warrants, which help in constructing arguments. Evaluating arguments and organizing evidence in a literature review enables readers to strengthen their persuasive arguments and analytical skills. Basing analysis insight into Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) text, this paper helps the researchers understand the content and reasons for developing logical arguments in literature reviews and its application in argument structure.
Keywords: Literature Review, Research, Logic, Argumentation, Claims, Evidence, Warrants.
Developing Argumentation Tools: The Second Step in the Literature Review Process
Argumentation is an analytical means of investigating a certain claim through critical thinking to arrive at informed decisionsand detect and quantify types of arguments in the literature. Therefore, literature review as a fundamental research component requires logical arguments that are based on a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. According to Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) argument in Chapter 2, developing tools of argumentation is the second step in conducting a literature review plays a critical role (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 49). In embracing the above objective in research, chapter two elucidates claims, evidence, warrants, and their interplay, which are key foundational concepts essential for constructing persuasive arguments and forming logical conclusions. Remarkably, conducting a comprehensive literature review depends on the researcher’s ability to construct persuasive arguments and build logical cases based on empirical evidence. Therefore, when a researcher understands the appropriate way of formulating sound arguments, they synthesize existing knowledge that contributes to scholarly discourse on the research topic.
Exercise 2.1: Evaluating Arguments
Three distinct arguments examined in exercise 2.1 reflect on the necessity of teamwork and evaluative questions that assess the argument’s validity and logical coherence. Additionally, exercise 2.1 discussion underscores the critical importance of scrutinizing an argument to ensure it is well-founded and logically robust to enable researchers’ ability to construct and evaluate arguments effectively. Before conducting a literature review of a certain research topic, the researcher should start by evaluating arguments rigorously to ensure logical soundness, adequacy, and supporting evidence (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 52). By delving into the three arguments examined in exercise 2.1 and their associated questions, researchers refine their ability to construct and evaluate arguments effectively within chosen literature reviews. The following arguments underscore the critical importance of evaluating arguments rigorously.
Firstly, teamwork is indispensable for task completion. The conclusion drawn from this argument implies that success hinges solely on the collective, asserting that jobs can only be accomplished through teamwork. The above submission is regarded as an argument because it lacks convincing data to substantiate its conclusions. Therefore, an unsupported leap from the premises to conclusions fails to establish the logical connection as the argument remains unsupported and lacking in persuasiveness.
The second argument, different from the first, contends for the effectiveness of teamwork because individuals to be productive require autonomy. The second argument, which presents a set of conclusions, recommends independence within a team setting, citing that it helps people to foster their productivity. Nevertheless, appearing contradictory, the reasoning within the second argument oscillates between advocating for individuality and emphasizing teamwork necessity. Therefore, the second argument, lacking coherent support for the above premises, fails to establish its validity and coherence.
Thirdly, the indispensability of teamwork for long-term group success is asserted in the third argument based on findings from X, Y, and Z studies. Notably, the evaluation of arguments regarding the necessity of teamwork underscores the importance of having robust evidence and logical coherence to support a certain claim (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 57). Findings from three studies in the third argument provide empirical evidence demonstrating the positive impact of teamwork, communication, interpersonal skills, and shared mission understanding on group performance and productivity. Unlike the first and second arguments, the third argument is fortified by logically sound reasoning and concrete data, which renders the argument a robust and persuasive conclusion.
Exercise 2.2: Organizing the Argument
Delving into the art of structuring an argument, exercise 2.2 entails dissecting an argument into evidence, stated claims, and warranted constituent parts. Effective argument organization enables researchers to underscore pivotal role of evidence and comprehend the architecture of effective argumentation in substantiating claims. Notably, the construction of effective warrants depends on incorporated logical reasoning. Researchers using iterative practice and meticulous analysis hone their capability to craft cogent and convincing arguments, which enhances the quality of a literature review. For example, the evidence bolstering argument 3 provided in Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) book x, y, and z studies sets a foundation upon which the argument is built, furnishing empirical support for the stated claim (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 64). The warrant from the claim encapsulates studies x, y, and z research findings that affirm the pivotal role of teamwork in facilitating successful group work.
The logic underpinning the argument buttresses the overarching conclusion by seamlessly bridging evidence with the argumentative claim. Therefore, as the argument draws logical connections between empirical findings and asserted claims, it articulates the rational necessity of teamwork in achieving favorable group work outcomes (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 63). As teamwork remains imperative for the success of collaborative endeavors, the culmination of logical progression incontrovertibly establishes the claim’s veracity. Researchers in the lens of Exercise 2.2 are revitalized and inspired to emulate a methodical approach to argumentation to cultivate a deeper understanding of how evidence, claims, and warrants interact to construct persuasive narratives. Exercise 2.2 in organizing the argument fosters critical thinking skills that enable researchers to discern strengths and weaknesses inherent in various arguments.
Comparison and Contrast
Comparing and contrasting my responses to exercises 2.1 and 2.2, several key insights emerge regarding my understanding of argumentation concepts. In exercise 2.1, I analyzed arguments one and two had some alignment. Correspondingly, in the argument three evaluation, I concurred with the logical coherence of the conclusions, paralleling the text’s findings. Stumbling upon the text’s assertion regarding the completeness of the argument’s structure, I indicated the need for further comprehension of what constitutes a well-ordered argument. I encountered difficulty grasping the concept of warrants fully while trying to transition to exercise 2.2 and comprehending the distinction between evidence and claims. In exercise 2.1 conclusion drawn about teamwork and job completion’s correlation I questioned differed from the exercise 2.2 conclusion. Therefore, as highlighted in Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) book, ambiguity in the two exercises’ conclusions contributed to their unsoundness (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 66). In two exercises, comparison and contrast, I perceived supporting research from three studies as warranting, failing to discern the implicit connection between evidence and conclusion. Consequently, the above disparity underscored my need for further clarity between implied and direct warrants, despite my solid grasp of evidence and claims.
Comparing my analysis to Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) text, I required additional comprehension of warrants to enhance my argumentative proficiency fully. Despite my efforts to revisit the text several times, the differences between implied and direct warrants remained elusive. Nevertheless, my adeptness signified foundational understanding awaiting refinement through a deeper exploration of warrant concepts. The comparison and contrast of the two exercises elucidated as a means of identifying logical coherence in arguments and spotlighting opportunities fosters critical thinking and self-assessment of indispensable skills applied in the exercise (Machi & McEvoy, 2022, p. 67). Therefore, improving ways of conducting rigorous literature reviews and advancing scholarly discourse would enable researchers to grasp the nuanced role of warrants in constructing robust research arguments. Examining comparison and contrast in exercises 2.1 and 2.2, I got an opportunity to reflect on my responses to two exercises in comparison to Machi and McEvoy’s (2022) text. The comparison and contrast section of the analysis encourages critical thinking and self-assessment of essential skills needed to conduct rigorous literature reviews.
Reflective Exercises
Reflection exercise in the development of logical arguments serves as a major component a researcher requires to examine research biases, interpretations, and methodologies. Upon reflecting on my experiences with exercises 2.1 and 2.2, I see how valuable reflective exercises are in pinpointing areas that need to be improved to foster the rigor and validity of a literature review. Finding exercise 2.1 manageable, I was inspired to incorporate the concept upon the first read; on the other hand, exercise 2.2 presented a challenging concept. Therefore, I became attracted to the two sections, and most of the time I found myself rereading to grasp the deeper nuances surrounding implied and direct warrants. As evidenced in two sections, understanding warrants is a challenge. Delving deep into exercise 2.2, I realized my frustration kept mounting as I attempted to articulate the argument’s warrant.
Reflecting on my experiences with exercises 2.1 and 2.2, deciphering warrants based on specific wording proved tricky despite my effort to confidently identify evidence and claims within an argument. I noted the importance of having additional readings to bolster the researcher’s understanding of warrants. Additionally, I realized possible gaps for improvement in discerning premises and major claims to equip researchers with the skills needed to refine a research topic through continued practice and reading. I acknowledge my growing understanding of how claims coalesce to form complex argumentation tool arguments and realize that understanding and honing skills will require ongoing effort and engagement. Therefore, moving forward, I would work towards cultivating a deeper understanding of warrants and their role in constructing sound arguments. Reflective exercises in this context have underscored the importance of self-directed learning and metacognitive awareness, which has empowered me to navigate challenges and emerge as an adept researcher.
Conclusion
Development of argumentation tools aids in constructing logical arguments and presenting convincing theses used in a literature review. Using argumentation tools, a researcher can easily organize enormous amounts of literature, highlighting key points and identifying connections between different studies. Well-developed argumentation tools provide various functionalities that streamline the process of gathering, organizing, analyzing, and synthesizing information. The development of argumentation tools in the literature review process enables researchers to present convincing theses and construct logical arguments. Argumentation tools in literature review structure logic and argument that allow researchers to arrange evidence systematically. Incorporating features for critical analysis, the argumentation tool empowers researchers to engage critically with the literature and develop well-supported reviews. Therefore, leveraging argumentation tools effectively enables researchers to present convincing review theses that contribute meaningfully to the researcher’s field of study.
Reference
Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2022). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success. Corwin Press. Created from Fielding On 2023. 47-72.
write