an example of a study that would require a literature review

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 26 Dorm Room Decoration Ideas (for Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Study Desk Aesthetic Ideas
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Thoughtful Ways to Greet your Students
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Pre-School Decor Ideas (Inspiring & Beautiful!)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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 August 12, 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

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.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

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.

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 summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write 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, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will 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 scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. 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 if 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 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 use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

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?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• 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 find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

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’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference 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.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to 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 organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

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 summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse 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 organise 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.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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 dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

• To familiarise 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  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

• 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: Aug 13, 2024 12:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• How it works

"Christmas Offer"

Terms & conditions.

As the Christmas season is upon us, we find ourselves reflecting on the past year and those who we have helped to shape their future. It’s been quite a year for us all! The end of the year brings no greater joy than the opportunity to express to you Christmas greetings and good wishes.

At this special time of year, Research Prospect brings joyful discount of 10% on all its services. May your Christmas and New Year be filled with joy.

We are looking back with appreciation for your loyalty and looking forward to moving into the New Year together.

"Claim this offer"

In unfamiliar and hard times, we have stuck by you. This Christmas, Research Prospect brings you all the joy with exciting discount of 10% on all its services.

Offer valid till 5-1-2024

We love being your partner in success. We know you have been working hard lately, take a break this holiday season to spend time with your loved ones while we make sure you succeed in your academics

Discount code: RP23720

Published by Nicolas at January 16th, 2024 , Revised On January 23, 2024

Literature Review Examples – How To Write One?

A literature review is a critical analysis of existing scholarly literature on a particular topic. It is often required as part of academic assignments, such as research papers , theses, and dissertations. However, writing a good literature review can be challenging, especially for first-time students. 

Table of Contents

This blog will guide you on how to write a literature review and provide you with exceptional literature review examples that work well in the universities in Canada for your assistance. Let’s get started.

What Is A Literature Review?

A literature review is not merely a summary of existing works; instead, it is a comprehensive analysis that identifies gaps, trends, and patterns within a particular subject area. A well-executed literature review establishes the context for your research and hypothesis and demonstrates your awareness of existing scholarship. Moreover, it showcases your ability to engage with academic discourse critically.

Purpose Of A Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the existing literature on your topic.
• Identify the key themes, debates, and gaps in the literature.
• Position your own research in the context of the existing literature.
• Show how your research will contribute to the field.

How To Write A Literature Review Example

Writing a literature review involves a systematic and organized approach. Follow the research paper format stated by your organization. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective literature review:

Step 1: Define The Scope And Purpose

• Clearly define the research question, thesis statement, or topic you want to address in your literature review.
• Determine the scope of your review by setting boundaries for the time period, geographic location, and specific aspects of the topic you want to cover.
• Identify the purpose of your literature review, such as providing an overview, identifying gaps in existing research, or evaluating the current state of knowledge.

Step 2: Conduct A Comprehensive Literature Search

• Use academic databases, library catalogues, and search engines to find relevant literature. Common databases include PubMed , Google Scholar , and specialized databases related to your field.
• Use a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary to refine your search.
• Keep track of the sources you find, including bibliographic information, abstracts, and key findings.
• Read professionally written examples of literature review for better understanding.

Step 3: Evaluate And Select Sources

• Critically evaluate the quality and relevance of each source. Consider the credibility of the author, the publication venue, and the methodology used in the studies.
• Organize the selected sources into themes or categories based on commonalities and differences.
• Identify key theories, concepts, or methodologies that are central to your topic.
• For example, in a finance thesis , add sources that are only relevant to the specific topic of finance that you wish to explore. 

Step 4: Synthesize Information

• Summarize the main findings and arguments of each source, highlighting key themes and trends.
• Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among the sources.
• Organize the information in a logical and coherent manner. You can use a chronological, thematic, or methodological approach, depending on the nature of your literature review.

Step 5: Write And Revise

• Start with an introduction that provides context for your literature review and clearly states the research question or purpose.
• Organize the body of your literature review based on the themes or categories you identified during the synthesis.
• Discuss each source in relation to your research question, highlighting key findings and their implications.
• Conclude by summarizing the main contributions of the literature to your research question and identifying any gaps or areas for future research.
• Revise and edit your literature review for clarity, coherence, and conciseness.

APA Literature Review Example

Whether you are writing a literature review in APA or MLA , follow the guidelines provided on the websites. Here is a comprehensive example of a literature review in APA that will provide a better understanding of how to write a literature review. 

Literature Review: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health in Adolescents

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of adolescents, with platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat dominating their online experiences. As the prevalence of social media continues to rise, there is a growing concern about its potential impact on the mental health of adolescents. This literature review aims to explore and analyze existing research on the relationship between social media usage and mental health outcomes in the adolescent population.

Social Media Usage Patterns

Several studies have investigated the patterns of social media usage among adolescents. Smith et al. (2017) found that 95% of adolescents aged 13-17 have access to a smartphone, and 85% use at least one social media platform regularly. Additionally, Jones and Brown (2019) reported that the average time spent on social media by adolescents is approximately 3 hours per day.

Cyberbullying and Mental Health

One of the negative consequences associated with social media use is the prevalence of cyberbullying. Patchin and Hinduja (2018) highlighted that adolescents who experience cyberbullying are more likely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety. This finding is consistent with a longitudinal study by Williams et al. (2016), which demonstrated a significant association between cyberbullying victimization and increased risk of mental health problems in adolescents.

Social Comparison and Body Image

Social media platforms often facilitate social comparison, which has been linked to body image dissatisfaction and low self-esteem among adolescents. Fardouly et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of 15 studies and found a moderate effect size, indicating a strong association between social media use and negative body image. Moreover, Perloff (2014) argued that constant exposure to idealized images on social media contributes to unrealistic beauty standards, impacting adolescents’ self-perception and mental well-being.

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and Anxiety

The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is a psychological phenomenon associated with anxiety and stress related to the fear of not being included or missing out on experiences others are having. Primack et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional analysis and discovered a positive correlation between higher social media use, FOMO, and increased levels of anxiety among adolescents. This suggests that the constant connectivity promoted by social media may contribute to heightened feelings of social comparison and anxiety.

Positive Aspects of Social Media Use

While there is a substantial body of literature examining the negative impacts of social media on adolescent mental health, some studies suggest positive aspects as well. Moreno et al. (2018) conducted a survey and found that social media can serve as a valuable platform for emotional expression, social support, and positive social interactions among adolescents. Additionally, the study by Wang and Burke (2020) indicated that strategic and limited use of social media may contribute to positive mental health outcomes.

The existing literature provides a deep understanding of the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in adolescents. While some studies highlight the negative impacts, such as cyberbullying, social comparison, and anxiety, others acknowledge the positive aspects, such as social support and positive interactions. Future research should focus on the development of effective interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents.

Types Of Literature Review

There are several types of literature reviews, each serving different purposes and objectives. Here are some common types:

Narrative Or Traditional Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a particular topic.
• Summarizes and synthesizes information from various sources without a specific methodological approach.

Systematic Literature Review

• Follows a systematic and structured approach to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant literature.
• Involves a clearly defined research question and a detailed search strategy.
• Aims to minimize bias and subjectivity in the selection and analysis of studies.

Systematic Literature Review Example

Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, this systematic literature review focuses on the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders in pediatric populations. A comprehensive search across databases identified 25 relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Results indicate consistent positive outcomes in symptom reduction across various anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety and social anxiety (Jones et al., 2020; Smith & Brown, 2019). However, methodological variations in CBT delivery and outcome measures highlight the need for standardized protocols. This review underscores the robust evidence supporting CBT’s effectiveness in treating pediatric anxiety, while advocating for more uniform research methodologies to enhance comparability and generalizability (Johnson et al., 2018).

Meta-Analysis

• A specialized form of systematic review that involves statistical analysis of quantitative data from multiple studies.
• Combines results from different studies to derive overall conclusions or effect sizes.
• Requires homogeneity in study design and outcome measures for accurate analysis.

Meta-Synthesis

• Meta-synthesis is a qualitative approach that synthesizes findings from multiple qualitative studies.
• Involves the interpretation and integration of themes, concepts, or qualitative data across different studies.

Scoping Review

• A preliminary literature review on a broad topic to identify key concepts, gaps, and research areas.
• Provides an overview without necessarily synthesizing the evidence.

Scoping Literature Review Example 

This scoping review investigates the breadth of literature on the impact of mindfulness interventions on stress reduction. Initial searches in databases such as PubMed and PsycINFO yielded 80 relevant articles. Key themes emerged, including diverse intervention formats (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness apps), target populations (e.g., healthcare professionals, students), and outcome measures (e.g., self-reported stress levels, physiological markers). Noteworthy is the limited exploration of long-term effects and variations in intervention delivery. The review provides a foundation for future research directions, emphasizing the need for standardized methodologies and comprehensive assessments to advance our understanding of mindfulness interventions’ effectiveness in stress reduction (Smith et al., 2021; Brown & Jones, 2020).

Critical Review

• Evaluates and critiques the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature.
• Focuses on the methodology, theoretical framework, and overall quality of the studies reviewed.

Integrative Review

• Aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of a topic by integrating findings from different types of studies (quantitative, qualitative, or both).
• May include a range of research designs and methodologies.

Rapid Review

• Conducted within a shorter timeframe, often for decision-making purposes.
• Involves a streamlined review process with limitations in terms of depth and comprehensiveness.

Umbrella Review

• A review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a specific topic.
• Provides a higher level of evidence synthesis by examining the findings of multiple reviews.

Mixed Methods Review

Incorporates both quantitative and qualitative research studies to gain a comprehensive understanding of a research question.

The literature review we write have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• High-level Encryption
• Authentic Sources

Tips For Writing A Good Literature Review

Here are a few additional tips for writing a good literature review in a dissertation or thesis :

Tip 1: Start Early 

Do not wait until the last minute to start writing your literature review. It takes time to do a good job.

Tip 2: Read Widely

Do not just read the most recent articles on your topic. Be sure to read older articles as well.

Tip 3: Take Breaks

Do not try to write your literature review all at once. Take breaks to avoid getting burned out.

Tip 4: Get Feedback

Ask your professor or a classmate to read your literature review and give you feedback.

Common Mistakes To Avoid When Writing A Literature Review

While literature review examples can provide valuable guidance, it is equally important to be aware of common pitfalls that can undermine the effectiveness of your literature review.

• Lack of Focus: A literature review should have a clear focus and not attempt to cover an entire field. Define the boundaries of your review and concentrate on the most relevant and recent literature.
• Overreliance on Secondary Sources: While reviews of existing reviews can be informative, relying solely on secondary sources, such as newspapers , may lead to a lack of depth in your analysis. Strive to include primary research studies to strengthen the credibility of your literature review.
• Failure to Synthesize: Merely summarizing individual studies without synthesizing their findings can result in a disjointed and unconvincing literature review. Connect the dots between different sources to provide a cohesive narrative.
• Ignoring Contradictory Evidence: A robust literature review acknowledges and addresses conflicting findings in the existing literature. Ignoring contradictory evidence can weaken the overall credibility of your review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a critical analysis of existing research and scholarly works on a specific topic. It involves summarizing, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature to identify gaps, patterns, and trends. The review provides a foundation for understanding the current state of knowledge and informs future research directions.

How to write a literature review example?

To write a literature review, define your purpose, conduct a comprehensive search, critically evaluate sources, organize them thematically, and synthesize key findings. Structure your review with an introduction, thematic sections, and a conclusion. Properly cite sources, seek feedback, and revise. Maintain clarity, coherence, and adherence to citation styles throughout.

How to start a literature review example?

Begin your literature review with a concise introduction, providing context for the topic and clearly stating its importance. Define the scope and purpose, indicating the key themes or questions to be addressed. Engage readers by highlighting the relevance and significance of the reviewed literature to the broader research field.

How to write a literature review introduction example?

In this literature review, we explore the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence in healthcare. As advancements accelerate, understanding the implications of patient care and ethical considerations is crucial. This review aims to synthesize existing literature, identifying key trends, challenges, and opportunities in the intersection of artificial intelligence and healthcare delivery.

How to conclude a literature review example?

In conclusion, this literature review reveals the multifaceted nature of social media’s impact on mental health. While negative outcomes are associated with social comparison and excessive use, positive effects include social support. Thorough research is essential, considering individual differences and evolving social media dynamics, for a comprehensive understanding of its influence.

How to critique a literature review example?

This literature review demonstrates a comprehensive analysis of existing research on climate change adaptation strategies. Strengths include a clear organization and synthesis of findings. However, potential limitations include an emphasis on studies from specific regions, possibly affecting the generalizability of the conclusions. Further exploration of diverse geographic contexts could enhance the review’s robustness.

What is a preliminary literature review?

A preliminary literature review is an initial exploration of existing research on a specific topic. It helps researchers identify key concepts, relevant studies, and gaps in the literature before conducting an in-depth review. This phase informs the development of research questions and refines the focus for a more comprehensive literature review.

You May Also Like

Discover Canadian doctoral dissertation format: structure, formatting, and word limits. Check your university guidelines.

Introduction establishes context, states research question, and justifies study. The abstract is a concise summary of key paper elements.

Learn everything about meta synthesis literature review in this comprehensive guide. From definition and process to its types and challenges.

Ready to place an order?

USEFUL LINKS

Learning resources.

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

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 .

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

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

• Dissertation & Thesis Guides
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing
• How to Write a Literature Review for Research: Guide, Structure & Template Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides

How to Write a Literature Review for Research: Guide, Structure & Template Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

A literature review is a critical analysis of published research on a particular topic. It involves reviewing and analyzing a range of sources, such as academic articles, books, and reports. Students conduct a literature review before writing a research paper or dissertation to gain an understanding of the existing knowledge and recognize areas for further exploration.

Evaluating scholarly works is a crucial aspect of academic work because it establishes the foundation for an inquiry and uncovers new information or gaps in studies. Thus, it is essential to develop and structure it correctly.  In this guide you will find:

• A detailed definition
• Elements of a good literary review
• How to do a literature review
• Examples of literature review template.

Read on to explore the structure and straightforward steps for assessing existing sources on your topic.  In case you are looking for a quick solution, consider giving our literature review services a try. 

What Is a Literature Review: Definition

Before delving further, let’s first define what is a literature review in research. As a researcher, you might need to objectively synthesize, explore, and evaluate existing studies conducted by others. A literature review helps you identify gaps or areas that require further investigation. It boils down to analyzing and making sense of a massive body of knowledge. It is crucial to be critical during the entire process as it is the most effective approach to engaging with texts. You need to objectively identify their strengths and weaknesses, and convey your positive or negative views.   In other words, literature reviews are about deducing specific sources and comparing relevant studies to find similarities and differences. This process may reveal new perspectives or offer a thorough outline for further developments in a specific field. It can also inform readers about the relevance and validity of existing documents to the statement of the problem . You conduct a lit review to get an overview of concepts surrounding your subject, keep up to date with trends in your field, and enhance your credibility. Besides, it offers a solid background for a research paper , thesis or dissertation .

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

A literature review must highlight your overall knowledge of a research subject and help you develop an argument, mostly by responding to a specific question. It is not just a summary of what you have read.  Commonly, the purpose of a literature review is to help you:

• Understand and convey the current state of literature on your research topic .
• Find adequate documents on your subject to form your perspective.
• Create a framework for your paper based on research goals.
• Identify gaps in studies and develop novel research questions .
• Select appropriate methods by locating tried and tested techniques.

Note that keeping all these points in mind is important to get the most from an evaluation process when conducting the review.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are various types of literature reviews, each with specific expectations in terms of depth, structure, length, and scope. Here are the main ones:

• Stand-alone literature review. This type involves a comprehensive analysis of prior research related to a specific question. Here, your task is to evaluate and compare existing studies, identify trends, and recognize gaps, weaknesses, and controversies in the field.
• Literature review for a journal article. In this case, the analysis of literature focuses on providing background information for an inquiry being conducted. It is usually placed in an introduction or combined with the discussion of results.
• Literature review assignment. Students may be assigned a selective project to familiarize themselves with a theme and studies in their field. The intention could also be to identify gaps in the current knowledge base to suggest new questions, develop a theoretical framework in research , or determine a suitable methodology for future exploration. This type deals with a small part of research on a subject and stands as a complete work.
• Research paper literature review. The main objective here is to facilitate scholars in gathering, condensing, synthesizing, and examining current research on a specific issue. This is particularly beneficial to academics who are investigating a new area of study or seeking guidance on topics that have not yet been thoroughly explored.
• Thesis or dissertation literature review. This is a separate chapter placed after the Ph.D. thesis introduction and before the dissertation methodology section. It helps the author understand what has already been studied and what gaps exist in the current knowledge. By analyzing the existing research, a researcher can identify opportunities for further investigation and ensure that their study is original and significant.

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

If the instructions for a task do not specify the required length of the literature review, there are some guidelines to consider. In general, it would be enough to have 20-25% of the total size of your work as an analysis part. Typically, the analysis section of the review should constitute around 20-25% of the total length of the work. However, several factors, such as the project purpose, intended audience, type, and scope, may affect how long a literature review is. For example, a dissertation usually requires an extensive literature evaluation section. The best assessments, however, are usually not less than 2 pages long.  If you are uncertain about the appropriate length, refer to the table below for guidance. Literature Review Length in Different Projects

Unlock your academic potential and save time by letting the experts handle your work! Buy literature review from our experts and receive a top-quality work tailored to your needs.

Features of a Good Literature Review

Regardless of your work’s nature, composing a good literature review is a laborious process that many students rightfully find challenging. This is because you may need to go through numerous studies and identify gaps, recognize frameworks, cite sources, and ensure coherence. Therefore, to develop a decent piece it is essential to consider the characteristics described below. The best work:

• Is more than just a list of relevant studies: you should critically examine others’ ideas and assess how they are presented.
• Considers a variety of reliable and applicable sources: a scientific literature review should demonstrate that you are familiar with relevant readings on your topic. Thus, ensure you have covered important, broad, latest, and pertinent texts. Such an approach enhances the depth of your evaluation and highlights various viewpoints.
• Demonstrates an awareness of values and theories underpinning the work: in the first place, you must understand why exactly you are conducting the evaluation. If you don’t know the purpose and function of the process, you will not write effectively.
• Relates papers to each other by comparing and contrasting them: a literature review in research moves past simple descriptions of what others have written. Rather, it entails connecting, finding differences and similarities, and interpreting concepts.
• Offers personal reactions and opinions to manuscripts: after comparing, contrasting, and critiquing others’ works, you should present your own interpretation and analysis.
• Showcases research gaps that your study will deal with and help address.
• Applies appropriate linking/transition words such as “similarly”, “however”, “also”, “contend”, “conclude”, “argue”, and “assert”: this helps you group together related notions, highlight contrasting views, and introduce others’ opinions or texts while remaining objective throughout the analysis.

What to Include in a Literature Review?

At this point, you understand the definitions, purpose, and features of a literature review. Now you need to present information effectively. Like in any other formal paper, your work must have a basic structure comprising an introduction, body, and conclusion.  But what does it look like? The layout goes beyond these sections because you must also consider how your themes and arguments will be organized.  Here is a detailed description of the three main parts of a literature review:

• Introduction Your first section should be brief, direct, and focused. Explain the main themes or topics to be analyzed, the arguments you will present, and the underlying reasons for your claims.
• Body In this section, conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the selected sources and organize them using a specific approach, such as themes or topics. Make sure to present your arguments clearly, linking them to studies that support or contradict your assessment. Remember to include viewpoints that disagree with your position to strengthen your evaluation. Cite the works of various authors you are critically analyzing, and limit the use of direct quotes. Instead, paraphrase and include references.
• Conclusion Summarize your literature review by highlighting the conclusions drawn from your analysis. You can restate gaps in knowledge, explain how your study will address them, and recommend future research needed on the topic.

Look at the example of the literature review template below to learn more.

Read more: Literature Review Outline

How to Structure a Literature Review?

Once you are ready to begin writing a literature review, it is necessary to think about how you will organize information. This helps avoid the risk of your work turning into a loose sequence of summaries instead of a logical and integrated analysis.  A literature review structure should be chosen based on the style used in your body section. Here are the major approaches you can use:

• Thematic This approach involves organizing your analysis around themes, topics, or issues. It is particularly useful when focusing on a single overarching subject and enables you to highlight critical debates within sub-themes.
• Chronological Literature reviews using this format organize studies based on when they were published, typically moving from older to newer works to explore the topic's development over time. It is important to analyze sources by considering any debates and turning points that influenced the subject and offer your interpretation.
• Methodological This design focuses on the methods other researchers used. A review of literature using this layout considers the perspective from which a particular theme was examined or the procedures used to answer a specific question. It may use qualitative, quantitative, or other strategies within these two broad techniques.
• Theoretical A theoretical approach involves a systematic and critical examination of existing theories, models, and frameworks related to the research topic or question. This approach helps to establish the context, identify gaps, and provide a foundation for your own research.

How to Write a Literature Review?

If you are still wondering how to write a literature review for a research paper, thesis or dissertation, this guideline will help you get started. While you have learned about important elements such as structuring and organization, you may still need guidance on how to establish your foundation for creating your review.  The following sections provide easy-to-understand explanations on how to write a lit review. Below are 7 steps you must follow to develop a decent paper.

1. Select a Topic and Narrow It Down

As you begin reviewing literature, it is vital to get your focus correct. Depending on your field of study, the selected topic must be:

• Relevant and important Explore a crucial concern in your field so that people will be interested in your work and you will have sufficient material to base your project on.
• Interesting This is essential because learning how to write a good literature review starts with being inquisitive since you can’t investigate something that doesn’t arouse your curiosity.
• Well defined this helps you include only relevant publications to make your paper helpful.
• Narrow Your theme must be specific yet researched enough to allow for an in-depth analysis. Broad issues usually necessitate a large number of studies, which will be impossible to explore meaningfully.

2. Search for Pertinent Literature

After having selected a topic for your research literature review, you need to search for studies. As you do this research, you'll want to take note of the keywords and phrases that appear frequently in the articles. These keywords can be used to create a list of search terms that you'll use to find additional articles on your topic. To ensure that your search terms are effective, you should try to identify the most important keywords and phrases related to your topic. These might be the names of key researchers, conceptual frameworks , theories, or techniques related to your topic. Consider the headings that the documents have been tagged with and words occurring in abstracts and titles. You can then organize your phrases into blocks based on the main ideas. Once you have identified the relevant keywords for your scientific literature review, it's time to search for articles. To do this, you'll need to choose at least two credible databases to search for good articles. Popular options include:

• Google Scholar

But there may be other databases that are more appropriate for your specific topic. When searching across different databases, it's important to use a uniform search strategy. This means combining your search terms using " OR " and " AND " to create a block of related terms. You can then type this block into the basic search box or use the advanced search feature, enclosing the terms in parentheses. This makes it easier to find specific articles. For example, consider these keywords:

Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, adolescents, young adults, and management. The search term block would be “(Crohn’s disease OR ulcerative colitis) AND (young adults OR adolescent) AND management”.

Since the generated results may contain irrelevant or unreliable sources, ensure that you select only dependable ones. This is a key skill to develop when conducting a literature review because it allows you to choose the best articles to support your arguments.

3. Analyze and Choose Relevant Sources

After completing your search for articles and selecting databases, it's time to review the sources and choose which ones to include in your lit review. Focus on studies that are relevant to your topic and meet any other inclusion criteria.  To determine whether an article is relevant to your project, you'll need to read it carefully and grasp the arguments presented. Take notes as you read, recording interesting facts, main points, and any thoughts you have about the article. This will help you remember which author made which arguments, your impressions of the article, and any relationships you identified between different sources. As you read, try to answer these questions:

• What is the main argument of the article?
• How does the author support their argument?
• What is the research question or objective of the study?
• What research methods were used, and were they appropriate for the research question?
• What were the main findings or results of the study?
• Were the results statistically significant, and were the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are there any limitations or weaknesses to the study that should be considered?
• Are the authors qualified to conduct this research?
• Are there any conflicts of interest or biases that may affect the study's findings?
• Is the article well-written and easy to understand?
• Are the sources cited in the article reliable and relevant to the topic?

Remember that you can only start to write your literature review after going through all your manuscripts. Therefore, creating a rough draft is essential as this gives you a general idea of the volume of available material available. While conducting a literature review, you must examine the quality of all sources critically. This typically entails using a checklist or table to evaluate aspects such as methods, results, and presentation. An example of a template to assess sources for a literature review is provided below. It contains questions and criteria that assist in locating bias, errors, or flaws. Template for Literature Evaluation

4. Group the Sources by Categories

To write a review of literature, you need to sort your sources. After reading and evaluating your articles, you should have a general idea of the main achievements, major debates, themes, trends, and outstanding issues/questions. The next step is to organize your sources into logical categories. Good research literature reviews are systematic and consistent. You may choose to arrange your sources by topic, research methodology , geographic location, or other relevant criteria. It's also helpful to use subheadings within each category to further organize your sources. As you group your sources, be sure to consider how they relate to one another and to the overall research question or topic. You may find that certain sources address multiple themes or issues. In this case you'll need to decide which category is the most appropriate for each source. Remember that the purpose of organizing your sources is to provide a clear and coherent structure for your literature review. By grouping your sources into logical categories, you make it easier for your readers to follow your arguments and understand the connections between different sources. Here is an example of how to group sources by categories.

5. Build Connection Between Your Ideas and the Literature

To complete this step of the literature review, you need to connect your research, arguments, or ideas to the texts you've gathered. Begin by using your research question to identify connections between your sources and insights into your findings. Match your key concepts with the central points in each article to establish associations between topics. Be aware that you may see differences or contradictions between readings. To ensure that you're ready to write your literature review, use your key concepts as headings in your notes to easily locate articles that address specific themes. Observe and make explicit the relationships that emerge between your arguments and the manuscripts. These connections will be useful when structuring your work and selecting the papers to include in your project.

6. Write a Literature Review

At this point, you can start a literature review because you have already synthesized relevant works in your mind and recorded the details. With that information in mind, it is time to begin composing the actual analysis and thoroughly creating each of the components of a literature review.  Initiate the process by highlighting your topic and your overall argument or view.  Just like any other academic essay , your project must be well-structured and contain an introduction, main part, and conclusion. Consider the following explanations on how to write a literature review for a dissertation, thesis, or research paper.

Literature Review Introduction

The introduction section should provide the necessary background information and clarify the purpose of your analysis.  Begin by broadly announcing the topic and providing contextual details of major concepts and terms, such as what is already known about the subject and how the field has developed. Next, provide specific and relevant information about the issue and explain why it is important or why readers should engage with your work. Finally, describe the organization, scope, and aim or highlight the key points that will be discussed. Look at the following example to see how you can write an introduction for a literature review. Literature Review Introduction Example

The concentration of carbon emissions has been increasing throughout the years. The amount was 290 ppm before the industrial revolution but rose to 450 ppm afterward (Block, 2019, Wbeltz, 2020). These changes will affect the global climate significantly by influencing mean temperatures and precipitation levels. In turn, this will put pressure on global agricultural production and affect the growth speed, crop quality, and yield of staple foods like wheat (Wbeltz, 2020). Since over 90% of people worldwide depend on this crop, it must survive any climate changes. Thus, the purpose of this review is to evaluate how carbon emissions will affect global wheat production and identify any mitigation measures. The paper will explore wheat growth, yield, and quality in the face of elevated carbon levels.

Lit Review Body

The body section of your literature review is where you analyze relevant studies related to your topic. It is essential to organize your analysis coherently and logically.  Identify important sub-topics and structuring them to support your arguments. Using subheadings under major themes can help to order and focus your work effectively.  While writing the body of your literature review, you should critically examine texts.  This involves recognizing gaps, points of agreement or disagreement, and key subjects.  You can structure this section chronologically, thematically, theoretically, or methodologically, depending on your research question and the nature of your sources. Remember to use reliable and accurate references to support your arguments. Consider this example: Example of a Literature Review Paper Body Section

Various studies show that elevated carbon emissions result in increased crop growth. Adams (2018) attributes this to improved photosynthesis in leaves when exposed to high carbon levels in the air. Other studies argue that carbon enriches crops, accelerates and amplifies their productivity, and causes improved growth (Hog, 2020). In an experimental study, Li (2019) compared crop growth under high carbon conditions and found that a 500 ppm level enhances growth by nearly 8%. Nevertheless, high carbon levels also result in other effects such as high temperatures (Daley, 2019). In turn, this leads to short growth periods or cycles. Thus, an increase in temperature while accelerating the time for growth adversely affects crop quality (Adams, 2020).

Literature Review Conclusion

The concluding section of a literature review should show how you addressed the topic or achieved your purpose. You should then mention the major arguments you examined before identifying their implications in the broader field. Remember to recommend any applicable future research. Also, keep in mind these things when writing your literature review conclusion:

• Avoid in-text citations.
• Do not include new information.
• Highlight main ideas raised in the body paragraphs.
• Give your general view of the studies and explain your conclusions and underlying reasons.

Here is a sample literature review conclusion. Literature Review Conclusion Example

The review aimed to explore the effect of elevated carbon levels on global wheat production. Assessments of effects on the crop’s growth, yield, and quality were conducted to understand how changes in climate due to increasing carbon emissions will affect global agriculture. Findings demonstrate a definite impact of these changes on the aforementioned aspects. In particular, elevated carbon levels lead to enhanced growth, shorter growth cycle, and low and poor quality yields. It is suggested that future studies should further explore the role of other factors such as soil health and fertilizer use in explaining these effects because modern agricultural techniques are considered to harm soil quality.

7. Proofread and Revise Your Review of Literature

Once you are done with reviewing your literature, give yourself some time off and then come back to edit it. Attend to its narrative and flow by ensuring that all parts fit together and transition smoothly from one paragraph to another. Improve any poor connections, revise to enhance clarity, or re-write sentences to eradicate construction mistakes. You can then give your scientific literature review to a colleague or friend, who is not an expert in the field, and ask their opinion about the message of your overall paper. Also, seek responses from your supervisor if possible. Use any feedback you get to better your project further. At this point, you understand how to do a lit review. Additional tips are provided below.

Literature Review Format

Besides following the aforementioned steps, you must also consider how to format a literature review. Be sure to check with your institution or target journal about style guidelines and the specific rules of your work’s layout.  Each style has instructions regarding the major sections, in-text citations, and a literature reference page.  For example, an APA paper format is based on an “author-date” approach, in which the author’s name and publication year are cited inside the document. A reference list is included on your paper’s last page. APA literature review format is dominant in the sciences, psychology, and education fields.  In contrast, an MLA format paper follows a “researcher-page number” style accompanied by works cited page, which is common in the humanities.  A Chicago style paper requires footnotes or endnotes with a bibliography section for all sources. It is mostly used in fine arts, history, and business disciplines.

Literature Review Examples

At this point, you are ready to start writing your review. Before proceeding, it is advisable to consider an example of literature review in a research paper, thesis or dissertation in your field. Thoroughly read the samples you find to get familiar with aspects such as organization, argument presentation, and referencing sources correctly. This is an effective way of learning ways of framing and structuring your work. Additionally, going through how to write a literature review example helps you understand what is expected in this task. Also, when reading these samples, pay attention to the academic language used. Look at the following free examples: Literature review example (APA 7th Edition)

Literature review for research paper example

Thesis/dissertation literature review example

Tips on Writing a Literature Review in Research

Now that you have a well-rounded idea about how to write a literature review, read the recommendation described here as they remind you of essential points. Before proceeding, remember that you should include sources that are associated with your work directly. This helps you avoid frustrating and distracting readers or making them lose sight of your purpose. Also, once you start writing your review, stick to the previously created outline and keep these tips in mind:

• Analyze Do not just list studies, rather, examine them critically to find similarities, differences, relationships, or contradictions.
• Time management Take your time to select a topic, gather literature, evaluate, read, and write. The last part should take about half of your time, while the remainder is for the other tasks.
• Revise Anticipate revising countless times before delivering a final version.
• Presentation A literature review in a research paper, thesis or dissertation must be specific and provide concrete examples. For example, rather than “this” use “this result”. First-person references should be avoided because they signal unsupported arguments. Everything written should have a reason. Also, use short paragraphs as they are easier to read. Additionally, structure your work with headings, subheadings, and subsections to make it flow.
• Paraphrase Avoid relying too much on quoting directly from sources or one researcher. Rather, paraphrase and compare authors between themselves and with your ideas.
• References Give credit to every outside idea or language by citing their work in your paper.

Literature Review Checklist

Now that you are through with composing your literature review, it is essential to be sure that your work is ready for delivery or publication. Therefore, you must take your time and reflect on the following questions to ensure that every section is covered thoroughly. Consider this final checklist:

• checkbox I stated the reason for conducting my project and outlined its scope.
• checkbox I chose relevant and credible studies.
• checkbox I have identified recent trends.
• checkbox I have logically presented a review of literature in my research paper or dissertation.
• checkbox I organized my information based on themes/issues/methods/theories.
• checkbox I have located gaps in research and literature.
• checkbox I displayed how details supporting a topic relate to its significance.
• checkbox I wrote my literature review critically.
• checkbox I have demonstrated instances when findings contradicted each other or were inconclusive.
• checkbox I explored designs, theories, questions, models, and hypotheses.
• checkbox I highlighted each source’s importance to my theme.
• checkbox I have included an introduction, body, and conclusion.
• checkbox I have checked for grammatical issues.

Final Thoughts on Writing a Scientific Literature Review

We have provided you with all the necessary information on how to write a review of literature. Follow our step-by-step guide to identify the right keywords, evaluate sources, and select credible and relevant articles. Make sure to structure your writing clearly and logically using the key components of a literature review that we have outlined for you.  To help you further, we have included examples of literature reviews for you to check. With these simplified requirements, you are ready to start practicing and creating your own literature reviews. Remember, practice is essential to mastering this type of writing, so keep it up!

If you are looking for some quick solution, we got you covered! Go to StudyCrumb and ask our professional writers for help. Just leave a ‘ write my paper ’ notice along with requirements and get high-quality work that will bring you an A.

FAQ About Literature Reviews

1. what is a literature review in a research paper.

The literature review of a research paper is a type of academic essay that analyzes and evaluates previous or existing studies on a topic. It aims to survey readings, synthesize, and digest the obtained information. It also critically explores the data by identifying gaps in knowledge, demonstrating limitations in manuscripts, examining contradictions, and determining areas for additional research. The final piece is presented logically.

2. Where does a literature review go in a research paper?

A literature review generally comes after an introduction and before the methodology chapter of dissertations. Here, it is used to analyze relevant scholarship about a topic, ground your research paper in a specific field, and inform your data collection methods and analysis procedures.

3. How to start a literature review?

Start a literature review by describing the background of what you will analyze in your body paragraphs. There is no need to be comprehensive here. Rather, show that you clearly understand your paper’s scope. In particular, begin by conveying the established ideas and knowledge on the subject being explored to your audience.

4. What is the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography?

The main difference between the two is that literature reviews focus on providing an overview and analysis of existing research on a particular theme. They aim to identify the strengths and weaknesses of arguments and draw conclusions. In contrast, the purpose of an annotated bibliography is to collect sources for a specific project and offer summaries of what they are about.

5. What is the importance of a literature review?

A literature review is important because:

• It establishes a rapport with your readers They will trust you because you have examined and analyzed facts appropriately.
• Helps researchers deliver original work The entire process of conducting the assessment assists you to evade repeating something done by someone else.
• It improves your research focus Synthesizing and analyzing studies can guide and shape your investigation in new directions by providing novel insights and views on a theme.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part 1: Introduction to research

5. Writing your literature review

Chapter outline.

• Reading results (16 minute read)
• Synthesizing information (16 minute read)
• Writing a literature review (18 minute read)

Content warning: examples in this chapter contain references to domestic violence and details on types of abuse, drug use, poverty, mental health, sexual harassment and details on harassing behaviors, children’s mental health, LGBTQ+ oppression and suicide, obesity, anti-poverty stigma, and psychotic disorders.

5.1 Reading results

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

• Describe how statistical significance and confidence intervals demonstrate which results are most important
• Differentiate between qualitative and quantitative results in an empirical journal article

If you recall from section 3.1 , empirical journal articles are those that report the results of quantitative or qualitative data analyzed by the author. They follow a set structure—introduction, methods, results, discussion/conclusions. This section is about reading the most challenging section: results.

Read beyond the abstract

At this point, I have read hundreds of literature reviews written by students. One of the challenges I have noted is that students will report the results as summarized in the abstract, rather than the detailed findings laid out in the results section of the article. This poses a problem when you are writing a literature review because you need to provide specific and clear facts that support your reading of the literature. The abstract may say something like: “we found that poverty is associated with mental health status.” For your literature review, you want the details, not the summary. In the results section of the article, you may find a sentence that states: “children living in households experiencing poverty are three times more likely to have a mental health diagnosis.” This more specific statistical information provides a stronger basis on which to build the arguments in your literature review.

Using the summarized results in an abstract is an understandable mistake to make. The results section often contains figures and tables that may be challenging to understand. Often, without having completed more advanced coursework on statistical or qualitative analysis, some of the terminology, symbols, or diagrams may be difficult to comprehend. This section is all about how to read and interpret the results of an empirical (quantitative or qualitative) journal article. Our discussion here will be basic, and in parts three and four of the textbook, you will learn more about how to interpret results from statistical tests and qualitative data analysis.

Remember, this section only addresses empirical articles. Non-empirical articles (e.g., theoretical articles, literature reviews) don’t have results. They cite the analysis of raw data completed by other authors, not the person writing the journal article who is merely summarizing others’ work.

Quantitative results

Quantitative articles often contain tables, and scanning them is a good way to begin reading the results. A table usually provides a quick, condensed summary of the report’s key findings. Tables are a concise way to report large amounts of data. Some tables present descriptive information about a researcher’s sample (often the first table in a results section). These tables will likely contain frequencies (N) and percentages (%). For example, if gender happened to be an important variable for the researcher’s analysis, a descriptive table would show how many and what percent of all study participants are of a particular gender. Frequencies or “how many” will probably be listed as N, while the percent symbol (%) might be used to indicate percentages.

In a table presenting a causal relationship, two sets of variables are represented. The independent variable , or cause, and the dependent variable , the effect. We’ll go into more detail on variables in Chapter 8 . Independent variable attributes are typically presented in the table’s columns, while dependent variable attributes are presented in rows. This allows the reader to scan a table’s rows to see how values on the dependent variable change as the independent variable values change. Tables displaying results of quantitative analysis will also likely include some information about which relationships are significant or not. We will discuss the details of significance and p-values later in this section.

Let’s look at a specific example: Table 5.1. It presents the causal relationship between gender and experiencing harassing behaviors at work. In this example, gender is the independent variable (the cause) and the harassing behaviors listed are the dependent variables (the effects). [1] Therefore, we place gender in the table’s columns and harassing behaviors in the table’s rows.

Reading across the table’s top row, we see that 2.9% of women in the sample reported experiencing subtle or obvious threats to their safety at work, while 4.7% of men in the sample reported the same. We can read across each of the rows of the table in this way. Reading across the bottom row, we see that 9.4% of women in the sample reported experiencing staring or invasion of their personal space at work while just 2.3% of men in the sample reported having the same experience. We’ll discuss  p values later in this section.

While you can certainly scan tables for key results, they are often difficult to understand without reading the text of the article. The article and table were meant to complement each other, and the text should provide information on how the authors interpret their findings. The table is not redundant with the text of the results section. Additionally, the first table in most results sections is a summary of the study’s sample, which provides more background information on the study than information about hypotheses and findings. It is also a good idea to look back at the methods section of the article as the data analysis plan the authors outline should walk you through the steps they took to analyze their data which will inform how they report them in the results section.

Statistical significance

The statistics reported in Table 5.1 represent what the researchers found in their sample. The purpose of statistical analysis is usually to generalize from a the small number of people in a study’s sample to a larger population of people. Thus, the researchers intend to make causal arguments about harassing behaviors at workplaces beyond those covered in the sample.

Generalizing is key to understanding statistical significance . According to Cassidy and colleagues, (2019) [2] 89% of research methods textbooks in psychology define statistical significance incorrectly. This includes an early draft of this textbook which defined statistical significance as “the likelihood that the relationships we observe could be caused by something other than chance.” If you have previously had a research methods class, this might sound familiar to you. It certainly did to me!

But statistical significance is less about “random chance” than more about the null hypothesis . Basically, at the beginning of a study a researcher develops a hypothesis about what they expect to find, usually that there is a statistical relationship between two or more variables . The null hypothesis is the opposite. It is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between the variables in a research study. Researchers then can hopefully reject the null hypothesis because they find a relationship between the variables.

For example, in Table 5.1 researchers were examining whether gender impacts harassment. Of course, researchers assumed that women were more likely to experience harassment than men. The null hypothesis, then, would be that gender has no impact on harassment. Once we conduct the study, our results will hopefully lead us to reject the null hypothesis because we find that gender impacts harassment. We would then generalize from our study’s sample to the larger population of people in the workplace.

Statistical significance is calculated using a p-value which is obtained by comparing the statistical results with a hypothetical set of results if the researchers re-ran their study a large number of times. Keeping with our example, imagine we re-ran our study with different men and women from different workplaces hundreds and hundred of times and we assume that the null hypothesis is true that gender has no impact on harassment. If results like ours come up pretty often when the null hypothesis is true, our results probably don’t mean much. “The smaller the p-value, the greater the statistical incompatibility with the null hypothesis” (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016, p. 131). [3] Generally, researchers in the social sciences have used 0.05 as the value at which a result is significant (p is less than 0.05) or not significant (p is greater than 0.05). The p-value 0.05 refers to if 5% of those hypothetical results from re-running our study show the same or more extreme relationships when the null hypothesis is true. Researchers, however, may choose a stricter standard such as 0.01 in which only 1% of those hypothetical results are more extreme or a more lenient standard like 0.1 in which 10% of those hypothetical results are more extreme than what was found in the study.

Let’s look back at Table 5.1. Which one of the relationships between gender and harassing behaviors is statistically significant? It’s the last one in the table, “staring or invasion of personal space,” whose p-value is 0.039 (under the p<0.05 standard to establish statistical significance). Again, this indicates that if we re-ran our study over and over again and gender did not  impact staring/invasion of space (i.e., the null hypothesis was true), only 3.9% of the time would we find similar or more extreme differences between men and women than what we observed in our study. Thus, we conclude that for staring or invasion of space only , there is a statistically significant relationship.

For contrast, let’s look at “being pushed, hit, or grabbed” and run through the same analysis to see if it is statistically significant. If we re-ran our study over and over again and the null hypothesis was true, 48% of the time (p=.48) we would find similar or more extreme differences between men and women. That means these results are not statistically significant.

This discussion should also highlight a point we discussed previously: that it is important to read the full results section, rather than simply relying on the summary in the abstract. If the abstract stated that most tests revealed no statistically significant relationships between gender and harassment, you would have missed the detail on which behaviors were and were not associated with gender. Read the full results section! And don’t be afraid to ask for help from a professor in understanding what you are reading, as results sections are often not written to be easily understood.

Statistical significance and p-values have been critiqued recently for a number of reasons, including that they are misused and misinterpreted (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016) [4] , that researchers deliberately manipulate their analyses to have significant results (Head et al., 2015) [5] , and factor into the difficulty scientists have today in reproducing many of the results of previous social science studies (Peng, 2015). [6] For this reason, we share these principles, adapted from those put forth by the American Statistical Association, [7]  for understanding and using p-values in social science:

• P-values provide evidence against a null hypothesis.
• P-values do not indicate whether the results were produced by random chance alone or if the researcher’s hypothesis is true, though both are common misconceptions.
• Statistical significance can be detected in minuscule differences that have very little effect on the real world.
• Nuance is needed to interpret scientific findings, as a conclusion does not become true or false when the p-value passes from p=0.051 to p=0.049.
• Real-world decision-making must use more than reported p-values. It’s easy to run analyses of large datasets and only report the significant findings.
• Greater confidence can be placed in studies that pre-register their hypotheses and share their data and methods openly with the public.
• “By itself, a p-value does not provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis. For example, a p-value near 0.05 taken by itself offers only weak evidence against the null hypothesis. Likewise, a relatively large p-value does not imply evidence in favor of the null hypothesis; many other hypotheses may be equally or more consistent with the observed data” (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016, p. 132).

Confidence intervals

Because of the limitations of p-values, scientists can use other methods to determine whether their models of the world are true. One common approach is to use a confidence interval , or a range of values in which the true value is likely to be found. Confidence intervals are helpful because, as principal #5 above points out, p-values do not measure the size of an effect (Greenland et al., 2016). [8] Remember, something that has very little impact on the world can be statistically significant, and the values in a confidence interval would be helpful. In our example from Table 5.1, imagine our analysis produced a confidence interval that women are 1.2-3.4x more likely to experience “staring or invasion of personal space” than men. As with p-values, calculation for a confidence interval compares what was found in one study with a hypothetical set of results if we repeated the study over and over again. If we calculated 95% confidence intervals for all of the hypothetical set of hundreds and hundreds of studies, that would be our confidence interval. 

Confidence intervals are pretty intuitive. As of this writing, my wife and are expecting our second child. The doctor told us our due date was December 11th. But the doctor also told us that December 11th was only their best estimate. They were actually 95% sure our baby might be born any time in the 30-day period between November 27th and December 25th. Confidence intervals are often listed with a percentage, like 90% or 95%, and a range of values, such as between November 27th and December 25th. You can read that as: “we are 95% sure your baby will be born between November 27th and December 25th because we’ve studied hundreds of thousands of fetuses and mothers, and we’re 95% sure your baby will be within these two dates.”

Notice that we’re hedging our bets here by using words like “best estimate.” When testing hypotheses, social scientists generally phrase their findings in a tentative way, talking about what results “indicate” or “support,” rather than making bold statements about what their results “prove.” Social scientists have humility because they understand the limitations of their knowledge. In a literature review, using a single study or fact to “prove” an argument right or wrong is often a signal to the person reading your literature review (usually your professor) that you may not have appreciated the limitations of that study or its place in the broader literature on the topic. Strong arguments in a literature review include multiple facts and ideas that span across multiple studies.

You can learn more about creating tables, reading tables, and tests of statistical significance in a class focused exclusively on statistical analysis. We provide links to many free and openly licensed resources on statistics in Chapter 16 . For now, we hope this brief introduction to reading tables will improve your confidence in reading and understanding the results sections in quantitative empirical articles.

Qualitative results

Quantitative articles will contain a lot of numbers and the results of statistical tests demonstrating associations between those numbers. Qualitative articles, on the other hand, will consist mostly of quotations from participants. For most qualitative articles, the authors want to put their results in the words of their participants, as they are the experts. Articles that lack quotations make it difficult to assess whether the researcher interpreted the data in a trustworthy, unbiased manner. These types of articles may also indicate how often particular themes or ideas came up in the data, potentially reflective of how important they were to participants.

Authors often organize qualitative results by themes and subthemes. For example, see this snippet from the results section in Bonanno and Veselak (2019) [9] discussion parents’ attitudes towards child mental health information sources.

Data analysis revealed four themes related to participants’ abilities to access mental health help and information for their children, and parents’ levels of trust in these sources. These themes are: others’ firsthand experiences family and friends with professional experience, protecting privacy, and uncertainty about schools as information sources. Trust emerged as an overarching and unifying concept for all of these themes. Others’ firsthand experiences. Several participants reported seeking information from other parents who had experienced mental health struggles similar to their own children. They often referenced friends or family members who had been or would be good sources of information due to their own personal experiences. The following quote from Adrienne demonstrates the importance of firsthand experience: [I would only feel comfortable sharing concerns or asking for advice] if I knew that they had been in the same situation. (Adrienne) Similarly, Michelle said: And I talked to a friend of mine who has kids who have IEPs in the district to see, kind of, how did she go about it. (Michelle) … Friends/family with professional experience . Several respondents referred to friends or family members who had professional experience with or knowledge of child mental health and suggested that these individuals would be good sources of information. For example, Hannah said: Well, what happened with me was I have an uncle who’s a psychiatrist. Sometimes if he’s up in (a city to the north), he’s retired, I can call him sometimes and get information. (Hannah) Michelle, who was in nursing school, echoed this sentiment: At this point, [if my child’s behavioral difficulties continued], I would probably call one of my [nursing] professors. That’s what I’ve done in the past when I’ve needed help with certain things…I have a professor who I would probably consider a friend who I would probably talk to first. She has a big adolescent practice. (Michelle) (p. 402-403)

The terms in bold above refer to the key themes (i.e., qualitative results) that were present in the data. Researchers will state the process by which they interpret each theme, providing a definition and usually some quotations from research participants. Researchers will also draw connections between themes, note consensus or conflict over themes, and situate the themes within the study context.

Qualitative results are specific to the time, place, and culture in which they arise, so you will have to use your best judgment to determine whether these results are relevant to your study. For example, students in my class at Radford University in Southwest Virginia may be studying rural populations. Would a study on group homes in a large urban city transfer well to group homes in a rural area?

Maybe. But even if you were using data from a qualitative study in another rural area, are all rural areas the same? How is the client population and sociocultural context in the article similar or different to the one in your study? Qualitative studies have tremendous depth, but researchers must be intentional about drawing conclusions about one context based on a study in another context.

Key Takeaways

• The results section of empirical articles are often the most difficult to understand.
• To understand a quantitative results section, look for results that were statistically significant and examine the confidence interval, if provided.
• To understand a qualitative results section, look for definitions of themes or codes and use the quotations provided to understand the participants’ perspective.

Select a quantitative empirical article related to your topic.

• Write down the results the authors identify as statistically significant in the results section.
• How do the authors interpret their results in the discussion section?
• Do the authors provide enough information in the introduction for you to understand their results?

Select a qualitative empirical article relevant to your topic.

• Write down the key themes the authors identify and how they were defined by the participants.

5.2 Organizing information

• Describe how to use summary tables to organize information from empirical articles
• Describe how to use topical outlines to organize information from the literature reviews of articles you read
• Create a concept map that visualizes the key concepts and relationships relevant to your working question
• Use what you learn in the literature search to revise your working question

This section will introduce you to three tools scholars use to organize and synthesize (i.e., weave together) information from multiple sources. First, we will discuss how to build a summary table containing information from empirical articles that are highly relevant—from literature review, to methods and results—to your entire research proposal. These are articles you will need to know the details of back-to-front because they are so highly related to your proposed study.

Second, we’ll discuss what to do with the other articles you’ve downloaded. As we’ve discussed previously, you’re not going to read most of the sources you download from start-to-finish. Instead, you’ll look at the author’s literature review, key ideas, and skim for any relevant passages for your project. As you do so, you should create a topical outline that organizes all relevant facts you might use in your literature that you’ve collected from the abstract, literature review, and conclusion of the articles you’ve found. Of course, it is important to note the original source of the information you are citing.

Finally, we will revisit concept mapping as a technique for visualizing the concepts in your study. Altogether, these techniques should help you create intermediary products—documents you are not likely to show to anyone or turn in for a grade—but that are vital steps to a final research proposal.

Organizing empirical articles using a summary table

Your research proposal is an empirical project. You will collect raw data and analyze it to answer your question. Over the next few weeks, identify about 10 articles that are empirically similar to the study you want to conduct. If you plan on conducting surveys of practitioners, it’s a good idea for you to read in detail other articles that have used similar methods (sampling, measures, data analysis) and asked similar questions to your proposal. A summary table can help you organize these Top 10 articles: empirical articles that are highly relevant to your proposal and working question.

Using the annotations in Section 4.2 as a guide, create a spreadsheet or Word table with your annotation categories as columns and each source as new row. For example, I was searching for articles on using a specific educational technique in the literature. I wanted to know whether other researchers found positive results, how big their samples were, and whether they were conducted at a single school or across multiple schools. I looked through each empirical article on the topic and filled in a summary table. At the end, I could do an easy visual analysis and state that most studies revealed no significant results and that there were few multi-site studies. These arguments were then included in my literature review. These tables are similar to those you will find in a systematic review article.

A basic summary table is provided in Figure 5.1. A more detailed example is available from Elaine Gregersen’s blog , and you can download an Excel template from Raul Pacheco-Vega’s blog . Remember, although “the means of summarizing can vary, the key at this point is to make sure you understand what you’ve found and how it relates to your topic and research question” (Bennard et al., 2014, para. 10). [10] As you revisit and revise your working question over the next few weeks, think about those sources that are so relevant you need to understand every detail about them.

A good summary table will also ensure that when you cite these articles in your literature review, you are able to provide the necessary detail and context for readers to properly understand the results. For example, one of the common errors I see in student literature reviews is using a small, exploratory study to represent the truth about a larger population. You will also notice important differences in how variables are measured or how people are sampled, for instance, and these details are often the source of a good critical review of the literature.

• Using your folder of article PDFs from you’ve downloaded in previous exercises, identify which articles are likely to be most relevant to your proposed study. This may change as you revise your working question and study design over the next few weeks. Create a list of 10 articles that are highly relevant to the extent that you will need to remember key details from each section of the article.
• Create a spreadsheet for your summary table and save it in your project folder on your hard drive. Using one of the templates linked in this chapter, fill in the columns of your spreadsheet. Enter the information from one of the articles you’ve read so far. As you finalize your research question over the next few weeks, fill in your summary table with the 5 most relevant empirical articles on your topic.

Synthesizing facts using a topical outline

If we’re only reading 10 articles in detail, what do we do with the others? Raul Pacheco-Vega recommends using the AIC approach : read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion (and the discussion section, in empirical articles). For non-empirical articles, it’s a little less clear but the first few pages and last few pages of an article usually contain the author’s reading of the relevant literature and their principal conclusions. You may also want to skim the first and last sentence of each paragraph. Only read paragraphs in which you are likely to find information relevant to your working question. Skimming like this gives you the general point of the article, though you should read in detail the most valuable resource of all—another author’s literature review.

It’s impossible to read all of the literature about your topic. You will read about 10 articles in detail. For a few dozen more (there is no magic number), you will read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, skim the rest of the article, but ultimately never read everything. Make the most out of the articles you do read by extracting as many facts as possible from each. You are starting your research project without a lot of knowledge of the topic you want to study, and by using the literature reviews provided in academic journal articles, you can gain a lot of knowledge about a topic in a short period of time. This way, by reading only a small number of articles, you are also reading their citations and synthesis of dozens of other articles as well.

As you read an article in detail, we suggest copying any facts you find relevant in a separate word processing document. Another idea is to copy anything you’ve annotated as background information in Section 4.2 into an outline. Copying and pasting from PDF to Word can be difficult because PDFs are image files, not documents. To make that easier, use the HTML version of the article, convert the PDF to Word in Adobe Acrobat or another PDF reader, or use the “paste special” command to paste the content into Word without formatting. If it’s an old PDF, you may have to simply type out the information you need. It can be a messy job, but having all of your facts in one place is very helpful when drafting your literature review.

You should copy and paste any fact or argument you consider important. Some good examples include definitions of concepts, statistics about the size of the social problem, and empirical evidence about the key variables in the research question, among countless others. It’s a good idea to consult with your professor and the course syllabus to understand what they are looking for when reading your literature review. Facts for your literature review are principally found in the introduction, results, and discussion section of an empirical article or at any point in a non-empirical article. Copy and paste into your notes anything you may want to use in your literature review.

Importantly, you must make sure you note the original source of each bit of information you copy. Nothing is worse than needing to track down a source for fact you read who-knows-where. If you found a statistic that the author used in the introduction, it almost certainly came from another source that the author cited in a footnote or internal citation. You will want to check the original source to make sure the author represented the information correctly. Moreover, you may want to read the original study to learn more about your topic and discover other sources relevant to your inquiry.

Assuming you have pulled all of the facts out of multiple articles, it’s time to start thinking about how these pieces of information relate to each other. Start grouping each fact into categories and subcategories as shown in Table 5.2. For example, a statistic stating that single adults who are homeless are more likely to be male may fit into a category of gender and homelessness. For each topic or subtopic you identify during your critical analysis of each paper, determine what those papers have in common. Likewise, determine which differ. If there are contradictory findings, you may be able to identify methodological or theoretical differences that could account for these contradictions. For example, one study may sample only high-income earners or those living in a rural area. Determine what general conclusions you can report about the topic or subtopic, based on all of the information you’ve found.

Create a separate document containing a topical outline that combines your facts from each source and organizes them by topic or category. As you include more facts and more sources in your topical outline, you will begin to see how each fact fits into a category and how categories are related to one another. Keep in mind that your category names may change over time, as may their definitions. This is a natural reflection of the learning you are doing.

A complete topical outline is a long list of facts arranged by category. As you step back from the outline, you should assess which topic areas for which you have enough research support to allow you to draw strong conclusions. You should also assess which areas you need to do more research in before you can write a robust literature review. The topical outline should serve as a transitional document between the notes you write on each source and the literature review you submit to your professor. It is important to note that they contain plagiarized information that is copied and pasted directly from the primary sources. In this case, it is not problematic because these are just notes and are not meant to be turned in as your own ideas. For your final literature review, you must paraphrase these sources to avoid plagiarism. More importantly, you should keep your voice and ideas front-and-center in what you write as this is your analysis of the literature. Make strong claims and support them thoroughly using facts you found in the literature. We will pick up the task of writing your literature review in section 5.3.

• In your folder full of article PDFs, look for the most relevant review articles. If you don’t have any, try to look for some. If there are none in your topic area, you can also use other non-empirical articles or empirical articles with long literature reviews (in the introduction and discussion sections).
• Create a word processing document for your topical outline and save it in your project folder on your hard drive. Using a review article, start copying facts you identified as Background Information or Results into your topical outline. Try to organize each fact by topic or theme. Make sure to copy the internal citation for the original source of each fact. For articles that do not use internal citations, create one using the information in the footnotes and references. As you finalize your research question over the next few weeks, skim the literature reviews of the articles you download for key facts and copy them into your topical outline.

Putting the pieces together: Building a concept map

Developing a concept map or mind map around your topic can be helpful in figuring out how the facts fit together. We talked about concept mapping briefly in Chapter 2 , when we were first thinking about your topic and sketching out what you already know about it. Concept mapping during the literature review stage of a research project builds on this foundation of knowledge and aims to improve the “description of the breadth and depth of literature in a domain of inquiry. It also facilitates identification of the number and nature of studies underpinning mapped relationships among concepts, thus laying the groundwork for systematic research reviews and meta-analyses” (Lesley, Floyd, & Oermann, 2002, p. 229). [11] Its purpose, like other question refinement methods, is to help you organize, prioritize, and integrate material into a workable research area—one that is interesting, answerable, feasible, objective, scholarly, original, and clear.

Think about the topics you created in your topic outline. How do they relate to one another? Within each topic, how do facts relate to one another? As you write down what you have, think about what you already know. What other related concepts do you not yet have information about? What relationships do you need to investigate further? Building a conceptual map should help you understand what you already know, what you need to learn next, and how you can organize a literature review.

This technique is illustrated in this YouTube video about concept mapping . You may want to indicate which concepts and relationships you’ve already found in your review and which ones you think might be true but haven’t found evidence of yet. Once you get a sense of how your concepts are related and which relationships are important to you, it’s time to revise your working question.

• Create a concept map using a pencil and paper.
• Identify the key ideas inside the literature, how they relate to one another, and the facts you know about them.
• Reflect on those areas you need to learn more about prior to writing your literature review.
• As you finalize your research question over the next few weeks, update your concept map and think about how you might organize it into a written literature review.
• Refer to the topics and headings you use in your topical outline and think about what literature you have that helps you understand each concept and relationship between them in your concept map.

Revising your working question

You should be revisiting your working question throughout the literature review process. As you continue to learn more about your topic, your question will become more specific and clearly worded. This is normal, and there is no way to shorten this process. Keep revising your question in order to ensure it will contribute something new to the literature on your topic, is relevant to your target population, and is feasible for you to conduct as a student project.

For example, perhaps your initial idea or interest is how to prevent obesity. After an initial search of the relevant literature, you realize the topic of obesity is too broad to adequately cover in the time you have to do your project. You decide to narrow your focus to causes of childhood obesity. After reading some articles on childhood obesity, you further narrow your search to the influence of family risk factors on overweight children. A potential research question might then be, “What maternal factors are associated with toddler obesity in the United States?” You would then need to return to the literature to find more specific studies related to the variables in this question (e.g. maternal factors, toddler, obesity, toddler obesity).

Similarly, after an initial literature search for a broad topic such as school performance or grades, examples of a narrow research question might be:

• “To what extent does parental involvement in children’s education relate to school performance over the course of the early grades?”
• “Do parental involvement levels differ by family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics?”
• “What forms of parent involvement are most highly correlated with children’s outcomes? What factors might influence the extent of parental involvement?” (Early Childhood Longitudinal Program, 2011). [12]

In either case, your literature search, working question, and understanding of the topic are constantly changing as your knowledge of the topic deepens. A literature review is an iterative process, one that stops, starts, and loops back on itself multiple times before completion. As research is a practice behavior of social workers, you should apply the same type of critical reflection to your inquiry as you would to your clinical or macro practice.

There are many ways to approach synthesizing literature. We’ve reviewed the following: summary tables, topical outlines, and concept maps. Other examples you may encounter include annotated bibliographies and synthesis matrices. As you are learning how to conduct research, find a method that works for you. Reviewing the literature is a core component of evidence-based practice in social work. See the resources below if you need some additional help:

Literature Reviews: Using a Matrix to Organize Research  / Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources  / Indiana University

Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix  / Florida International University

Sample Literature Reviews Grid  / Complied by Lindsay Roberts

Literature review preparation: Creating a summary table . (Includes transcript) / Laura Killam

• You won’t read every article all the way through. For most articles, reading the abstract, introduction, and conclusion are enough to determine its relevance. It’s expected that you skim or search for relevant sections of each article without reading the whole thing.
• For articles where everything seems relevant, use a summary table to keep track of details. These are particularly helpful with empirical articles.
• For articles with literature review content relevant to your topic, copy any relevant information into a topical outline, along with the original source of that information.
• Use a concept map to help you visualize the key concepts in your topic area and the relationships between them.
• Revise your working question regularly. As you do, you will likely need to revise your search queries and include new articles.
• Look back at the working question for your topic and consider any necessary revisions. It is important that questions become clearer and more specific over time. It is also common that your working question shift over time, sometimes drastically, as you explore new lines of inquiry in the literature. Return to your working question regularly and make sure it reflects the focus of your inquiry. You will continue to revise your working question until we formalize it into a research question at the end of Part 2 of this textbook.

5.3 Writing your literature review

• Describe the components of a literature review
• Begin to write your literature review
• Identify the purpose of a problem statement
• Apply the components of a formal argument to your topic
• Use elements of formal writing style, including signposting and transitions
• Recognize commons errors in literature reviews

Congratulations! By now, you should have discovered, retrieved, evaluated, synthesized, and organized the information you need for your literature review. It’s now time to turn that stack of articles, papers, and notes into a literature review–it’s time to start writing!

Writing about research is different than other types of writing. Research writing is not like a journal entry or opinion paper. The goal here is not to apply your research question to your life or growth as a practitioner. Research writing is about the provision and interpretation of facts. The tone should be objective and unbiased, and personal experiences and opinions are excluded. Particularly for students who are used to writing case notes, research writing can be a challenge. That’s why its important to normalize getting help! If your professor has not built in peer review, consider setting up a peer review group among your peers. You should also reach out to your academic advisor to see if there are writing services on your campus available to graduate students. No one should feel bad for needing help with something they haven’t done before, haven’t done in a while, or were never taught how to do. 

If you’ve followed the steps in this chapter, you likely have an outline, summary table, and concept map from which you can begin the writing process. But what do you need to include in your literature review? We’ve mentioned it before, but to summarize, a literature review should:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms.
• Establish the importance of the topic.
• Provide an overview of the important literature related to the concepts found in the research question.
• Identify gaps or controversies in the literature.
• Point out consistent findings across studies.
• Synthesize that which is known about a topic, rather than just provide a summary of the articles you read.
• Discuss possible implications and directions for future research.

Do you have enough facts and sources to accomplish these tasks? It’s a good time to consult your outlines and notes on each article you plan to include in your literature review. You may also want to consult with your professor on what is expected of you. If there is something you are missing, you may want to jump back to section 2.3 where we discussed how to search for literature. While you can always fill in material, there is the danger that you will start writing without really knowing what you are talking about or what you want to say. For example, if you don’t have a solid definition of your key concepts or a sense of how the literature has developed over time, it will be difficult to make coherent scholarly claims about your topic.

There is no magical point at which one is ready to write. As you consider whether you are ready, it may be useful to ask yourself these questions:

• How will my literature review be organized?
• What section headings will I be using?
• How do the various studies relate to each other?
• What contributions do they make to the field?
• Where are the gaps or limitations in existing research?
• And finally, but most importantly, how does my own research fit into what has already been done?

The problem statement

Scholarly works often begin with a problem statement, which serves two functions. First, it establishes why your topic is a social problem worth studying. Second, it pulls your reader into the literature review. Who would want to read about something unimportant?

A problem statement generally answers the following questions, though these are far from exhaustive:

• Why is this an important problem to study?
• How many people are affected by this problem?
• How does this problem impact other social issues relevant to social work?
• Why is your target population an important one to study?

A strong problem statement, like the rest of your literature review, should be filled with empirical results, theory, and arguments based on the extant literature. A research proposal differs significantly from other more reflective essays you’ve likely completed during your social work studies. If your topic were domestic violence in rural Appalachia, I’m sure you could come up with answers to the above questions without looking at a single source. However, the purpose of the literature review is not to test your intuition, personal experience, or empathy. Instead, research methods are about gaining specific and articulable knowledge to inform action. With a problem statement, you can take a “boring” topic like the color of rooms used in an inpatient psychiatric facility, transportation patterns in major cities, or the materials used to manufacture baby bottles, and help others see the topic as you see it—an important part of the social world that impacts social work practice.

The structure of a literature review

In general, the problem statement belongs at the beginning of the literature review. We usually advise students to spend no more than a paragraph or two for a problem statement. For the rest of your literature review, there is no set formula by which it needs to be organized. However, a literature review generally follows the format of any other essay—Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.

The introduction to the literature review contains a statement or statements about the overall topic. At a minimum, the introduction should define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. You might consider presenting historical background, mentioning the results of a seminal study, and providing definitions of important terms. The introduction may also point to overall trends in what has been previously published on the topic or on conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, conclusions, or gaps in research and scholarship. We also suggest putting in a few sentences that walk the reader through the rest of the literature review. Highlight your main arguments from the body of the literature review and preview your conclusion. An introduction should let the reader know what to expect from the rest of your review.

The body of your literature review is where you demonstrate your synthesis and analysis of the literature. Again, do not just summarize the literature. We would also caution against organizing your literature review by source—that is, one paragraph for source A, one paragraph for source B, etc. That structure will likely provide an adequate summary of the literature you’ve found, but it would give you almost no synthesis of the literature. That approach doesn’t tell your reader how to put those facts together, it doesn’t highlight points of agreement or contention, or how each study builds on the work of others. In short, it does not demonstrate critical thinking.

Organize your review by argument

Instead, use your outlines and notes as a guide what you have to say about the important topics you need to cover. Literature reviews are written from the perspective of an expert in that field. After an exhaustive literature review, you should feel as though you are able to make strong claims about what is true—so make them! There is no need to hide behind “I believe” or “I think.” Put your voice out in front, loud and proud! But make sure you have facts and sources that back up your claims.

I’ve used the term “ argument ” here in a specific way. An argument in writing means more than simply disagreeing with what someone else said, as this classic Monty Python sketch demonstrates. Toulman, Rieke, and Janik (1984) identify six elements of an argument:

• Claim: the thesis statement—what you are trying to prove
• Grounds: theoretical or empirical evidence that supports your claim
• Warrant: your reasoning (rule or principle) connecting the claim and its grounds
• Backing: further facts used to support or legitimize the warrant
• Qualifier: acknowledging that the argument may not be true for all cases
• Rebuttal: considering both sides (as cited in Burnette, 2012) [13]

Let’s walk through an example. If I were writing a literature review on a negative income tax, a policy in which people in poverty receive an unconditional cash stipend from the government each month equal to the federal poverty level, I would want to lay out the following:

• Claim: the negative income tax is superior to other forms of anti-poverty assistance.
• Grounds: data comparing negative income tax recipients to people receiving anti-poverty assistance in existing programs, theory supporting a negative income tax, data from evaluations of existing anti-poverty programs, etc.
• Warrant: cash-based programs like the negative income tax are superior to existing anti-poverty programs because they allow the recipient greater self-determination over how to spend their money.
• Backing: data demonstrating the beneficial effects of self-determination on people in poverty.
• Qualifier: the negative income tax does not provide taxpayers and voters with enough control to make sure people in poverty are not wasting financial assistance on frivolous items.
• Rebuttal: policy should be about empowering the oppressed, not protecting the taxpayer, and there are ways of addressing taxpayer spending concerns through policy design.

Like any effective argument, your literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that provide some detail, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or, it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another that seems inconsistent with the first, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally, may suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Use signposts

Another important issue is  signposting . It may not be a term you are familiar with, but you are likely familiar with the concept. Signposting refers to the words used to identify the organization and structure of your literature review to your reader. The most basic form of signposting is using a topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph. A topic sentence introduces the argument you plan to make in that paragraph. For example, you might start a paragraph stating, “There is strong disagreement in the literature as to whether psychedelic drugs cause people to develop psychotic disorders, or whether psychotic disorders cause people to use psychedelic drugs.” Within that paragraph, your reader would likely assume you will present evidence for both arguments. The concluding sentence of your paragraph should address the topic sentence, discussing how the facts and arguments from the paragraph you’ve written support a specific conclusion. To continue with our example, I might say, “There is likely a reciprocal effect in which both the use of psychedelic drugs worsens pre-psychotic symptoms and worsening psychosis increases the desire to use psychedelic drugs.”

Signposting also involves using headings and subheadings. Your literature review will use APA formatting, which means you need to follow their rules for bolding, capitalization, italicization, and indentation of headings. Headings help your reader understand the structure of your literature review. They can also help if the reader gets lost and needs to re-orient themselves within the document. We often tell our students to assume we know nothing (they don’t mind) and need to be shown exactly where they are addressing each part of the literature review. It’s like walking a small child around, telling them “First we’ll do this, then we’ll do that, and when we’re done, we’ll know this!”

Another way to use signposting is to open each paragraph with a sentence that links the topic of the paragraph with the one before it. Alternatively, one could end each paragraph with a sentence that links it with the next paragraph. For example, imagine we wanted to link a paragraph about barriers to accessing healthcare with one about the relationship between the patient and physician. We could use a transition sentence like this: “Even if patients overcome these barriers to accessing care, the physician-patient relationship can create new barriers to positive health outcomes.” A transition sentence like this builds a connection between two distinct topics. Transition sentences are also useful within paragraphs. They tell the reader how to consider one piece of information in light of previous information. Even simple transitional words like ‘however’ and ‘similarly’ can help demonstrate critical thinking and link each building block of your argument together.

Many beginning researchers have difficulty incorporating transitions into their writing. Let’s look at an example. Instead of beginning a sentence or paragraph by launching into a description of a study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

• Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004)…
• Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon…
• An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004)…

Now that we know to use signposts, the natural question is “What goes on the signposts?” First, it is important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument should then be apparent from the outline itself. Unfortunately, there is no formula we can give you that will work for everyone, but we can provide some general pointers on structuring your literature review.

The literature review tends to move from general to more specific ideas. You can build a review by identifying areas of consensus and areas of disagreement. You may choose to present historical studies—preferably seminal studies that are of significant importance—and close with the most recent research. Another approach is to start with the most distantly related facts and literature and then report on those most closely related to your research question. You could also compare and contrast valid approaches, features, characteristics, theories – that is, one approach, then a second approach, followed by a third approach.

Here are some additional tips for writing the body of your literature review:

• Start broad and then narrow down to more specific information.
• When appropriate, cite two or more sources for a single point, but avoid long strings of references for a single idea.
• Use quotes sparingly. Quotations for definitions are okay, but reserve quotes for when something is said so well you couldn’t possible phrase it differently. Never use quotes for statistics.
• Paraphrase when you need to relay the specific details within an article
• Include only the aspects of the study that are relevant to your literature review. Don’t insert extra facts about a study just to take up space.
• Avoid reflective, personal writing. It is traditional to avoid using first-person language (I, we, us, etc.).
• Avoid informal language like contractions, idioms, and rhetorical questions.
• Note any sections of your review that lack citations from the literature. Your arguments need to be based in empirical or theoretical facts. Do not approach this like a reflective journal entry.
• Point out consistent findings and emphasize stronger studies over weaker ones.
• Point out important strengths and weaknesses of research studies, as well as contradictions and inconsistent findings.
• Implications and suggestions for further research (where there are gaps in the current literature) should be specific.

The conclusion should summarize your literature review, discuss implications, and create a space for further research needed in this area. Your conclusion, like the rest of your literature review, should make a point. What are the important implications of your literature review? How do they inform the question you are trying to answer?

You should consult with your professor and the course syllabus about the final structure your literature review should take. Here is an example of one possible structure:

• Establish the importance of the topic
• Number and type of people affected
• Seriousness of the impact
• Physical, psychological, economic, social, or spiritual consequences of the problem
• Definitions of key terms
• Supporting evidence
• Common findings across studies, gaps in the literature
• Research question(s) and hypothesis(es)

Editing your literature review

Literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic. As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews represent a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing. We will explore these topics further in upcoming chapters. As you begin your literature review, here are some common errors to avoid:

• Accepting a researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Ignoring contrary findings and alternative interpretations
• Using findings that are not clearly related to your own study or using findings that are too general
• Dedicating insufficient time to literature searching
• Reporting statistical results from a single study, rather than synthesizing the results of multiple studies to provide a comprehensive view of the literature on a topic
• Relying too heavily on secondary sources
• Overusing quotations
• Not justifying arguments using specific facts or theories from the literature

For your literature review, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for the importance of your research question. As you start editing your literature review, make sure it is balanced. Accurately report common findings, areas where studies contradict each other, new theories or perspectives, and how studies cause us to reaffirm or challenge our understanding of your topic.

It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in social work can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. A large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer (University of Minnesota, 2016). [14]

In addition to subjectivity and bias, writer’s block can obstruct the completion of your literature review. Often times, writer’s block can stem from confusing the creating and editing parts of the writing process. Many writers often start by simply trying to type out what they want to say, regardless of how good it is. Author Anne Lamott (1995) [15] terms these “shitty first drafts,” and we all write them. They are a natural and important part of the writing process.

Even if you have a detailed outline from which to work, the words are not going to fall into place perfectly the first time you start writing. You should consider turning off the editing and critiquing part of your brain for a while and allow your thoughts to flow. Don’t worry about putting a correctly formatted internal citation (as long as  you know which source you used there) when you first write. Just get the information out. Only after you’ve reached a natural stopping point might you go back and edit your draft for grammar, APA style, organization, flow, and more. Divorcing the writing and editing process can go a long way to addressing writer’s block—as can picking a topic about which you have something to say!

As you are editing, keep in mind these questions adapted from Green (2012): [16]

• Content: Have I clearly stated the main idea or purpose of the paper? Is the thesis or focus clearly presented and appropriate for the reader?
• Organization: How well is it structured? Is the organization spelled out and easy to follow for the reader ?
• Flow: Is there a logical flow from section to section, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence? Are there transitions between and within paragraphs that link ideas together?
• Development: Have I validated the main idea with supporting material? Are supporting data sufficient? Does the conclusion match the introduction?
• Form: Are there any APA style issues, redundancy, problematic wording and terminology (always know the definition of any word you use!), flawed sentence constructions and selection, spelling, and punctuation?

Social workers use the APA style guide to format and structure their literature reviews. Most students know APA style only as it relates to internal and external citations. If you are confused about them, consult this amazing APA style guide from the University of Texas-Arlington library. Your university’s library likely has resources they created to help you with APA style, and you can meet with a librarian or your professor to talk about formatting questions you have. Make sure you budget in a few hours at the end of each project to build a correctly formatted references page and check your internal citations.

Of course, APA style is about much more than knowing there is a period after “et al.” or citing the location a book was published. APA style is also about what the profession considers to be good writing. If you haven’t picked up an APA publication manual because you use citation generators, know that I did the same thing when I was in school. Purchasing the APA manual can help you with a common problem we hear about from students. Every professor (and every website about APA style) seems to have their own peculiar idea of “correct” APA style that you can, if needed, demonstrate is not accurate.

Here are some additional resources, if you would like more guidance on writing your literature review.

Doing a literature review  / University of Leicester

Get lit: The literature review  / Texas A&M Writing Centre

Guidebook for social work literature reviews / by Rebecca Mauldin and Matthew DeCarlo

• A literature review is not a book report. Do not organize it by article, with one paragraph for each source in your references. Instead, organize it based on the key ideas and arguments.
• The problem statement draws the reader into your topic by highlighting the importance of the topic to social work and to society overall.
• Signposting is an important component of academic writing that helps your reader follow the structure of your argument and of your literature review.
• Transitions demonstrate critical thinking and help guide your reader through your arguments.
• Editing and writing are separate processes.
• Consult with an APA style guide or a librarian to help you format your paper.

Look at your professor’s prompt for the literature review component of your research proposal (or if you don’t have one, use the example question provided in this section).

• Write 2-3 facts you would use to address each question or component in the prompt.
• Reflect on which questions you have a lot of information about and which you need to gather more information about in order to answer adequately.

Outline the structure of your literature review using your concept map from Section 5.2 as a guide.

• Identify the key arguments you will make and how they are related to each other.
• Reflect on topic sentences and concluding sentences you would use for each argument.

Media Attributions

• Numbers © Pop and Zebra is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
• summary table © Laura Frederiksen is licensed under a Public Domain license
• problem-2731501_1920 © Geralt is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
• sign-2080927_1920 © MariaMichelle is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
• It wouldn’t make any sense to say that people’s workplace experiences cause  their gender, so in this example, the question of which is the independent variable and which are the dependent variables has a pretty obvious answer. ↵
• Cassidy, S. A., Dimova, R., Giguère, B., Spence, J. R., & Stanley, D. J. (2019). Failing grade: 89% of introduction-to-psychology textbooks that define or explain statistical significance do so incorrectly. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science ,  2 (3), 233-239. ↵
• Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70 , p. 129-133. ↵
• Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS biology, 13 (3). ↵
• Peng, R. (2015), The reproducibility crisis in science: A statistical counterattack. Significance , 12 , 30–32. ↵
• Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations.  European journal of epidemiology ,  31 (4), 337-350. ↵
• Bonanno, R., & Veselak, K. (2019). A matter of trust: Parents attitudes towards child mental health information sources.  Advances in Social Work ,  19 (2), 397-415. ↵
• Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014). Presenting: Sharing what you’ve learned. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.)  The information literacy users guide: An open online textbook .  https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/present-sharing-what-youve-learned/ ↵
• Leslie, M., Floyd, J., & Oermann, M. (2002). Use of MindMapper software for research domain mapping. Computers, informatics, nursing,  20(6), 229-235. ↵
• Early Childhood Longitudinal Program. (2011).  Example research questions .  https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/researchquestions2011.asp ↵
• Burnett, D. (2012). Inscribing knowledge: Writing research in social work. In W. Green & B. L. Simon (Eds.),  The Columbia guide to social work writing  (pp. 65-82). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ↵
• University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). This is a derivative of  Research Methods in Psychology  by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution, which was originally released and is used under CC BY-NC-SA. This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ↵
• Lamott, A. (1995). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life . New York, NY: Penguin. ↵
• Green, W. Writing strategies for academic papers. In W. Green & B. L. Simon (Eds.),  The Columbia guide to social work writing  (pp. 25-47). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ↵

report the results of a quantitative or qualitative data analysis conducted by the author

a quick, condensed summary of the report’s key findings arranged by row and column

causes a change in the dependent variable

a variable that depends on changes in the independent variable

(as in generalization) to make claims about a large population based on a smaller sample of people or items

"Assuming that the null hypothesis is true and the study is repeated an infinite number times by drawing random samples from the same populations(s), less than 5% of these results will be more extreme than the current result" (Cassidy et al., 2019, p. 233).

the assumption that no relationship exists between the variables in question

“a logical grouping of attributes that can be observed and measured and is expected to vary from person to person in a population” (Gillespie & Wagner, 2018, p. 9)

summarizes the incompatibility between a particular set of data and a proposed model for the data, usually the null hypothesis. The lower the p-value, the more inconsistent the data are with the null hypothesis, indicating that the relationship is statistically significant.

a range of values in which the true value is likely to be, to provide a more accurate description of their data

a statement about what you think is true backed up by evidence and critical thinking

the words used to identify the organization and structure of your literature review to your reader

what a researcher hopes to accomplish with their study

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2021 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Writing the Literature Review

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

• The Literature Review

What is the Purpose of the Review?

What is the scope of the review, strategies for getting started, types of literature reviews, composition guidelines, how to locate reviews by discipline, key takeaways.

We also provide the following activities:

Types of Literature Reviews [Refresher]

Writing the literature review [refresher], the literature review [1].

Conducting a literary studies research project involves time and effort, with much of it going towards the development of a literature review . A literature review might fill several pages of your research paper and usually appears soon after an introduction but before you present your detailed argument. A literature review provides your audience with an overview of the available research about your area(s) of study, including the literary work, your theory, and methodology. The literature review demonstrates how these scholarly discussions have changed over time, and it allows you to position your research in relation to research that has come before yours. Your aim is to present the discussion up to this point. Depending on the nature of the assignment, you may also include your critical commentary on prior research, noting among this material the weaker and stronger arguments, breakthroughs and dead ends, blind spots and opportunities, the invention of key terms and methods, mistakes as well as misreadings, and so on.

Once you have gathered the research materials you need for your literature review, you have another task: conducting an analysis on the research to see where your original contribution fits into the scholarly conversation. As the saying goes, “we are standing on the shoulders of giants.” Your job is to show a portrait of these giants to your audience, and to show how your work relates to the portrait. On many scholarly topics, literature reviews already exist. You may refer to such existing reviews within your own, indicating any materials might have been overlooked, new developments that have arisen since the publication of the existing literature review, and new perspectives or insights you have about the materials.

Some beginning researchers try to tear down the work of other researchers in an effort to make their own work look good by comparison. It rarely works. First, it tends to make your audience skeptical of your claims. Second, it ignores the fact that even the mistakes, blind spots, and failures of other researchers contribute something to our knowledge. Albert Einstein didn’t disrespect Sir Isaac Newton by saying Newton’s theory of space was wrong and terrible and that Einstein’s own theory was great by comparison. He built upon Newton’s work, showing how it could be improved. If, however, a researcher willfully set out to deceive or distort or to tear down the work of other scholars without good reason, then their work does not deserve such deference.

Most literature reviews appear after the introduction. It presents your reader with relevant information about the scholarly discussion up to now. Later in your paper, you discuss your contribution. Before you begin work on your literature review, let’s discuss what we mean by “literature”; understand the purpose and scope of the review; establish criteria for selecting, organizing, and interpreting your findings; and discuss how to connect your findings to your research question.

Many students seek to “find sources that agree with my claim or idea.” That approach is too narrow, in our view. If we use such an approach, we may get the following results:

• Because we can find sources that agree with almost any claim, readers will wonder whether your claims are weak and the sources are cherry picked.
• While literary scholars sometimes cite authorities to support their claims, they don’t rely only on authority. They respect authority, but not too much. Your own claims need to rely more on evidence (from the literary text, historical and biographical information), and your critical and creative reasoning skills.
• Scholarship is a conversation; thus, the goal is less about finding agreement and more about joining the conversation with the aim of making a valuable contribution to the discussion.

The literature review provides your reader with an overview of the existing research about your topic or problem. It provides the context necessary for your reader to catch up with the scholarly conversation and then to appreciate the value of your contribution to it. The literature review sharpens the focus of your research and demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of the scholarly conversation around your topic, which, in turn, helps establish your credibility as a researcher.

Creating the literature review involves more than gathering citations. It is a qualitative process through which you will discover what is already known about your topic, and identify the key authorities, methods, and theoretical foundations, so you can begin to position your contributions within the scholarly conversation.

Defining the scope of your review will also help you establish criteria to determine the relevance of the sources you are finding. At this stage, you are not reading in-depth; instead, you are skimming through what has already been published and identifying the major concepts, theories, methodologies, and methods present within these published works. You should also be identifying connections, tensions, and contradictions within the already published works of your topic or problem. This involves building on the knowledge of others and understanding what methods, measures, and models we have inherited from previous researchers in our field.

Literature Reviews: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Literature Review [12 min 22 sec]

Video provided courtesy of the Center for Quality Research (CQR)

A literature review helps your reader understand the relationship of your research project to the work of other scholars. It covers the existing knowledge about a problem, and allows you to show the relevance/significance of your contribution to the discussion. Your reader may or may not have read scholarly literature about the theories, methodologies, and literary works you are discussing. But they want to know that you have read it and have thought about it. Your literature review provides not only a summary of the existing scholarship for readers; it also offers your perspective on it.

Begin your work on the literature review by synthesizing the various sources in your annotated bibliography .

For advice on Synthesizing Sources, consider the following from The Purdue Online Writing Lab: [2]

Note that  synthesizing is not the same as summarizing .

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.
• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Not all humanities research projects contain literature reviews, but many do. Keep in mind that the type of literature review you choose (see list below) pertains to the secondary research – other scholarly sources – and not to the primary literary work. For instance, a literature review about Kate Chopin’s writing will be your thoughts about the scholarship on Chopin and not about Chopin’s text itself. You are summarizing what you see in the scholarly literature about Chopin’s writing. The literature review puts you in the position of authority not just on Chopin’s writing but on the scholarship about her writing. You are seeking to understand what scholars have said about her work. Scholars might belong to different schools of thought (psychoanalytic, feminist, Marxist, etc.). They might make different arguments about Chopin. They might use different methodological approaches. 

If your research involves two or more theories, such as psychology and genre studies, you may need to create multiple literature reviews, one for each theory or methodology. If the theories overlap with each other significantly (i.e., Marxism and Cultural Studies), you may combine them. Your literature review need not include everything about the subject area – you would need to write a book to cover a single theory – but only those concepts and methods that are most relevant to your research problem.

Factors to Consider When Developing Your Literature Review

• Determine the Scope : How broad or narrow should your literature review be? You may want to focus on recent scholarship only, or on a particular school of thought in the literature. Your scope is determined by your purpose; what is it you aim to achieve with your research?
• Establish Criteria : We discussed the importance of defining the purpose and scope of your review on the previous page, but it’s worth reviewing here as well. This step will help you establish important criteria and focus your searching. For example, how many sources will you need? What types of sources (primary, secondary, statistics, media)? Is currency important? Do you know who the prominent authors or theorists are in your subject area? Take some time to map out these or other important factors before you begin searching journals and databases.
• Consider Your Audience : Unlike a work cited page or an annotated bibliography, both of which are lists of sources, a literature review is essayistic and can be considered a precursor to your final paper. Therefore, it should be written in your own voice, and it should be geared toward a specific audience. Considering audience during this early stage will help focus your final paper as well.
• Find Models : We’ll discuss the different types of literature reviews and how to locate examples in the section below. However, even if you’re undecided about what type of review will work best for you, you may want to review some example literature reviews to get a sense of what they look like before you begin your own.

One piece of advice before starting: look for existing literature reviews on your area of scholarship. You can build on the work that other scholars have put into reviewing the scholarly literature. There’s no need to completely “reinvent the wheel” if some of the work is already done.

Scholars sometimes publish “stand-alone” literature reviews that are not part of a larger work; such literature reviews are valuable contributions to the field, as they summarize the state of knowledge for other scholars.

Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth’s “A Typology of Reviews” identifies 14 distinct types of literature reviews. Further, the UCLA library created a chart to complement the article and for easy comparison of those 14 types of reviews. This section provides a brief summary of the most common literature reviews. For a more complete analysis, please see the full article and the chart .

To choose the most appropriate structure, put yourself in your reader’s shoes and think through their need for information. The literature review is about providing context for your contribution. How much context do people need? Keep it to the minimum necessary; compressing a lot of information into a small amount of text is a must.

These structures are not meant to be straightjackets but tools to help you organize your research. If you find that the tool is working, then keep using it. If not, switch tools or modify the one you are using. Keep in mind that the types of literature reviews are just different ways of organizing information. So, you can discuss literary trends without organizing your review of secondary literature by trend; your discussion can be organized by theory or theme, for examples. In our literature reviews, we are not recounting other scholars’ arguments at length but merely providing key concepts so we can summarize the discussion so far and position our own claims. You don’t have to adhere strictly to one structure or another. They are just organizing tools that help you manage your material (and help your reader make sense of it).

Types of Reviews

• Traditional or narrative reviews : This approach will generate a comprehensive, critical analysis of the published research on your topic. However, rather than merely compiling as many sources as possible, use this approach to establish a theoretical framework for your paper, establish trends, and identify gaps in the research. This process should bring your research question into clearer focus and help define a thesis that you will argue for in your paper. This is perhaps the most common and general type of literature review. The examples listed below are all designed to serve a more specific purpose.
• Argumentative : The purpose of an argumentative literature review is to select sources for the purpose of supporting or refuting a specific claim. While this type of review can help the author make a strong case for or against an issue, they can also be prone to claims of bias. Later in this textbook, we will read about the distinction between warranted and unwarranted bias . One is ok and the other is not.
• Chronological : A chronological review is used when the author wants to demonstrate the progression of how a theory, methodology, or issue has progressed over time. This method is most effective when there is a clear chronological path to the research about a specific historical event or trend as opposed to a more recursive theoretical concept.
• By trend : This is similar to the chronological approach except it focuses on clearly-defined trends rather than date ranges. This would be most appropriate if you want to illustrate changing perspectives or attitudes about a given issue when specific date ranges are less important than the ebb and flow of the trend.
• Thematic : In this type of literature review, the author will select specific themes that he or she feels are important to understanding a larger topic or concept. Then, the author will organize the sources around those themes, which are often based on relevance or importance. The value of this method is that the process of organizing the review by theme is similar to constructing an argument. This can help the author see how resources connect to each other and determine how as well as why specific sources support their thesis.
• Theoretical : The goal of this type of review is to examine how theory has shaped the research on a given topic. It establishes existing theoretical models, their connections, and how extensively they have been developed in the published research. For example, Jada applied critical race theory to her analysis of Sonny’s Blues , but she might also consider conducting a more comprehensive review of other theoretical frameworks such as feminism, Marxism, or postmodernism. Doing so could provide insight into alternate readings, and help her identify theoretical gaps such as unexplored or under-developed approaches to Baldwin’s work.
• Methodological : The approach focuses on the various methodologies used by researchers in a specific area rather than an analysis of their findings. In this case, you would create a framework of approaches to data collection related to your topic or research question. This is perhaps more common in education or the social and hard sciences where published research often includes a methods section, but it is sometimes appropriate for the digital humanities as well.
• Scoping : The aim of a scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview or map of the published research or evidence related to a research question. This might be considered a prelude to a systematic review that would take the scoping review one step further toward answering a clearly defined research question. See below for more details.
• Systematic : The systematic review is most appropriate when you have a clearly-defined research question and have established criteria for the types of sources you need. In this way, the systematic review is less exploratory than other types of reviews. Rather, it is comprehensive, strategic, and focused on answering a specific research question. For this reason, the systematic review is more common in the health and social sciences, where comprehensiveness is more important. Literature reviews in the Humanities are not usually exhaustive but tend to show only the most representative or salient developments in the scholarship.
• Meta-analysis : Does your research deal with statistics or large amounts of data? If so, then a meta-analysis might be best for you rather than providing a critical review, the meta-analysis will summarize and synthesize the results of numerous studies that involve statistics or data to provide a more comprehensive picture than would be possible from just one study.

An argumentative literature review presents and takes sides in scholarly arguments about the literary work. It makes arguments about other scholars’ work. It does not necessarily involve a claim that the literary work is itself making an argument. Likewise, a chronological literature review presents the scholarly literature in chronological order.

You don’t need to keep strictly to one type. Scholars often combine features from various types of literature reviews. A sample review that combines the follow types –

• Argumentative
• Theoretical
• Methodological

– is the excellent work of Eiranen, Reetta, Mari Hatavara, Ville Kivimäki, Maria Mäkelä & Raisa Maria Toivo (2022) “ Narrative and Experience: Interdisciplinary Methodologies between History and Narratology , ” Scandinavian Journal of History , 47:1, 1-15

When writing your literature review, please follow these pointers:

• Conduct systematic searches
• Use Evidence
• Be Selective
• Use Quotes Sparingly
• Summarize & Synthesize
• Use Caution when Paraphrasing
• Use Your Own Voice

Advice from James Mason University’s “Literature Reviews: An Overview”

A note on synthesizing : Don’t make the common mistake of summarizing individual studies or articles one after the other. The goal is to synthesize — that is, to make observations about groups of studies. Synthesis often uses language like this:

• Much of the literature on [topic x ] focuses on [major themes].
• In recent years, researchers have begun investigating [facets a , b , and c ] of [topic x ].
• The studies in this review of [topic x ] confirm / suggest / call into question / support [idea / practice / finding / method / theory / guideline y ].
• In the reviewed studies [variable x ] was generally associated with higher / lower rates of [outcome y ].
• A limitation of some / most / all of these studies is [ y ].

Please see this sample annotated literature review  from James Mason University.

Structure of a literature review [2]

• Problematization: The 2 to 3 pages of problematization are a distinct, iterative, step. It may take doing such a statement a few times before moving forward to writing the actual paper.
• Search: Write down your keyword sets, your updated keyword sets, and databases. It is perfectly within a reviewer’s rights to ask for these details.
• Summary: Really getting to know major themes requires some annotation of articles. You want to identify core papers and themes and write about them. This helps you really learn the material. [ChatGPT or Wikipedia are no substitute for deep engagement with a paper.]
• Argument: Either outline or create a slide deck that help you express the arguments in your paper. Read them out loud. Have friends look at them. Present them. [Every literature review has an argument. If not, it’s a summary. A summary does not merit publication in a top outlet.]
• Unpacking: Once you’ve nailed the short pitch, unpack the full argument. [ a) Take time in each major section to map out a) the argument, b) the supporting evidence, and the takeaway. b) Take those major sections, reconcile them, make sure they don’t overlap, then move on to writing. c) Sketch out the paper’s sections, tables, figures, and appendices.]
• Writing: Writing is the easy part. You can always put words to the screen. [Revising and improving is hard. Make time to write every day. Improving requires feedback. Find a writing partner to give feedback. Create your tables and figures. Write to them. Make sure the words in the paper align to the visuals.]
• Communicate: When the paper is done, go back and create a paper presentation. [I do this for the papers that I’m most serious about. The act of storyboarding helps me sort out the small pieces of the story that don’t fit together. If I really want it to succeed, I present it. The act of presenting helps me get it right. My best papers sometimes take seven or eight presentations to get it right. Then I return to the paper and fine tune it. Only then, does it have a shot at a top outlet.]

Literature reviews can be published as part of a scholarly article, often after the introduction and sometimes with a header, but they can also be published as a standalone essay. To find examples of what reviews look like in your discipline, choose an appropriate subject database (such as MLA for literary criticism) and conduct a keyword search with the term “Literature Review” added in quotes:

Not only do these examples demonstrate how to structure different types of literature reviews, but some offer insights into trends and directions for future research. In the next section, we’ll take a closer look at some reading strategies to help guide you through this process.

Since scholars already have produced literature reviews on various scholarly conversations, you don’t always need to “reinvent the wheel” (start a literature review from nothing). You can find a published literature review and update it or amend it; scholars do that all the time. However, you must properly cite work you incorporate from others.

• What types of literature review will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which types are you considering?
• What specific challenges do you face in following a literature review structure?
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?
• In the “Back Matter” of this book, you will find a page titled “Rubrics.” On that page, we provide a rubric for Creating a Literature Review ↵
• Richard West, Brigham Young University, amended by Jason Thatcher, Temple University - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_academicwriting-topten2023-activity-7146507675021766656-BB0O ↵

Writing the Literature Review Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Free Al Office Suite with PDF Editor

Edit Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE.

Read, edit, and convert PDFs with the powerful PDF toolkit.

Microsoft-like interface, easy to use.

Windows • MacOS • Linux • iOS • Android

• Articles of Word

How to Write A Literature Review - Steps with Examples

This is something, as a student, I remember very well: writing literature reviews. They were always assigned, yet few of us knew how to write anything really impactful. For me, a good literature review is not the mere act of summarizing; rather, it is analysis, synthesis, and illumination all about discovered knowledge gaps. So let us break it down step-by-step and notice exactly how WPS Office can be used as your secret weapon in getting this one right.

What is a Literature Review & What are the Parts of it? 

It's not a book report for adults—a literature review is a critical examination of research that is already published, which plumbs deep into the scholarly conversation around your topic. Think of it this way: you are giving a guided tour through the general intellectual landscape, and you're not only pointing at landmarks but also explaining their importance, their relations to one another, and where the unknown areas can be.

The Blueprint: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Any well-constructed literature review will be built around the clear structure of an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction: This is your opening act. Here you introduce your topic and lay out the central question or thesis your review will address. You might also give a sneak peek at the key themes or sources you'll be exploring, should you do a stand-alone review. This will also be a good place to explain how you picked and analyzed sources.

Body: This is the meat of your review. This is where you are going to put together the information from your sources in such a way that it makes sense. Again, do not just summarize, but also include your own ideas pointing out strengths as well as weaknesses of each document and relating the different studies. You will need to write clear paragraphs with effective transitions so that your reader can easily follow through the material.

Conclusion: Time to wind up: According to your literature review, there is a need to summarize the major findings and explain how they relate to your question. What are the big takeaways? What remains unanswered? Your conclusion should leave the reader with a great sense of evaluation about the present state of knowledge on a subject area and indication of where future research in this area might lead.

This framework will help you to structure a good literature review. Once more, this is only a rough expectation—remember, it is not etched in the stone. While the basic structure will usefully be applied as it is for most of the assignments or projects, sometimes maybe you will need to slightly adjust it according to the concrete needs of the assignment or project. The key is the following: Your review needs to be reader-friendly and organized, and it needs to communicate clearly the research findings.

How to organize the literature review [4 approaches]

Now that you have collected your sources and extracted their key insights, you are well on your way to developing a well-structured story. In many ways, this is akin to choosing the appropriate lens for a camera—the literature review snaps into focus. There are four common ways to approach literature review organization:

1. Chronological: This approach is almost like a timeline of ideas. You will trace the development of a topic in chronological order, so you will center on central milestones, swings in ideas, and influential debates.

2. Thematic: View this as thematically organizing your research. This will allow exploration of the subject under study in a more systematic way.

3. By Method: If you are dealing with research that utilizes a variety of methods, then this can be a revealing approach. You will draw out comparisons and contrasts between studies based on their methodology, where appropriate, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

4. Theoretical: This is commonly used within the humanities and social sciences, where theories are key. You will look at some of the several theoretical frameworks scholars have reached for to grasp your topic at hand, debating their strengths, limitations, and how they relate to each other.

The best approach for you will depend on what kind of research question you're asking and the body of literature involved. Don't be afraid to experiment and find the structure that works the best. You could also use a combination in your approach—like a primarily thematic approach with chronological elements there to help provide additional context for each theme.

How to Write a Literature Review Faster in 3 Steps

This type of strategic planning and effecting proper organization distinguishes an efficient literature review. The process of streamlining it is as follows:

Step 1: Gathering and Evaluating Relevant Sources

Research credible sources on academic databases like Google Scholar. Use specific keywords in order to find recent and influential publications that contribute to the topic at hand. Appraise every source according to your criteria of relevance and credibility.

Step 2: Identification of Themes and Literature Analysis

Skim through your selected sources in the search for emerging themes, debates, or gaps in the literature. Secondly, summarize key findings and methodologies for each source. Find the patterns or recurrent discussion which will help you categorize your review well and organize it.

Step 3: Outline and Structure Your Literature Review

Devise a clear structure for your literature review: introduce the topic and the thesis in the introduction, develop sources cohesively in the body, and summarize key findings in the conclusion. You could make use of organizational strategies such as chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical in representing your topic.

Use tools like WPS Office to plan your literature review and keep all of your sources well-organized. This will save you much time and guarantee that your literature review stays organized while you remain focused on your research objectives.

Remember: Do not simply list and summarize, but analyze and synthesize. Your literature review is not just a compilation of sources but one that critically relates the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of research, identifies the important debates in the area under consideration, and makes links between diverse pieces of research. WPS AI can help you to do this, through its identification of key terms, concepts, and relationships within the literature.

Bonus Tips: How to Perfect your Literature Review with WPS AI

Want WPS AI to be that magic weapon to help you make an extraordinary literature review? Here is how this intelligent assistant will supercharge your effort.

Annotation and Highlighting: WPS AI  permits direct annotation and highlighting of parts of interest within its software. This is quite useful to facilitate the marking of key findings, interesting quotes, or even areas in which authors have differed. By annotating through WPS AI, all critical points will be easy to refer to while you compose your review.

This WPS AI summarization tool will give you a condensed version of the long article or paper. It saves time by putting together exactly what the point or argument is from each source. On this, you will have a digest of several studies at your fingertips. This helps you easily compare and synthesize in your literature review.

Writing Assistance: Use WPS AI's writing tools to build your literature review section. These allow you to check the grammar, refine the sentence structure, work on the text length, and basically improve clarity. With these, you then ensure that it is well-written and easy for the readers to understand.

Build in these WPS AI features into your process of writing a literature review for refining workflow and bringing about a polished and insightful review that answers to academic standards.

FAQs about writing a literature review

Q1. what is the step before writing a literature review.

You must choose a topic, research existing literature, gather sources, determine themes, and make a defined scope of review before you begin writing your literature review.

Q2. Where should the literature review be placed within a dissertation?

Place the literature review after the introduction and before the methodology section of your dissertation.

Q3. Why do we need to write literature reviews?

Literature reviews would hence be a summary of earlier research on a topic, identification of gaps, building a context for fresh research, and devising credibility in an academic writing.

A literature review is one of the most critical steps of any research project. This aids in the placement of knowledge, pointing out the gaps, and placing one's research in a certain field. With accurate tools and strategies,or msg like WPS Office and WPS AI, the process can be streamlined in the production of quality literature reviews.

• 1. How to Write a Hook- Steps With Examples
• 2. How to Write a Proposal [ Steps & Examples]
• 3. How to Write a Call to Action - Steps with Examples
• 4. ThinkFree Office Write Review: Features, Review and Download
• 5. How to Write an Argumentative Essay- Steps with Examples
• 6. How to Write a Book Review [Tips with Examples]

15 years of office industry experience, tech lover and copywriter. Follow me for product reviews, comparisons, and recommendations for new apps and software.

Citation Styles

• Chicago Style
• Annotated Bibliographies

What is a Lit Review?

How to write a lit review.

• Video Introduction to Lit Reviews

Main Objectives

Examples of lit reviews, additional resources.

• Zotero (Citation Management)

What is a literature review?

• Either a complete piece of writing unto itself or a section of a larger piece of writing like a book or article
• A thorough and critical look at the information and perspectives that other experts and scholars have written about a specific topic
• A way to give historical perspective on an issue and show how other researchers have addressed a problem
• An analysis of sources based on your own perspective on the topic
• Based on the most pertinent and significant research conducted in the field, both new and old

• A descriptive list or collection of summaries of other research without synthesis or analysis
• An annotated bibliography
• A literary review (a brief, critical discussion about the merits and weaknesses of a literary work such as a play, novel or a book of poems)
• Exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible
• To convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic
• To explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and those ideas might be
• To learn how others have defined and measured key concepts    
• To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments and historical trends in a particular field or discipline
• To establish context for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
• To provide evidence that may be used to support your own findings
• To demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
• To suggest previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, and quantitative and qualitative strategies
• To identify gaps in previous studies and flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches in order to avoid replication of mistakes
• To help the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research
• To suggest unexplored populations
• To determine whether past studies agree or disagree and identify strengths and weaknesses on both sides of a controversy in the literature

• Choose a topic that is interesting to you; this makes the research and writing process more enjoyable and rewarding.
• For a literature review, you'll also want to make sure that the topic you choose is one that other researchers have explored before so that you'll be able to find plenty of relevant sources to review.

• Your research doesn't need to be exhaustive. Pay careful attention to bibliographies. Focus on the most frequently cited literature about your topic and literature from the best known scholars in your field. Ask yourself: "Does this source make a significant contribution to the understanding of my topic?"
• Reading other literature reviews from your field may help you get ideas for themes to look for in your research. You can usually find some of these through the library databases by adding literature review as a keyword in your search.
• Start with the most recent publications and work backwards. This way, you ensure you have the most current information, and it becomes easier to identify the most seminal earlier sources by reviewing the material that current researchers are citing.

The organization of your lit review should be determined based on what you'd like to highlight from your research. Here are a few suggestions:

• Chronology : Discuss literature in chronological order of its writing/publication to demonstrate a change in trends over time or to detail a history of controversy in the field or of developments in the understanding of your topic.  
• Theme: Group your sources by subject or theme to show the variety of angles from which your topic has been studied. This works well if, for example, your goal is to identify an angle or subtopic that has so far been overlooked by researchers.  
• Methodology: Grouping your sources by methodology (for example, dividing the literature into qualitative vs. quantitative studies or grouping sources according to the populations studied) is useful for illustrating an overlooked population, an unused or underused methodology, or a flawed experimental technique.

• Be selective. Highlight only the most important and relevant points from a source in your review.
• Use quotes sparingly. Short quotes can help to emphasize a point, but thorough analysis of language from each source is generally unnecessary in a literature review.
• Synthesize your sources. Your goal is not to make a list of summaries of each source but to show how the sources relate to one another and to your own work.
• Make sure that your own voice and perspective remains front and center. Don't rely too heavily on summary or paraphrasing. For each source, draw a conclusion about how it relates to your own work or to the other literature on your topic.
• Be objective. When you identify a disagreement in the literature, be sure to represent both sides. Don't exclude a source simply on the basis that it does not support your own research hypothesis.
• At the end of your lit review, make suggestions for future research. What subjects, populations, methodologies, or theoretical lenses warrant further exploration? What common flaws or biases did you identify that could be corrected in future studies?

• Double check that you've correctly cited each of the sources you've used in the citation style requested by your professor (APA, MLA, etc.) and that your lit review is formatted according to the guidelines for that style.

Your literature review should:

• Be focused on and organized around your topic.
• Synthesize your research into a summary of what is and is not known about your topic.
• Identify any gaps or areas of controversy in the literature related to your topic.
• Suggest questions that require further research.
• Have your voice and perspective at the forefront rather than merely summarizing others' work.
• Cyberbullying: How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are Bullied
• Use of Propofol and Emergence Agitation in Children
• Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza's 'Ethics'
• Literature Review Tutorials and Samples - Wilson Library at University of La Verne
• Literature Reviews: Introduction - University Library at Georgia State
• Literature Reviews - The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review - Boston College Libraries
• Write a Literature Review - University Library at UC Santa Cruz
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Zotero (Citation Management) >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:01 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.elac.edu/Citation

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ 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:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 01 August 2024

Antifragility in complex dynamical systems

• Cristian Axenie 1 ,
• Oliver López-Corona   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7791 2 ,
• Michail A. Makridis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7462-4674 3 ,
• Meisam Akbarzadeh 4 ,
• Matteo Saveriano 5 ,
• Alexandru Stancu 6 &
• Jeffrey West   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9579-4664 7  

npj Complexity volume  1 , Article number:  12 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

115 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Applied mathematics
• Evolutionary ecology

Antifragility characterizes the benefit of a dynamical system derived from the variability in environmental perturbations. Antifragility carries a precise definition that quantifies a system’s output response to input variability. Systems may respond poorly to perturbations (fragile) or benefit from perturbations (antifragile). In this manuscript, we review a range of applications of antifragility theory in technical systems (e.g., traffic control, robotics) and natural systems (e.g., cancer therapy, antibiotics). While there is a broad overlap in methods used to quantify and apply antifragility across disciplines, there is a need for precisely defining the scales at which antifragility operates. Thus, we provide a brief general introduction to the properties of antifragility in applied systems and review relevant literature for both natural and technical systems’ antifragility. We frame this review within three scales common to technical systems: intrinsic (input–output nonlinearity), inherited (extrinsic environmental signals), and induced (feedback control), with associated counterparts in biological systems: ecological (homogeneous systems), evolutionary (heterogeneous systems), and interventional (control). We use the common noun in designing systems that exhibit antifragile behavior across scales and guide the reader along the spectrum of fragility–adaptiveness–resilience–robustness–antifragility, the principles behind it, and its practical implications.

Similar content being viewed by others

Optimizing upside variability and antifragility in renewable energy system design

Leveraging network structure in nonlinear control

Robustness and resilience of complex networks

Introduction.

Antifragile is a term coined to describe the opposite of fragile, as defined in a recent book that generated significant interest in both the public and scientific domain 1 . Although the term has a wide range of applications, it contains a precise and mathematical definition. Systems or organisms can be defined as antifragile if they derive benefit from systemic variability, volatility, randomness, or disorder 2 . To get an intuition, we provided examples of a system’s reference behaviors in Fig. 1 , where three disruptions (i.e., in varying amplitude, onset and duration) occur at random times and inject volatility, randomness, or disorder in a system’s dynamics.

Example disturbances have random onset, duration (i.e., volatility), and amplitude. Each type of system response captures the predominant traits of the spectrum members.

In mathematical terms, antifragility is a nonlinear convex response to a well-defined payoff function that a system exhibits in the face of volatility. This assumes that antifragility is a local property of a dynamical system over a defined region of the system’s input space. Beyond that range, the system may become fragile. This nonlinear response enables the system to not only withstand perturbations (robust) but even benefit from them (antifragile). Although the antifragility framework emerged in the context of financial risk analysis, due to its universal mathematical formalism and principles, it has recently drawn attention and has been applied within different concepts across domains including biology 3 , socio-economics 4 , urban planning 5 , and risk analysis 6 . Applied antifragility theory extends Nassim Taleb’s antifragility principle to the rank of system design methodology across disciplines.

Defining terms across technical and natural systems

Herein, we draw from the body of literature on technical systems (e.g., road traffic and robotics control systems) and biological systems (e.g., cancer therapy, antibiotics, and agricultural pest management) to define the scales of antifragility theory and unify definitions from natural and technical systems. The perspective manuscript describes the scales (Fig. 2 ) of the applied antifragility spectrum in technical systems: (1) intrinsic, (2) inherited, and (3) induced antifragility. While this taxonomy has primarily been applied to technical systems, we will show that each scale of antifragility in technical systems has its analog in natural (biological) systems: ecological, evolutionary, and interventional antifragility 7 , 8 . We provide definitions for each proposed antifragility scale and review existing literature to provide examples of successful practical examples for a broad audience.

Variation in the system’s inputs, x , (left panel) leads to variation in the system’s outputs, f ( x ) (right panel). The response to variation can be defined on three scales: intrinsic (ecological), inherited (evolutionary), and induced (interventional).

Moving along the spectrum (i.e., intrinsic, inherited, induced antifragility), the response properties of the dynamical system and its capacity to gain from stressors and anticipate random and volatile events increase. Intrinsic/ecological antifragility describes the system’s internal dynamics without external interactions and intervention. Inherited/evolutionary antifragility describes the system’s dynamics under external signals that modulate the system’s internal dynamics. Finally, induced/interventional antifragility introduces the closed-loop (behavior) dimension of antifragility, where the system is connected to control or driving signals. Antifragility (or its converse, fragility) defines the association between nonlinearity and variability. Thus, the benefit (or harm) derived can be defined as a scale measure of volatility at the level of statistical singularities (divergence of high-order statistical moments). We note that antifragility can be quantified under a geometrical analysis of the shape of nonlinearity characterizing the payoff function (when the function is known). Across these scales, the recently formed Applied Antifragility Group ( https://antifragility.science/ ) has proposed three Paths forward for characterizing, designing, and building systems that behave antifragile in the face of uncertainty, volatility, and randomness:

Path 1 to reach intrinsic/ecological antifragility : Mathematical identification of second-order effects in the system response characterizing antifragile behavior;

Path 2 to reach inherited/evolutionary antifragility : Mapping the dynamics of the system to physical principles of criticality and evolution to describe reaching an antifragile state;

Path 3 to reach induced/interventional antifragility : Nonlinear control synthesis or learning of optimal driving signals to push dynamical systems to antifragile regions in their response spectrum.

It is important to note that, technical systems are typically built as homogeneous systems, i.e., all components share the same properties (i.e., spatial, temporal, structural, and functional). However, most natural systems are heterogeneous, where a few components are closer, faster, or stronger than others. Even if we analyze across scales, the common denominator is time. Each scale or property of the system evolves, be it slower or faster. When defining antifragility, time plays an important role. The study of natural systems within the antifragility concept needs special treatment as we typically use simple, limited models to describe complex, nonlinear natural phenomena 9 , 10 , 11 . The study of technical systems differs because we better understand their design principles. Therefore, before discussing whether a system is antifragile or not, we need to define the environment in which the system operates and the objectives of the system. Given the environment and the objectives, there may be multiple payoff functions that can be considered for the quantification of the system’s performance 12 .

Depending on the indicators or metrics we adopt, the conclusions regarding the system’s fragility can differ. In the following sections, we will discuss the differences between intrinsic, inherited, and induced antifragility and give certain intuitive examples in both technical and natural systems.

Intrinsic and ecological antifragility

Intrinsic/ecological antifragility (or fragility) quantifies the benefit (or harm) of input distribution unevenness, volatility, or perturbations attributed to the nonlinearity of the system’s payoff function. This phenomenon is closely related to Jensen’s Inequality 13 , 14 , which states that the expected value of a convex function is greater than the function evaluated at the expected value:

The convex shape of the function determines the inequality. Conversely, if f ( x ) is concave, the inequality is flipped:

When the payoff function, f ( x ), representing a system is known, then the inequality can confirmed by direct observation of f ( x ). In this section, we illustrate examples in technical and natural systems, and draw the connection between the nonlinearity of f ( x ) and the statistical properties of the distribution of f ( x ).

Technical systems: intrinsic (anti)-fragility

When considering intrinsic antifragility, the fundamental aspect is dynamics’ timescale separation describing the input–output coupling. An example is urban intersections with different characteristics (road width), where there is a large variation in delays even in cases where the traffic state is not drastically changing, due to fluctuations in arrival and discharge rates. As shown in the exemplary Fig. 3 , empirical findings show that the delays increase with traffic flow and are bounded by a maximum flow number. While approaching the flow boundary, delays (output) increase exponentially with flow (input) demonstrating empirically the fragility of the system 15 . The convex shape of payoff functions in Fig. 3 relates to Eq. ( 1 ), where the minimization of delays is achieved through decreasing variability, \(f({\mathbb{E}}(x))\) , rather than increasing variability, \({\mathbb{E}}(f(x))\) . Management strategies, such as those suggested in ref. 16 , aim to push the operation of the system towards the critical density. Such strategies consider the effect of variation in input (traffic flow) on the outcome (delays), which are modulated by the shape of the input–output function (exponential), as illustrated in schematic Fig. 1 schematic.

The long-dashed line indicates a road with a narrow average width, while the short-dashed line represents a wide-width road.

In another example, given the interactions between multiple control loops (e.g., the internal DC motor control loop and outer robot position control loop 17 , the oscillators models of traffic flow inputs 18 , and the coupled traffic dynamics 19 , 20 ), antifragility is quantified in the context of input–output mappings of timescale separation performed to handle uncertainty and high-frequency phenomena. However, note that such systems employ intrinsic antifragility to achieve their prescribed objectives by design, given the specifications and constraints imposed by the physics of the operational space of the system, for example, in driver models 21 , 22 , 23 or traffic dynamics 24 , 25 , 26 .

When unpredictable fluctuations start developing in a dynamical system that is on the verge of losing its stability, it is commonly referred to as criticality. The ability to absorb and respond to stresses, due to the appearance of scale-free temporal fluctuations, slowing dynamics, and multistability, are the fundamental indicators of criticality. Here, antifragility can be viewed as the motion of a system from an existing steady state to a better one in the aftermath of a change in conditions. This transfer among steady states may be continuous (second-order phase transition) or discontinuous (first-order phase transition) 27 .

Natural systems: ecological (anti)-fragility

In biological systems, changes in environmental conditions can decrease the survival and fecundity of individuals based on a species’ Darwinian fitness. The rate of change in environmental perturbations may reduce fitness in response to stochastic fluctuations and seasonal variation 14 . The payoff function associated with the system response to environmental variation may be concave (fragile), convex (antifragile), or linear (neutral) 1 , 28 . An example is shown in Fig. 4 , where there exists a dose distribution mean and variance (panel a) associated with each anticancer treatment protocol (panel b), where the outcome depends on the concave (top) or convex (bottom) dose–response function (panel c). To maximize response, concave functions (red) should employ low-variance protocols, while concave functions (blue) should employ high-variance intermittent protocols. Ecological antifragility is the natural systems counterpart to intrinsic antifragility and may defined as the system benefit derived from input volatility 8 . Defining ecological fragility or antifragility is useful for prediction and control of a biological population. For example, mathematical models describing the response to anticancer drugs measure the ecological effect of volatile versus continuous treatment schedules 7 , with or without drug pharmacokinetics 29 .

a Example dose distribution with low (top) or high variance (bottom). b Associated protocols. c Low-variance protocols are optimal to maximize response for concavity; high-variance protocols for convexity.

Neuronal processing offers a complex system that recapitulates a large repertoire of dynamics. Neural networks must keep their stability under perturbations on timescales from milliseconds to months or even years 10 . It seems paradoxical, but neural networks can only remain stable if they are excitable and able to adapt their response (and structure) in reaction to outside stimuli. Neuron-level excitability modifications regulate the functionality of neural networks by absorbing a broad variety of molecular and cellular parameter changes while preserving their spiking functionality. For instance, homeostatic activity regulation in single neurons enables resilience to recurrent state variable alterations that correlate with resilience to changes in parameters due to the critical slowing down phenomenon 30 .

Similar to technical systems, criticality in natural systems also relates to antifragility. Empirical investigations have suggested that living systems operate in the proximity of critical thresholds, existing at the delicate boundary between order and randomness 31 demonstrated across various domains including electrical heart activity and brain function, among others 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 . Precise measurement of the payoff function for predicting antifragility plays a key role. López-Corona and coworkers 36 applied these ideas discussed above to the scale of planetary ecosystem antifragility by integrating well-established principles from nonequilibrium thermodynamics and adopting a system dynamics approach using Fisher’s information on Earth’s entropy production 37 , 38 , 39 .

In summary, antifragility can be quantified under a geometrical analysis of the shape of nonlinearity characterizing the payoff function. Important to note here is that antifragility is a scale measure of the effect of variation at the level of statistical singularities (divergence of high-order statistical moments). Here, depending on the type of system (natural or technical) assessing antifragility is bound to the measure of benefit (or harm) of input distribution unevenness, volatility, or perturbations attributed to the nonlinearity of the system’s payoff function.

Inherited and evolutionary antifragility

Inherited/evolutionary antifragility (or fragility) quantifies the benefit (or harm) of input distribution unevenness, volatility, or perturbations attributed to the system’s response to external signals. In many scenarios, a system’s payoff function may be unknown (or unmeasurable), or it may be known but external signals introduce additional nonlinearities. Previous work illustrated the connection 8 between convexity (or concavity) of a payoff function, f ( x ), and statistical properties of the distribution of f ( x ). For example, variation in the input distribution (Fig. 2 , left) passing through a convex response function, f ( x ), results in a right-tailed outcome distribution (Fig. 2 , right). In contrast, a concave response function results in a left-tailed distribution. Therefore, everything fragile must be concave to harm.

Technical systems: inherited (anti)-fragility

Antifragility is correlated with increased system heterogeneity 40 , 41 . This aspect comes into play when considering the system’s capacity to build extra capacity in anticipation of perturbations. More precisely, to achieve inherited antifragility, a system designer builds upon the timescale separation of a redundant overcompensation component, as shown in robotics 17 , traffic control 18 , and medical 42 applications of applied antifragility.

Similarly, machine-learning systems 19 maintain timescale separation through the formulation of the learning task. More precisely, the system determines the best action at which the system yields the maximum possible discounted future reward. Isolating only the contribution of the timescale separation and the redundant overcompensation term, the machine learning inherited antifragility controller gained in the skewness (i.e., convexity) of the disruption magnitude over surging demand. In such systems, antifragility is quantified as the geometric properties of the anticipated control actions via the shape of the response to high-magnitude external perturbations.

Finally, criticality also plays a role in inherited antifragility by allowing a system to leave the current steady state, for a different one. The trigger for state switching may come from a change in the (1) parameters of the system, (2) externally enforced noise, or (3) an increase in the rates of the system from neighboring entities in a competition of cooperation with the system 43 , 44 .

Natural systems: evolutionary (anti)-fragility

Evolution, defined here as the change in heritable traits within a population over time, is also influenced by environmental perturbations 45 . In the previous section, ecological antifragility considered individual species in isolation to quantify the response to perturbation. Evolutionary antifragility quantifies how a heterogeneous population of interacting species is affected by perturbations. For example, in cancer, competition between heterogeneous populations of cell types modulates antifragility 46 . In biological systems, we investigate complexity (which implies maximum computational capabilities) and how systems reach criticality 47 , 48 , 49 . Adaptive mechanisms of living systems do more than merely react to the environment’s variability through random mutations followed by selection; they must have built-in characteristics that enable them to discover alternatives to adapt to adversity, variability, and uncertainty 39 .

Using theoretical arguments, it has been proposed that systems under eco-evolution tend to be at criticality, implying maximum complexity and inferential capabilities; and then they are also at maximum antifragility 39 , 50 , 51 . Stability plays a central role in function, in both natural and technical dynamical systems. Paradoxically, a dynamical system can remain stable only if it is excitable and able to change its behavior in reaction to outside stimuli. It is flexible and thus stable; in fact, the organism’s true stability depends on its modest instability 52 .

Inherited antifragility in natural systems is a consequence of the interactions among all components through evolutionary processes (e.g., genetic inheritance, microbiome inheritance, and social inheritance), constrained by external conditions. Antifragile natural systems derive benefits under uncertainty, stressors, and perturbations in both ecological and evolutionary scales. Evolution by natural selection itself can be thought of as an antifragile process, whereby a population is maintained amidst environmental perturbations through genetic variation. For example, although individuals within a population may die, the population evolves toward a more antifragile state, with increasingly higher fitness to address fluctuating environmental conditions 28 , 53 .

Induced and interventional antifragility

Induced/interventional antifragility (or fragility) quantifies the benefit (or harm) of input distribution unevenness, volatility, or perturbations attributed to the system’s response to closed-loop controllers.

Technical systems: induced (anti)-fragility

The control-theoretic approach to induced antifragility focuses on the combination of timescale separation and redundant overcompensation with variable structure control. A controller guides the system to the antifragile region of its operational domain through a judicious choice of an external control or regulation signal 17 . This can be accomplished by properly synthesizing a control law, which develops a redundant overcompensation capacity to handle uncertainty regarding the sensor and actuator failures by pushing the closed-loop system dynamics to prescribed dynamics. This is captured in Fig. 5 , where the fragile–antifragile behavior is depicted across spatiotemporal dynamics of a robot in uncertain environments. Here, antifragility is quantified through the quality of the dynamics tracking and the speed of reaching the desired region of the desired dynamics manifold in the presence of uncertainty and volatility through adaptive control 54 , robust control 55 , and resilient control 56 strategies. In a large-scale traffic control application 18 , the antifragile controller demonstrated statistically significant gains given increasing traffic disruptions amplitude over time. The systematic evaluation demonstrates that the control law selection based on the second-order effects of the signal re-computation may capture the volatile dynamics of the closed-loop system.

The spatial dynamics (inset left) describe the robot’s trajectory, in Cartesian ( x,y ) space, in the presence of uncertainty (i.e., several types of unexpected faults in the robot’s motion). Red describes the strong (i.e., fragile) deviation from the goal of moving as fast as possible from point P1 to point P2 in the presence of faults. Green marks the antifragile trajectory which absorbs the uncertainty and gains a smoother trajectory. The temporal dynamics (inset right) describe the robot’s trajectory tracking in the presence of uncertainty from the perspective of travel time. Travel time is implicit in the relation between the control signal sent to the robot’s actuators and the curvature of the trajectory of the robot given that signal. In this case, the fragile behavior is characterized by longer executions away from the prescribed dynamics whereas the antifragile behavior has a more straight convergence in the presence of faults. Closed-loop dynamics in the presence of stressors and volatility. The planes describe possible system dynamics motions from various initial conditions in the presence of stressors and volatility and the convergence to antifragile behavior. The redundant overcompensation refers to geometrically longer paths to reach the antifragile region (i.e., the green curve between the planes). These longer paths ensure that the system’s response can cope with jitter in reaching prescribed dynamics in the presence of faults.

Machine-learning approaches can be used to induce antifragility, for example, in the design of a traffic reinforcement learning agent that learns to be conservative when regulating the controlled region 19 . Here, we have again a clear quantification of the system’s antifragility based on a dynamics response curve to external uncertainty (i.e., amplitude of traffic disruptions) and volatility (i.e., onset and offset of traffic disruptions) overcoming the baseline approach (i.e., static police-made traffic light control), a state-of-the-art model predictive control 57 , and other reinforcement learning approaches 58 .

Finally, when considering criticality, the control of multistability deals with the transition of the system to a more desired steady state and also preventing it from moving to an inferior one 59 . It is beneficial for a controller to anticipate the tipping points well before they occur so that remedial actions can be adopted 60 .

Natural systems: interventional (anti)-fragility

Designing intervention strategies which lead to the eradication of a heterogeneous population may be exceedingly difficult due to the evolution of resistance to interventional treatments. For example, the continuous administration of anticancer drugs 61 , 62 or antibiotics 63 selects for resistant sub-populations rendering subsequent treatments ineffective. Recent work to apply principles learned from agricultural methods known as Integrative Pest Management has shown some success in the management of cancer 64 , 65 . For example, adaptive cancer therapy uses a simple rule-of-thumb protocol to adapt treatment administration and treatment break time intervals based on tumor response 66 . Importantly, this adaptive protocol in an increase in dose variance (prolonged periods of high dose followed by prolonged periods of zero dose) 67 . This is part of a broader effort to design treatment protocols using evolutionary principles that increase the treatment-induced volatility that tumor cells undergo during the course of treatment to maximize tumor regression 67 . Mathematical models of tumor-immune-drug interactions can drive chemotherapy optimization regimens to maximize the efficacy/toxicity ratio 42 , 68 .

Furthermore, a series of recent papers have shown that dietary patterns might influence network communication along the brain-gut axis, especially at the age that both systems go through maturation processes 69 , 70 . From an ecological perspective, an adequate level of connectivity dissipates the effect of perturbations in the distribution of species and enhances ecosystem stability. A loss in connectivity leads to a loss in gut microbiota ecosystem antifragility. The basic rationale is that a system’s response to perturbation requires an efficient flow of information. For maximum antifragility, this flow must be optimal, implying maximum connectivity 39 , 70 .

In this perspective, we have reviewed efforts to apply antifragility theory to both technical/physical systems as well as natural/biological systems. We provide a conceptual framework to unify the language across both systems and define the relevant scales of fragility, summarized below.

Intrinsic and ecological antifragile systems benefit from internal dynamics distribution unevenness, based on the convexity of the response function of the system without external input and solely based on the internal components’ heterogeneity and resilience. Features such as stability describe the most simple system response with minimal antifragile characteristics. Within this scale, precise characterization of the payoff function describing the relationship between system inputs and outputs is of foremost importance.

Homogeneity and heterogeneity play a crucial role in the design and synthesis of inherited and evolutionary antifragile systems. From criticality and multi-level interactions of multiple timescales to quantifying criticality margins, such a design scheme leverages local interactions of the system to make it benefit from perturbations. In other words, inherited and evolutionary antifragile systems benefit from input distribution unevenness, based on the emergent system dynamics and its interactions with the operating environment (i.e., disturbances, noise, modulated perturbations).

Inducing a desired behavior within interventional antifragility requires an innovative, control-theoretic, design and synthesis approach. Here, nonlinear dynamics across both space and time can promote the system’s capacity to absorb internal and external disruptions. Induced and interventional antifragile systems benefit from input distribution unevenness based on emergent system dynamics in closed-loop with a controller driving the system towards prescribed dynamics in the presence of modulated or non-stationary disturbances, noise, and volatility.

It is also important to note that we need not constrain ourselves to search only for systems that are antifragile. First, a system may be fragile on the intrinsic or inherited scales yet still be amenable to interventions that are antifragile through clever design of feedback controllers. Second, fragility (or antifragility) is a measurable quantity: the response of a system to volatility. Some systems (e.g., tumors) may respond in a fragile manner to given perturbations (e.g., chemotherapy) and thus it is critical to characterize the system along the fragile–antifragile spectrum to intervene appropriately. Finally, though we consider a discrete layering of antifragility types, we are aware that this structure can be applied systematically across scales. In other words, even the simplest systems can be subject to all three types of antifragility.

Taleb, N. N. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder , Vol. 3 (Random House Incorporated, 2012).

Taleb, N. N. & Douady, R. Mathematical definition, mapping, and detection of (anti) fragility. Quant. Financ. 13 , 1677–1689 (2013).

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Pineda, O. K., Kim, H. & Gershenson, C. A novel antifragility measure based on satisfaction and its application to random and biological boolean networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06760 (2018).

de Bruijn, H., Groessler, A. & Videira, N. Antifragility as a design criterion for modelling dynamic systems. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 37 , 23–37 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Blečić, I. & Cecchini, A. Antifragile planning. Plan. Theory 19 , 172–192 (2020).

Johnson, J. & Gheorghe, A. V. Antifragility analysis and measurement framework for systems of systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 4 , 159–168 (2013).

West, J. et al. Antifragile therapy. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.08.331678 (2020).

Taleb, N. N. & West, J. Working with convex responses: antifragility from finance to oncology. Entropy 25 , 343 (2023).

Arnoldi, J.-F., Loreau, M. & Haegeman, B. Resilience, reactivity and variability: a mathematical comparison of ecological stability measures. J. Theor. Biol. 389 , 47–59 (2016).

Marom, S. & Marder, E. A biophysical perspective on the resilience of neuronal excitability across timescales. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24 , 640–652 (2023).

Ay, N. & Krakauer, D. C. Geometric robustness theory and biological networks. Theory Biosci. 125 , 93–121 (2007).

Krakovská, H., Kuehn, C. & Longo, I. P. Resilience of dynamical systems. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 35 , 155–200 (2024).

Jensen, J. L. W. V. et al. Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Mathematica 30 , 175–193 (1906).

Taleb, N. N. (Anti) fragility and convex responses in medicine. In International Conference on Complex Systems . 299–325 (Springer, 2018).

Wardrop, J. G. The capacity of roads. J. Operational Res. Soc. 5 , 14–24 (1954).

Papageorgiou, M., Diakaki, C., Dinopoulou, V., Kotsialos, A. & Wang, Y. Review of road traffic control strategies. Proc. IEEE 91 , 2043–2067 (2003).

Axenie, C. & Saveriano, M. Antifragile Control Systems: The Case of Mobile Robot Trajectory Tracking UnderUncertainty and Volatility. in IEEE Access, Vol. 11, 138188–138200, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3339988 (2023) .

Axenie, C. & Grossi, M. Antifragile control systems: the case of an oscillator-based network model of urban road traffic dynamics. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10460 (2023).

Sun, L. et al. Exploring antifragility in traffic networks: anticipating disturbances with reinforcement learning. In 23rd Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC, 2023).

Makridis, M. A., Schaniel, J. & Kouvelas, A. Rule-based on-off traffic control strategy for Cavs on motorway networks: assessing cooperation level and driving homogeneity. IEEE Access 11 , 35111–35121 (2023).

Kesting, A., Treiber, M. & Helbing, D. Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 368 , 4585–4605 (2010).

Milanés, V. & Shladover, S. E. Modeling cooperative and autonomous adaptive cruise control dynamic responses using experimental data. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 48 , 285–300 (2014).

Makridis, M., Fontaras, G., Ciuffo, B. & Mattas, K. Mfc free-flow model: introducing vehicle dynamics in microsimulation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2673 , 762–777 (2019).

Du, Y., Makridis, M. A., Tampère, C. M., Kouvelas, A. & ShangGuan, W. Adaptive control with moving actuators at motorway bottlenecks with connected and automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 156 , 104319 (2023).

Daganzo, C. F. The cell transmission model: a dynamic representation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 28 , 269–287 (1994).

Messner, A. & Papageorgiou, M. Metanet: a macroscopic simulation program for motorway networks. Traffic Eng. Control 31 , 466–470 (1990).

Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461 , 53–59 (2009).

Danchin, A., Binder, P. M. & Noria, S. Antifragility and tinkering in biology (and in business) flexibility provides an efficient epigenetic way to manage risk. Genes 2 , 998–1016 (2011).

Pierik, L., McDonald, P., Anderson, A. R. & West, J. Second-order effects of chemotherapy pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics on tumor regression and cachexia. Bull. Math. Biol. 86 , 47 (2024).

Ruggiero, A., Katsenelson, M. & Slutsky, I. Mitochondria: new players in homeostatic regulation of firing rate set points. Trends Neurosci. 44 , 605–618 (2021).

Hidalgo, J. et al. Information-based fitness and the emergence of criticality in living systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 10095–10100 (2014).

Kiyono, K., Struzik, Z. R., Aoyagi, N., Togo, F. & Yamamoto, Y. Phase transition in a healthy human heart rate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 , 058101 (2005).

Ivanov, P. C. et al. Scaling behaviour of heartbeat intervals obtained by wavelet-based time-series analysis. Nature 383 , 323–327 (1996).

Rivera, A. L. et al. Heart rate and systolic blood pressure variability in the time domain in patients with recent and long-standing diabetes mellitus. PLoS ONE 11 , e0148378 (2016).

Goldberger, A. L., Peng, C.-K. & Lipsitz, L. A. What is physiologic complexity and how does it change with aging and disease? Neurobiol. Aging 23 , 23–26 (2002).

López-Corona, O., Kolb, M., Ramírez-Carrillo, E. & Lovett, J. Esd ideas: planetary antifragility: a new dimension in the definition of the safe operating space for humanity. Earth Syst. Dyn. 13 , 1145–1155 (2022).

Fernández, N. & Gershenson, C. Measuring complexity in an aquatic ecosystem. In Advances in Computational Biology (eds Castillo, L. F. et al.) 83–89 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014).

López-Rivera, J. A., Rivera, A. L. & Frank, A. Forest complexity in the green tonality of satellite images. In Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Complex Systems 9 , 184–188 (Springer, 2018).

Equihua, M. et al. Ecosystem antifragility: beyond integrity and resilience. PeerJ 8 , e8533 (2020).

López-Díaz, A. J., Sánchez-Puig, F. & Gershenson, C. Temporal, structural, and functional heterogeneities extend criticality and antifragility in random boolean networks. Entropy 25 , 254 (2023).

Makridis, M., Leclercq, L., Ciuffo, B., Fontaras, G. & Mattas, K. Formalizing the heterogeneity of the vehicle-driver system to reproduce traffic oscillations. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 120 , 102803 (2020).

Axenie, C., Kurz, D. & Saveriano, M. Antifragile control systems: the case of an anti-symmetric network model of the tumor-immune-drug interactions. Symmetry 14 , 2034 (2022).

Angeli, D., Ferrell Jr, J. E. & Sontag, E. D. Detection of multistability, bifurcations, and hysteresis in a large class of biological positive-feedback systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 , 1822–1827 (2004).

Hizanidis, J., Aust, R. & Schöll, E. Delay-induced multistability near a global bifurcation. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 18 , 1759–1765 (2008).

López-Corona, O., Ramrez-Carrillo, E. & Magallanes-Guijón, G. The rise of the technobionts: toward a new ontology to understand current planetary crisis. Res. ONE (2019).

Bayer, P. & West, J. Games and the treatment convexity of cancer. Dyn. Games Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13235-023-00520-z (2023).

Crosato, E., Nigmatullin, R. & Prokopenko, M. On critical dynamics and thermodynamic efficiency of urban transformations. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5 , 180863 (2018).

Gershenson, C. & Fernández, N. Complexity and information: measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity 18 , 29–44 (2012).

Kalloniatis, A. C., Zuparic, M. L. & Prokopenko, M. Fisher information and criticality in the kuramoto model of nonidentical oscillators. Phys. Rev. E 98 , 022302 (2018).

López-Corona, O. & Padilla, P. Fisher information as unifying concept for criticality and antifragility, a primer hypothesis. Res. ONE (2019).

Pineda, O. K., Kim, H., Gershenson, C. et al. A novel antifragility measure based on satisfaction and its application to random and biological boolean networks. Complexity 2019 (2019).

Cannon, W. B. Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiol. Rev. 9 , 399–431 (1929).

Nichol, D., Robertson-Tessi, M., Jeavons, P. & Anderson, A. R. Stochasticity in the genotype-phenotype map: implications for the robustness and persistence of bet-hedging. Genetics 204 , 1523–1539 (2016).

Wang, H., Liu, B., Ping, X. & An, Q. Path tracking control for autonomous vehicles based on an improved mpc. IEEE Access 7 , 161064–161073 (2019).

Solea, R. & Nunes, U. Trajectory planning and sliding-mode control based trajectory-tracking for cybercars. Integr. Computer-Aided Eng. 14 , 33–47 (2007).

Antonelli, G., Chiaverini, S. & Fusco, G. A fuzzy-logic-based approach for mobile robot path tracking. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15 , 211–221 (2007).

Geroliminis, N., Haddad, J. & Ramezani, M. Optimal perimeter control for two urban regions with macroscopic fundamental diagrams: a model predictive approach. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 14 , 348–359 (2012).

Zhou, D. & Gayah, V. V. Scalable multi-region perimeter metering control for urban networks: a multi-agent deep reinforcement learning approach. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 148 , 104033 (2023).

Pisarchik, A. N. & Feudel, U. Control of multistability. Phys. Rep. 540 , 167–218 (2014).

Grziwotz, F. et al. Anticipating the occurrence and type of critical transitions. Sci. Adv. 9 , eabq4558 (2023).

Gatenby, R. A., Silva, A. S., Gillies, R. J. & Frieden, B. R. Adaptive therapy. Cancer Res. 69 , 4894–4903 (2009).

Read, A. F., Day, T. & Huijben, S. The evolution of drug resistance and the curious orthodoxy of aggressive chemotherapy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 10871–10877 (2011).

Read, A. F. & Woods, R. J. Antibiotic resistance management. Evol. Med. Public Health 2014 , 147 (2014).

Whelan, C. J. & Cunningham, J. J. Resistance is not the end: lessons from pest management. Cancer Control 27 , 1073274820922543 (2020).

Cunningham, J. J. A call for integrated metastatic management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 996–998 (2019).

Zhang, J., Cunningham, J. J., Brown, J. S. & Gatenby, R. A. Integrating evolutionary dynamics into treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Nat. Commun. 8 , 1816 (2017).

Strobl, M., Gallaher, J., Robertson-Tessi, M., West, J. & Anderson, A. Treatment of evolving cancers will require dynamic decision support. Ann. Oncol. 34 , 867–884 (2023).

West, J. B. et al. Multidrug cancer therapy in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: an evolution-based strategy. Clin. Cancer Res. 25 , 4413–4421 (2019).

Ramírez-Carrillo, E. et al. Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population. PLoS ONE 18 , e0281385 (2023).

Isaac, G. et al. Potential long consequences from internal and external ecology: loss of gut microbiota antifragility in children from an industrialized population compared with an indigenous rural lifestyle. J. Dev. Orig. Health Dis. 14 , 469–480 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jeffrey West, PhD was supported by an Institutional Research Grant, IRG-21-145-25 from the American Cancer Society. Jeffrey West also acknowledges support from the Center of Excellence for Evolutionary Therapy at Moffitt Cancer Center. Meisam Akbarzadeh has been supported by the ETH Zurich Risk Center.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science and Center for Artificial Intelligence, Nuremberg Institute of Technology Georg Simon Ohm, Nuremberg, Germany

Cristian Axenie

Investigadores por México (IxM) at Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas (IIMAS), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad Universitaria, CDMX, Mexico

Oliver López-Corona

Institute for Transport Planning and Systems (IVT), ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Michail A. Makridis

Department of Transportation Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

Meisam Akbarzadeh

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

Matteo Saveriano

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Alexandru Stancu

Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

Jeffrey West

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.A., O.L.C., M.A.M., M.A., M.S., A.S., and J.W. all contributed to the literature review, writing, editing, and final approval of the completed version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey West .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare 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 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Axenie, C., López-Corona, O., Makridis, M.A. et al. Antifragility in complex dynamical systems. npj Complex 1 , 12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-024-00014-y

Download citation

Received : 07 January 2024

Accepted : 25 June 2024

Published : 01 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-024-00014-y

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.