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

Phase 1 (Interview): Conduct structured interview per references/interview_questions.md. If an introduction exists, read it first to identify literature it previews.

Phase 2 (Outline): Map the progressive argument across 8 paragraphs (4 per subsection) per the Architecture above.

Phase 3 (Draft): Follow references/literature_review_template.md. Write flowing paragraphs of 6-10 sentences.

Phase 4 (Coordination): If an introduction exists, verify: intro compresses literature while lit review elaborates; theory defined in full here, referenced briefly in intro; concrete examples here, not intro; coined phrases in one section only; RQ framing differs between sections.

Phase 5 (Refinement): For existing drafts, use the diagnostic in references/interview_questions.md, then revise per the Argumentative Architecture.

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

• Purely conceptual (no measurement methodology or analytical procedures)
• RQs feel earned by the argument (not restated from intro)
• Dense citations woven into narrative (not cataloged)
• No standalone intro paragraphs or single-sentence paragraphs
• Cross-section coordination verified (if intro exists)
• Appropriate length for venue