All I ever wanted to know about identity: Conundrums of literature review

"Identity" has become a prominent part of political debates, cultural discussions, and scholarly investigations. But, despite its frequent usage and a consequent sense of intuitive understanding, it is rather difficult to provide a concise definition that adequately captures the variety of present meanings of the word identity. While some understand "identity" as distinguishing personal characteristics that make one a unique individual different from everybody else and that often serve as a source of self-esteem and personal pride, others view "identity" as social belonging to a group or category (i.e., nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, occupation, etc.), and still others talk about identity in terms of relational roles (mother, wife, friend, etc.). Often scholars focus solely on one of these aspects of identity, and, as a result, identity theorizing is somewhat fragmented with different conversations taking place in different domains. To add to the complexity, scholars approach "identity" both as a phenomenon to be explained (e.g., what constitutes Russian identity) and the one that has explanatory force (e.g., standpoint theory, with its focus on a unique insight that comes from the lived experience of oppression). Arguably, this ambiguity and all-inclusiveness contribute to the lure of "identity," which results in a vast and diverse body of scholarly literature on the subject. At the same time, the sheer scope and diversity of the identity research present a challenge for those reviewing this literature.

During last year and a half, I have been systematically reading about identity because identity, or more specifically its intersectionality, is the focus of my dissertation. What is intersectionality? To put it simply, by birth, occupation, residency, interests, and preferences, we all belong to multiple social categories and groups. Although those categories and groups may seem as distinct and independent, with little (or no) interconnection between them, different dimensions of our identities do interact and affect each other (and not just in an additive way). Those interactions and mutually constitutive relationships represent the intersectionality of identity. Usually, in scholarly literature, "intersectionality" refers to the study of intersections of multiple systems of oppression and discrimination experienced by individuals belonging to several different minority groups. I argue that the scope of the investigation of intersectionality of identity should not be limited to social identities and needs to be broadened to include relational and personal identities as well, since all these types of identities interact with each other and jointly constrain and shape how an individual experiences his/her identity in its multifaceted totality. I'll discuss my argument in more detail in my future posts; for now, I just want to make a point that the nature of my topic compelled me to look at the literature beyond the communication studies discipline, to which I belong, and to include readings from psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, cultural and gender studies, etc.

One of the main problems I've been facing is note taking. I am happy with the structure my identity chapter, which I developed based on my earlier readings (more about that later), but I struggle to incorporate new sources and new ideas and  to keep track of the latter. When I read, I am not always able to grasp right away the relevance or significance of new ideas to my project; that may come to me later while I'm reading something else. As a result, the notes I make are somewhat disorganized and difficult to use. Any suggestions? What are your note taking strategies?