Module 2 – Critiquing Literature Reviews and Citation Practices in Research
Learn how literature reviews and citations make scholarly research possible — and how to hold published researchers accountable when they don't.
By this point in the course, you've begun learning the dialects of the methodological communities that shape PTC research — the voices, conventions, and stylistic habits that distinguish one community from another. But dialects don't exist in a vacuum; they circulate within economies. In academic and professional research, citation is the coin of the realm. The assumption that individuals own their ideas — that knowledge has a named producer, a date, a transferable credit — is a specific historical arrangement, formalized in Britain's Statute of Anne in 1710. It is not universal: in Chinese scholarly tradition, reproducing another's text was long considered homage rather than theft, a tension that continues to drive US-China trade disputes today. Researchers and entrepreneurs alike guard this currency carefully. To enter a scholarly conversation, you have to demonstrate fluency in it: showing that you know the context, the key disputes, and the respected voices well enough to position your own contribution. As Bartholomae (1986) puts it, researchers must "dare to speak," or "carry off the bluff, since speaking and writing will most certainly be required long before the skill is 'learned'" (p. 5). Literature reviews are how researchers perform that credibility — before they've fully earned it.
This module moves from the bird's-eye view of Module 1 — who publishes, in what journals, under what conventions — to the specific practices that make research possible: literature reviews and citation. In Stage 1, you'll argue, in a real rhetorical situation, why a literature review matters to any knowledge claim at all — what is lost when someone speaks with confidence about vaccines, climate, or policy without engaging the archive of prior research. In Stage 2, you'll apply published typologies to classify and evaluate the literature reviews in JBTC and TCQ articles you already analyzed — not describe what they do, but assess how well they do it. In Stage 3, you'll examine how researchers introduce individual sources as rhetorical moves — how choices between integral and nonintegral citation, and between mentioning, summarizing, and discussing a source, reveal epistemological commitments and construct authority. In the Capstone, you'll bring all three frameworks to published JTWC articles and critique them.
By the end, you won't read a literature review deferentially. You'll read it the way a peer reviewer does — asking whether the territory is genuinely established, whether the niche is real, whether the citation choices do the rhetorical work the author claims they do.
Source: Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014).
Hallucination warning: applies to all stages
GenAI tools frequently fabricate plausible-sounding quotations, statistics, and citations. In this module especially, where you are verifying how published researchers handle evidence, accuracy is the whole point. Before submitting any stage, use Ctrl+F to verify every direct quotation and every statistic against the actual source text.
A hallucinated quotation or fabricated citation results in an F for that assignment. Repeated hallucinations across deliverables result in an F for the course.
Stage 1 · Sep 28
Why Literature Reviews Matter
600–700 words. Synthesize assigned readings to argue why situating research in prior scholarship matters to any knowledge claim.
100 pts · Canvas Discussion
Stage 2 · Oct 5
Classifying Literature Reviews in PTC Journals
~500 words. Apply published typologies to evaluate literature reviews in JBTC and TCQ articles you analyzed in Module 1.
100 pts · Canvas Discussion
Stage 3 · Oct 12
Citation as Rhetorical Move
~500 words. Explain how citations enable researchers to participate in scholarly conversation and construct authority.
100 pts · Canvas Discussion
Capstone · Oct 19 · 11am
Critiquing Scholarly Conversations at JTWC
Synthesis table + 800–1,000 word argument-driven analysis of literature review and citation practices in two JTWC articles.
250 pts · Canvas · Metacognitive Report required
In your first module, you examined the broader landscape of PTC by analyzing who publishes in leading journals (JBTC and TCQ), what topics and research questions they pursue, and how journals establish expectations for contributors through discourse conventions and design choices. You developed a portrait of the PTC methodological community and learned to read individual research articles as rhetorical systems that both shape and reflect the field’s values.
Now, in this second module, you’ll shift from the bird’s-eye view of the field (the people, topics, and questions that define it) to examining the specific genres and practices that enable scholarly conversation: literature reviews and citations. This module teaches you how researchers use these genres to build credibility, trace the evolution of ideas, and position their work within ongoing scholarly conversations.
In order to avoid being duped by misinformation as a citizen or knowledge worker, you need to be able to differentiate quality information from misinformation and rhetrickery. Assessing a source’s authority can be tricky. Peter Navarro, Trump’s chief trade adviser, quoted a fictional economist, “Ron Vara,” to support his anti-China tariff claims. Reporters later discovered that Ron Vara was an anagram of Navarro’s own last name: a fictional alter ego Navarro slipped into six nonfiction books, policy memos, and media appearances (Bartlett, 2019). When The Chronicle of Higher Education exposed the fabrication, Navarro brushed it off as an “inside joke.” For Navarro, making up sources may be a joke. For the academic and scientific community, that practice reflects research misconduct. This episode illustrates why you can’t rely on the authority of a single individual. Even celebrated experts can invent sources, plagiarize, or otherwise manipulate evidence.
Bottom line: Triangulating data (cross-checking claims, vetting methodologies, and building robust literature reviews) protects you and your readers from being misled.
This assignment equips you with the specific habits that make triangulation possible: pinpointing what a study really promises, interrogating whether its literature review maps the full conversation or cherry-picks sources, and analyzing citation patterns to spot whose voices are amplified or ignored.
Stage 1 · Due Sep 28
Why Literature Reviews Matter
Discussion post · 600–700 words · 100 points
What this stage develops: The ability to synthesize across multiple sources rather than summarize them one by one, and to argue, using scholarship, why situating research in prior work is not a formality but a condition of knowledge itself.
Rhetorical Situation
Your audience is a skeptical colleague outside academia: someone intelligent and well-read who believes that careful thinkers can form reliable views by reasoning from their own experience and observation, without consulting “the literature.” Your task is not to lecture them about academic conventions. Your task is to make an argument, grounded in your readings, for why engaging prior research is not a bureaucratic requirement but the precondition for making any serious knowledge claim at all.
Required Readings
Scholarship as a Conversation
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. Read at mjreiff.com
Conversation between sources — Writing Commons
Information Literacy
Authority and Credibility — Writing Commons
ACRL Information Literacy Framework — Writing Commons
Evidence — The Heartbeat of Successful Communication — Writing Commons
The CRAAP Test — Writing Commons
Literature Reviews — How Scholars, Empiricists, Creatives and Designers Frame Scholarly Conversations — Moxley (2024)
Citation
Attribution — What is the Role of Attribution in Academic and Professional Writing — Writing Commons
Prompt
Write a 600–700-word synthesis that argues why researchers situate their studies in the context of ongoing scholarly conversations, what information literacy strategies inform how investigators assess the authority of a research claim, and why citation practices are so important to scholars and researchers.
Your synthesis should combine insights from multiple readings rather than summarize them one by one. Include at least three short quotations or paraphrases with in-text APA 7 citations. Organize your writing with clear headings (e.g., Scholarship as a Conversation, Information Literacy, Citation).
This is an argument, not a report. Take a position on why any of this matters and defend it.
Requirements
✓ 600–700 words; word count at the top of your post
✓ Combines insights across readings rather than summarizing them one by one
✓ At least three quotations or paraphrases with correct APA 7 in-text citations
✓ Required headings included
✓ APA 7 reference list at the bottom
APA 7 note: citing Writing Commons articles
Writing Commons articles have no publication date. Use n.d. in place of the year. The author of all assigned Writing Commons readings is Joseph M. Moxley. Use Moxley in your citations, not “Writing Commons.” Because several readings share the same author, alphabetize your reference list entries by title and label them n.d.-a, n.d.-b, and so on. Your in-text citations should match.
Example in-text: (Moxley, n.d.-a, para. 3)
Example reference entry: Moxley, J. M. (n.d.-a). Authority and credibility. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/section/information-literacy/authority/
Bruffee citation: Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635–652.
Hallucination warning
Before submitting, use Ctrl+F to verify every direct quotation against the actual source text. A hallucinated quotation or fabricated citation results in an F for this assignment.
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding | Accurately explains key rhetorical and stylistic concepts: rhetorical knowledge, reasoning, style, and authority. | 40 |
| Synthesis | Connects ideas across readings to explain how rhetoric and style shape credibility and knowledge-making in PTC. Does not summarize sources one by one. | 30 |
| Evidence | Uses at least three well-integrated quotations or paraphrases from the readings, correctly cited in APA 7. Hallucinated quotation results in an F for the assignment. | 15 |
| Clarity and Organization | Writing is coherent, well-structured, and follows format and length requirements. APA errors noted but not penalized. | 15 |
| Total | 100 |
Stage 2 · Due Oct 5
Classifying Literature Reviews in PTC Journals
Discussion post · ~500 words · 100 points
What this stage develops: The ability to apply published typologies to evaluate whether a literature review actually does the work it claims to do: not describe what it does, but assess how well it does it.
Rhetorical Situation
You are writing for a peer who has completed Module 1 and can name the journals you analyzed, but who has not yet studied what makes a literature review effective. Your goal is to apply what you know from the readings to evaluate the literature reviews in the articles you already analyzed, giving your peer a model of what critical literature review analysis looks like in practice.
Theoretical Framework
Swales’ CARS Model
John Swales’ (1990) CARS (Create a Research Space) model provides a framework for analyzing how researchers use literature reviews to make three rhetorical moves: (1) establishing a territory (showing what is known), (2) identifying a niche (revealing what remains uncertain, contested, or unaddressed), and (3) occupying that niche (positioning their own contribution as the answer to that gap).
Each move does specific work. Establishing territory demonstrates that the writer knows the field. Identifying a niche is the argumentative pivot: it is where the researcher justifies why new work is needed. A literature review that skips the niche move — or asserts one without demonstrating it — fails to justify why the study was conducted at all. Occupying the niche is where the researcher’s own contribution enters: the claim that their methods, data, or argument address what prior research left unresolved.
How researchers introduce individual sources within these moves is also analytically significant. Swales distinguishes between integral citations (where the author name appears in the sentence itself: “Smith (2022) argues that…”) and nonintegral citations (where the author is named only in parentheses: “(Smith, 2022)”). Integral citations foreground a specific voice and claim; nonintegral citations treat the source as background support. Patterns across a literature review reveal something about the writer’s relationship to the field: whose work they treat as foundational, whose they treat as mere context, and whose they argue against rather than simply cite.
Finally, the CARS model helps explain what goes wrong in weak literature reviews. A review that lists prior studies one by one without synthesizing them fails the territory move. A review that claims a gap exists without demonstrating it fails the niche move. A review that never connects the field’s conversation to the study’s own design fails the occupation move. Learning to recognize these failures is exactly what the Capstone asks you to do.
Required Readings
Moxley, J. M. (2024). Literature reviews: How scholars, empiricists, creatives and designers frame scholarly conversations. Writing Commons.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Sanders, D. A. (2020). How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article. Clinical Biochemistry, 81, 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.04.006
Paul, J., & Rialp Criado, A. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
Prompt
Write a concise literature review (approximately 500 words, excluding references) that synthesizes insights from at least four of the assigned readings to explain what makes an effective literature review.
Your claims should be grounded in specific arguments from the readings, not general writing advice that could apply to any assignment. Focus on shared principles and distinctive emphases, such as organization, purpose, ethics, and information value. Weave quotations and paraphrases into a single, coherent argument rather than writing one paragraph per article.
Summarizing each source separately is not synthesis.
Significance
The ability to evaluate a literature review (not just read it) is what separates a critical reader from a credulous one. Published researchers get this wrong. A literature review that cherry-picks sources to support a predetermined conclusion, skips the niche move, or lists prior studies without synthesizing them is not a minor stylistic failure. It undermines the entire knowledge claim the article is making. Learning to recognize these failures is the prerequisite for the Capstone, where you will apply exactly these criteria to published JTWC articles.
Requirements
✓ ~500 words (excluding reference list); word count at top
✓ Synthesizes at least four of the required readings
✓ At least one direct quotation and one paraphrase from each reading you cite, with APA 7 in-text citations including page or paragraph numbers
✓ Organized as a unified argument, not one paragraph per source
✓ APA 7 reference list at the bottom
APA 7 note: direct quotations
In APA style, a direct quotation means any phrase of three or more consecutive words copied from a source. Place it in quotation marks and provide an in-text citation with a page or paragraph number.
Example: Sanders (2020) warns that a review article “should not be a comprehensive catalogue of everything ever written on the topic” (p. 65).
Note that paraphrases also require an in-text citation. Putting an idea in your own words does not remove the obligation to acknowledge the source.
Hallucination warning
GenAI tools frequently hallucinate quotations from sources like these. Plausible-sounding but fabricated. Before submitting, use Ctrl+F to verify every direct quotation against the actual source text. A hallucinated quotation or fabricated citation results in an F for this assignment.
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Responsiveness | Synthesizes at least four of the required readings. Claims are grounded in the readings’ specific arguments, not general writing advice. | 40 |
| Integration and Accuracy | Accurate quotations and paraphrases from at least four readings, properly cited with page or paragraph numbers. Hallucinated quotation results in an F for the assignment. | 30 |
| Coherence and Concision | Writing is clear, concise, and organized as a single unified argument. Does not summarize sources one by one. Correct APA 7 citations and reference list. APA errors noted but not penalized. | 30 |
| Total | 100 |
Stage 3 · Due Oct 12
Citation as Rhetorical Move
Discussion post · ~500 words · 100 points
What this stage develops: The ability to explain why citation practices work the way they do: not as a formatting requirement, but as a set of rhetorical moves that position researchers within ongoing scholarly conversations and construct authority.
Purpose
You already know how to cite sources. This assignment asks you to do something harder: explain why citation practices work the way they do. Citations are not just a formatting requirement or a way to avoid plagiarism. They are rhetorical moves that position researchers within ongoing scholarly conversations, establish credibility, and signal a writer’s relationship to their discipline. Understanding this will sharpen your analytical eye for the Capstone, where you’ll be evaluating how JTWC authors use citations in professional and technical communication research.
Citation as Rhetorical Genre
Researchers don’t just cite sources: they introduce them in ways that signal specific relationships between their own work and prior scholarship. Swales (1990) distinguishes between integral citations, where the author name appears grammatically in the sentence (“Smith (2022) argues that…”), and nonintegral citations, where the author appears only in parentheses (“(Smith, 2022)”). Integral citations foreground a specific voice and claim; nonintegral citations treat the source as background support. The pattern of choices across a literature review reveals who the writer treats as foundational, whose work is merely contextual, and whose claims are being argued against rather than adopted.
Beyond integral/nonintegral, researchers also vary in how deeply they engage each source. Swales identifies three levels of engagement: mentioning (a brief reference with no elaboration), summarizing (presenting the source’s main point or finding), and discussing (engaging critically with the source’s argument, methodology, or significance). A literature review dominated by mentioning gestures at the field without demonstrating knowledge of it. One that reserves discussion for the studies most directly relevant to its niche demonstrates methodological awareness.
These choices are not neutral. A writer who discusses a foundational study rather than merely mentioning it signals that they understand why it matters. A writer who summarizes a contested finding without noting the contestation signals either unawareness or avoidance. In your Capstone analysis, these distinctions give you a vocabulary for evaluating citation choices beyond “they cited a lot of sources.”
Required Readings
Attribution — What is the Role of Attribution in Academic and Professional Writing — Writing Commons
Citation and Voice — How to Distinguish Your Ideas from Your Sources — Writing Commons
Citation Conventions — What is the Role of Citation in Academic and Professional Writing? — Writing Commons
Summary — Learn How to Summarize Sources — Writing Commons
Paraphrasing — How to Paraphrase with Clarity and Concision — Writing Commons
Quotation — When and How to Use Quotes in Your Writing — Writing Commons
Prompt
Write a 500-word literature review (excluding references) that explains how citations enable researchers and readers to participate in the ongoing scholarly conversation of humankind. Your review should be a single, unified argument, not a list of answers to questions.
Let the following questions guide your thinking, but do not answer them one by one. Let them inform a central argument you develop through synthesis across your sources.
How do citations connect current research to a discipline’s canon and to broader scholarly conversations, helping readers understand what is already known, what remains uncertain, and why new work matters?
How do researchers use citations to establish ethos, credibility, and authority. What do their choices reveal about their awareness of the assumptions, strengths, or limits of the evidence they draw upon?
How do researchers introduce sources to signal their authority, currency, relevance, accuracy, and purpose?
Draw on concepts from your previous assignment where relevant, particularly Bruffee’s “scholarly conversation,” Swales’ CARS model, and the CRAAP framework. The goal is not to explain these frameworks but to use them as lenses.
Significance
As you’ve seen through Swales’ CARS model, citations are not just giving credit. They are the rhetorical moves that position a researcher within an ongoing conversation. Understanding this is what separates a reader who follows citations from a reader who interrogates them. In the Capstone, you will need to interrogate them: to ask whether the citation choices in a published JTWC article signal authority or merely gesture at it, whether the CRAAP criteria are met, whether the niche is genuinely established or simply asserted.
Requirements
✓ ~500 words (excluding reference list); word count at top
✓ At least three sources cited; at least one paraphrase from each source you cite
✓ Written as a single unified argument, not one paragraph per source
✓ All paraphrases include in-text APA 7 citations
✓ APA 7 reference list at the bottom
Hallucination warning
GenAI tools frequently hallucinate quotations and paraphrases from sources like these. Plausible-sounding but fabricated. Before submitting, use Ctrl+F to verify every direct quotation against the actual source text. A hallucinated quotation or fabricated citation results in an F for this assignment. Repeated hallucinations across deliverables result in an F for the course.
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Responsiveness to Prompt | Explains how citations function rhetorically in research: how they connect to disciplinary canons and scholarly conversations, establish credibility, signal source quality, and reveal methodological awareness. Claims are grounded in the assigned readings, not general knowledge about citation mechanics. | 35 |
| Integration and Accuracy | Accurate quotations and paraphrases from at least three required readings, properly formatted with in-text citations. Hallucinated quotation results in an F for the assignment. | 35 |
| Depth of Synthesis | Weaves ideas across sources into a unified argument rather than summarizing sources separately. Connects citation practices to broader frameworks (Swales, CRAAP, Bruffee) where relevant. | 15 |
| Clarity and Format | Clear, concise, and well-organized. Ideas flow logically. Correct APA 7 citations and reference list. APA errors noted but not penalized. | 15 |
| Total | 100 |
Capstone · Due Oct 19 · 11:00am
Critiquing Scholarly Conversations at JTWC
Synthesis table + 800–1,000 word argument-driven analysis · 250 points · Metacognitive Report required
What this capstone develops: The ability to apply all three frameworks from this module (Swales’ CARS model, published literature review typologies, and CRAAP citation analysis) to evaluate how published PTC researchers construct authority and participate in scholarly conversations. This is peer-reviewer thinking applied to real published work.
Building on What You’ve Learned
In Module 1, you developed a portrait of the PTC research community by analyzing who publishes in JBTC and TCQ, what topics they pursue, and how journals establish credibility through rhetorical and stylistic choices. You learned to read individual articles as rhetorical systems. In this module, you’ve shifted from that bird’s-eye view to examining the specific genres that make scholarly conversation possible: literature reviews and citation practices. You’ve read what leading scholars say makes a literature review effective, and you’ve practiced synthesizing across sources rather than summarizing them one by one.
This Capstone asks you to apply both sets of skills together: the rhetorical eye you developed in Module 1 and the analytical vocabulary you built in Module 2, to see how PTC researchers actually construct literature reviews and use citations in published work. In Module 3, you’ll build on this foundation by examining the epistemologies and methods that inform PTC research, so the sharper your understanding here, the better prepared you’ll be for what comes next.
Purpose
In this Capstone, you will apply what you’ve learned about literature reviews and citations to examine how these features function in published research in Professional and Technical Communication.
What to Do
Select two of the most-read articles in The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (JTWC), as listed under the “Most Read” tab on the journal’s homepage (click More for the full list). Founded in 1971 and published by SAGE, JTWC is one of the field’s longest-standing journals, featuring qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on trends and approaches in professional and technical communication research.
Analyze how both studies:
Follow Swales’ CARS model: how do they establish a territory, identify a niche, and occupy that niche?
Exemplify (or fall short of) the principles of effective literature reviews described in the assigned readings
Use citations to signal Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (CRAAP) and establish ethos and authority with their readers
Your goal is not simply to describe what each article does. The goal is to build an argument about what both articles reveal together about how PTC researchers construct authority and participate in scholarly conversations.
Deliverables
Submit one integrated document containing:
A synthesis table summarizing quantitative patterns across the two JTWC articles
An argument-driven synthesis of 800–1,000 words analyzing literature review and citation practices across both articles. Your argument should be grounded in the quantitative patterns from your table and the assigned readings.
An APA 7 reference list for all sources you cite
At the top of your document, include: Your Name and Total Word Count (excluding table and references).
Synthesis Table
Before writing your synthesis, complete the table below. The table is not busywork. The numbers you collect here should directly drive the claims you make in your written synthesis. If something looks interesting or surprising (an unusually short literature review, a very low percentage of recent citations, a CARS move that’s conspicuously absent, or a pattern across both articles that reveals something about how PTC researchers construct authority), that’s worth writing about. Let the table generate your argument. Your synthesis should open with a claim that only someone who completed the table could make.
| Article (APA In-Text) | Lit Review Length | Total References | % Refs <5 Years Old | CARS Elements Present | Notable Citation Patterns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Author, Year) | 3 pages | 45 | 62% | Territory, Niche, Occupation | Heavy empirical studies; includes practitioner sources |
| (Author, Year) | 2.5 pages | 38 | 71% | Territory, Niche, Occupation | Theory-focused; cites canonical PTC scholars |
How to complete each column:
Lit Review Length: Count the pages or paragraphs dedicated to reviewing prior literature, not the full article.
Total References / % <5 Years Old: Count all references in the reference list, then calculate what percentage were published within the last five years.
CARS Elements Present: Mark which of Swales’ three moves are clearly present. If a move is weak or absent, note that too.
Notable Citation Patterns: Describe what types of sources dominate: empirical studies, theory, practitioner sources, international vs. US-focused, and so on.
Interpretive Narrative: Synthesis (800–1,000 words)
Your goal is not to report what the table shows but to argue what it means: to use the quantitative patterns you documented as evidence for a larger argument about how PTC researchers construct authority and situate their work in ongoing scholarly conversations. The questions under each heading below are thinking prompts, not an outline to answer one by one. Let them guide your analysis, then build a single, unified argument.
Required Heading 1: Literature Review Practices Across Two JTWC Articles
Go beyond what the table already recorded. Are the CARS moves executed convincingly, or does one move feel rushed or underdeveloped? What does the length and recency of each literature review suggest about how these authors position their work? What do two or three of your assigned readings help you evaluate about how well these reviews work, or where they fall short?
Required Heading 2: Citation Practices Across Two JTWC Articles
Go beyond what the table already recorded. How do these authors introduce and frame their sources. Do they signal Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (CRAAP) explicitly or implicitly? What do the citation patterns you noted suggest about the disciplinary values and methodological commitments of PTC research? Where do the two articles converge or diverge in how they use citations to establish ethos?
Your citation analysis must be a dedicated, sustained argument, not observations scattered through your literature review section. And organizing it criterion by criterion: Currency, then Relevance, then Authority in separate paragraphs. That produces a checklist, not an analysis. Ask instead: what do the citation patterns across both articles reveal together about PTC’s disciplinary values? Let that question generate your argument.
Required: Concluding Synthesis (75–100 words)
End with a clearly labeled paragraph of 75–100 words. This is a required element with its own word count, not a throwaway closing sentence. Answer this question: Stepping back from both articles, what do the patterns you’ve identified reveal about how PTC researchers construct authority and participate in scholarly conversations? What would a newcomer to the field learn about PTC’s values and practices from these two examples alone?
From summary to argument: how to write a strong synthesis
The most common mistake in this assignment is treating each article separately. Write one paragraph on Article A, one paragraph on Article B. That structure produces summary, not synthesis. Synthesis means organizing your analysis around a central claim that both articles illuminate together.
Compare these two openings:
Summary: “Both articles use Swales’ CARS model to establish territory, identify a niche, and occupy it.”
Synthesis: “Reading the two articles together shows a disciplinary pattern: recency and empirical density signal urgency for immediate, data-driven interventions, while theoretical anchoring signals the need for conceptual reframing.”
The second opening could only have been written by someone who completed the table. It makes a claim about what both articles reveal together about PTC scholarship.
Similarly, compare these two concluding syntheses:
Weak: “Both articles show that literature reviews are important for establishing authority in scholarly conversations.”
Strong: “Taken together, these articles reveal that authority in PTC is not declared through credentials alone. It is built through deliberate alignment between citation strategy and argumentative purpose, whether that means anchoring a theoretical argument in decades of genre scholarship or bridging academic and practitioner knowledge systems to serve two audiences simultaneously.”
APA 7 Requirements
APA 7 note: in-text citations and reference list
Use APA 7th edition for all in-text citations and the reference list. Your reference list should include both JTWC articles plus any assigned readings you cited. First names do not appear in APA 7 in-text citations. Titles belong in the reference list, not in the body of your analysis. When you introduce a source in your text, author and year are all you need.
Compare:
Cluttered: “Guiseppe Getto et al. in How to Write With GenAI: A Framework for Using Generative AI to Automate Writing Tasks in Technical Communication (2025) argue that…”
Clean: “Getto et al. (2025) argue that…”
Every time you apply Swales’ CARS model, including the very first sentence of your analysis. Swales must be cited. Writing “both articles follow the CARS model” without a citation is the same error as omitting a citation anywhere else.
Power quoting. One of the most efficient credibility moves available to you is gathering two or three sources into a single parenthetical citation to demonstrate that a principle reflects field-wide consensus rather than a single authority’s opinion:
Effective literature reviews do more than catalog prior studies. They synthesize findings, expose gaps, and justify why new research is needed (Moxley, 2024; Paul & Rialp Criado, 2020; Pautasso, 2013).
Requirements Checklist
✓ Two JTWC articles selected from the Most Read list
✓ Synthesis table completed and accurate
✓ 800–1,000 word argument-driven synthesis; word count at top (excluding table and references)
✓ Both required headings included
✓ Required 75–100 word concluding synthesis included
✓ At least one direct quotation or paraphrase from each JTWC article
✓ At least two assigned readings cited and applied
✓ Swales cited every time CARS model is applied
✓ All direct quotations verified against source text using Ctrl+F before submitting
✓ APA 7 reference list; author-year only in text; no titles or first names in body
Hallucination warning
Verify all quotations against the actual source text before submitting. GenAI frequently fabricates plausible-sounding quotations from published articles. Unlike the assigned readings, your instructor may not immediately recognize a fabricated passage from a JTWC article. Your integrity depends on accuracy regardless. Use Ctrl+F to search the actual PDF for the exact words you are quoting before submitting. If you cannot locate a quotation in the source, rewrite it as a paraphrase you can verify. A hallucinated quotation or fabricated citation results in an F for this assignment.
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesis Table | Accurately documents data for both articles. Clear, complete, and properly formatted. Quantitative patterns are visibly connected to the written argument. Checking CARS elements present without evaluating whether those moves are executed convincingly will not earn full points. | 50 |
| Literature Review Analysis | Builds an argument across both articles rather than summarizing them individually. Evaluates whether CARS moves are executed convincingly or fall short. Applies Swales’ CARS model with attribution. Draws on at least two assigned readings, cited when applied. Includes at least one direct quotation or paraphrase from each JTWC article. Writing one paragraph per article is summary, not argument. | 75 |
| Citation Analysis | Examines how citations build authority across both articles. Analyzes CRAAP signaling and citation patterns. Connects citation choices to disciplinary values and methodological commitments. Walking through each CRAAP criterion in a separate paragraph produces a checklist, not an analysis. Organize around an argument about what the citation patterns reveal. | 75 |
| Clarity, Style, and Format | Clear, concise, and well-organized. Argument is not structured article by article. Includes required 75–100 word concluding synthesis. In-text citations follow APA 7: author and year only. Accurate APA 7 reference list. Meets word count. APA errors noted but not penalized. | 50 |
| Total | 250 |
All Stages
Metacognitive Report
Required if GenAI was used · Attestation + table for Stages 1–3 · Attestation + table + 250-word narrative for the Capstone
For full guidance, examples, and the complete list of legitimate AI roles, see Metacognitive Report: AI Writing Ethics: Balancing Agency, Voice and Disclosure.
For Stages 1, 2, and 3
Include a two- to three-sentence attestation confirming that you directed all GenAI use, reviewed and revised all AI-assisted content, and that the ideas, argument, and final language are your own. Vague disclosures do not satisfy this requirement.
Include a GenAI usage table (one table per tool used):
| Step in Writing Process | No. of Chats | Role | Notes on Use | Chat Log URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drafting: synthesizing Stage 2 readings | 2 | Research Assistant, Editorial Assistant | I asked Claude to summarize the Grant and Booth typology. It produced a clean summary but misquoted Sanders (2020). The phrase it attributed to p. 65 does not appear in the article. I rewrote the passage as a paraphrase I could verify with Ctrl+F. | https://… |
For the Capstone
The attestation and table are required, plus a minimum 250-word narrative with these four sections:
Overview: Tools used and why
Critical Moments: 2–3 key iterations where your judgment diverged from the tool’s output and you took back control
Reflection: How AI use shaped your thinking and how you maintained your own voice and judgment
Takeaway: What you learned about working with GenAI on this assignment
The Critical Moments section is the most diagnostic. A student who can describe two or three specific moments of redirecting the AI has demonstrated active rather than passive use. A student who cannot is probably using the AI as a ghostwriter and has no story to tell about their own thinking.
| Criterion | What Earns Full Points |
|---|---|
| Required Components and Specificity | Attestation, table, chat log URLs, and word count all present, accurate, and specific. Concrete examples from this assignment, no vague generalities. |
| Critical Analysis of Agency and Lessons Learned | Honest discussion of when and why you accepted AI-generated text, what you changed or kept, and what that choice reveals about your judgment as a writer. Accepted passages identified and defended, not just mentioned. |
| Clarity, Organization, and Authentic Voice | Logical flow, concise sentences; authentic voice evident. The report itself does not read as AI-generated. |
Reference
Key Terms and Concepts
What is a literature review?
A literature review is a systematic survey and synthesis of existing peer-reviewed works related to a specific research topic or question. It serves two related purposes: as a genre of discourse in its own right (a standalone document synthesizing what is known on a topic), and as a section within a research study (contextualizing the current project, identifying gaps, and establishing the rationale for new research).
In research studies across methodological communities, Swales (1990) argues investigators make three common rhetorical moves: establishing a territory, identifying a niche, and occupying that niche.
What does “literature” mean in a research context?
In the context of the research community, “literature” refers to the body of published, peer-reviewed work relevant to a particular field or research topic. This includes journal articles, conference proceedings, books and monographs, dissertations and theses, reports and white papers, and other formal academic publications.
How do different methodological communities approach citation?
Citation is more than a matter of giving credit. It is a rhetorical strategy that helps writers establish credibility, situate their work within ongoing conversations, and signal their epistemological commitments.
Creatives may cite artistic influences, cultural myths, or speculative texts to inspire new ways of thinking.
Designers are more likely to reference prototypes, focus group results, or UX studies to justify design choices.
Scientists typically rely on peer-reviewed research and prioritize reproducibility.
Scholars tend to cite seminal theorists and canonical texts.
Interpreters often draw on voices from the field or ethnographic sources. Hence, how, when, and why researchers cite reveals their methodological community’s values and the kind of contribution they aim to make.
What are the learning outcomes for this module?
By completing this module, you will:
Understand how researchers construct literature reviews and employ citation practices to substantiate the authority of their works and situate their arguments in ongoing scholarly conversations
Understand how to evaluate the authority, accuracy, currency, and purpose of sources and evidence
Understand the utility and genre of the literature review or problem statement in academic and professional research
Develop the critical literacy practices necessary to gauge the validity and authority of knowledge claims and research
When is the Metacognitive Report required?
The Metacognitive Report is required any time you use GenAI on a deliverable in this module. For Stages 1, 2, and 3, submit an attestation plus a usage table. For the Capstone, the attestation and table are required plus a minimum 250-word narrative with four sections: Overview, Critical Moments, Reflection, and Takeaway. Submit in the same Canvas dropbox as your assignment. For full guidelines, see AI Writing Ethics: Balancing Agency, Voice and Disclosure.
How is this module graded?
Stages 1, 2, and 3 are each worth 100 points. The Capstone is worth 250 points. This module counts for 25% of your total course grade. Full rubrics for each stage appear above.
References
Bartlett, T. (2019, October 15). Trump’s “China muse” has an imaginary friend. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/trumps-china-muse-has-an-imaginary-friend
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635–652.
Charlton, M. (n.d.). Understanding how conversations change over time. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/article/understanding-how-conversations-change-over-time/
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Mina, L. (n.d.). Conversation between sources. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/article/conversation-between-sources/
Moxley, J. M. (2024). Literature reviews: How scholars, empiricists, creatives and designers frame scholarly conversations. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/section/genre/literature-reviews-how-scholars-empiricists-creatives-designers-frame-scholarly-conversations/
Paul, J., & Rialp Criado, A. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Sanders, D. A. (2020). How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article. Clinical Biochemistry, 81, 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.04.006
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
References
Bartlett, T. (2019, October 15). Trump’s “China muse” has an Imaginary friend. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/trumps-china-muse-has-an-imaginary-friend
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.1986.5.1.02
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635–652.
Charlton, M. (n.d.). Understanding how conversations change over time. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/article/understanding-how-conversations-change-over-time/
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Mina, L. (n.d.). Conversation between sources. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/article/conversation-between-sources/
Moxley, J. M. (2024). Literature reviews – How scholars, empiricists, creatives & designers frame scholarly conversations. Writing Commons. https://writingcommons.org/section/genre/literature-reviews-how-scholars-empiricists-creatives-designers-frame-scholarly-conversations/
Paul, J., & Rialp Criado, A. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 journals.plos.org+2pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+2
Sanders, D. A. (2020). How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article. Clinical Biochemistry, 81, 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.04.006
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/genreanalysiseng0000swal
