approaches to literature reviews

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 10:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Find My Rep

You are here

Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

• Andrew Booth - The University of Sheffield, UK
• Anthea Sutton - The University of Sheffield, UK
• Mark Clowes - Sheffield University, UK
• Marrissa Martyn-St James - Sheffield University, UK
• Description

The perfect project support for any social sciences student, this edition also includes a new chapter on analysing mixed methods research.

Supplements

Student Resources (Free to access) A literature review starter template to demonstrate the sections you need to include for a successful written review. A source credibility checklist to help you assess and think critically about the sources you choose. A source tracker template to help you keep track of your sources and know what you need to include in your audit trail. A downloadable exercise workbook and suggested answers.  A collated list of tried-and-tested tools , including freely available technologies to help you search databases efficiently, plan your work, and keep track of references. A project diary template and example. A complete glossary of terms. Instructor Resources (Log-in needed) PowerPoint slide templates including 10-15 slides per chapter, which can be downloaded and customized for use in your own presentations.

The Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (third edition) by Andrew Booth, Anthea Sutton, Mark Clowes and Marrissa Martyn-St James is a comprehensive overview of the entire evidence synthesis process – from selecting the appropriate method for an evidence synthesis topic all the way to the analysis and dissemination of the review. This book is of relevance to anyone interested in evidence synthesis – from trainees to researchers to decision-makers. Anyone can learn something from this book, whether you are a beginner, intermediate, or advance researcher in evidence synthesis. This book is perfect for university-level courses or for anyone interested in evidence synthesis. The exercises, toolbox, key learning points, and frequently asked questions were particularly helpful in advancing my learning.

For our masters level students doing their literature review dissertation this provides effective guidance in approaching their work in a systematic fashion.

Great resource. Easy to read, with helpful tables and diagrams that catch the students' attention and they find easy to recall. The examples and up-to-date links to external sources are also invaluable springboards for the students.

Post-COVID many more students prefer to use the electronic versions of books and the library is also keen to adopt more books in this format, so this is very helpful to enable the maximum number of students to access the helpful text with easy to follow guidance .

I have put this at the top of my reading list for my module on evidence based practice which is like a mini dissertation for level 5 students. It is a comprehensive read and sets out the stages involved in a successful literature review. My students have a problem with this part of the module and this book is a godsend

This book is very important for students to understand how to do an in-depth literature review as a support and motivation for their research.

I did not receive an inspection copy to use

Good comprehensive text - easy to follow

Very clear and useful

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

How to Conduct a Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?

Types of Literature Reviews

• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Citation Help

Need more help? Ask a librarian!

• Online Form
• Contact a Subject Specialist

Reference hours:

• Mon-Thurs: 9 am - 11 pm
• Fri: 9 am - 4 pm
• Sat: 9 am - 4:30 pm
• Sun: 3 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Literature reviews are pervasive throughout various academic disciplines, and thus you can adopt various approaches to effectively organize and write your literature review.  The University of Southern California created a summarized list of the various types of literature reviews, reprinted here:

• Argumentative Review
• Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.
• Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.
• Methodological Review A review does not always focus on  what  someone said [content], but  how  they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.
• Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"
• Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.
• << Previous: Starting Your Research
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 11:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.jsu.edu/literaturereview

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to make a graphical abstract, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal.

• louisville.edu
• PeopleSoft HR
• PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
• PeopleSoft Financials
• Business Ops
• Cardinal Careers

• Undergraduate
• International
• Online Learning

University of Louisville Writing Center

• University Writing Center FAQs
• Virtual Writing Center FAQs
• HSC Writing Center FAQs
• Writing FAQs
• Handouts and Videos
• Graduate Student Writing
• Spring Dissertation Writing Retreat
• Graduate Student Writing Workshops
• Graduate Student Writing Group
• Writing Groups
• Accessibility and Accommodations
• The University Writing Center and Your Students
• Request a Presentation about the University Writing Center
• Resources for Teaching Writing
• The Writing Center and Your Writing
• Faculty and Graduate Student Writing Group
• University Writing Center Mission Statement
• Meet Our Staff
• Statement on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity
• Research at the University Writing Center
• How I Write Blog Posts
• Our Community Writing Values and Approaches
• Community Writing Internships and Volunteering
• Family Scholar House
• Western Branch Library
• How can I make myself a stronger writer?
• What makes college writing different than the writing I’ve done up to this point?
• How are the papers I'm asked to write in my major different from those in English 101, 102, and 105 courses?
• What can I do if I don’t completely understand the writing assignment?
• I want to get started writing early, but how do I begin?
• How do I get started writing a personal statement?
• I have a lot to say, but how can I organize my thoughts?
• How can I learn how to write in a new genre (for example, personal statement, resume, or literature review)?
• How do I expand a rough draft to make it meet the assignment’s length requirement?
• How can I find good sources for my research paper?
• What are some strategies for working sources into my research paper?
• What is the difference between quotation, paraphrase, and summary?
• How can I revise my draft if it doesn’t seem to “flow”?
• What does my teacher mean by “substantial revision?”
• How do I write an essay that makes an “argument”?
• How can I avoid plagiarizing?
• What are some strategies for improving my grammar and punctuation?
• How can I format my document properly in Word, PowerPoint or Excel?
• How should I approach writing a literature review at the graduate level?
• / Resources for Students
• / Writing FAQs
• / How should I approach writing a literature review at the graduate level?

What is the purpose of a Literature Review? For a graduate student the purpose of academic writing changes from what it was as an undergraduate. Where undergraduates often write to demonstrate a mastery of existing knowledge, graduate students are considered scholars and move toward creating new knowledge. Writing in graduate school, then, focuses on communicating that new knowledge to others in their field. In order to communicate this knowledge to other scholars, however, it also necessary to explain how that knowledge engages ongoing scholarly conversations in the field.

A literature review is a common genre for many types of writing you’ll have to do as a graduate student and scholar. Not only do dissertations contain literature reviews, but most articles and grant proposals have some form of literature review included in them. The reason the literature review is so prevalent in scholarly writing is that it functions as an argument about how your project fits in the ongoing scholarly conversation in your field and justifies your project.

A successful literature review does more than list the research that has preceded your work. A literature review is not simply a summary of research. Your literature review must not only demonstrate that you understand important conversations and debates surrounding your project and your position in regard to the conversations, but it must also create an argument as to why your work is relevant to your field of study. In order to create such an argument you must evaluate the relevant research, describing its strengths and weaknesses in relation to your project. You must then explain how your project will build on the work of other researchers, and fill the scholarly gaps left by other researchers. What is typically included in a Literature Review and how do I start?

To show how your project joins an existing scholarly conversation you need to provide readers with the necessary background to understand your research project and persuade them that your intervention in the scholarly conversation is necessary. The first step is to evaluate and analyze the scholarship that is key to understanding your work. The scholarship you evaluate may include previous research on similar topics, theoretical concepts and perspectives, or methodological approaches. Evaluating existing research means more than just summarizing the scholar’s main point. You will also want to assess the strengths and limits of the writer’s project and approach. Questions to consider as you read include: What problems or issues is the writer exploring? What position does the writer take? How is the writer intervening in an ongoing conversation? Where does the writer leave the issue?

Once you have evaluated the research of others, you need to consider how to integrate ideas from other scholars with your ideas and research project. You will also need to show your readers which research is relevant to understanding your project and explain how you position your work in relationship to what has come before your project. In order to do this, it may be helpful to think about the nature of your research project. Not all research has the same purpose. For example, your research project may focus on extending existing research by applying it in a new context. Or you may be questioning the findings of existing research, or you may be pulling together two or more previously unconnected threads of research. Or your project may be bringing a new theoretical lens or interpretation to existing questions. The focus of your research project will determine the kind of material you need to include in your literature review. What are some approaches for organizing a Literature Review? In the first part of a literature review you typically establish several things. You should define or identify your project and briefly point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic – conflicts, gaps in research, foundational research or theory, etc. You should also establish your position – or argument - for the project and the organization of the review.

In the body of the literature review, consider organizing the research and theory according a particular approach. For example, you could discuss the research chronologically. Or you could organize the research thematically, around key ideas or terms or theoretical approaches. Your literature review may include definitions of key terms and the sources from which they are drawn, descriptions of relevant debates in the field, or a description of the most current thinking on your topic.

You will also want to provide clear transitions and strong organizing sentences at the start of sections or paragraphs. You may find it helpful to divide the body of the review up into individual sections with individual subheadings. As you summarize and evaluate studies or articles keep in mind that each article should not necessarily get the same amount of attention. Some scholarship will be more central to your project and will therefore have to be discussed at more length. There also may be some scholarship that you choose not to include, so you might need to explain those decisions. At every turn, you want to keep in mind how you are making the case for how your research will advance the ongoing scholarly conversation. What can the Writing Center do to help? It can sometimes be difficult, after reading pages and pages of research in your field, to step back from the work and decide how best to approach your literature review. Even before you begin to write you may find a consultation in the Writing Center will help you plan out your literature review. Consultants at the Writing Center are experienced in working with scholars to help them reflect on and organize their work in a literature review so it creates the argument for your project. Make an appointment to work with us on your focus and organization even before you begin to write. We are also able to help you by reading and responding to your drafts or to help with issues of documentation. We can help you understand the genre conventions of the literature review, work through revisions, and help you learn how to edit your own work.  We recommend that you come in early to give yourself enough time to work through any problems that may come up as you write.

Five Ideas on Working with the Writing Center Sep 04, 2024

Conceptualizing Trauma-Informed Consulting in the University Writing Center Apr 17, 2024

Creating Art: A Painter’s Journey Into the World of Writing Mar 25, 2024

Getting Comfortable with Directive Practices in the Writing Center Mar 08, 2024

International Mother Language Day 2024 Mar 04, 2024

University and High School Writing Centers Feb 26, 2024

UofL Writing Center Blog - More…

University Writing Center

Ekstrom Library 132

Kornhauser Library 218

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky 40292

Ekstrom Library

M 9 am - 5 pm

T, W, Th 9 am - 7 pm

F 9 am - 4 pm

Closed on student breaks and holidays  

(502) 852-2173

[email protected]

Social Media

University of Pittsburgh Library System

• Collections

Course & Subject Guides

Literature reviews.

• Getting Started

Planning Your Literature Review

Defining your research question, questions to ask, books about literature reviews.

• Searching Tips
• Getting Materials
• Scholarly Information
• Managing Your Results
• Writing Your Review

Writing a literature review will take time to gather and analyze the research relevant to your topic, so it best to start early and give yourself enough time to gather and analyze your sources.  The process of writing a literature review usually covers the following steps:

• Define your Research question
• Plan your approach to your research and your review
• Search the Literature
• Analyze the material you’ve found
• Managing the results of your research
• Writing your Review

One of the hardest parts of a literature review is to develop a good research question.  You don't want a research question that is so broad it encompasses too many research areas, and can't be reasonably answered. 

Defining your topic may require an initial review of literature on your topic to get a sense of the scope about your topic.   Select a topic of interest, and do a preliminary search to see what kinds of research is being done and what is trending in that topic area.  This will give you a better sense of the topic, and help you focus your research question

In specifying your topic or research question, you should think about setting appropriate limitations on the research you are seeking. Limiting, for example, by time, personnel, gender, age, location, nationality etc. results in a more focused and meaningful topic. 

Using an example from the Duke University Writing Studio, you may start with a general question: 

Why did the chicken cross the road ?  This question is so general that you could be gathering relevant research for days. 

A more precise research question might be: 

What are some of the environmental factors that occurred in Pittsburgh, PA between January and February 2015 that would cause a chicken to cross Forbes Avenue?   This research question is specific about a number of variables like time, geography, etc.  

Additional Help:

• What Makes a Good Research Question?
• Formulating Your Research Question
• Simmi K. Ratan, Tanu Anand, and John Ratan. "Formulation of Research Question – Stepwise Approach". Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, 2019 Jan-Mar; 24(1): 15–20.

Some questions to think about as you develop your literature review:

• What is known about the subject?
• Are there any gaps in the knowledge of the subject?
• Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
• Who are the significant research personalities in this area?
• Is there consensus about the topic?
• What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
• What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
• What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
• What is the current status of research in this area?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?
• “Literature Reviews", The Writing Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It
• Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan, and Michael Coughlan, “Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Approach,” British Journal of Nursing, 17, no 1 (2008), 38-43.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Searching the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:27 AM
• URL: https://pitt.libguides.com/literaturereview

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Online pedagogies and the middle grades: a scoping review of the literature.

1. Introduction

2. rationale, 3. objectives, 4. materials and methods, 5. the current review boundaries.

• Published in a peer-reviewed journal;
• Published between January 2013 and June 2024;
• Specific focus on research and/or pedagogically based articles pertaining to middle-grade (5–8) online teaching and learning;
• Research explicit to middle-grade adolescent participants (grades 5–8) or middle-grade teachers;
• Pedagogically focused articles that speak specifically to pedagogical suggestions, strategies, or resources for middle-grade (5–8) online teaching (i.e., fully virtual, blended, emergency remote teaching);
• Research and pedagogical articles with a national and/or international focus;
• Schools could be public, private, charter, religious, or alternative settings;
• Written in English;
• Inclusive of theoretical, empirical, conceptual, and pedagogical articles.
• Editorials and book reviews;
• Articles that center on technological pedagogical knowledge (i.e., a pedagogical focus on ways that particular technological tools or applications can be utilized within teaching [ 25 ]) or digital pedagogy (i.e., a pedagogical focus on the strategic incorporation of contemporary digital technologies in education to enhance teaching, assessment, and curriculum [ 26 ]) rather than online pedagogy (emphasis on technological-based pedagogies accomplished at least partially through asynchronous or synchronous virtual instruction [ 13 ]).
• Books and book chapters;
• Gray literature;
• Articles that included participants or data from participants outside the middle grades (i.e., inclusive of high school, elementary, or higher education teachers and/or students);
• Dissertations and thesis papers.

6. Search Process

• The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) ( n = 2);
• The Online Teaching and Learning SIG (OTL) of the American Education Research Association (AERA) ( n = 2);
• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) ( n = 0);
• European League for Middle Level Education (ELMLE) ( n = 0).
• Voices from the Middle ( n = 10);
• Middle School Journal ( n = 5);
• Journal of Online Learning Research ( n = 4);
• Middle Grades Review ( n = 4);
• Journal of Research on Technology in Education ( n = 2);
• Research in Middle Level Education Online ( n = 1);
• Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education ( n = 0);
• Quarterly Review of Distance Education ( n = 0);
• Educational Considerations ( n = 0);
• Educational Media International ( n = 0);
• Journal of Interactive Online Learning ( n = 0);
• Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration ( n = 0);
• Online Learning Journal ( n = 0);
• Journal of Online Learning Research ( n = 0);
• Education and Information Technologies ( n = 0);
• Education Technology and Society ( n = 0);
• MLS Educational Research ( n = 0);
• International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design ( n = 0);
• Journal of Distance Education ( n = 0).

7.1. Trends in Online Pedagogical Literature

7.2. research methodologies, 7.3. study contexts, 7.4. online learning models, 7.5. study focus, 8. current gaps in the literature, 9. amle essential attributes and middle-grade online pedagogical research, 10. conclusions, 11. limitations of the scoping review, 12. recommendations.

• What is the state of the digital divide in online learning in the middle grades?
• To what extent are the AMLE essential attributes—responsive, challenging, empowering, equitable, engaging—explicitly employed in the design of online learning for young adolescents?
• What is the potential of augmented and immersive realities in middle-grade education?
• What accountability and performance measures are in place for virtual schools?
• How are teacher-preparation programs preparing middle-grade educators for effective online teaching?
• How has the use of online, blended, and emergency remote pedagogies impacted student engagement, collaboration, and learning in the middle grades?
• What are the long-term impacts of online teaching and learning on student development and academic success?

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Digital Learning Collaborative [DLC]. Snapshot 2019: A Review of K-12 Online, Blended, and Digital Learning. 2019. Available online: https://www.digitallearningcollab.com (accessed on 18 June 2024).
• Barbour, M.K. The Shift to Distance Learning: Tracing the Roots of 100+ Years of Practice and Opportunity. Tech Trends 2021 , 65 , 919–922. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Barbour, M.K.; Brown, R.; Hasler Waters, L.; Hoey, R.; Hunt, J.; Kennedy, K.; Ounsworth, C.; Powell, A.; Trimm, T. Online and Blended Learning: A Survey of Policy and Practice from K-12 Schools around the World . International Association for K-12 Online Learning. 2011. Available online: https://aurora-institute.org/resource/online-and-blended-learning-a-survey-of-policy-and-practice-from-k-12-schools-around-the-world/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• Clark, T. The Evolution of K-12 Distance Education and Virtual Schools. In Handbook of Distance Education ; Moore, M.G., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013; Volume 3, pp. 555–573. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toppin, I.N.; Toppin, S.M. Virtual Schools: The Changing Landscape of K12 Education in the U.S. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2016 , 21 , 1571–1581. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darrow, R. A Comparative Study between Online Charter High Schools and Traditional High Schools in California. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, T. Virtual Schools: Trends and Issues—A Study of Virtual Schools in the United States ; Western Regional Educational Laboratories: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnar, A.; Miron, G.; Hagle, S.; Gulosino, C.; Mann, B.; Huerta, L.A.; Rice, J.K.; Glover, A.; Bill, K. Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2023. National Education Policy Center. 2023. Available online: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary Schools in the United States: Results from the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey First Look. 2019; Table 3. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=79 (accessed on 18 June 2024).
• Digital Learning Collaborative [DLC]. Snapshot 2024: A Review of K-12 Online, Blended, and Digital Learning. 2024. Available online: https://www.digitallearningcollab.com/snapshot-2024 (accessed on 15 July 2024).
• Hodges, C.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.; Trust, T.; Bond, A. The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review . 2020. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed on 18 June 2024).
• Johnson, C.C.; Walton, J.B.; Strickler, L.; Elliott, J.B. Online Teaching in K12 Education in the United States: A Systematic Review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2023 , 93 , 353–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vawter, D.H.; McMurtrie, D.H. Meeting the Academic, Social, and Emotional Needs of Our Middle Level Students in the Online Environment. Middle Sch. J. 2022 , 53 , 26–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, K.; Tomaselli, K.; Stimson, R. National Standards for Quality Online Courses (K-12) and QM K-12 Secondary and K-12 Publisher Rubric Revision: Literature Review. Quality Matters . 2018. Available online: https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/National-Standards-for-Quality-Online-Courses-Lit-Review-122818.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2024).
• Association for Middle Level Education. 2024. AMLE.org. Available online: https://www.amle.org/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
• Bishop, P.; Harrison, L. The Successful Middle School: This We Believe ; AMLE: Westerville, OH, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M.K. Looking Back to see Ahead: An Analysis of K-12 Distance, Online, and Remote Learning during the Pandemic. J. Digit. Soc. Res. 2022 , 4 , 7–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evergreen Education Group; Gemin, B.; Pape, L. Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning 2016 ; Evergreen Education Group: Durango, CO, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M. The Promise and the Reality: Exploring Virtual Schooling in Rural Jurisdictions. Educ. Rural Aust. 2011 , 21 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbour, M.; McLaren, A.; Zhang, L. It’s Not That Tough: Students Speak about Their Online Learning Experiences. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2012 , 13 , 226–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiPietro, M.; Ferdig, R.; Black, E.; Presto, M. Best Practices in Teaching K-12 Online: Lessons Learned from Michigan Virtual School Teachers. J. Interact. Online Learn. 2010 , 9 , 10–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005 , 8 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frydman, J.; Mayor, C. A Scoping Review on the Use and Potential of School-based Drama Therapy to Enhance Socio-emotional Skills in Early Childhood. Early Child. Educ. J. 2023 , 52 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mays, N.; Roberts, E.; Popay, J. Synthesising research evidence. In Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt, D.A.; Baran, E.; Thompson, A.E.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J.; Shin, T.S. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2009 , 42 , 123–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kivunja, C. Embedding Digital Pedagogy in Pre-service Higher Education to Better Prepare Teachers for the Digital Generation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2013 , 2 , 131–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brinegar, K.M.; Moulton, M.; Falbe, K.N.; Rintamaa, M.; Ellerbrock, C.R. Navigating opportunities for middle level education research: The MLER SIG Research Agenda. Res. Middle Level Educ. Online 2024 , 47 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Miyashiro, C. The Impact of a Global Pandemic on Teaching: A Narrative of Two Veteran Middle School Teachers in Hawaii. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull. 2023 , 89 , 52–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenbach, B.B.; Greathouse, P. Stage-environment Fit and Middle Level Virtual Learners: A Phenomenological Case Study. RMLE Online 2020 , 43 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rice, M.F.; Ortiz, K.R.; Curry, T.M.; Petropoulos, R. A Case Study of a Foster Parent Working to Support a Child with Multiple Disabilities in a Full-time Virtual School. J. Online Learn. Res. 2019 , 5 , 145–168. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184933/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
• Deng, F. Literature Review of the Flipped Classroom. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2019 , 9 , 1350–1356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nida, N.K.; Usodo, B.; Saputro, D.R.S. The Blended Learning with WhatsApp Media on Mathematics Creative Thinking Skills and Math Anxiety. J. Educ. Learn. 2020 , 14 , 307–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, B.; Coulombe-Quach, X.-L.; Huang, A.; Godek, J.; Becker, D.; Zhou, Y. Meeting the Needs of Gifted and Talented Students: Case Study of a Virtual Learning Lab in a Rural Middle School. J. Adv. Acad. 2015 , 26 , 294–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Longo, C.M. Changing the instructional model: Utilizing blended learning as a tool of inquiry instruction in middle school science. Middle Sch. J. 2006 , 47 , 33–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yalavaç, G.; Samur, Y. Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of After School Online Course. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2016 , 15 , 147–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui, Y.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, D. Improving Students’ Inquiry Learning in Web-based Environments by Providing Structure: Does the Teacher Matter or Platform Matter? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2022 , 53 , 1049–1068. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renick, J.; Reich, S.M. The Mismatch of Virtual Instruction Practices with Young Adolescents’ Developmental Needs. Middle Sch. J. 2023 , 54 , 28–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Selvakumar, V.; Venkata, T.P.; Venkata, T.P.; Singh, S. Predicting Primary and Middle-school Students’ Preferences for Online Learning with Machine Learning. S. Afr. J. Child. Educ. 2023 , 13 , a1324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishop, P.A. Middle Grades Teacher Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic. RMLE Online 2021 , 44 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beeman, K.L. The Quiet Girl in a Virtual World: Learning from the Virtual Classroom to Better Support Quiet Girls in the Middle Grades. RMLE Online 2022 , 45 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Griendling, L.M.; VanUitert, V.J.; McDonald, S.D. Are Students’ Basic Psychological Needs Fulfilled in Remote Learning Environments?: A Mixed Methods Study. Middle Grades Rev. 2022 , 8 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khlaif, Z.N.; Salha, S.; Kouraichi, B. Emergency Remote Learning during COVID-19 Crisis: Students’ Engagement. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021 , 26 , 7033–7055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marcum-Dietrich, N.; Stunkard, C.; Krauss, Z.; Kerlin, S.; Staudt, C.; Muenz, T.; Kline, D. Stormy WATERS: COVID-19 Transition to Online Learning for an Environmental Education Middle School Curriculum. Sci. Educ. 2022 , 28 , 97–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pace, J.R.; Mellard, D.F. Reading Achievement and Reading Efficacy Changes for Middle School Students with Disabilities Through Blended Learning Instruction. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2016 , 31 , 156–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hashemifardnia, A.; Namaziandost, E.; Shafiee, S. The Effect of Implementing Flipped Classrooms on Iranian Junior High School Students’ Reading Comprehension. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2018 , 8 , 665–673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nafiâ, E.R.; Purwanti, E.; Permana, F.H.; Fauzi, A. Metacognitive Skills of Junior High School Students in a Pandemic Period Based on the Enriched Virtual Model of PjBL. J. Educ. Technol. 2022 , 6 , 29–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daley, S.G.; Hillaire, G.; Sutherland, L.M. Beyond Performance Data: Improving Student Help Seeking by Collecting and Displaying Influential Data in an Online Middle-School Science Curriculum. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2016 , 47 , 121–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, C.; Lyu, K. Scaffolding Junior Middle School Students’ Engagement in Online Project-based Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study from East China. Sage Open 2022 , 12 , 21582440221131815. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariati, N.K.S.; Artini, L.P.; Marsakawati, N.P.E. Students’ Perception of Blended Learning at Junior High School (Combination of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning). IDEAS J. Engl. Lang. Teach. Learn. Linguist. Lit. 2022 , 10 , 1235–1245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simanjorang, E.; Simatupang, J.; Butarbutar, W.; Purba, K.; Tampubolon, S.; Lestari Lumbantoruan, F.D. The Blended Learning Method in Improving Speaking Skills of Middle School Students. Edusaintek J. Pendidik. Sains Dan Teknol. 2023 , 10 , 694–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stratton, E.; Chitiyo, G.; Mathende, A.M.; Davis, K.M. Evaluating Flipped Versus Face-to-face Classrooms in Middle School on Science Achievement and Student Perceptions. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2020 , 11 , 131–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aslan, S.A.; Duruhan, K. The Effect of Virtual Learning Environments Designed According to Problem-based Learning Approach to Students’ Success, Problem-solving Skills, and Motivations. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021 , 26 , 2253–2283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ateş, H. Designing a Self-regulated Flipped Learning Approach to Promote Students’ Science Learning Performance. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2024 , 27 , 65–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Winter, J.W. Performance and Motivation in a Middle School Flipped Learning Course. TechTrends 2018 , 62 , 176–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asim, S.; Ponners, P.J.; Bartlett, C.; Parker, M.A.; Star, R. Differentiating Instruction: For Middle School Students in Virtual Learning Environments. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull. 2020 , 86 , 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fassbender, W.; Lucier, J. Equalizing the Teacher-to-Student Ratio through Technology: A New Perspective on the Role of Blended Learning. Voices Middle 2014 , 22 , 21–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonzalez, A. Strategies to get Started with Blended Learning. Voices Middle 2014 , 22 , 34–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benavides, D.M. A Flipped Classroom Experience to Analyze Language Interaction in a Group of Students of English as a Foreign Language. MLS Educ. Res. 2023 , 7 , 152–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mabrur, I.A.M.; Suwartono, T.; Lutfiana. Junior High School Students’ Readiness to Participate in e-Learning and Online EFL Classes During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2021 , 71 , 153–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Louwrens, N.; Hartnett, M. Student and Teacher Perceptions of Online Student Engagement in an Online Middle School. J. Open Flex. Distance Learn. 2015 , 19 , 27–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nissinen, S.; Vartiainen, H.; Vanninen, P.; Pöllänen, S. Connected Learning in International Learning Projects: Emergence of a Hybrid Learning System. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2019 , 36 , 381–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wendt, J.L.; Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J. The Effect of Online Collaboration on Adolescent Sense of Community in Eighth-grade Physical Science. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015 , 24 , 671–683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahyuni, S.; Sanjaya, I.G.M.; Erman, E.; Jatmiko, B. Edmodo-based Blended Learning Model as an Alternative of Science Learning to Motivate and Improve Junior High School Students’ Scientific Critical Thinking Skills. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2019 , 14 , 98–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Çakiroǧlu, N.; Pişkin Tunç, M. Middle School Students’ Experiences and Perceptions about Flipped Classroom Applications Used in Geometry Lessons. Acta Didact. Napoc. 2022 , 15 , 26–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Eisenbach, B.; Coleman, B. Online Pedagogies and the Middle Grades: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 1017. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091017

Eisenbach B, Coleman B. Online Pedagogies and the Middle Grades: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1017. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091017

Eisenbach, Brooke, and Bridget Coleman. 2024. "Online Pedagogies and the Middle Grades: A Scoping Review of the Literature" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 1017. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091017

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Design Factors Towards Water Retention Ability of Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Tropical and Subtropical Climates: An Exploratory Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 18 September 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Chulalux Wanitchayapaisit 47 , 48 ,
• Damrongsak Rinchumphu 48 &
• Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn 47  

Part of the book series: Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation

Included in the following conference series:

• International conference on Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is a comprehensive approach to managing the quality and quantity of rainwater within urban settings and addressing the challenges posed by changes in natural infiltration and precipitation processes. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) is a key component of WSUD and is extensively utilized in Europe and the United States. GSI can take many forms. One example of GSI is the rain garden, which is frequently integrated into WSUD practices across various regions and communities. The research question for this study is to find guidance for rain gardens in Southeast Asia. The objective is to identify the design factors that affect water retention ability in rain gardens and to determine the specific measurements that can be applied in Southeast Asia and across the world In similar climates. An exploratory literature review method delves into current examples of design factors influencing the water retention ability of WSUD in the tropical and sub-tropical contexts of Southeast Asia. This research found limited studies focussing on WSUD in tropical and sub-tropical climates, limited discussion on local materials, and how planting design may impact WSUD performance. The research gap highlights the need for standardized measurement units and further exploration into the specific design factors influencing the performance of plants in the context of WSUD in tropical and subtropical climates. Moreover, future studies should explore additional aspects, such as investigating input values for modeling, to improve the capability of calculating water retention ability based on relevant plant factors. Furthermore, it could involve examining the water-absorbing performance of different tree species. Designers must work with researchers to create case studies and compile evidence for effective WSUD in the near future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Abino, A. C., Castillo, J. A. A., & Lee, Y. J. (2014). Assessment of species diversity, biomass and carbon sequestration potential of a natural mangrove stand in Samar, the Philippines. Forest Science and Technology, 10 (1), 2–8.

Google Scholar  

Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A., & Chaubey, I. (2012). Effectiveness of low impact development practices: Literature review and suggestions for future research. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223 , 4253–4273.

Akter, A. (2022). Stormwater management. In Rainwater Harvesting—Building a Water Smart City (pp. 117–163). Springer.

Ali, W., Takaijudin, H., Yusof, K. W., Osman, M., & Abdurrasheed, A. S. I. (2021). The common approaches of nitrogen removal in bioretention system. Sustainability , 13 (5), 2575.

Baek, S.-S., Ligaray, M., Pyo, J., Park, J.-P., Kang, J.-H., Pachepsky, Y., Chun, J. A., & Cho, K. H. (2020). A novel water quality module of the SWMM model for assessing low impact development (LID) in urban watersheds. Journal of Hydrology, 586 , 124886.

Baird, J. B., Winston, R. J., & Hunt, W. F. (2020). Evaluating the hydrologic and water quality performance of novel infiltrating wet retention ponds. Blue-Green Systems, 2 (1), 282–299.

Chen, S. S., Tsang, D. C., He, M., Sun, Y., Lau, L. S., Leung, R. W., Lau, E. S., Hou, D., Liu, A., & Mohanty, S. (2021). Designing sustainable drainage systems in subtropical cities: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280 , 124418.

Coombes, P. J., Argue, J. R., & Kuczera, G. (2000). Figtree Place: A case study in water sensitive urban development (WSUD). Urban Water, 1 (4), 335–343.

Coutts, A. M., Tapper, N. J., Beringer, J., Loughnan, M., & Demuzere, M. (2013). Watering our cities: The capacity for Water Sensitive Urban Design to support urban cooling and improve human thermal comfort in the Australian context. Progress in Physical Geography, 37 (1), 2–28.

Dagenais, D., Brisson, J., & Fletcher, T. D. (2018). The role of plants in bioretention systems; does the science underpin current guidance? Ecological Engineering, 120 , 532–545.

Davar, S. A., Rostami, P., & Moradi, M. (2021). Planting design utilizing phytoremediation of garden-rangeland ecotypes in urban green space (case study of the new city of Pardis). PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/egyptology, 18 (18), 547–558.

Dell, T., Razzaghmanesh, M., Sharvelle, S., & Arabi, M. (2021). Development and application of a SWMM-Based simulation model for municipal scale hydrologic assessments. Water, 13 (12), 1644.

Dunnett, N., & Clayden, A. (2007). Rain gardens. Managing water sustainably in the garden and designed landscape .

Eckart, K., McPhee, Z., & Bolisetti, T. (2018). Multiobjective optimization of low impact development stormwater controls. Journal of Hydrology, 562 , 564–576.

Emanuel, R., Godwin, D., & Stoughton, C. (2010a). The Oregon rain garden guide: a step-by-step guide to landscaping for clean water and healthy streams.

Emanuel, R., Godwin, D., & Stoughton, C. (2010b). The Oregon Rain Garden Guide: Landscaping for Clean Water and Healthy Streams . Oregon Sea Grant. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/474026

Fang, H., Baret, F., Plummer, S., & Schaepman-Strub, G. (2019). An overview of global leaf area index (LAI): Methods, products, validation, and applications. Reviews of Geophysics, 57 (3), 739–799.

Fassman-Beck, E., Wang, S., Simcock, R., & Liu, R. (2015). Assessing the effects of bioretention’s engineered media composition and compaction on hydraulic conductivity and water holding capacity. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 1 (4), 04015003.

Ferrans, P., Torres, M. N., Temprano, J., & Sánchez, J. P. R. (2022). Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) modeling supporting decision-making: A systematic quantitative review. Science of the Total Environment, 806 , 150447.

Ferreira, J. C., Monteiro, R., & Silva, V. R. (2021). Planning a green infrastructure network from theory to practice: The case study of Setúbal, Portugal. Sustainability, 13 (15), 8432.

Fowdar, H., Payne, E., Deletic, A., Zhang, K., & McCarthy, D. (2022a). Advancing the Sponge City Agenda: Evaluation of 22 plant species across a broad range of life forms for stormwater management. Ecological Engineering, 175 , 106501.

Fowdar, H. S., Neo, T. H., Ong, S. L., Hu, J., & McCarthy, D. T. (2022b). Performance analysis of a stormwater green infrastructure model for flow and water quality predictions. Journal of Environmental Management, 316 , 115259.

Franti, T. G., & Rodie, S. N. (2007). Stormwater Management: Rain Garden Design for Homeowners . BebGuide. http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1758.pdf

Green, A. (2019). Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in the UK. Urban Stormwater and flood management: Enhancing the Liveability of cities , pp. 69–101.

Gülbaz, S., & Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, C. M. (2017). Experimental investigation on hydrologic performance of LID with rainfall-watershed-bioretention system. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 22 (1), D4016003.

He, Y., Lin, E. S., Tan, C. L., Tan, P. Y., & Wong, N. H. (2021). Quantitative evaluation of plant evapotranspiration effect for green roof in tropical area: A case study in Singapore. Energy and Buildings, 241 , 110973.

Heng, N. T. (2021). Monitoring and Modelling of Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC) Waters Design Features in Urban Singapore National University of Singapore (Singapore)].

Huang, J., Reneau, R., & Hagedorn, C. (2000). Nitrogen removal in constructed wetlands employed to treat domestic wastewater. Water Research, 34 (9), 2582–2588.

Hunt, W. F., Lord, B., Loh, B., & Sia, A. (2015). Plant selection for bioretention systems and stormwater treatment practices . Springer Nature.

Ignatieva, M., Meurk, C., Van Roon, M., Simcock, R., & Stewart, G. H. (2008). How to put nature into our neighbourhoods: Application of Low Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD) principles, with a biodiversity focus, for New Zealand developers and homeowners.

Jaber, F., Woodson, D., LaChance, C., & York, C. (2012). Stormwater management: Rain gardens. The Department of Soil and Crop Sciences and Texas A&M AgriLife Communications, The Texas A&M System, USA , 20.

Jiang, C., Lv, P., Li, J., & Gao, J. (2022). Rapid determination methods for extent parameters of typical LID facilities in Urban stormwater management. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 148 (10), 04022064.

Kasprzyk, M., Szpakowski, W., Poznańska, E., Boogaard, F. C., Bobkowska, K., & Gajewska, M. (2022). Technical solutions and benefits of introducing rain gardens–Gdańsk case study. Science of the Total Environment, 835 , 155487.

Kim, K., & Beard, J. (1988). Comparative turfgrass evapotranspiration rates and associated plant morphological characteristics. Crop Science, 28 (2), 328–331.

Körner, C. (2015). Paradigm shift in plant growth control. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 25 , 107–114.

Lee, J., Bae, S., Lee, W. H., & Gil, K. (2022). Effect of surface area to catchment area ratio on pollutant removal efficiency in vegetation-type facilities. Ecological Engineering, 179 , 106609.

Li, J., Sun, C., Chen, W., Zhang, Q., Zhou, S., Lin, R., & Wang, Y. (2022). Groundwater quality and associated human health risk in a typical basin of the Eastern Chinese Loess Plateau. Water, 14 (9), 1371.

Liu, Q., Cui, W., Tian, Z., Tang, Y., Tillotson, M., & Liu, J. (2022). Stormwater management modeling in “Sponge City” construction: Current state and future directions. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9 , 721.

Liu, T., Lawluvy, Y., Shi, Y., & Yap, P.-S. (2021). Low impact development (LID) practices: A review on recent developments, challenges and prospects. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 232 (9), 344.

Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138 , 155–163.

Neo, T. H., Xu, D., Fowdar, H., McCarthy, D. T., Chen, E. Y., Lee, T. M., Ong, G. S., Lim, F. Y., Ong, S. L., & Hu, J. (2022). Evaluation of active, beautiful, clean waters design features in tropical urban cities: A case study in Singapore. Water, 14 (3), 468.

Norton, B. A., Coutts, A. M., Livesley, S. J., Harris, R. J., Hunter, A. M., & Williams, N. S. (2018). Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. In Planning for Climate Change (pp. 233–249). Routledge.

Payne, E. G., Pham, T., Deletic, A., Hatt, B. E., Cook, P. L., & Fletcher, T. D. (2018). Which species? A decision-support tool to guide plant selection in stormwater biofilters. Advances in Water Resources, 113 , 86–99.

Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L., & McMahon, T. A. (2007). Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11 (5), 1633–1644.

Pressman, A. (2007). Architectural graphic standards . John Wiley & Sons.

Radcliffe, J. C. (2019). History of water sensitive urban design/low impact development adoption in Australia and internationally. In Approaches to water sensitive urban design (pp. 1–24). Elsevier.

Reis, V. E. (2019). Techniques for Investigating Causes of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Underperformance and Recommendations for Rehabilitation . Villanova University.

Rinchumphu, D., Tangsongsuwan, R., Kridakorn Na Ayudhya, T., Irvine, K., Chua, L., Suppakittpaisarn, P., & Chakrawattana, N. (2021). Potential Evaluation of Urban Bioretention Design [Grant]. Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Ristianti, N. S., Bashit, N., Ulfiana, D., & Windarto, Y. E. (2022). Bioretention Basin, Rain Garden, and Swales Track Concepts through Vegetated-WSUD: Sustainable Rural Stormwater Management in Klaten Regency. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,

Sañudo-Fontaneda, L. A., Roces-García, J., Coupe, S. J., Barrios-Crespo, E., Rey-Mahía, C., Álvarez-Rabanal, F. P., & Lashford, C. (2020). Descriptive analysis of the performance of a vegetated swale through long-term hydrological monitoring: A case study from Coventry, UK. Water, 12 (10), 2781.

Shao, R., Shao, W., & Wang, Y. (2023). Inferring the influence of urban vegetation on urban water storage capacity from evapotranspiration recession. Journal of Hydrology, 620 , 129355.

Sharma, R., & Malaviya, P. (2021). Management of stormwater pollution using green infrastructure: The role of rain gardens. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 8 (2), e1507.

Skorobogatov, A., He, J., Chu, A., Valeo, C., & van Duin, B. (2020). The impact of media, plants and their interactions on bioretention performance: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 715 , 136918.

Suppakittpaisarn, P., Chang, C.-Y., Deal, B., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2020). Does Vegetation Density and Perceptions Predict Green Stormwater Infrastructure Preference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 55 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126842

Suppakittpaisarn, P., Jiang, X., & Sullivan, W. C. (2017). Green infrastructure, green stormwater infrastructure, and human health: A review. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 2 , 96–110.

Swedberg, R. (2020). Exploratory research. The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science , pp. 17–41.

Tu, X., & Tian, T. (2015). Six questions towards a Sponge City–report on power of public policy: Sponge City and the trend of landscape architecture. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 3 (2), 22–32.

Valley, C. (2010). Low impact development stormwater management planning and design guide. In.

van Roon, M., Ignatieva, M., Meurk, C., Simcock, R., & Stewart, G. (2008). How to put nature into our neighbourhoods: Application of low impact urban design and development (LIUDD). principles, with a biodiversity focus, for New Zealand developers and homeowners. In: Manaaki Whenua Press.

Venvik, G., & C. Boogaard, F. (2020). Infiltration capacity of rain gardens using full-scale test method: effect of infiltration system on groundwater levels in Bergen, Norway. Land , 9 (12), 520

Wahab, S., Mamtaz, R., & Islam, M. (2016). Applicability of water sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Dhaka City. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD2016) . Khulna, Bangladesh,

Wang, H., Cheng, X., Man, L., Li, N., Wang, J., & Yu, Q. (2016). Challenges and future improvements to China’s sponge city construction . International Low Impact Development Conference China

Wanitchayapaisit, C., Charoenlertthanakit, N., Surinseng, V., Yaipimol, E., Rinchumphu, D., & Suppakittpaisarn, P. (2023). Enhancing water-sensitive urban design in Chiang Mai through a research-design collaboration. Sustainability, 15 (22), 16127.

Wanitchayapaisit, C., Suppakittpaisarn, P., Charoenlertthanakit, N., Surinseng, V., Yaipimol, E., & Rinchumphu, D. (2022). Rain garden design for stormwater management in Chiang Mai, Thailand: A Research-through-Design Study. Nakhara: Journal of Environmental Design and Planning , 21 (3), 222–222.

Wella-Hewage, C. S., Alankarage Hewa, G., & Pezzaniti, D. (2016). Can water sensitive urban design systems help to preserve natural channel-forming flow regimes in an urbanised catchment? Water Science and Technology, 73 (1), 78–87.

Yan, H., Lipeme Kouyi, G., Gonzalez-Merchan, C., Becouze-Lareure, C., Sebastian, C., Barraud, S., & Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L. (2014). Computational fluid dynamics modelling of flow and particulate contaminants sedimentation in an urban stormwater detention and settling basin. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21 (8), 5347–5356.

Yuan, J., Dunnett, N., & Stovin, V. (2017). The influence of vegetation on rain garden hydrological performance. Urban Water Journal, 14 (10), 1083–1089.

Zhang, K., Manuelpillai, D., Raut, B., Deletic, A., & Bach, P. M. (2019). Evaluating the reliability of stormwater treatment systems under various future climate conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 568 , 57–66.

Zhou, Q. (2014). A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate change and urbanization impacts. Water , 6 (4), 976-992.

Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban resilience and green infrastructure systems: Towards a multidimensional evaluation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44 , 42–47.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Landscape Design and Environmental Management Studio, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Chulalux Wanitchayapaisit & Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn

Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Chulalux Wanitchayapaisit & Damrongsak Rinchumphu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Tokyo, Japan

Joni Jupesta

Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk, Gdańsk, Poland

Giuseppe T. Cirella

School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Gloria Pignatta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Wanitchayapaisit, C., Rinchumphu, D., Suppakittpaisarn, P. (2024). Design Factors Towards Water Retention Ability of Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Tropical and Subtropical Climates: An Exploratory Literature Review. In: He, B., Jupesta, J., Cirella, G.T., Pignatta, G. (eds) Urban Climate Change Adaptation. CCES CCES 2022 2023. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65088-8_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65088-8_6

Published : 18 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-65087-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-65088-8

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Case report
• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2024

Spontaneous resolution of synovial lumbar cyst presented with severe symptoms: a case report

• Mostafa Hassan   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-6034-3721 1 ,
• Iyas Salman 1 &
• Issam Salman 2  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  18 , Article number:  432 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Introduction

Spinal cysts have traditionally been treated with surgery since it was first described in 1950. However, there have been rare instances where these cysts have resolved on their own without the need for surgical intervention. Here, we discuss the 27th reported case of such spontaneous resolution in the medical literature and delve into the details of this unique case.

Case presentation

This report details a rare case of a 58-year-old Middle Eastern female who suffered from severe radicular and lumbar pain. Radiological study showed the presence of a cyst in the lumbar column. Noninvasive treatment was chosen after ensuring that there were no other symptoms requiring surgery. The patient showed gradual improvement over the course of 12 months, after which the pain completely disappeared.

The surgical approach is currently the main treatment for spinal cysts, but spontaneous resolution, despite its rarity, may be worth considering as a preferred therapeutic approach in the future. This avenue has not been thoroughly explored or studied. Due to the etiology of these cysts and their location within mobile joints, a longer period of conservative management including rest and physical therapy may play a pivotal role in promoting natural resolution.

Conservative treatment of cysts should continue for at least 8 months, using painkillers and physical therapy without lumbar bracing. Surgery remains the most effective means of treatment to date. Further research is needed to validate and establish standardized treatment protocols.

Peer Review reports

In 1877, Becker was the first to describe synovial cysts, initially identifying them as cysts located in the joints of the lower limb [ 1 ]. Later, it was found that they can occur in most of the body’s moving joints. Then, in 1950, Vossschulte and Borger [ 2 ] documented the first case of a synovial cyst in the lumbar spine.

Synovial cysts, or ganglion cysts, are fluid-filled sacs that develop in the facet joints of the spinal column as a result of external factors putting pressure on the movable joints in the spine, causing degenerative changes that can lead to the enlargement of the facet joints and the formation of these cysts [ 3 ].

Spinal cysts are mostly found in the lumbar and cervical regions, with limited evidence of their occurrence in the thoracic spine. The main treatment approach, as indicated by the majority of medical literature, involves surgical intervention by excising and decompressing [ 4 ]. In some cases, spinal fusion might be necessary to stabilize the spine following the removal of the cyst [ 5 ]. A recent study by Benito et al. [ 6 ] on 657 patients with synovial cysts, comparing the outcomes of different surgical methods, revealed that lumbar decompression and fusion (LDF) were associated with better outcomes, including reduced postoperative back pain and lower rates of cyst recurrence compared with lumbar posterior decompression (LPD).

Alternatively, treatment may include aspiration and steroid injections. Facet joint injections have demonstrated efficacy in offering short-term pain relief for spinal synovial cysts. Nonetheless, their effectiveness tends to diminish over time [ 7 ]. Additionally, the aspiration of cysts guided by computed tomography (CT) or fluoroscopy, along with subsequent steroid injection, has produced varying outcomes [ 8 , 9 ]. Certain studies have indicated increased recurrence or failure rates when employing this method compared with surgical alternatives [ 9 , 10 ].

In some rare cases, cysts may resolve spontaneously with the use of pain management, physical therapy, and lumbar bracing [ 11 ].

This report will elaborate on a unique case of a patient who achieved full recovery from a painful lumbar synovial cyst without the need for any interventional procedures, using only painkillers and physical therapy.

A 58-year-old Middle Eastern female from Syria presented to the neurosurgery department in the sixth month of 2021 with progressive left radicular pain extending to the hip and the lateral posterior side of the thigh and leg, reaching the lateral toes, and back pain in the lumbar region, scoring 10/10 on the numeric pain scale, that had been ongoing for 1 month. The patient had difficulty walking and denied any traumatic events. A review of the patient’s medical history revealed that she had chronic right radicular lumbar pain in 2018 with a normal lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was successfully treated with painkillers for 3 months. In 2020, the same pain recurred, and the MRI was again normal, and she recovered using painkillers once more.

Investigations

Physical examination revealed normal strength and tendon reflexes in the lower limbs, normal muscle tone in both lower limbs, and a highly positive Lasègue test. Lumbar MRI showed an extradural cystic lesion in the L5–S1 spinal canal, adjacent to the left internal facet joint, with hypointensity in T1-weighted images and slightly hyperintensity in T2-weighted images, consistent with a synovial cyst (Fig.  1 ).

A lumbar MRI revealed a cystic lesion depicted in ( A ) T2 Sagittal, ( B ) T2 axial, ( C ) T1 sagittal, and ( D ) T1 axial images. The red arrows indicate the cyst that appears hyperintense on T2 and hypointense on T1 sequences

Differential diagnosis

The primary differential diagnosis considered for the observed lesion was a spinal synovial cyst. The MRI findings showed a significant increase in synovial fluid within the articular facet, with a clear connection between the cyst and the articular facet.

In some cases, an extruded disc fragment may be considered when there is a disc herniation. Nonetheless, protruding disc fragments usually show signal intensity features that mirror those of the original disc and are commonly situated in front, rather than posterior and lateral to the thecal sac.

Meningioma is another differential diagnosis that may present with similar intensity to synovial cysts on MRI. However, meningiomas are typically intradural extramedullary and develop over a longer period. The earlier MRI results excluded this potential diagnosis.

The patient did not exhibit any clinical or radiological signs indicating the need for surgery. Therefore, a noninvasive approach was chosen, focusing on pain management with diclofenac potassium 50 mg twice daily and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) once daily in the morning. Physical therapy was recommended, while orthopedic bracing was not deemed necessary. Clinical re-evaluation was scheduled every 3 months.

Follow-up and outcome

The patient reported gradual but significant improvement in pain over the next 3 months, but the pain remained severe, scoring 7/10 on the pain scale. After 6 months she stopped physical therapy sessions, with 5/10 on the pain scale, and we reduced the dose of pain relievers to once a day or when needed. A total of 9 months after the onset of symptoms, the patient reported a nearly complete absence of pain. A follow-up MRI performed 12 months later showed overgrowth of facets without canal stenosis at L5–S1. The previously observed cyst was nearly no longer present. Since then, the patient has been free of pain or any neurological symptoms (Fig.  2 ).

Lumbar MRI T2-weighted sequences: ( A ) sagittal and ( B ) axial views show the cyst shrinking visibly after 12 months from symptom onset, as indicated by the red arrow

Spinal cord cysts are often a result of degenerative changes in the spine or repeated minor trauma to the joint surfaces. These issues can cause a build-up of joint fluid and subsequent leakage, leading to the development of synovial cysts, which sometimes may present with severe symptoms indicating appropriate treatment. These cysts are frequently located near the joint surfaces and are particularly prevalent in the most mobile regions of the lumbar spine, such as at the L4–L5 level [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In the patient’s medical history, she experienced intermittent lumbar pain attributed to external factors, which aligns with the degenerative etiology of these cysts.

Synovial cysts are consistently located posterolateral to the thecal sac and can cause central or lateral spinal stenosis. Symptoms may include radiculopathy, back pain, sensory deficit, motor deficit, neurogenic claudication, and cauda equine syndrome. These cysts can appear at any level in the spinal column, including the C1–C2 level, but 92% of cases occur in the lumbar spine. The cervical and thoracic spines are less frequently affected, with rates of 6.3% and 1.6%, respectively [ 12 ].

The available treatment options for these spinal cysts include interventional treatments, such as surgical procedures with or without spinal instrumental fusion, or aspiration of the cyst along with steroid injections. Noninterventional treatments, such as pain management, physical therapy, and lumbar bracing, may also be considered. Surgical intervention with cyst removal to relieve pressure on the spine is considered the most common procedure for treating these symptomatic cysts in medical literature, as it has shown lower recurrence rates than any other approaches [ 10 , 12 ]. The type of surgical procedure, whether it involves cyst removal or decompression with or without fusion, remains the best and in most cases the primary treatment for any symptomatic lumbar synovial cyst [ 13 , 14 ].

The spontaneous resolution of these cysts is very rare in the medical literature, with only 26 cases recorded. Adding our case brings the total number recorded to 27 to date. Chiarella et al. [ 11 ] collected data on the spontaneous resolution of spinal cysts, which they referred to as “ganglion cysts.” They suggested noninvasive treatment for at least 6 months including anti-inflammatory drugs and light unloading exercises to control pain and reduce intra-cystic fluid, rest, and lumbar bracing. But they did not mention any specific indication for conservative treatment, and most of the reviewed cases did not mention severe symptoms.

Considering the pathological mechanism of these cysts, as well as the absence of alternative causes for the patient’s pain in the clinical and radiological examinations, a conservative treatment plan was implemented. This involved the administration of painkillers and physical therapy over a period of 3 months. Following this initial treatment, the patient reported a reduction in pain from 10 out of 10 to 7 out of 10 on the pain scale, prompting an extension of the conservative treatment. After 10 months from the onset of symptoms, the patient reported intermittent pain at an intensity of 1 out of 10 on the pain scale. Subsequent MRI scans after 12 months demonstrated a 90% reduction in the size of the cyst, with decreased signal intensity at both T1 and T2. This case illustrates that physical therapy and long rest, which alleviated external pressures on joint surfaces and relieved spinal pressure, facilitated the gradual reabsorption and reduction in cyst size over time.

Lumber bracing is a controversial issue. While lumbar spine stabilizers may offer short-term benefits, they may also lead to muscle weakness in this area, potentially resulting in increased pain and subsequent complications.

Noninvasive treatment methods may hold significant promise for the future, with the potential to reduce the need for surgical intervention, thereby decreasing financial burdens and mitigating potential post-operative complications. However, this case, along with the other 26 cases of spontaneous resolution in the medical literature, does not provide sufficient evidence to consider it as the optimal method for managing spinal synovial cysts. Hopefully, the number of these cases will increase in the future so that a large study on this treatment method can be done.

Cysts are a rare cause of radicular pain, but they can manifest as severe pain, which may perplex the medical practitioner regarding treatment and diagnosis. Surgical treatment is approach the most often availed for treating these cysts. A longer period of conservative treatment can be given a chance, even with severe pain. We propose a conservative approach involving noninvasive therapies for a minimum of 8 months focusing on pain management and physical therapy. Further extensive studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of this method so it could be considered for treatment.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Lumbar decompression and fusion

Lumbar posterior decompression

Computed tomography

Magnetic resonance imaging

Baker WM. On the formation of synovial cysts in the leg in connection with disease of the knee-joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:2–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Vossschulte K, Borger G. Anatomische und funktionelle Untersuchungen über den Bandscheibenprolaps [Anatomic and functional studies of intervertebral disk hernia]. Langenbecks Arch Klin Chir Ver Dtsch Z Chir. 1950;265(3–4):329–55.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Shea WJ, Jeffrey RA. Lumbar intraspinal synovial and ganglion cysts (facet cysts). Ten-year experience in evaluation and treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):80–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199501000-00015 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weiner BK, Torretti J, Stauff M. Microdecompression for lumbar synovial cysts: an independent assessment of long term outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res. 2007;2:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-2-5 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Campbell RJ, Mobbs RJ, Rao PJ, Phan K. Interventions for lumbar synovial facet joint cysts: a comparison of percutaneous, surgical decompression and fusion approaches. World Neurosurg. 2017;98:492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.11.044 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benato A, Menna G, Rapisarda A, Polli FM, D’Ercole M, Izzo A, D’Alessandris QG, Montano N. Decompression with or without fusion for lumbar synovial cysts-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7):2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12072664 .

Christophis P, Asamoto S, Kuchelmeister K, et al . “Juxtafacet cysts”, a misleading name for cystic formations of mobile spine (CYFMOS). Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0287-5 .

Lutz GE, Shen TC. Fluoroscopically guided aspiration of a symptomatic lumbar zygapophyseal joint cyst: a case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(12):1789–91. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.34601 .

Allen TL, Tatli Y, Lutz GE. Fluoroscopic percutaneous lumbar zygapophyseal joint cyst rupture: a clinical outcome study. Spine J. 2009;9(5):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.008 .

Epstein NE, Agulnick MA. Perspective: operate on lumbar synovial cysts and avoid ineffective percutaneous techniques. Surg Neurol Int. 2024;1(15):65. https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_95_2024 .

Chiarella V, Ramieri A, Giugliano M, Domenicucci M. Rapid spontaneous resolution of lumbar ganglion cysts: a case report. World J Orthop. 2020;11(1):68–75. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v11.i1.68 .

Bruder M, Cattani A, Gessler F, Droste C, Setzer M, Seifert V, Marquardt G. Synovial cysts of the spine: long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of 141 cases in a single-center series and comprehensive literature review of 2900 degenerative spinal cysts. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(3):256–67. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.12.SPINE16756 .

Epstein NE, Baisden J. The diagnosis and management of synovial cysts: efficacy of surgery versus cyst aspiration. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S157–66. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.98576 .

Lalanne LB, Carmona RL, Cirillo Totera JI, Lemos FA, Wilson JTM, Beaulieu Montoya AM. Surgically managed symptomatic intraspinal lumbar facet synovial cyst outcome of surgical treatment with resection and instrumented posterolateral fusion, a case series. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01712-x .

Download references

Acknowledgements

None for all authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, Tartous University, Tartous, Syrian Arab Republic

Mostafa Hassan & Iyas Salman

Department of Neurosurgery, Tartous University, Tartous, Syrian Arab Republic

Issam Salman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Mostafa Hassan contributed to writing, editing, data collection, data interpretation and analysis, drafting, and critical revision. Iyas Salman contributed to data collection and editing of the manuscript. Issam Salman was the supervisor and contributed to critical revision and final approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mostafa Hassan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication.

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hassan, M., Salman, I. & Salman, I. Spontaneous resolution of synovial lumbar cyst presented with severe symptoms: a case report. J Med Case Reports 18 , 432 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04762-2

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2024

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 16 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04762-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Lumbar cyst
• Synovial cyst
• Spontaneous resolution
• Severe symptoms
• Conservative treatment

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]