0

In the paper "Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, (104-126)" of Cooper H.M. he describes a taxonomy of literature reviews. Inside of this taxonomy he assumes that the reviewer of the literature has a position regarding the literature review itself. He argues that the reviewer could either be neutral or 'espousal of position'. While I have an assumption that it means something like voreingenommen I'm not able to find a source that proves this translation. Can anyone help me out?

Due to clarification reasons I added the taxonomy model, the highlighted fields are the fields which are applying for the work of a different author.

enter image description here

|improve this question
  • Can you explain a bit what is meant by "the reviewer of the literature has a position regarding the [...] review itself"? Am I right to read it in kind of a self-related way, e.g. "the reviewer states that his review is crap / excellent / interesing / boring / meticulously written / carelessly written"? But where would you find such reviews that the reviewer himself judges upon? – Christian Geiselmann Jul 18 '18 at 15:30
  • Sorry for being unclear: As far as I understand you can have a different position towards the literature review you are performing. For instance you can either be neutral while reviewing scientific literature or you already have an opinion regarding the literature / topic you are reviewing, this position is then reflected in your literature review. – LOLWTFasdasd asdad Jul 18 '18 at 15:40
  • "The reviewer could be ... espousal of position" is not correct English. Could you quote the exact wording of the quotation? – fdb Jul 18 '18 at 17:31
  • Added the image where it is referenced. – LOLWTFasdasd asdad Jul 18 '18 at 17:46
1

I think the translation should be more neutral - voreingenommen translates into prejudiced, which I think doesn't quite hit what the English original says - It rather should be translated, more literally, as maybe

der Rezensent ist entweder neutral oder [hat|vertritt] bereits eine [Position|Meinung|Ansicht] zum Thema

voreingenommen would in most cases lead to the assumption that the reviewer might oppose the topic. The English original leaves it open whether the pre-assumptions of the reviewer would be opposing or supporting the subject of review - he's just assumed to take a position.

|improve this answer
  • Man kann für oder gegen eine Sache voreingenommen sein. – user unknown Jul 19 '18 at 1:49
  • 1
    @userunknown Das stimmt - Aber "voreingenommen" wird in 90% der Fälle "dagegen" bedeuten. – tofro Jul 19 '18 at 6:16
  • Duden: Vorurteil: ohne Prüfung der objektiven Tatsachen voreilig gefasste oder übernommene, meist von feindseligen Gefühlen gegen jemanden oder etwas geprägte Meinung – tofro Jul 19 '18 at 9:13
  • 1
    Was ist die Quelle für die 90%? Deine Phantasie? Ist der Wert gleich, egal ob man die Presse betrachtet oder die Literatur? Schriftsprache oder mündliche Rede? Gibt es Berufe, in denen der Begriff vielleicht sehr häufig benutzt wird, so dass deren Verwendung schon 90% der Fälle ausmacht? – user unknown Jul 19 '18 at 22:07
  • @userunknown Was genau verstehst du an dem fettgedruckten Bestandteil des Kommentars über Deinem nicht? – tofro Jul 19 '18 at 22:08
3

One can either be neutral or

parteiisch (biased)

So this would fit in your table cell, line (4).

|improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.