Literature Review

Literature Review Skill (Pacheco-Vega Method)

Overview

A systematic methodology for reading, analyzing, and synthesizing academic and professional literature, based on the methods developed by Raul Pacheco-Vega (raulpacheco.org). The core tools are the AIC reading method, the Conceptual Synthesis Excel (CSE), and research memos.

When to Use This Skill

• Conducting a literature review for a research project or article
• Systematically reading and processing multiple academic papers
• Building understanding of a scholarly field or debate
• Preparing to write a research-grounded piece
• Understanding the state of knowledge on a complex topic

The AIC Reading Method

The AIC method structures how you read each individual source. Three passes, each with a distinct purpose:

A — Analytical Reading (Pass 1)

Question: "What does this text actually say?"

Extract:

• Thesis/main argument: What is the author claiming?
• Structure: How is the argument organized?
• Methodology: How did they gather/analyze evidence?
• Key data: What specific evidence do they present?
• Definitions: How do they define key terms?
• Scope: What does the paper explicitly cover and exclude?

Output: Factual summary — no interpretation yet.

I — Interpretive Reading (Pass 2)

Question: "What does this mean in context?"

Analyze:

• Implications: What follows from these findings?
• Connections: How does this relate to other sources you've read?
• Context: How does this fit in the broader scholarly conversation?
• Assumptions: What unstated assumptions does the author make?
• Significance: Why does this matter for your research question?
• Surprises: What was unexpected or counterintuitive?

Output: Interpretive layer added to the analytical notes.

C — Critical Reading (Pass 3)

Question: "How strong is this, and what's missing?"

Assess:

• Evidence quality: Is the evidence sufficient for the claims?
• Methodology strength: Are there methodological limitations?
• Bias indicators: Does the author have evident biases or conflicts?
• Gaps: What doesn't this source address that it should?
• Counter-arguments: What would opponents say?
• Contribution: What does this uniquely add to the field?

Output: Complete AIC note (see template: analytical-note.md)

The Conceptual Synthesis Excel (CSE)

The CSE is a matrix that tracks how different sources address shared themes. It's the main tool for detecting patterns across the literature.

Structure

              | Theme A    | Theme B    | Theme C    | Theme D    |
Source 1      | [how S1    | [how S1    |            | [how S1    |
              |  addresses |  addresses |            |  addresses |
              |  Theme A]  |  Theme B]  |            |  Theme D]  |
Source 2      |            | [how S2    | [how S2    | [how S2    |
              |            |  addresses |  addresses |  addresses |
              |            |  Theme B]  |  Theme C]  |  Theme D]  |
Source 3      | [how S3    |            | [how S3    |            |
              |  addresses |            |  addresses |            |
              |  Theme A]  |            |  Theme C]  |            |

How to Build

1. Start after 3 sources — you need enough to see patterns
2. Themes emerge from reading — don't predefine them all
3. Add columns as new themes appear — the matrix grows horizontally
4. Each cell is a brief summary — not a full note, just how that source addresses that theme
5. Empty cells are data — they show which sources DON'T address which themes
6. Review the matrix after every 3-5 new sources — look for patterns

Pattern Detection

After building the CSE, look for:

• Vertical patterns: A theme that every source addresses → core concept
• Empty columns: A theme only one source addresses → unique contribution or niche
• Contradictory cells: Sources that disagree on a theme → tension to investigate
• Empty rows: A source that doesn't fit themes → outlier, possibly irrelevant
• Clustering: Groups of sources that address the same themes → schools of thought

Research Memos

Memos are short analytical essays (500-1000 words) that synthesize what you've learned. They are NOT summaries — they are arguments.

When to Write

• After processing 3-5 related sources
• When a clear pattern emerges from the CSE
• When you find a contradiction you can analyze
• When you have enough evidence to make an argument

Memo Structure

1. Opening statement: Your argument or observation (1-2 sentences)
2. Evidence: What the sources show (with citations)
3. Analysis: Why this matters, what it means
4. Tensions: Where sources disagree and why
5. Implications: What follows from this analysis
6. Open questions: What still needs investigation

Memo Rules

• Argue, don't summarize — memos take a position
• Cite every claim — trace everything to sources
• Keep it focused — one main idea per memo
• Connect to your question — how does this serve your research?
• Write for your future self — you'll re-read this months later

The Literature Matrix

A master tracking document for the entire review. More comprehensive than the CSE, more structured than a bibliography.

Fields Tracked

Integration with Zettelkasten

Every piece of this methodology maps to Zettelkasten note types:

Link Types for Literature Review

• supports — Source provides evidence for a claim in another note
• contradicts — Source disagrees with another source's findings
• extends — Source builds on or deepens another's work
• refines — Source clarifies or nuances another's argument
• questions — Source raises doubts about another's methodology or conclusions

Templates

All templates in .github/skills/literature-review/templates/:

Anti-Patterns

• Reading without structure: Reading papers without the AIC framework — leads to shallow understanding
• Summarizing instead of synthesizing: Creating summaries instead of memos — misses the point
• CSE neglect: Not updating the matrix — you'll miss patterns
• Isolated notes: Creating literature notes without linking — defeats Zettelkasten purpose
• Premature synthesis: Writing memos before reading enough sources — conclusions won't be grounded
• Scope creep: Following every citation chain — stay within review boundaries