ABSTRACT
In this chapter I reflect on the method of literature reviewing rather than other available methods of data generation / construction (such as interviewing, observation, textual analysis, surveys, etc.). One reason for this choice is because literature reviewing is generally neglected in many books on research methodology because it is conceptualised as a way of contextualising research rather than as a research method. In Sri Lanka, when it comes to womenrelated (WR) research, the reviewing of local literature is not always practised even though there are global literature appraisals. What is the role of a literature review? What significance does literature reviewing have for feminist research? How does literature reviewing make meaning? These are some of the questions that will be considered in this chapter. In order to do so I will focus on a literature review of feminist research
methodology in Sri Lanka, spanning from 1975 to 2008. This review focuses on work that explicitly concentrates on WR research methodology, and on work that discusses methodological concerns as an auxiliary issue in research. As an epistemic1 project, it identifies / constructs a corpus of local literature on research methodology that is based on my subjective selection of research examples, on researchers’ textual deliberations and on my application / deconstruction of theoretical approaches. While Derrida’s (1998) understanding of an archive is of value, in legitimising informal knowledges (savoir) as applied by de Mel (2007) in her work on archiving the testimonies of war-affected women, Foucault’s (1998) concept of connaissances or formal knowledge is more useful in literature reviewing. The literature review is a feature of connaissances, since the researcher is called upon to discover / construct formal knowledge from formal knowledge. This can be contrasted to the way that I construct / capture savoir (informal knowledges) in Chapter 7, in particular where I rely on experiential, everyday theory and practice for research evidence and authority; or conflate savoir and connaissances, as in Chapter 1. Constructing formal knowledge may also involve an element of theorising,
and as argued by Letherby:
Historically, legitimate theory has been bound up with legitimate beliefs and secular and sacred knowledge has often been difficult to disentangle.
