'Just Structure Your Review Chronologically': Good Idea or Comfort Trap?

Order your review chronologically. You’ve probably come across this idea before – or maybe toyed with it yourself, especially if you’re sitting on a massive pile of notes and wondering what to do next. You know you have to corral it all somehow, give it some sort of structure, turn it into a chapter or section worth someone’s time to read. But how? 

The Temptation

This is when the chronological temptation starts creeping in. Every finding has a year on it. The years can be grouped together. Look, I can start right now – there’s a cluster from 2015 . . . 

It feels like you are doing something. If feels like you are bringing order to chaos. It feels like you are finally making progress and sorting it all out. 

Beware of those feelings. 

The Reality

There are many ways to bring order to chaos. You could organise findings alphabetically by the surnames of their authors. Or you could group findings by the different journals they appear in. Or according to the order you found them in. And so on. 

I’m being deliberately silly here, of course, but you see where I’m going. All of these examples are indeed ways to bring order to a chaotic set of findings, but they are pedestrian – the organising principle is purely mechanical and provides no insight or interpretation as to why the findings matter. 

A pedestrian structure doesn’t require you to dig into what you are ordering – it lets you skim along the surface and gives you the illusion of doing something useful. That’s why it can sometimes feel like a relief. 

But in reality, you are denying yourself the opportunity to discover something new and important about the body of findings you’ve collected. And if you haven’t done that, you can’t tell your reader about it, either. So what you are left with may be organised, like a cutlery drawer, but it is still descriptive. 

"When used for the wrong reasons, a chronology can result in a pedestrian structure. These don't require you to dig into what you are ordering – they let you skim along the surface, giving you the illusion you are doing something useful".

A chronological structure can fall prey to these weaknesses – at its simplest, all you need to do is scan years of publication and key topic words. This may be convenient from a writer’s point of view because it is relatively easy, straightforward to do, and does not require you to leave your comfort zone. But your job is not to do what is easy, straightforward, and comfortable. Your job is to establish why your research question needs to be in the world. 

When the Time is Right

Does that mean chronology is forever off limits? No. It can be an important part of the story of why your research question needs to be asked. 

For example, let’s say you dig into the research in your field, and you find that there are a few things, maybe one every decade or so, until 1975, when a key paper was published, and then suddenly the floodgates opened and dozens of papers started appearing every year, and the upward trend continues, and anyone who is anyone in your field cites that 1975 paper. 

"You may be denying yourself the opportunity to discover important things about previous work in your field – things no one else has noticed yet".

Does chronology matter here? Certainly. But that is not all that matters. What was the 1975 paper? What

were its key findings? How did those findings relate to the scant handful of papers that came out before it, and how have those findings gone on to influence the questions that are currently being asked in your field? If you dig into those patterns, you might be able to show that while that 1975 paper initially led to a number of productive research areas, it has in more recent years put a stranglehold on the research, with people generally finding more of what we already know rather than discovering anything new. Now THAT is a worthwhile thing to discover, and an avenue that can pave the way to your research. But chronology alone does not get you there – you also have to dig into the actual findings of the papers and identify the prevailing directions of travel. 

Make an Intentional Decision

So if you do find yourself using a chronological structure, think carefully about why you have made this choice. Have you explicitly chosen it because it genuinely matters to the case you are making for why your research question should be asked? Are you using it intentionally as an integral part of your argument? If so, full steam ahead. 

Or have you clutched at a chronological structure in default mode because the amount of reading you have feels overwhelming and you’re not sure what you’re supposed to be doing but you have to do something? If so, take a step back. Better yet, take a self-compassion break.

Be Kind to Yourself

Remind yourself that it’s natural and okay to feel overwhelmed – there is a lot of reading to do. It is also okay to be uncertain about what to do next – that is a normal part of learning something new, which is what research is all about. So take a few deep breaths, or a walk, or whatever you do to relax and regroup,  and then come back to the literature with curiosity. Make a list of the findings from the studies you’ve read so far. It that feels too huge, start with 20. Write the findings out on cards and do some sorting, putting like with like. What patterns begin to emerge? Why are they interesting? Do some journalling to answer these questions in your learning journal to maintain your open curiosity before you start formally drafting. 

And look at that! Some new insights have emerged, and you’ve come up with a promising direction for an argument. You’re on your way 😊 

Your Blog Author 

Your blog author is Dr Susan Mandala, founding director of Writing Works Consulting. She holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge and was for many years an academic at the University of Sunderland, where her favourite role was training PhD candidates to write literature reviews. 

A specialist in the study of language, writing, and style, Susan has 30 years of experience as a teacher, trainer, and workshop facilitator. She is dedicated to helping people turn great ideas into results with impact through clearer writing, sharper thinking, and more strategic use of language. 

She doesn't write for you – she empowers you to become your own best writer. 

She develops and delivers writing workshops in a range of areas, specialising in academic writing, grammar for writing, analytical report writing, and language awareness for creative writers. 

Her signature workshop, How to Really Write Your Literature Review, runs three times a year via Zoom in October, January and June (registration and payment through Eventbrite). Watch this space for when registrations next open!

If you are a research culture manager or commission research training for doctoral candidates, graduate students, or academic staff, contact me about a workshop for your institution. I’d love to hear from you 😊

• Book a free video chat: https://calendar.app.google/kwKTRArFjJxhu27r7
• Hop over to my website: www.writingworksconsulting.co.uk
• Connect on LinkedIN and DM me: www.linkedin.com/in/susan-mandala-phd-6a94b7290

 “Wonderful workshop! This gave me a method to organise my thoughts and build a strong structure for my future papers” – Justin Andrushko