Q-Litreview
Draft standalone literature review sections that follow the introduction. Produces a progressive argument across two subsections, arriving at research questions as the earned conclusion.
References
- references/literature_review_template.md — structural guidance (draft dynamically, not verbatim)
- references/interview_questions.md — interview protocol and refinement diagnostic
- ../references/apa_style_guide.md — APA formatting, numbers, notation, formulas
Core Principles
- Purely conceptual and theoretical; measurement methodology belongs in methods
- Progressive argument: theory exposition, prior research, limitations, new approach, earned RQs
- Narrative prose; no bullet points, em-dashes, or italicized sublabels within paragraphs
- Prefer 3-12 sentence paragraphs; no standalone introductory paragraphs
- Dense citation support with specific findings woven into prose, not cataloged
- Two subsections with descriptive headers naming the dimension or activity
- Each paragraph has one clear through-line advancing the argument
- Research questions emerge as the logical conclusion, not restatements of the introduction
Argumentative Architecture
The templates describe what goes where; this section describes why each element appears where it does.
Subsection 1 (Theoretical Framework and Domain Application)
- P1: Establish the framework (core constructs, key evidence, mechanisms)
- P2: Show it applies beyond its original context (digital, mediated, computational extensions)
- P3: Show the study's domain needs it (what existing frameworks capture and miss)
- P4: Show where it has not yet been applied (the specific understudied context)
Each paragraph opens by extending or complicating the prior paragraph's conclusion.
Subsection 2 (Prior Research Tradition to New Approach)
- P5: What the field knows and how (foundational studies, methodological pattern)
- P6: How the environment has changed (platform dynamics, new metrics)
- P7: Why existing tools cannot capture the new reality (limitations)
- P8: The approach that can (content-side framing, earned RQs)
Subsection Headers
Use descriptive headers: "[Theory] in [Domain]: [Construct 1] and [Construct 2] in [Context]" and "[Field]-Mediated [Activity]: From [Existing] to [New Approach]."
Research Question Framing
RQs should feel earned by the argument, connected to the preceding analysis rather than restating the introduction's wording.
Workflow
| Step |
Action |
Reference |
| 1 |
Interview: if an introduction exists, read it first to identify literature it previews |
references/interview_questions.md |
| 2 |
Outline: map progressive argument across 8 paragraphs (4 per subsection) |
Architecture above |
| 3 |
Draft: write flowing paragraphs of 6-10 sentences |
references/literature_review_template.md |
| 4 |
Coordination (if intro exists): verify intro compresses, lit review elaborates; theory defined here; concrete examples here; coined phrases in one section only; RQ framing differs |
— |
| 5 |
Refinement (existing drafts): run diagnostic, then revise per Architecture |
references/interview_questions.md |
Scope
Include: Theoretical framework (origins, dimensions, mechanisms, extensions), synthesis of prior research with specific contributions, gaps as narrative consequences, conceptual motivation for the analytical approach, earned research questions.
Checklist
1---2name: q-litreview3description: Draft or refine standalone literature review sections for academic manuscripts. Builds progressive arguments from theory through prior research to the study's approach, with research questions earned through the argument. Use for literature reviews, theoretical framing, or research question development.4---56# Q-Litreview78Draft standalone literature review sections that follow the introduction. Produces a progressive argument across two subsections, arriving at research questions as the earned conclusion.910## References1112- **references/literature_review_template.md** — structural guidance (draft dynamically, not verbatim)13- **references/interview_questions.md** — interview protocol and refinement diagnostic14- **../references/apa_style_guide.md** — APA formatting, numbers, notation, formulas1516## Core Principles1718- Purely conceptual and theoretical; measurement methodology belongs in methods19- Progressive argument: theory exposition, prior research, limitations, new approach, earned RQs20- Narrative prose; no bullet points, em-dashes, or italicized sublabels within paragraphs21- Prefer 3-12 sentence paragraphs; no standalone introductory paragraphs22- Dense citation support with specific findings woven into prose, not cataloged23- Two subsections with descriptive headers naming the dimension or activity24- Each paragraph has one clear through-line advancing the argument25- Research questions emerge as the logical conclusion, not restatements of the introduction2627## Argumentative Architecture2829The templates describe what goes where; this section describes why each element appears where it does.3031### Subsection 1 (Theoretical Framework and Domain Application)3233- P1: Establish the framework (core constructs, key evidence, mechanisms)34- P2: Show it applies beyond its original context (digital, mediated, computational extensions)35- P3: Show the study's domain needs it (what existing frameworks capture and miss)36- P4: Show where it has not yet been applied (the specific understudied context)3738Each paragraph opens by extending or complicating the prior paragraph's conclusion.3940### Subsection 2 (Prior Research Tradition to New Approach)4142- P5: What the field knows and how (foundational studies, methodological pattern)43- P6: How the environment has changed (platform dynamics, new metrics)44- P7: Why existing tools cannot capture the new reality (limitations)45- P8: The approach that can (content-side framing, earned RQs)4647### Subsection Headers4849Use descriptive headers: "[Theory] in [Domain]: [Construct 1] and [Construct 2] in [Context]" and "[Field]-Mediated [Activity]: From [Existing] to [New Approach]."5051### Research Question Framing5253RQs should feel earned by the argument, connected to the preceding analysis rather than restating the introduction's wording.5455## Workflow5657| Step | Action | Reference |58|------|--------|-----------|59| 1 | Interview: if an introduction exists, read it first to identify literature it previews | references/interview_questions.md |60| 2 | Outline: map progressive argument across 8 paragraphs (4 per subsection) | Architecture above |61| 3 | Draft: write flowing paragraphs of 6-10 sentences | references/literature_review_template.md |62| 4 | Coordination (if intro exists): verify intro compresses, lit review elaborates; theory defined here; concrete examples here; coined phrases in one section only; RQ framing differs | — |63| 5 | Refinement (existing drafts): run diagnostic, then revise per Architecture | references/interview_questions.md |6465## Scope6667**Include:** Theoretical framework (origins, dimensions, mechanisms, extensions), synthesis of prior research with specific contributions, gaps as narrative consequences, conceptual motivation for the analytical approach, earned research questions.6869## Checklist7071- [ ] Purely conceptual (no measurement methodology or analytical procedures)72- [ ] RQs feel earned by the argument (not restated from intro)73- [ ] Dense citations woven into narrative (not cataloged)74- [ ] No standalone intro paragraphs or single-sentence paragraphs75- [ ] Cross-section coordination verified (if intro exists)76- [ ] Appropriate length for venue
tyrealq