How should I structure my doctoral research proposal when my advisor has conflicting expectations regarding the literature review scope?

It sounds like you're facing a classic "adviser dilemma" – their expectations aren't aligning, and you're stuck in the middle. First, take a step back and acknowledge that it's normal for advisors to have different opinions, especially when it comes to literature reviews. Here's a potential solution: Instead of trying to merge the two versions, consider creating a hybrid approach that integrates both perspectives. Start by identifying the core theories that align with your research question and argument, as your advisor suggests. Then, use this theoretical foundation to frame a more comprehensive historical overview that your committee chair is looking for. Think of it as creating a "nested" structure. Your literature review will have two main sections: a narrower, theory-focused review that sets the stage for your research, followed by a broader historical context that provides depth and context. This way, you're meeting both expectations without sacrificing the coherence of your argument.