My advisor wrote on my proposal: "You haven't engaged with the state of the art." I nodded like I understood. I did not. What even IS "state of the art"? After much confusion, I finally get it. Sharing for other lost souls.
What "state of the art" IS:
It's not just "recent research." It's the current conversation in your field. What do scholars already know about your topic? What are they debating? What methods are they using? What questions remain unanswered?
A Norwegian university's guide on common research issues explains it well: "You focus too much on your own results, and fail to put these in the context of other researchers' contributions—i.e. state of the art. In this way you fail to show the relevance of your own research for others, and what contribution you make to the research field beyond state of the art."
What I was doing wrong:
I wrote a literature review that was basically: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Brown (2022) found Z."
My advisor's feedback: "This is a list. Where's the CONVERSATION? Who agrees with whom? Where do they disagree? What methods have been used? What's MISSING?"
How to actually do it:
1. Organize by theme, not author.
Instead of summarizing Smith, then Jones, then Brown—group them by what they SAY.
Bad: "Smith (2020) found... Jones (2021) argued... Brown (2022) studied..."
Good: "Several researchers have examined the role of X. Smith (2020) and Jones (2021) found evidence supporting Y. However, Brown (2022) challenged this view, arguing that..."
2. Identify debates and disagreements.
Where do scholars fight? What are the open questions? This shows you understand the field's complexity. ⚖
3. Identify methodological approaches.
How have people studied this topic? Surveys? Experiments? Ethnography? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?
4. Identify gaps—THIS IS YOUR OPENING.
What hasn't been studied? What population has been overlooked? What question remains unanswered? That's where your research comes in.
5. Show how YOUR research fits.
After reviewing what's known, you say: "However, previous research has not examined X in the context of Y. This study addresses this gap by..."
Common mistakes (that I made):
Progress.
What "state of the art" IS:
It's not just "recent research." It's the current conversation in your field. What do scholars already know about your topic? What are they debating? What methods are they using? What questions remain unanswered?
A Norwegian university's guide on common research issues explains it well: "You focus too much on your own results, and fail to put these in the context of other researchers' contributions—i.e. state of the art. In this way you fail to show the relevance of your own research for others, and what contribution you make to the research field beyond state of the art."
What I was doing wrong:
I wrote a literature review that was basically: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Brown (2022) found Z."
My advisor's feedback: "This is a list. Where's the CONVERSATION? Who agrees with whom? Where do they disagree? What methods have been used? What's MISSING?"
How to actually do it:
1. Organize by theme, not author.
Instead of summarizing Smith, then Jones, then Brown—group them by what they SAY.
Bad: "Smith (2020) found... Jones (2021) argued... Brown (2022) studied..."
Good: "Several researchers have examined the role of X. Smith (2020) and Jones (2021) found evidence supporting Y. However, Brown (2022) challenged this view, arguing that..."
2. Identify debates and disagreements.
Where do scholars fight? What are the open questions? This shows you understand the field's complexity. ⚖
3. Identify methodological approaches.
How have people studied this topic? Surveys? Experiments? Ethnography? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?
4. Identify gaps—THIS IS YOUR OPENING.
What hasn't been studied? What population has been overlooked? What question remains unanswered? That's where your research comes in.
5. Show how YOUR research fits.
After reviewing what's known, you say: "However, previous research has not examined X in the context of Y. This study addresses this gap by..."
Common mistakes (that I made):
- "There is not much related work." The Norwegian guide warns: "Writing this sentence means you have not searched well enough. One million research articles are published each year." Ouch. But true.
- Focusing only on your application, not the underlying field. Example: writing about healthcare without deeply engaging with the AI research that makes it possible.
- Generic discussion without depth. "This kind of generic discussion is a sign that you have not read the literature and have a limited understanding of the problem area."
- Literature search: Systematic. Keywords. Databases. Snowballing from references.
- Create a matrix: Source, methods, findings, themes, gaps.
- Synthesize: Write about themes, not sources.
- Identify my contribution: What's missing? What will I add?
- Write state of the art: As a conversation, with me joining at the end.
Progress.