Writing 3

 Review of the Literature 

 How does social media affect our society
 

COMM

1

312 103
Writing And Research
Assignment 3:
Review of the Literature

Dr Dion C. Smythe

dsmythe@pmu.edu.sa

8th March, 2021

1

Mid-term Examination

On Wednesday 10th March, 2021; in class-hour;

The mid-term exam is (unsurprisingly) virtual;

It consists of 50 multiple-choice questions;

Each has 4 responses; chose the correct answer;

I do not set ‘trick’ questions;

If a response is bizarre/off the wall that shows that it is one of the incorrect possible ‘answers’;

Sign in to class as normal, and I shall give you the password at 11:00 on Wednesday 10th Mar 2021;

Assessment Schedule
Idea of topic/subject
Prospectus:
Annot Biblio:
Mid-term [MCQs]:
Literature Review:
Introduction:
Full Draft Paper:
Final Paper Sub:
Portfolio:
Attendance:
Final Exam [MCQs]:
1% W 3 2 ii 2021
10% W 5 20 ii 2021
10% W 7 6 iii 2021
10% W 8 10 iii 2021
10% W 10 27 iii 2021
10% W 12 10 iv 2021
10% W 14 24 iv 2021
20% W ‘A’ 8 v 2021
5% W 16 16 v 2021
5% W 16 16 v 2021
10% W 17 tba

Assignment 3: Literature Review
The third assignment is due electronically on Sat 27 March 2021 by 23:59; upload to blackboard;
Anything later that this will attract penalties;
The coversheet will be uploaded onto blackboard;
Submit the file (one file ONLY) as or x
Name file: ˂YourNameYourID˃Assign3 x
No other formats are accepted; they will be rejected;
Times New Roman is best; preferably 12-point;
Line-space: double spaced or 1.5;

Plan Generic §2: Literature Review
‘Literature’ here means what has been written before
Cannot be complete/exhaustive (not a PhD);
Highlight what has been written about your topic before and what you are doing that is shiny & new;
Can previous literature be divided into categories?
Is there a dominant ‘school’ and revisionist one?
Is there an ‘academic’ category and then ‘popular’?
Where do you think/expect your work to fit in?
You are placing yourself within scholarly debate;

The format: Literature Review
This section [2] of your draft essay is to be written in continuous prose divided into paragraphs;
When you refer to one of your sources you NEED to give an in-line citation: “..(Surname, date, p. 6).”
Double check that your in-line citation matches an entry in the List of References list at the end;
(i) A (very) brief ‘Introduction’;
(ii) “Group” [or “body”] paragraphs;
(iii) A residual ‘conclusion’ – really a transition;

Literature Review: what to do? 1
You have an alphabetical list of 10 items (Ass 2);
You have ten “comments”, for each item (Ass 2);
These annotations answer the four questions:
(i) what is it about? (ii) what does it do well? (iii) what does it do ‘badly’? (iv) how will it help me?
Cf. this to what ‘reviews’ do; egs on blackboards;
When you refer to one of your sources you NEED
to give in-line citation: “…(Surname, date, p. x)”;
You have a list of 10 ‘items’; put them in groups;

Literature Review: what to do?
You have an alphabetical list of 10 items (Ass 2);
Alphabetical by author surname; A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Now you will change this; group your items by
SUBJECT MATTER
If they talk about the same things then they go in
the same group; sometimes it will be the same;
Other times it will be the same topic but argued from different points of view;

Literature Review: what do you do 2?
You have an alphabetical list of 10 items (Assign 2);
You have ten ‘paragraphs’, for each item (Assign 2);
Take your ten items (the paragraphs not the list part)
And ‘group’ them into groups; put what goes together, together; ideally maybe 3 (three) groups;
1:9 [not advised]; 4:3:3; 6:2:2; 1:2:3:5; 4:3:2:1;
You are now going to write an approximately 500 word ‘essay’ on your source materials/items;
(1) very brief ‘Intro’; (2) ‘group paragraphs’; (3) residual ‘conclusion’ [transition to ‘Methodology’];

Literature Review: Plan
How long is this section to be? How many words?
Introduction: what you have found out about your topic in general terms; how many items have your found? Then (the new part) how you have divided the items into groups/clusters/clumps and why;
Group 1;
Group 2; [this is by way of example; you may Group 3; have any number (almost) of groups]
Conclusion: more of a transition that leads into
the next section of your essay: “Methodology”;

The Plan §3: Methodology
The way you have conducted your research;
For you a short section in paper;
What did you do to find information re topic;
How did you conduct your research?
What did you do first? Then what?
How did you organise your library search?
Were there search criteria that helped?
What surprised you in search?

Literature Review: Group Paragraphs
Term “group” or “clumps” just to give them a name: they are not formal terms for this;
You have ten items from Assignment 2; in alphabetical order; Assignment 3, you must put them into a coherent, intellectual order;
Which of the ten belong together? Why?
You should then end up with groups or clumps
or clusters of items that ‘go together’;
Then write about them coherently and sensibly;

Plan for Group Paragraphs
Must be done for each of the group paragraphs;
1. What unites these items into this group? Why have you put them into this group? Then review
What do they do? What do they cover? Omit?
What do they do well? Give EXAMPLES;
What do they do not so well? Give EXAMPLES;
Now tie them to your own research. How do these items relate/connect to your Thesis Statement?
How do these items further your research [writing];
Conclusion: more a transition to methodology;

Literature Review: what do you do?
You have an alphabetical list of 10 items (Ass 2);
You have ten ‘paragraphs’, for each item (Ass 2);
Take ten items (the paragraphs not the list part)
‘Group’ them into groups; put what goes together, together; ideally maybe 3 (three) groups;
1:9 [not advised]; 4:3:3; 6:2:2; 1:2:3:5; 4:3:2:1;
You are now going to write an approximately 500 word ‘essay’ on your source materials/items;
(1) very brief ‘Intro’; (2) ‘group paragraphs’; (3) residual ‘conclusion’ [transition to ‘Methodology’];

Mid-term Examination
On Wednesday 10th March, 2021; in class-hour;
It consists of 50 multiple-choice questions;
Read the question; make sure you understand it;
Beware negatives! Ask if you don’t know a word;
Each has 4 responses; chose the correct answer;
I do not set ‘trick’ questions;
A bizarre/off the wall answer is one of the ‘fakes’;
Sign in to class as normal, and I shall give you the password at 11:00 on Wednesday 10th Mar, 2021;

Rubric

1

3

1

2

Writing and Research

Section 103 Spring 2021

Assignment 3: Review of the Literature

Dion C. Smythe

Mark

1

1

1

1

Criterion		Mark	Y/N
500+ words					1
Divided into paragraphs
In-line Citations
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Addition in-line citations	3
List of References [full APA format] citations at end	2

Aghia Sophia

Review of the Literature

DCS 1

Faculty Forum: Aghia Sophia

Review of the Literature

Dion C. Smythe

17th November 2020

Much has been written about perhaps the greatest monuments of Byzantine civilisation, the Great Church, the cathedral church of the Holy Wisdom of God in what was Constantinople, now Istanbul. The actions that have taken place in Istanbul under the government of Erdogan, especially since 29th May 2020 [a date that can only have been chosen with intention], has produced a flurry of seminars, lectures, blogs and webinars (Dumbarton Oaks Webinar on Hagia Sophia Doaks.com 1st September 2020; Hagia Sophia Public Forum: Part 1 Mary Jaharis Center for Byzantine Art and Culture, 9th October 2020; and Rohm, 2020 [cwru.us]). As it is very much history of the moment, it is appropriate that PMU too should have a seminar on Aghia Sophia in Istanbul [in the end it was not deemed appropriate]. Byzantine civilisation combines three things: Roman building techniques (concrete and the dome); the Orthodox Christian religion (Scriptural, credal and formally ritualistic); and Greek language and literature. These three headings provide the structure for my paper. I deal in turn with (a) the building; (b) the decoration and icons within the church; and (c) the literary ekphraseis that describe Aghia Sophia at different stages of its existence.

(a) The Building

The best way to go and experience Aghia Sophia is, of course, to go and stand (hopefully in awe) in the nave beneath the dome. Since the loss of its museum status, this is still possible, though many of the mosaics (such as the image of the Theotokos and Christ in the apse [hemidome] and the imperial panels in the south gallery) are now concealed by curtains. There are many web-sites that give simulacra of standing in the Great Church, as any google search of ‘Hagia Sophia + Istanbul’ will attest. An old-fashioned historian, I am more habituated to beginning with ‘book’ treatments of any subject. Harris places the Great Church in the context of the Byzantine capital (Harris, 2007), an appraisal carried further by Kleinbauer and White

(Kleinbauer and White, 2007). Though now rather old-fashioned in some ways (this is a reprint of the original 1930s publication), Krautheimer puts the innovation of Justinian’s domed basilica into the context of Late Antique, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture (Krautheimer, 1984). The central and clearest exposition of the building of Aghia Sophia as a building comes from Mainstone, though my attachment to this book may in part be because it was this book that introduced me to the detailed study of the building as an architectural artifact (Mainstone, 1997). It offers a plethora of plans, sections and isometric projections that allows one to see the building from almost every angle. The chapter by Alchermes in the volume edited by Maas places Aghia Sophia in the context of Justinian’s other building (Alchermes, 2005). Dark and Kostenec present more recent, detailed archaeological discoveries (Dark and Kostenec, 2017). This year has seen the addition of an on-line discussion of the innovations in architecture under Justinian by Ousterhout (Ousterhout, 2020); this provides a clear and easily assimilated introduction to the issues. Pectcheva presents the most modern directions research into Aghia Sophia, dealing with the play of light thought the clerestory windows and the windows in the drum beneath the dome as well as the ground-breaking collaboration between historians, acoustic engineers and musicologists (Pentcheva, 2017). The article by Xydis seeks to address the liturgical function of the Cathedral during its long history, considering questions of the ambo, the solea and the chancel screen (Xydis, 1947).

(b) Mosaics and icons.

Consideration of the Christian liturgical furniture of Aghia Sophia (no longer in situ, now destroyed, and reconstructed from archaeological spoilia) brings us to consideration of the decoration of the Cathedral. It is clear that the earliest cycles of decoration were non-figural and consisted of repeating floral patterns on soffits and arches and marble revetments on flat surfaces [in effect ‘marble wallpaper’ organised into repeating patterns]. This period of the decoration of the cathedral is dealt with magisterially by Teteriatnikov (Teteriatnikov, 2017), who also considers and discusses the major restoration undertaken in the middle of the nineteenth century by the Fossati brothers (Teteriatnikov, 1998). Though not in Aghia Sophia in Constantinople at all, yet any discussion of Justinian’s building of the cathedral must make mention of the panels of the imperial couple Justinian and Theodora in San Vitale in Ravenna (Barber, 1990; this also connects with liturgical practice at the time – though in Ravenna only or also in the imperial capital?). The major figural icon raised in Aghia Sophia under the Patriarch Photios after the Triumph of Orthodoxy is the apse mosaic of the Theotokos and the Christ-child (Mango, 1968). Mango has also written on the images of the Church Fathers who parade on the North Tympanum of the nave (Mango, 1972). Next in temporal sequence is the ‘donation’ panel in the South-West vestibule which is dated to the tenth century and shows Constantine the Great (dressed as a tenth-century basileus) presenting a model of the City to the Theotokos, together with Justinian (also attired in the significant loros of a tenth-century emperor) presenting a model of the domed Aghia Sophia to the Theotokos in the centre (Riccardi, 2012). Thought perhaps to be of the same period, the lunette mosaic of the emperor, performing proskynesis to an enthroned Christ, the Theotokos on one side and an angel on the other (interpreted to be begging for Christ’s forgiveness on behalf of the prone emperor – identified by some as Leo VI the Wise of the tetragmy controversy) over the ‘imperial doors’ that lead from the narthex into the nave is a major historical artifact of the Cathedral, inviting much discussion about who ordered it to be put up and who paid for it (Scharf, 1964). In some ways we are on safer ground when we consider the imperial mosaics in the south gallery. Handily named, we know that one panel is the Empress Zoe, who reigned in the middle of the eleventh century and the ‘John II’ panel shows the Komnenian emperor who reigned form 1118 to 1143, together with is Hungarian wife who took the Greek name Eirene (Comack, 1981; and Cormack 1985).

(c) Ekphrasis and literary descriptions.

The final aspect of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Wisdom of God that I wish to consider deals with ekphrasis – the written, literary ‘description’ of a work of art. I have place ‘description’ in scare quotation marks as Byzantine ekphaseis were not a straight-forwardly descriptive as we would expect them to be in English. An ekphrasis took as its starting point an artistic creation – in this case a building for Prokopios or Paul the Silentiary or the apse mosaic for Photios – but then then developed the themes in literary ways and with literary goals. The original texts (in translation obviously) are the focus to understanding how the Byzantines saw their great building. There remain many issues with Prokopios’s text On buildings but with the text we can – by close reading – examine what the author sought to do, even though authorial intention is no guide to accuracy of interpretation (Prokopios, 1894). Paul the Silentiary’s text (Mango, 1972) is much more clearly an ekphrasis without the complicating factors of Prokopios’s relationship with his emperor or indeed the inter-relationship to the various texts written by Prokopios [now universally agreed]. The much later ekphrasis on the apsidal mosaic on the Theotokos by the Patriarch Photios displays in many ways how far Byzantine civilisation had travelled since the Iconoclastic controversy of the early-eighth to mid-ninth centuries (Mango, 1958).

Transition to methodology.

Having dealt with the sources for my research paper, I now turn in the next section to deal with considerations of the methodology.

[1270 words]

List of References

Alchermes, J. (2005). Art and Architecture in the Age of Justinian, in Maas, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anonymous, Dumbarton Oaks Webinar on Hagia Sophia Doaks.com 1st September 2020 11:00-12:00 EDT [US], last accessed 1 September 2020.

Anonymous, Hagia Sophia Public Forum: Part 1 Mary Jaharis Center for Byzantine Art and Culture, Stanford University CA, 9th October 2020 12:00-13:30 PDT [US] last accessed 9th October, 2020.

Barber, C. (1990). The imperial panel at San Vitale: a reconsideration, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 14, 19-42.

Comack, R. (1981). Interpreting the mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul, Art History, 4, 34-56.

Comack, R. (1985). Writing in Gold. London: Thames and Hudson.

Dark, K. and Kostenec, J. (2017). Hagia Sophia in Context: An Archaeological Re-examination of the Cathedral of Byzantine Constantinople. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Harris, J. (2007). Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. London: Hambledon/Continuum. 

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/procop-deaed1.asp

Last accessed 22 October 2020.

Kleinbauer, W. and White, A. (2007). Hagia Sophia. London: Scala Publishers. 

Krautheimer, R. (1984). Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mainstone, R. (1997). Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church. London: Thames & Hudson.

Mango, C. (1958). Homily 17 in The Homilies of Photios Patriarch of Constantinople: English Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mango, C. (1972). The mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: The church fathers in the north Tympanum. Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mango, Cyril (1968). The Apse mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: Report on work carried out in 1964. Johnson Reprints. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mango, Cyril and Ertuğ, A. (1997). Hagia Sophia. A vision for empires. Istanbul.

Nelson, R. (2004). Hagia Sophia, 1850–1950: Holy Wisdom Modern Monument. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Ousterhout, R. (2020). Innovative Architecture in the Age of Justinian, at https;//smarthistory.org/author/Robert.g-ousterhout/innovative architecture in the age of justinian last accessed 28 September, 2020.

Paul the Silentiary, Ekphrasis on Aghia Sophia Mango, C. (1972). The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. Englewood Cliffs: College Reprints, 80–91,

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/paulsilent-hagsoph1.asp

last accessed 22 Oct 2020.

Pentcheva, B. (2017). Hagia Sophia: Sound, Space and Spirit in Byzantium. University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Prokopios, On Buildings (1894), Translated by W. Lethabv and H. Swainson, from Procopius, De Aedificiis, in The Church of St. Sophia Constantinople, New York, 24-28.

Riccardi, L. (2012). Alcune riflessioni sul mosaico del vestibolo sud-ovest della Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli, in Vie per Bisanzio. VIII Congresso Nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Venezia 25–28 novembre 2009), edited by Antonio Rigo, Andrea Babuin e Michele Trizio. Bari, 357–71. 

Rohm, D. (2020) Heaven on Earth: Justinian’s Hagia Sophia Zoom conference 12 October 2020 at 17:00 EDT [US and Canada], Case Western Reserve University, cwru.zoom.us

Scharf, J. (1964). Der Kaiser in Proskynese. Bemerkungen zur Deutung des Kaisermosaiks im Narthex der Hagia Sophia von Konstantinopel. In: Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag von Schülern und Freunden zugeeignet, Wiesbaden, 27–35.

Teteriatnikov, N. (1998). Mosaics of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: The Fossati Restoration and the Work of the Byzantine Institute. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Teteriatnikov, N. (2017). Justinianic Mosaics of Hagia Sophia and their Aftermath. Dumbarton Oaks Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Theotokos and Christ Apse Mosaic,

https://www.pallasweb.com/deesis/virgin-and-child-hagia-sophia.html

last accessed 22 October 2020.

Weitzmann, K. ed., (1979)

Age of spirituality: late antique and early Christian art, third to seventh century

, no. 592, New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Xydis, S. (1947). The Chancel Barrier, Solea, and Ambo of Hagia Sophia, The Art Bulletin. 29(1): 1–24.

[1896 words].

OK I have been asked to provide examples of the ‘

Literature Survey

’ section and the ‘Methodology’ section for your research essays. Here are examples. Note that these are examples. They are examples of what I expect to read. I do not want you to copy these slavishly. Read them and then think about what you want to say about YOUR literature survey and YOUR methodology. If these examples throw you into a flat tail-spin then ask during class or send me an e-mail.

[this is now 904 words so almost half one of your essays….]

Literature Survey

My first source (citation) sets out some of the fundamental information that is required to understand my research topic. For the most part, it explains the concepts central to my research in simple layman’s terms which was exceptionally useful for me as I delved deeper into the topic. With some of the basic terminology and basic evidence in hand, I was than able to review and take notes from my second source (citation) which was more of a challenge for me. The author of this source writes from a perspective expecting the reader to be knowledgeable about the subject and so he does not always explain every new term when it is first introduced. This meant I had to read some paragraphs several times to really understand that the development of the thesis statement was really about. However, on the other hand this article provided me with some very clear examples – clear data really – that were very useful in constructing my own argument as I got to grips with actually answering my research question. The third source (citation) was hard; it is full of evidence that I wanted to use – numbers, graphs and citations to other experts – but this meant that it is very dense as a source: there is just so much in there was it was very slow going trying to read it, understand it and then to get all the information I needed from the source but turned into paraphrases so that I was not copying word for word. The title of my fourth source (citation) got me all excited when I found it; I thought this was going to be the answer to all my prayers as the title suggested that it was everything I wanted and needed. In this however, I was severely disappointed. The references in this source were very few in number and when I tried to follow one of them up, I could not find from where the author had taken his information. On account of this, I have restricted my use of this source severely. The fifth source (citation) I used at the start of my research is one which is ‘light’ on ‘hard data’ but it provides interesting opinions supported with ‘soft evidence’ about my topic and the author’s take on the subject. I do not always agree with him, but reading this source has made me think about my research and has developed what I think about it. It has helped me reach my own conclusions.

Methodology

My research is library-based; it does not involve fieldwork, nor questionnaires. This means that the first step was to enter the basic search term ‘Byzantine outsider’ into the google search engine to see what would appear. I was surprised that what I thought was rather an obscure term, produced a number of ‘hits’. I was able to access these articles and sources through PMU Library and digital search facilities. Having read some of the materials, I then was able to follow up the search using Saudi Digital Library. This allowed me to construct a ‘paper trail’ (though electronically of course) which meant I was able to access a variety of different types of sources, with a range of different opinions and conclusions – at times difficult to put into some kind of order. This meant that I had different sources, data and opinions to use to draw my own conclusion in my research. [152 words]

OKI have been asked to provide an example of the ‘

Literature Survey

’ [Review of the Literature] paragraph for your research essays. Here is an example. Note that this is an example; it is generic and does not have the specific detail from each ‘item’ I expect from your Assignment 3: The Review of the Literature. It is an example of what I expect to read. I do not want you to copy these slavishly. I have not clearly divided the items into groups, which I expect you to do. I have only written about 5 items; I expect you to write about all ten [at least] items in their respective groups. Where it says “…(citation)” this is where I expect you to put in the citation in the APA in-line short citation form of …(Surname, date, p. xx). Read them and then think about what you want to say about YOUR literature survey. This is 417 words.

I shall work on a better version of this – a Review of the Literature for a presentation on Aghia Sophia that I am working on.

Literature Survey

My first source (citation) sets out some of the fundamental information that is required to understand my research topic. For the most part, it explains the concepts central to my research in simple layman’s terms which was exceptionally useful for me as I delved deeper into the topic. With some of the basic terminology and basic evidence in hand, I was than able to review and take notes from my second source (citation) which was more of a challenge for me. The author of this source writes from a perspective expecting the reader to be knowledgeable about the subject and so he does not always explain every new term when it is first introduced. This meant I had to read some paragraphs several times to really understand that the development of the thesis statement was really about. However, on the other hand this article provided me with some very clear examples – clear data really – that were very useful in constructing my own argument as I got to grips with actually answering my research question. The third source (citation) was hard; it is full of evidence that I wanted to use – numbers, graphs and citations to other experts – but this meant that it is very dense as a source: there is just so much in there was it was very slow going trying to read it, understand it and then to get all the information I needed from the source but turned into paraphrases so that I was not copying word for word. The title of my fourth source (citation) got me all excited when I found it; I thought this was going to be the answer to all my prayers as the title suggested that it was everything I wanted and needed. In this however, I was severely disappointed. The references in this source were very few in number and when I tried to follow one of them up, I could not find from where the author had taken his information. On account of this, I have restricted my use of this source severely. The fifth source (citation) I used at the start of my research is one which is ‘light’ on ‘hard data’ but it provides interesting opinions supported with ‘soft evidence’ about my topic and the author’s take on the subject. I do not always agree with him, but reading this source has made me think about my research and has developed what I think about it. It has helped me reach my own conclusions.