609
Research Methodology for Students of Literature
Methodology Check-List
(expanded and adapted from "Navigating the Knowledge Base", by Prof
Trochim (withi his emailed permission) with some ideas from "Method in
the Social Sciences", by Andrew Sayer (see bibliography)
Finding the Research Topic
So-called inspiration in finding your research topic usually comes from
somewhere. As far as I can tell, these are the main sources. Do not
despair until you have tried all of them:
* Personal interest, reading, study
*Brainstorming, free association, brain/mind trees, your own journal
*Course notes, suggestions in class, from supervisor/friends, in
journals and other theses
*Requests for papers in conferences, journals, calls for participation
in publications.
Four
main Types of Research Question
*
Descriptive.
"When
a study is designed primarily to describe what is going on or what
exists." Useful in practical social research, eg to find out what
percent of the population would vote 'yes' to joining the European
Union. In Literature studies we find studies such as "the
representation of women in the novels of A S Byatt".
*
Relational/Analytic.
"When a study is designed to look at the relationships between two or
more variables. A public opinion poll that compares what proportion of
males and females say they would vote for a Democratic or a Republican
candidate in the next presidential election is essentially studying the
relationship between gender and voting preference." In Literature
studies we may include here works such as "change in Forster's use of
inter-human relationships" (not a good example - you can find a better
one!), which is essentially studying the relationship between when the
novels were written and how they use human relationships.
* Causal or
predictive. "When a study is designed to determine whether
one or more variables (e.g., a program or treatment variable) causes or
affects one or more outcome variables. If we did a public opinion poll
to try to determine whether a recent political advertising campaign
changed voter preferences, we would essentially be studying whether the
campaign (cause) changed the proportion of voters who would vote
Democratic or Republican (effect)." We can do the same with Literature
- if we investigated whether Forster's growing interest in mysticism
affected his view/presentation of human relations we could end up with a
causal or predictive study.
"The three question types
can be viewed as cumulative. That is, a relational study assumes that
you can first describe (by measuring or observing) each of the variables
you are trying to relate. And, a causal study assumes that you can
describe both the cause and effect variables and that you can show that
they are related to each other. Causal studies are probably the most
demanding of the three."
Refining the Topic
Your initial area of interest will almost certainly be too broad (eg
"Towns in the Victorian Novel"), although in rare cases it may be too
narrow (eg "references to Bristol in the Novels of Jane Austen"). As a
first step to getting the area honed down to a manageable but at the
same time valid (more about this later) topic, consider the following
criteria:
* What do you have time for? Be realistic about the time
constraints of your PhD. You cannot study all Victorian novels or all
Modern plays etc.
*What do you have materials for? Be realistic about your
sources. We do not have libraries holding historical material here, nor
are all editions of works available. A Bibliographical approach is not
possible. We do have Internet and inter library loan, however, and
there is still a lot out there.
* What do you have money/personnel for? If, however, you are
able to travel to the libraries where the manuscripts/diaries/ letters/
early editions of your sources are held, then you may reconsider this
sort of study. Similarly, if you have a secretary or close friend with
the time and training to be your research assistant, then you are once
more in luck!
The
Subject of Research
Whatever type of research you are undertaking, there will be at least
one main subject of investigation: Forster's representation of human
relationships in his novels, Forster's interest in mysticism, Austen's
representations of towns in her novels, etc. Almost all research in
Literature (and in social science) involves an investigation of the
relationship(s) between subjects of investigation. Thus we have an
investigation of the relationship between time (early, middle or
late novels) and the representation of human relationships, or
between growing interest in mysticism and the representation
of human relationships in Forster's novels; again we can identify
the variables of towns and Jane Austen's (various)
novels, or women and A S Byatt's novels.
These subjects of investigation, or variables (as they are known in
social science) may relate to each other in a number of different ways,
and to some extent your research is an attempt to identify what these
ways are. You are fundamentally concerned, in fact, with the
relationship between the variables of your research area. What sort
of relationships are possible?
* No relationship at all. You investigated the relationship
between human relationships and Forster's growing interest in mysticism
and found no connection between these two variables. If your initial
hypothesis was that there is a relationship between the two, then your
research has proved the null hypothesis. This is not always a disaster,
especially if your initial hypothesis was a widely held one, in which
case you can at least claim to have put a lot of people right and, your
thesis will probably show how and why they were wrong and probably hint
at good areas for future research now that the misapprehension has been
identified. It is possible, though more rare, that your thesis was
based upon the null hypothesis in the first place - that you set out to
prove that there is no relation between these variables, in which case
'bravo', you've done what you wanted.
* A correlational relationship. "A correlational relationship
simply says that two things perform in a synchronized manner."
Your investigation identified strong correspondences between your
variables: eg Forster's growing interest in mysticism was identified,
studied and charted as was a development in his representations of human
relationships and it was seen that when one changed in a certain
direction, the other also changed in a certain direction - there seems
to be a connection of some sort between these variables. There are
probably other correlations to be found in this area - you may discover
that a shift in the representation of human relationships also
correlates with an increasing proportion of the English population
having telephones in their houses, or in a change in women's fashion, or
an increasing interest in travel by air. Once you identify a
correlation you must be careful to question what sort of a correlation
it is - is it a 'close' correlation where there is a remarkably strong
correspondence between the behaviour of the two variables, or is it a
loose correlation where the correspondence is not always very
convincing; maybe it is general trends, rather than a sensitive
interrelationship, that you are dealing with. Try to explain the nature
of the correlation.
*A causal relationship. You may decide that the nature of the
correlation between your variables is one of causality; ie that one
causes the other. This is a strong claim and has to be proved; it must
not be assumed.
First you must try to ascertain which variable caused which? This is not
always possible to do. Was it a developing perception of human
relationships that lead to his interest in mysticism, or the other way
around? Sometimes it is not possible to fix an order of events -
perhaps there is none, perhaps both fed off each other.
If you wanted to prove that Forster's growing interest in mysticism
caused changes in his representations of human relationships you should
also prove at least the following (a) his study of mysticism included
works that directly involve (something convincingly related to) the
changes in representations of human relationships that you have
documented (b) his representations of human relationships developed
during a time period that fits with his study of these works.
For these you would need to check his biography, autobiography (if
there was one) letters, diaries, notebooks, non-fiction publications and
also letters to him and comments about him from his contemporaries.
Furthermore, and very importantly, you should prove that (c) there is no
other variable/influence that would explain the development in his
representation of human relationships better (eg [just as an eg, this is
not true:] a growing isolation and distrust of people due to the
development of a psychological disease).
"knowing that two variables are correlated does not tell us whether one
causes the other. We know, for instance, that there is a
correlation between the number of roads built in Europe and the number
of children born in the United States. Does that mean that is we want
fewer children in the U.S., we should stop building so many roads in
Europe? Or, does it mean that if we don't have enough roads in Europe,
we should encourage U.S. citizens to have more babies? Of course not.
(At least, I hope not). While there is a relationship between the number
of roads built and the number of babies, we don't believe that the
relationship is a causal one. This leads to consideration of what
is often termed the third variable problem. In this example, it
may be that there is a third variable that is causing both the building
of roads and the birthrate, that is causing the correlation we observe.
For instance, perhaps the general world economy is responsible for
both."
More
about variables and hypotheses
I have informally identified variables as the subjects of your
research. For a clear and successful research project you need (clear
and successful methodology, of course - and) to be completely sure as to
which of your variables are dependent and which are
independent. This is not as complicated as it sounds, but it is
extremely important, especially when dealing with works that combine
description with analysis or comparison, which most literary theses do.
The independent variable(s) of your research are the ones you accept as
a given, they are taken as, and should be shown to be, firmly rooted and
are not themselves up for further essential investigation. If you claim
that Forster's changing representations of human relationships are
related to (perhaps even caused by) a growing interest in the study of
mysticism, you are at the same time claiming that Forster's
representations of human relationships change in time. This is your
independent variable, it is not an entity that will be changed in the
course of your research. Your dependent variable is his study of
mysticism - did this interest grow or vary in a way/time that can be
convincingly correlated with the independent variable?
Note that in this particular example it seems possible to have
two dependent variables: "forster's growing interest in the study of
mysticism" and " developments in forster's representations of human
relations" , but without an independent variable you will hardly be able
to come to any satisfactory conclusion, other than perhaps to show a
correlation or no correlation. This is where the Hypothesis
comes back into the argument. For a clear and convincing (focused, well
organized, pleasant to read, directional . . .) thesis you should
formulate a hypothesis. E.g. That (1)
Forster's developments in his representation of human relationships are
directly related to (2)his
growing interest in the study of mysticism , or E.g. that (1)
Forster's growing interest in the study of mysticism was directly
related to (2)
the developments in his representations of human relations in his
novels - in each of these cases (1)
is the independent variable and (2)
is the dependent variable.
Please remember, then, that the hypothesis is a tool to make your
research topic clear and the focus of your research more specific.
Choose the hypothesis that you think will yield the most informative
research and note that a thesis that proves the null hypothesis can be
just as revealing as one that proves the alternative hypothesis (the one
you claim to hold).
Force
yourself to take a position in relation to the subjects of your
investigation (make your alternative hypothesis) and then clearly
identify your independent and dependent variables based upon that
hypothesis.
This is the secret to avoiding a woolly and inconclusive thesis.
Shhhh!
And
finally . . .
"there are two traits of variables that should always be achieved. Each
variable should be exhaustive, it should include all possible
answerable responses. For instance, if the variable is "religion" and
the only options are "Protestant", "Jewish", and "Muslim", there are
quite a few religions I can think of that haven't been included. The
list does not exhaust all possibilities. On the other hand, if you
exhaust all the possibilities with some variables -- religion being one
of them -- you would simply have too many responses. The way to deal
with this is to explicitly list the most common attributes and then use
a general category like "Other" to account for all remaining ones. In
addition to being exhaustive, the attributes of a variable should be
mutually exclusive, no respondent should be able to have two
attributes simultaneously. While this might seem obvious, it is often
rather tricky in practice. For instance, you might be tempted to
represent the variable "Employment Status" with the two attributes
"employed" and "unemployed." But these attributes are not necessarily
mutually exclusive -- a person who is looking for a second job while
employed would be able to check both attributes!"
So, for our example, the 'representations of human relationships'
variable must include ALL representations of ALL human relationships in
ALL Forster's novels, made more manageable by identifying the most
important (how? Because most frequent? Because they seem to
change most [check this with pilot study]?) and categorizing the others
as 'other' - and the same for the novels; it must also include all
available evidence of his interest in mysticism plus as complete an
understanding of the mysticism he studied as possible (focusing on
those bits that might relate to human relationships and classifying
other elements as 'other').
Methodology Check-list II
Validity
“validity -- the principles that we use to judge the quality of
research” (Trochim)
“The idea of validity
provides us with a unifying theory for understanding the criteria for
good research.” (ibid.)
In logic, “a valid argument is one for which it is contradictory to
accept the premises but reject the conclusion” (Sayer, 165)
The first thing we have to
ask is: "validity of what?" . Sample texts, quotations, facts
about a writer’s life don't 'have' validity -- only propositions can be
said to be valid. Technically, we should say that an analysis leads to
valid conclusions or that a sample enables valid inferences, and so on.
It is a proposition, inference or conclusion that can 'have' validity.
Something may be
considered valid only in relation to a task, expectation, hypothesis –
in short, some sort of framework . So we have to find the entity that
we think our subject illuminates, exemplifies or adds to in some way.
Our term question concerning, ‘the validity of literary studies’ must
therefore be seen in two parts ‘literary studies’, and the area to which
we assume they are contributing. As I see it the hidden question is
‘are literary studies valid in the pursuit of academic understanding or
activities’. For such an interpretation you will have to define what it
is that the ‘academic’ world tries to do or you will not be able to.
If, however, you wish to discuss the validity of literary studies to the
progress of humanity, then you will have to define and identify those
parts of ‘humanity’ (and what is meant by ‘progress’) which you think
are directly relevant. In other words, first narrow down the question
into a proposition (remember that old idea, the ‘thesis
statement’?) that can be more precisely considered.
This goes for your theses
too – a clearly stated Thesis Statement is essential if you are going to
claim that your research has validity – otherwise the term “valid” is
irrelevant to your work. You may like to break down your statement into
two or more parts, however – first of all an announcement of what you
plan to do, then one or more propositions (hypotheses) concerning the
importance/relevance/generalisability of your findings.
EG (another one of my ‘off
the cuff” examples that will need refining if they are to be any good):
“This thesis aims to examine the use of change of place in Medieval and
Renaissance English literature as a device through which the writer
explores and presents the mental changes known in Kuhnian terms as
‘paradigm shift’. [Thesis Statement]. Using the plentiful
illustrations provided by Hargrieves 1991, Johns 2003 and Leiter 1965,
it is argued that religious writings have, from the start, used physical
movement as a metaphor for spiritual development, and that metaphors of
this nature were well known to even semi-educated laymen through popular
works of literature (eg Piers Plowman), pictorial illustrations
in churches and books (Leecroft 1973), and – more importantly – sermons
(see Wylie 1979). … … … It is hoped [rhetorical motif of humility –
essential in the PhD thesis!] that the findings of this thesis will
provide some useful addition to our understanding of the many and
complex links between two powerful cultural entities – religion and
religion. At the same time the thesis aims to add to the existing
literature on metaphor in its exploration of the psychological processes
of identifying the immaterial (spiritual progress) with the material
(physical movement) as it is presented in literature. [hidden
propositions concerning relevance to wider fields of interest, hint
at generalisability of the results]
We make lots of different
inferences or conclusions while conducting research. Many of these are
related to the process of doing research and are not the major
hypotheses of the study. Nevertheless, like the bricks that go into
building a wall, these intermediate process and methodological
propositions provide the foundation for the substantive conclusions that
we wish to address. For instance, virtually all literary research
involves the selection of texts and passages. And, whenever we select
texts/passages and make observations and analyses about them we are
concerned with whether we are selecting the appropriate text/passage and
how our observations/analyses are influenced by the circumstances in
which they are made. We reach conclusions about our observations and
analyses -- conclusions that will play an important role in addressing
the broader substantive issues of our study. When we talk about the
validity of research, we are often referring to these many conclusions
we reach in different parts of our research methodology.
Trochim (http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/)
continues:
There are really two
realms that are involved in research. The first, on the top, is the land
of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as researchers. It is
where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The second, on
the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which
we translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and
observations. When we conduct research, we are continually flitting back
and forth between these two realms, between what we think about the
world and what is going on in it. When we are investigating a
cause-effect relationship, we have a theory (implicit or otherwise) of
what the cause is (the cause construct). Similarly, on the effect
side, we have an idea of what we are ideally trying to affect and
measure (the effect construct). But each of these, the cause and
the effect, has to be translated into real things, into a program
or treatment and an analytic or observational method (basically,
technique). We use the term operationalization to describe the act of
translating a construct into its manifestation. In effect, we take our
idea and describe it as a series of operations or procedures [technique,
analytic procedures]. Now, instead of it only being an idea in our
minds, it becomes a public entity that anyone can look at and examine
for themselves. It is one thing, for instance, for you to say that you
would like to measure self-esteem [or the use of a certain metaphor for
a particular effect] (a construct). But when you show a ten-item
paper-and-pencil self-esteem measure [or a series of correlations
between metaphors and concepts] that you developed for that purpose,
others can look at it and understand more clearly what you intend by the
term self-esteem [metaphors for spiritual progress].
He identifies four
types of validity
in research, that build on one another. The first (external) referring
to the land of theory, the next (construct) emphasizing the linkages
between the bottom and the top, and the last two (internal and
conclusion ) referring to the land of observation
external validity.
External validity is related to the theory of how we generalize research
results It's corresponding practice area is sampling methodology which
is concerned with how to draw representative samples so that
generalizations are possible. Can we generalize our research to other
texts, genres, literary issues?
External validity is the
degree to which the conclusions in your study would hold for other
persons/texts in other places and at other times.
construct validity.
This asks: Assuming
that there is a causal relationship in this study, [eg in the
sub-proposition that metaphors used in sermons directly influenced the
metaphorical use of movement in other literature] can we claim that the
research reflected our construct of the program [our theory or
idea about the relationship]. Eg. Is our analysis based upon a
correct/appropriate matching of hypothesis with materials and technique.
When we claim that our
programs or measures have construct validity, we are essentially
claiming that we as researchers understand how our constructs or
theories of the programs and measures operate in theory and we claim
that we can provide evidence that they behave in practice the way we
think they should. The researcher essentially has a theory of how the
programs and measures related to each other (and other theoretical
terms), a theoretical pattern if you will. And, the researcher
provides evidence through observation that the programs or measures
actually behave that way in reality, an observed pattern. When we
claim construct validity, we're essentially claiming that our observed
pattern -- how things operate in reality -- corresponds with our
theoretical pattern -- how we think the world works. I call this process
pattern matching, and I believe that it is the heart of construct
validity.
Where external validity
involves generalizing from your study context to other people, places or
times, construct validity involves generalizing from your program or
measures to the concept of your program or measures.
internal validity,
This asks: “Assuming
that there is a relationship in this study, is the relationship a causal
one?” [what is the precise nature of the relationship?]. In simpler
terms, did we implement the program we intended to implement and did we
measure the outcome we wanted to measure? In yet other terms, did we
operationalize well the ideas of the cause and the effect? [here we may
include the question: did my materials and technique ensure the most
accurate answer to my research question?]
Internal Validity is
the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal
relationships. Thus, internal validity is only relevant in studies that
try to establish a causal relationship. It's not relevant in most
observational or descriptive studies, for instance. But for studies that
assess the effects of social programs or interventions, internal
validity is perhaps the primary consideration. The key question in
internal validity is whether observed changes can be attributed to your
program or intervention (i.e., the cause) and not to other
possible causes (sometimes described as "alternative explanations" for
the outcome).
Internal validity is only
relevant to the specific study in question. That is, you can think of
internal validity as a "zero generalizability" concern. All that
internal validity means is that you have evidence that what you did in
the study (i.e., the comparison, analysis) caused what you observed (an
observed correlation or lack of correlation) to happen. It doesn't tell
you whether what you did was what you wanted to do or whether what you
observed was what you wanted to observe -- those are
construct validity
concerns. It is possible to have internal validity in a study and not
have construct validity.
conclusion validity.
This addresses the question ”is there a relationship between the two
variables?” There are several conclusions or inferences we might draw to
answer such a question. We could, for example, conclude that there is a
relationship. We might conclude that there is a positive relationship.
We might infer that there is no relationship. We can assess the
conclusion validity of each of these conclusions or inferences.
When our research is
over, we would like to be able to conclude that we did a credible job of
operationalizing our constructs -- we can assess the construct validity
of this conclusion.
We are likely to make some
claims that our research findings have implications for other groups and
individuals in other settings and at other times. When we do, we can
examine the external validity of these claims.
Notice how the question
that each validity type addresses presupposes an affirmative answer to
the previous one. This is what we mean when we say that the validity
types build on one another.
For any inference or
conclusion, there are always possible threats to validity
-- reasons the conclusion or inference might be wrong. Ideally, one
tries to reduce the plausibility of the most likely threats to validity,
thereby leaving as most plausible the conclusion reached in the study.
For instance, imagine a
study examining whether there is a relationship between metaphors used
in medieval sermons and the use of images of movement in literature.
Because the interest is in a relationship, it is considered an issue of
conclusion validity. Assume that the study is completed and no
significant correlation is found. On this basis it is concluded
that there is no relationship between the two. How could this conclusion
be wrong -- that is, what are the "threats to validity"? For one, it is
possible that there isn't sufficient statistical power to detect a
relationship even if it exists [we have not found enough sermon
metaphors or looked at enough examples of movement in the literature].
Perhaps the sample size is too small [you didn’t collect enough data] or
the measure is unreliable [the way you analysed them was wrong]. Perhaps
there were random irrelevancies in the study setting [basing yourself
only on sermons that are currently available in print] or random
heterogeneity in the texts that increased the variability in the data
and made it harder to see the relationship of interest [you looked at a
badly selected and patchy representative of the literature, mixing
different genres, periods of time, writers of different religious
persuasions . . .]. The inference that there is no relationship will be
stronger -- have greater conclusion validity -- if one can show that
these alternative explanations are not credible.
In many ways, conclusion
validity is the most important of the four validity types because it is
relevant whenever we are trying to decide if there is a relationship in
our observations (and that's one of the most basic aspects of any
analysis). Perhaps we should start with an attempt at a definition:
Conclusion validity is the
degree to which conclusions we reach about relationships in our data are
reasonable.
Whenever you investigate a
relationship, you essentially have two possible conclusions -- either
there is a relationship in your data or there isn't. In either case,
however, you could be wrong in your conclusion. You might conclude that
there is a relationship when in fact there is not, or you might infer
that there isn't a relationship when in fact there is (but you didn't
detect it!). So, we have to consider all of these possibilities when we
talk about conclusion validity.
It's important to realize
that conclusion validity is an issue whenever you conclude there is a
relationship, even when the relationship is between some program (or
treatment) and some outcome. In other words, conclusion validity also
pertains to causal relationships. How do we distinguish it from internal
validity which is also involved with causal relationships? Conclusion
validity is only concerned with whether there is a relationship.
Conclusion validity is
essentially whether that relationship is a reasonable one or not, given
the data. But it is possible that we will conclude that, while there is
a relationship, the program didn't cause the outcome. Perhaps some other
factor, and not our program, was responsible for the outcome in this
study. This issue -- the possibility that some other factor than our
program caused the outcome -- is what internal validity is all about.
So, it is possible that in a study we can conclude that our program and
outcome are related (conclusion validity) and also conclude that the
outcome was caused by some factor other than the program (i.e., we don't
have internal validity).
Generalizability
In science there are two
major approaches to how we provide evidence for a generalization. I'll
call the first approach the Sampling Model. In the sampling
model, you start by identifying the population you would like to
generalize to. Then, you draw a fair sample from that population and
conduct your research with the sample. Finally, because the sample is
representative of the population, you can automatically generalize your
results back to the population. There are several problems with this
approach. First, perhaps you don't know at the time of your study who
you might ultimately like to generalize to. Second, you may not be
easily able to draw a fair or representative sample. Third, it's
impossible to sample across all times that you might like to generalize
to (like next year).
I'll call the second
approach to generalizing the Proximal Similarity Model.
'Proximal' means 'nearby' and 'similarity' means... well, it means
'similarity'. Under this model, we begin by thinking about different
generalizability contexts [eg all metaphors, all prose texts, all
medieval prose texts, all medieval fictional prose texts; all English
Medieval and early Renaissance literature,etc] and developing a theory
about which contexts are more like our study and which are less so. For
instance, we might imagine several genres that have movement images
that seem to pertain to internal development, or several genres where
this is not so much the case. This also holds for times (literary
periods) and places (is it true for all European literature? For all
English literature? Just for south western English literature?]. When
we place different contexts in terms of their relative similarities, we
can call this implicit theoretical scale a gradient of similarity. Once
we have developed this proximal similarity framework, we are able to
generalize. How? We conclude that we can generalize the results of our
study to other persons, places or times that are more like (that is,
more proximally similar) to our study. Notice that here, we can never
generalize with certainty -- it is always a question of more or less
similar.
Threats to External
Validity
A threat to external
validity is an explanation of how you might be wrong in making a
generalization. For instance, you conclude that the results of your
study (which was done in a specific place, with certain types of people,
and at a specific time) can be generalized to another context (for
instance, another place, with slightly different people, at a slightly
later time). There are three major threats to external validity because
there are three ways you could be wrong – people [text, genre or text
type], places [from where?] or times [literary or historical period].
Your critics could come along, for example, and argue that the results
of your study are due to the unusual type of people [you only looked at
the alliterative verse of the Gawain poet] in the study. Or, they could
argue that it might only work because of the unusual place [you only
looked at the south western literature] Or, they might suggest that you
did your study in a peculiar time [if this period coincided with the
flourishing of a particular religious sect].
Improving External
Validity
How can we improve
external validity? One way, based on the sampling model, suggests that
you do a good job of drawing a sample from a population. In the
social science, for instance, random selection rather than a nonrandom
procedure is recommended. Some adaptation of this is sometimes possible
in literary studies – if there are enough texts available for selection
to be an option. And, once selected, you should treat all of your
texts equally, do not decide to “drop” a text because it does not
fit in with your desired findings. A second approach would be to use
the theory of proximal similarity more effectively. How? Perhaps you
could do a better job of describing the ways your contexts and others
differ, providing lots of data about the degree of similarity
between various groups of texts, places, and even times. You might even
be able to map out the degree of proximal similarity among various
contexts. Perhaps the best approach to criticisms of generalizations is
simply to show them that they're wrong -- do your study using a
variety of texts, with different genres and from different times.
That is, your external validity (ability to generalize) will be stronger
the more you replicate your study. Since the Literature PhD
frequently concentrates on source material equivalent to 3-6 novels,
there is an inherent weakness in the external validity of many of these
theses. The best ones openly discuss their principles of text selection
with a view to limiting the damage of this weakness. The less good
theses simply rewrite their hypotheses to eliminate generalizability.
Eg. They claim to be investigating only the texts they are
investigating. This makes for a remarkably uninteresting thesis that,
to my mind, should not be passed (although many do). The Forster
interest in mysticism/representation of human relations is very hard to
generalize and in danger of being inward looking, to my mind. This
should be openly mentioned and the area of its relevance (at a minimum
understanding of Forster’s literary output) stated. A better thesis
would include some discussion of the theoretical issues involved (extent
to which biographical details can/should be included in literary
analysis and why, theories of how and why writers write etc)
