Cyprus Literature Review Example

Below is a brief example and description of what the literature review might look like:

Research Question: Why, given that all actors involved in the Cypriot question wish to have landmines cleared on the island, has the process of de-mining stalled since 2012?

Thesis Statement: I argue that the traditional peacekeeping model has constrained actor identity and limited the possibility of pursuing mutually self-interested goals. Achieving success on mine eradication involves expanding the role of civil society actors while simultaneously educating stakeholders in the political and moral advantages of unilateral mine clearance.

Paragraph One (An introduction of the relevant literature): This first paragraph should introduce the concept that needs to reviewed. Consider the research question and the thesis statement above. Note how the concept at the heart of this research is really why cooperation has stalled. The ‘process of de-mining’ requires a certain amount of cooperation from the actors. When this cooperation is not present, the solution is not forthcoming. For this study, then, it is important to understand why cooperation breaks down. It may also be necessary to understand why cooperation is possible in the first place. Various schools of thought need to be considered, analyzed, critiqued, and synthesized in order to situate this study within the academic conversation on cooperation. Therefore, this section of the literature review should briefly introduce the problem, explain the relevance of the research question and discuss the approach (thesis) that will be defended later in the paper. It should also introduce the reader to the relevant schools of thought on cooperation.

Relevant Academic Literature: The discussion in the literature review should not summarize previous work on cooperation. Rather the literature should be discussed in terms of the ‘voices’ (schools of thought) that emerge on the subject matter. Consider this example, you are about to have a dinner party to celebrate the research you are undertaking and the thesis statement you are defending. In order to be a good host, you need to figure out what the seating chart should look like around your dinner table. Who would be able to have a conversation with whom? Where would there be a convergence of ideas? How could you create smaller circles of scholars who could speak to each other, who may speak with one voice, or who would find common ground on particular issues? Your ability to link certain scholars to others as you work through relevant arguments means that you are doing more than summarizing, you are integrating arguments and analyzing relevant positions.

With this particular example (the emergence and institutionalization of cooperation), the following outline is one way to construct a review of the relevant literature:

Liberal institutional cooperation- The first school of thought to be discussed might be the liberal institutionalists. A broad, acceptable, disciplinary definition would be introduced to define this particular school. Then, their understanding of cooperation (why it emerges, how it can grow/expand given certain institutional ingredients, and why it might fail would be included in an integrated analysis. A number of scholars would be linked together because they rely on institutional design to foment cooperation. Consider the following:

In a number of similar studies, Chapman, Cortell and Davis, Miettinen and Suetens, Duffield, and Keohane argue that institutional design is necessary for cooperation because it provides an arena for discussion and interaction that creates empathetic interdependence among actors. Cortell and Davis, for instance, note that international norms and rules constrain domestic choices for politicians and decision-makers. (fn) They argue that two factors are necessary in order for domestic actors to be sufficiently constrained by norms and rules. Both the domestic structural context and domestic salience of the norms and rules shape domestic cooperation. (fn) This might explain why cooperation in Cypriot mine removal was limited. While there was a general acceptance of the salience of a mine-free Cyprus, the domestic division between the northern Turkish Republic and the southern Republic of Cyprus was a structural impediment for deeper cooperation.

A second group of institutional scholars draw on the work of Robert Axelrod and his important discussion of iterative cooperation and rationality in The Evolution of Cooperation. (fn) Miettinen and Suetens argue that reciprocal cooperation will break down if sanctions are not employed against unilateral defectors. (fn) Their research findings suggest that guilt can be a powerful motivator once an institutionalized cooperation regime is in place. However, when guilt is insufficient to maintain reciprocal cooperation, it is necessary to invoke sanctions. (fn) Svolik expresses similar findings in a study that examines lies, defection, and the limits of cooperation. (fn) Of particular interest is Slovik’s claim that asymmetrical use of information can undermine cooperative arrangements. He argues that democracies provide more information than non-democracies and this makes their perception of the other less favorable. (fn) The different governments in Cyprus present such a problem for cooperation. The Cypriot government has argued that their level of cooperation is never matched by the TRNC which has been much less transparent in sharing information. (fn)

Subsequent paragraphs would additional schools of thought that argue cooperation is not promoted by institutional design but by (1) self-interest, (2) a shared identity and expectation of future histories, (3) enforcement by hegemonic powers.

The Final Paragraph: The final paragraph should bring together the previous literature and return the reader to the specific focus of your paper. Participate in a discussion with these scholars. Recognize their work and turn the attention to what you have to say on the topic by making specific reference to your thesis statement.