include literature review in a research paper

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

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

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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 9 September 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.

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(1); 2018 Feb

Writing an effective literature review

Lorelei lingard.

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Health Sciences Addition, Western University, London, Ontario Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

This Writer’s Craft instalment is the first in a two-part series that offers strategies for effectively presenting the literature review section of a research manuscript. This piece alerts writers to the importance of not only summarizing what is known but also identifying precisely what is not, in order to explicitly signal the relevance of their research. In this instalment, I will introduce readers to the mapping the gap metaphor, the knowledge claims heuristic, and the need to characterize the gap.

Mapping the gap

The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown— what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the ‘knowledge deficit’ — thus establishing the need for your research study [ 1 ]. In an earlier Writer’s Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was introduced as a way of opening your paper with a clear statement of the problem that your work grapples with, the gap in our current knowledge about that problem, and the reason the gap matters [ 2 ]. This article explains how to use the literature review section of your paper to build and characterize the Gap claim in your Problem-Gap-Hook. The metaphor of ‘mapping the gap’ is a way of thinking about how to select and arrange your review of the existing literature so that readers can recognize why your research needed to be done, and why its results constitute a meaningful advance on what was already known about the topic.

Many writers have learned that the literature review should describe what is known. The trouble with this approach is that it can produce a laundry list of facts-in-the-world that does not persuade the reader that the current study is a necessary next step. Instead, think of your literature review as painting in a map of your research domain: as you review existing knowledge, you are painting in sections of the map, but your goal is not to end with the whole map fully painted. That would mean there is nothing more we need to know about the topic, and that leaves no room for your research. What you want to end up with is a map in which painted sections surround and emphasize a white space, a gap in what is known that matters. Conceptualizing your literature review this way helps to ensure that it achieves its dual goal: of presenting what is known and pointing out what is not—the latter of these goals is necessary for your literature review to establish the necessity and importance of the research you are about to describe in the methods section which will immediately follow the literature review.

To a novice researcher or graduate student, this may seem counterintuitive. Hopefully you have invested significant time in reading the existing literature, and you are understandably keen to demonstrate that you’ve read everything ever published about your topic! Be careful, though, not to use the literature review section to regurgitate all of your reading in manuscript form. For one thing, it creates a laundry list of facts that makes for horrible reading. But there are three other reasons for avoiding this approach. First, you don’t have the space. In published medical education research papers, the literature review is quite short, ranging from a few paragraphs to a few pages, so you can’t summarize everything you’ve read. Second, you’re preaching to the converted. If you approach your paper as a contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation,[ 2 ] then your literature review should summarize just the aspects of that conversation that are required to situate your conversational turn as informed and relevant. Third, the key to relevance is to point to a gap in what is known. To do so, you summarize what is known for the express purpose of identifying what is not known . Seen this way, the literature review should exert a gravitational pull on the reader, leading them inexorably to the white space on the map of knowledge you’ve painted for them. That white space is the space that your research fills.

Knowledge claims

To help writers move beyond the laundry list, the notion of ‘knowledge claims’ can be useful. A knowledge claim is a way of presenting the growing understanding of the community of researchers who have been exploring your topic. These are not disembodied facts, but rather incremental insights that some in the field may agree with and some may not, depending on their different methodological and disciplinary approaches to the topic. Treating the literature review as a story of the knowledge claims being made by researchers in the field can help writers with one of the most sophisticated aspects of a literature review—locating the knowledge being reviewed. Where does it come from? What is debated? How do different methodologies influence the knowledge being accumulated? And so on.

Consider this example of the knowledge claims (KC), Gap and Hook for the literature review section of a research paper on distributed healthcare teamwork:

KC: We know that poor team communication can cause errors. KC: And we know that team training can be effective in improving team communication. KC: This knowledge has prompted a push to incorporate teamwork training principles into health professions education curricula. KC: However, most of what we know about team training research has come from research with co-located teams—i. e., teams whose members work together in time and space. Gap: Little is known about how teamwork training principles would apply in distributed teams, whose members work asynchronously and are spread across different locations. Hook: Given that much healthcare teamwork is distributed rather than co-located, our curricula will be severely lacking until we create refined teamwork training principles that reflect distributed as well as co-located work contexts.

The ‘We know that …’ structure illustrated in this example is a template for helping you draft and organize. In your final version, your knowledge claims will be expressed with more sophistication. For instance, ‘We know that poor team communication can cause errors’ will become something like ‘Over a decade of patient safety research has demonstrated that poor team communication is the dominant cause of medical errors.’ This simple template of knowledge claims, though, provides an outline for the paragraphs in your literature review, each of which will provide detailed evidence to illustrate a knowledge claim. Using this approach, the order of the paragraphs in the literature review is strategic and persuasive, leading the reader to the gap claim that positions the relevance of the current study. To expand your vocabulary for creating such knowledge claims, linking them logically and positioning yourself amid them, I highly recommend Graff and Birkenstein’s little handbook of ‘templates’ [ 3 ].

As you organize your knowledge claims, you will also want to consider whether you are trying to map the gap in a well-studied field, or a relatively understudied one. The rhetorical challenge is different in each case. In a well-studied field, like professionalism in medical education, you must make a strong, explicit case for the existence of a gap. Readers may come to your paper tired of hearing about this topic and tempted to think we can’t possibly need more knowledge about it. Listing the knowledge claims can help you organize them most effectively and determine which pieces of knowledge may be unnecessary to map the white space your research attempts to fill. This does not mean that you leave out relevant information: your literature review must still be accurate. But, since you will not be able to include everything, selecting carefully among the possible knowledge claims is essential to producing a coherent, well-argued literature review.

Characterizing the gap

Once you’ve identified the gap, your literature review must characterize it. What kind of gap have you found? There are many ways to characterize a gap, but some of the more common include:

• a pure knowledge deficit—‘no one has looked at the relationship between longitudinal integrated clerkships and medical student abuse’
• a shortcoming in the scholarship, often due to philosophical or methodological tendencies and oversights—‘scholars have interpreted x from a cognitivist perspective, but ignored the humanist perspective’ or ‘to date, we have surveyed the frequency of medical errors committed by residents, but we have not explored their subjective experience of such errors’
• a controversy—‘scholars disagree on the definition of professionalism in medicine …’
• a pervasive and unproven assumption—‘the theme of technological heroism—technology will solve what ails teamwork—is ubiquitous in the literature, but what is that belief based on?’

To characterize the kind of gap, you need to know the literature thoroughly. That means more than understanding each paper individually; you also need to be placing each paper in relation to others. This may require changing your note-taking technique while you’re reading; take notes on what each paper contributes to knowledge, but also on how it relates to other papers you’ve read, and what it suggests about the kind of gap that is emerging.

In summary, think of your literature review as mapping the gap rather than simply summarizing the known. And pay attention to characterizing the kind of gap you’ve mapped. This strategy can help to make your literature review into a compelling argument rather than a list of facts. It can remind you of the danger of describing so fully what is known that the reader is left with the sense that there is no pressing need to know more. And it can help you to establish a coherence between the kind of gap you’ve identified and the study methodology you will use to fill it.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Goldszmidt for his feedback on an early version of this manuscript.

PhD, is director of the Centre for Education Research & Innovation at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, and professor for the Department of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

How to Write a Literature Review

• What Is a Literature Review
• What Is the Literature

Writing the Review

Why Are You Writing This?

There are two primary points to remember as you are writing your literature review:

• Stand-alone review: provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question
• Research proposal: explicate the current issues and questions concerning a topic to demonstrate how your proposed research will contribute to the field
• Research report: provide the context to which your work is a contribution.
• Write as you read, and revise as you read more. Rather than wait until you have read everything you are planning to review, start writing as soon as you start reading. You will need to reorganize and revise it all later, but writing a summary of an article when you read it helps you to think more carefully about the article. Having drafts and annotations to work with will also make writing the full review easier since you will not have to rely completely on your memory or have to keep thumbing back through all the articles. Your draft does not need to be in finished, or even presentable, form. The first draft is for you, so you can tell yourself what you are thinking. Later you can rewrite it for others to tell them what you think.

General Steps for Writing a Literature Review

Here is a general outline of steps to write a thematically organized literature review. Remember, though, that there are many ways to approach a literature review, depending on its purpose.

• Stage one: annotated bibliography. As you read articles, books, etc, on your topic, write a brief critical synopsis of each. After going through your reading list, you will have an abstract or annotation of each source you read. Later annotations are likely to include more references to other works since you will have your previous readings to compare, but at this point the important goal is to get accurate critical summaries of each individual work.
• Stage two: thematic organization. Find common themes in the works you read, and organize the works into categories. Typically, each work you include in your review can fit into one category or sub-theme of your main theme, but sometimes a work can fit in more than one. (If each work you read can fit into all the categories you list, you probably need to rethink your organization.) Write some brief paragraphs outlining your categories, how in general the works in each category relate to each other, and how the categories relate to each other and to your overall theme.
• Stage three: more reading. Based on the knowledge you have gained in your reading, you should have a better understanding of the topic and of the literature related to it. Perhaps you have discovered specific researchers who are important to the field, or research methodologies you were not aware of. Look for more literature by those authors, on those methodologies, etc. Also, you may be able to set aside some less relevant areas or articles which you pursued initially. Integrate the new readings into your literature review draft. Reorganize themes and read more as appropriate.
• Stage four: write individual sections. For each thematic section,  use your draft annotations (it is a good idea to reread the articles and revise annotations, especially the ones you read initially) to write a section which discusses the articles relevant to that theme. Focus your writing on the theme of that section, showing how the articles relate to each other and to the theme, rather than focusing your writing on each individual article. Use the articles as evidence to support your critique of the theme rather than using the theme as an angle to discuss each article individually.
• Stage five: integrate sections. Now that you have the thematic sections, tie them together with an introduction, conclusion, and some additions and revisions in the sections to show how they relate to each other and to your overall theme.

Specific Points to Include

More specifically, here are some points to address when writing about specific works you are reviewing. In dealing with a paper or an argument or theory, you need to assess it (clearly understand and state the claim) and analyze it (evaluate its reliability, usefulness, validity). Look for the following points as you assess and analyze papers, arguments, etc. You do not need to state them all explicitly, but keep them in mind as you write your review:

• Be specific and be succinct. Briefly state specific findings listed in an article, specific methodologies used in a study, or other important points. Literature reviews are not the place for long quotes or in-depth analysis of each point.
• Be selective. You are trying to boil down a lot of information into a small space. Mention just the most important points (i.e. those most relevant to the review's focus) in each work you review.
• Is it a current article? How old is it? Have its claims, evidence, or arguments been superceded by more recent work? If it is not current, is it important for historical background?
• What specific claims are made? Are they stated clearly?
• What evidence, and what type (experimental, statistical, anecdotal, etc) is offered? Is the evidence relevant? sufficient?
• What arguments are given? What assumptions are made, and are they warranted?
• What is the source of the evidence or other information? The author's own experiments, surveys, etc? Historical records? Government documents? How reliable are the sources?
• Does the author take into account contrary or conflicting evidence and arguments? How does the author address disagreements with other researchers?
• What specific conclusions are drawn? Are they warranted by the evidence?
• How does this article, argument, theory, etc, relate to other work?

These, however, are just the points that should be addressed when writing about a specific work. It is not an outline of how to organize your writing. Your overall theme and categories within that theme should organize your writing, and the above points should be integrated into that organization. That is, rather than write something like:

     Smith (2019) claims that blah, and provides evidence x to support it, and says it is probably because of blip. But Smith seems to have neglected factor b.      Jones (2021) showed that blah by doing y, which, Jones claims, means it is likely because of blot. But that methodology does not exclude other possibilities.      Johnson (2022) hypothesizes blah might be because of some other cause.

list the themes and then say how each article relates to that theme. For example:

     Researchers agree that blah (Smith 2019, Jones 2021, Johnson 2022), but they do not agree on why. Smith claims it is probably due to blip, but Jones, by doing y, tries to show it is likely because of blot. Jones' methodology, however, does not exclude other possibilities. Johnson hypothesizes ...

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

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

When you need an introduction for a literature review

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

What to include in a literature review introduction

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

In some cases, you might include:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction.

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, 37 creative ways to get motivation to study, minimalist writing for a better thesis, separating your self-worth from your phd work, how to develop an awesome phd timeline step-by-step.

• +44 (0) 207 391 9032

Recent Posts

What is a literature review definition, types, and examples.

• Why Is Your CV Getting Rejected and How to Avoid It
• Where to Find Images for Presentations
• What Is an Internship? Everything You Should Know
• How Long Should a Thesis Statement Be?
• How to Write a Character Analysis Essay
• Best Colours for Your PowerPoint Presentation: Top Colour Combinations
• How to Write a Nursing Essay – With Examples
• Top 5 Essential Skills You Should Build As An International Student
• How Professional Editing Services Can Take Your Writing to the Next Level
• Academic News
• Custom Essays
• Dissertation Writing
• Essay Marking
• Essay Writing
• Essay Writing Companies
• Model Essays
• Model Exam Answers
• Oxbridge Essays Updates
• PhD Writing
• Significant Academics
• Student News
• Study Skills
• University Applications
• University Essays
• University Life
• Writing Tips

Since 2006, Oxbridge Essays has been the UK’s leading paid essay-writing and dissertation service

We have helped 10,000s of undergraduate, Masters and PhD students to maximise their grades in essays, dissertations, model-exam answers, applications and other materials. If you would like a free chat about your project with one of our UK staff, then please just reach out on one of the methods below.

A literature review is an essential part of any academic research paper, thesis, or dissertation. It provides a thorough examination of existing research on a particular topic, allowing the researcher to identify gaps, areas of agreement or disagreement, and emerging trends in the field. In this post, we’ll delve into the definition of a literature review, explore the different types of literature reviews, and provide examples of literature review structures that can guide your own work. Additionally, we’ll offer tips on how to craft a compelling literature review that strengthens the foundation of your research.

Literature Review Meaning

The term "literature review" refers to a comprehensive survey of the scholarly works, books, journal articles, and other sources relevant to a particular research topic. Its primary purpose is to offer a critical evaluation of the existing body of knowledge. The literature review helps set the context for the research question, showing what has already been explored and where gaps in knowledge or methodological limitations may exist. By examining various sources, you can assess how your research fits into the broader conversation within your field. The literature review also provides the foundation for your argument, helping to justify the importance of your research and explain how it contributes to the ongoing academic discussion.

Why Is a Literature Review Important?

A literature review is not just a summary of previous research but a critical analysis of the work that has been done in a particular area of study. It helps demonstrate your understanding of the topic and situates your work within the existing academic landscape. By conducting a literature review, you ensure that your research is not redundant and identify the unique contributions your study can make. Furthermore, the literature review informs your methodology, highlighting which methods have been successful in previous studies and which have encountered limitations. By understanding what has worked before, you can avoid potential pitfalls and build upon the successes of earlier researchers.

Literature Review Structure

The structure of a literature review can vary depending on the nature of your research and the field of study. However, the most common literature review structure includes several key components:

• Introduction :This section outlines the scope of the literature review, defines the key terms, and states the overall purpose of the review. It provides the reader with an understanding of what the review will cover.
• Thematic Organisation : The literature is often organised thematically, grouping together works that address similar aspects of the research topic. Themes can relate to theoretical approaches, methodologies, or different interpretations of key issues.
• Critical Evaluation : The body of the literature review should not only summarise the existing research but also critically evaluate it. This might involve identifying strengths and weaknesses in methodologies, assessing the reliability of findings, and discussing how well the research supports the claims made.
• Conclusion : The conclusion should summarise the main findings of the review, restate the key themes, and highlight gaps in the research that your study will address. It should also reflect on how the literature review has shaped your own research design.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are several different forms of literature reviews, each with a distinct focus and structure. Understanding these types can help you choose the approach that best fits your research needs. Here are some of the most common types of literature reviews:

• Narrative Literature Review : This is the most traditional form of literature review. It provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of the literature on a particular topic. Narrative reviews are often broad in scope and provide an overview of key themes and trends.
• Systematic Literature Review : This type of review involves a rigorous, structured process that aims to identify all relevant studies on a specific research question. Systematic reviews follow a clearly defined methodology, including specific criteria for selecting and analysing studies. They are commonly used in fields such as healthcare, where a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is needed.
• Scoping Review : Clearly outline your main argument or position. This should guide the direction of your essay.
• Scoping Review : A scoping review is used to map the key concepts, sources, and evidence in a research area. It is often the first step before a systematic review and is useful for identifying gaps in the literature and guiding further research.
• Meta-Analysis : This is a form of literature review that uses statistical techniques to combine the results of multiple studies. Meta-analyses are typically used to provide an overall estimate of the effect size for a particular intervention or phenomenon.
• Integrative Review : An integrative review synthesises qualitative and quantitative data to provide a more holistic view of the research on a particular topic. It aims to generate new perspectives by integrating findings from different types of studies.
• Critical Review : This type of literature review goes beyond merely describing the literature. A critical review analyses and synthesises the research, evaluating its strengths and weaknesses and offering new insights and perspectives on the topic.

Short Example of a Literature Review

Below is an example of the literature review from a dissertation on climate change policies. The example demonstrates how to structure a literature review and critically engage with the literature:

Introduction of the Literature Review

Climate change has been a topic of growing concern over the past few decades, with numerous policies introduced globally to mitigate its effects. This review examines the existing literature on climate change policies, focusing on the effectiveness of carbon pricing, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches. The review aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of these policies and identify gaps in the research that future studies should address.

Thematic Organisation

The literature is organised into three main themes: carbon pricing mechanisms, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches to emissions reduction. Each theme is analysed in detail, examining the key findings of previous research and assessing the impact of these policies on greenhouse gas emissions.

Critical Evaluation

The review finds that while carbon pricing mechanisms have been effective in reducing emissions in some contexts, their success is heavily dependent on political and economic factors. Renewable energy subsidies have contributed to significant increases in renewable energy capacity, but their long-term sustainability remains in question. Regulatory approaches, while often politically contentious, have proven to be effective in certain jurisdictions.

The literature review concludes that although significant progress has been made in the development of climate change policies, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts of these policies and to explore new approaches that may be more effective in reducing emissions.

Key Considerations

Writing a literature review can be a complex task, but it is a vital part of the research process. By understanding the meaning of a literature review, familiarising yourself with different forms of literature reviews, and following a clear structure, you can create a review that enhances your research project and demonstrates your knowledge of the field.

Top 10 tips for writing a dissertation methodology

Advice for successfully writing a dissertation, how to structure your dissertation in 2024, writing services.

• Essay Plans
• Critical Reviews
• Literature Reviews
• Presentations
• Dissertation Title Creation
• Dissertation Proposals
• Dissertation Chapters
• PhD Proposals
• Journal Publication
• CV Writing Service
• Business Proofreading Services

Editing Services

• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• Academic Editing Service

Additional Services

• Marking Services
• Consultation Calls
• Personal Statements
• Tutoring Services

Our Company

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Become a Writer

Terms & Policies

• Fair Use Policy
• Policy for Students in England
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Editing Service Examples
• [email protected]
• Contact Form

Payment Methods

Cryptocurrency payments.

What is a Living Literature Review?

Table of contents.

The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult.

One response to this challenge is “living literature reviews”. At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.

Living literature reviews aim to be accessible to readers unfamiliar with a field while maintaining rigor. Unlike news articles that often focus on single, sensational studies, these reviews provide a broader perspective, synthesizing findings from multiple sources. They differ from traditional academic literature reviews by avoiding paywalls, dense jargon, and lengthy formats that pose barriers to non-specialists. Moreover, because they don’t assume familiarity with the assumptions of a field, living literature reviews aim to describe how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions are. This transparency allows readers to better understand the research methodology and form their own judgment on the strength of the findings.

Living literature reviews also help readers assess a field by relying on a single individual to provide a consistent voice, perspective, and expert curatorial taste. While these individuals collaborate with other experts in their fields, having one consistent author allows readers to gauge how much they trust the author’s judgment over time.

Finally, living literature reviews leverage digital platforms for hosting and distribution. Websites allow for post-publication corrections and updates, enabling a level of currency that traditional print reviews can’t match. Complementing these, email newsletters and podcasts extend the reach and convenience of learning about academic research.

By making research accessible to a broader audience, living literature reviews can facilitate interdisciplinary connections and inform policy work. They offer insights into work happening in adjacent fields, potentially inspiring collaborations and novel research directions.

Open Philanthropy supports several living literature reviews:

• New Things Under the Sun by Matt Clancy: social science research on science and innovation
• Existential Crunch by Florian Jehn: academic literature on societal collapse
• Some Are Useful by Tom Gebhart: how AI and machine learning are used in different parts of science
• Good Questions Review by Paul Kellner: the relationship between academic research and policy impact

We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews . We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their proposed area. Our support typically allows authors to dedicate a quarter to a third of their time to the project.

If you’re interested in launching your own living literature review, we encourage you to reach out. For more information on how to submit a pre-proposal, please contact [email protected] .

Privacy Overview

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
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2024

Navigating post-pandemic challenges through institutional research networks and talent management

• Muhammad Zada   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-4229 1 , 2 ,
• Imran Saeed 3 ,
• Jawad Khan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6673-7617 4 &
• Shagufta Zada 5 , 6  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1164 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Business and management

Institutions actively seek global talent to foster innovation in the contemporary landscape of scientific research, education, and technological progress. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of international collaboration as researchers and academicians faced limitations in accessing labs and conducting research experiments. This study uses a research collaboration system to examine the relationship between organizational intellectual capital (Human and structural Capital) and team scientific and technological performance. Further, this study underscores the moderating role of top management support. Using a time-lagged study design, data were collected from 363 participants in academic and research institutions. The results show a positive relationship between organizational intellectual capital (Human and structural Capital) and team scientific and technological performance using a research collaboration system. Moreover, top management support positively moderates the study’s hypothesized relationships. The study’s findings contribute significantly to existing knowledge in this field, with implications for academia, researchers, and government focused on technology transmission, talent management, research creative collaboration, supporting innovation, scientific research, technological progress, and preparing for future challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study

Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Introduction.

Global talent management and the talent hunt within research and educational institutions have become extensively discussed topics in international human resource management (HRM) (Al et al., 2022 ). Global talent management is intricately connected to the notion of finding, managing, and facilitating the fetch of research, skills, techniques, and knowledge among team members and progress in education and technology (Kwok, 2022 ; Sommer et al., 2017 ). This topic assumes a greater position when it is looked at through the lens of research, academicians, and educational institutions serving as a means of achieving scientific and technological advancement and performance (Kaliannan et al., 2023 ; Patnaik et al., 2022 ). Effective knowledge management and transfer occur between teams engaged in cross-border research collaborations (Davenport et al., 2002 ; Fasi, 2022 ). Effective team management, global talent recruitment, and the exchange of scientific knowledge across national boundaries face different challenges due to the swift growth of economic and political fanaticism. This is particularly evident in advanced economies that rely heavily on knowledge-based industries (Vaiman et al., 2018 ). Research and educational sectors are encountering significant challenges in effectively hunting and managing international talent, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which approximately half of the global workforce faced the possibility of job loss (Almeida et al., 2020 ; Radhamani et al., 2021 ). Due to the implementation of lockdown measures by governments, many research intuitions are facing significant issues, and the pandemic has changed the situation; work was stuck, and scientists around the globe are thinking to be prepared for this kind of situation, which is possible through the use scientific research collaboration platforms. These platforms serve as a means to exchange research and knowledge, which is crucial in the talent hunt and management (Haak-Saheem, 2020 ). In the situation above, wherein limitations exist regarding the exchange of research and knowledge within the institutions, it becomes imperative for the top management of institutions to incentivize employees to engage the team in knowledge sharing actively and achieve team-level scientific and technological advancement. It can be achieved by implementing a research collaboration system that facilitates knowledge exchange and contributes to effective talent hunt and management (Haider et al., 2022 ; Xu et al., 2024 ).

A research collaboration network is a tool for scientific and technological advancement and talent management encompassing various processes and practices to facilitate the sharing, integration, translation, and transformation of scientific knowledge (Biondi & Russo, 2022 ). During and after the COVID-19 era characterized by travel restrictions, research networking platforms serve as valuable tools for students and researchers located in variance regions to engage in the exchange of research knowledge and achieve team-level scientific and technological advancement (Yang et al., 2024 ). Enhancing intellectual capital (IC) within the organizations is imperative within this framework (Pellegrini et al., 2022 ; Vătămănescu et al., 2023 ). Intellectual capital (IC) is the intangible assets owned by an organization that has the potential to generate value (Stewart, 1991 ). An organization’s intellectual capital (IC) includes human and structural capital (Marinelli et al., 2022 ). According to Vătămănescu et al. ( 2023 ), the organization can effectively manage the skills and abilities of its team members across different countries by properly utilizing both human and structural capital and establishing a strong research collaboration system with the help of top management support. This capability remains intact even during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study emphasizes the importance of talent hunt and management within research and educational institutions in the post-COVID-19 pandemic because of every country’s following implementation of lockdown measures. Our study focuses on the implication of facilitating the exchange of research, knowledge, and techniques among team members during and after this period. The effective way to share research expertise and techniques in such a scenario is through a research collaboration network (O’Dwyer et al., 2023 ).

While previous research has extensively explored talent management in various industries (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014 ; Susanto, Sawitri, Ali, & Rony, 2023 ), a noticeable gap exists in the body of knowledge regarding the discussion of global talent acquisition and management within research and academic institutions, particularly within volatile environments and about scientific and technological advancements (Harsch & Festing, 2020 ). The objective of this research is to fill this research gap.1) To investigate the strategies of how research and educational institutions hunt and manage gobble talent. 2)To analyze the impact of human and structural capital and team scientific and technological performance using a research collaboration system. 3) To examine the moderating effect of top management support on the IC to use the research collation network among institution research teams and scientific and technological performance.

In addition, current research contributes significantly to the literature by elucidating the pivotal role of organizational intellectual capital in strengthening scientific and technological performance through research collaborative networks. This study advances our grip on how internal resources drive innovation and research outcomes by empirically demonstrating the positive association between human and structural capital and team-level scientific and technological performance. Furthermore, the current study highlights the moderating effect of top management support, suggesting that management commitment can amplify the benefits of intellectual capital (human and structural capital). These results show a subtle perspective on how organizations can influence their intellectual assets to foster higher levels of productivity and innovation. The study’s theoretical contributions lie in integrating resource-based views and organizational theory with performance metrics, while its practical implications provide actionable insights for institutions aiming to optimize their intellectual resources and management practices. This research also sets the stage for future inquiries into the dynamics of intellectual capital and management support in various collaborative contexts.

Research theories, literature review, and hypotheses development

Research theories.

The focus of the current study pertains to the challenges surrounding talent management within institutions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic(Fernandes et al., 2023 ). Global talent management is intently linked to the objective of enhancing the intellectual capital of the organization (Zada et al., 2023 ). Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, which raised much more attention toward scientific and technological advancement, the academic sector has noticed an observable shift towards utilizing research collaboration platforms to share scientific knowledge effectively and achieve scientific and technological performance. Intellectual capital encompasses five distinct resource categories, as identified by Roos and Roos ( 1997 ), comprising three immaterial and two touchable resources. Intangible resources such as human capital, structural capital, and customer capital are complemented by tangible resources, encompassing monetary and physical assets. Global talent management encompasses human and structural capital management (Felin & Hesterly, 2007 ). The enhancement of talent management capabilities within the institution can be achieved by cultivating institution-specific competencies in both human and structural capital (Al Ariss et al., 2014 ). This concept lines up with the theoretical background of the resource-based view (RBV) theory presented by Barney ( 1991 ). According to this theory, organizations should prioritize examining their core resources to recognize valuable assets, competencies, and capabilities that can contribute to attaining a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 ).

During and after the COVID-19 scenario, virtual platforms are utilized by institutions to engage students and staff abroad in research and knowledge exchange, which is part of global talent management. Staff possessing adequate knowledge repositories will likely participate in knowledge exchange activities. Therefore, organizations must improve their internal resources to enhance talent management, as per the fundamental principle of the RBV theory (Barney, 1991 ). Enhancing internal resources entails strengthening an organization’s human capital, which refers to its staff’s scientific research and technical skills and knowledge and structural capital. Strengthening these two resources can facilitate the institution in effectively sharing knowledge through a research collaboration platform, consequently enhancing their global talent management endeavors and contributing to the team’s scientific and technological performance.

In this research, we also utilize institutional theory (Oliver, 1997 ) and Scott ( 2008 ) as a framework to examine the utilization of research collaboration social platforms by faculty of institutions. Our focus is on exchanging research and technical knowledge within the climate of global talent management during and after the COVID-19 epidemic. According to Scott ( 2008 ), “Institutional theory is a widely recognized theoretical framework emphasizing rational myths, isomorphism, and legitimacy (p. 78)”. For electronic data interchange, the theory has been utilized in technology adoption research (Damsgaard, Lyytinen ( 2001 )) and educational institutes (J. et al., 2007 ). In the pandemic situation, institutional theory provides researchers with a framework to analyze the motivations of employees within institutions to engage in teams to achieve team-level scientific and technological performance through a research collaboration system. According to institutional theory, organizations should utilize a research collaboration network to ensure that their staff do not need to compromise their established norms, values, and expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous countries implemented limitations on international movement as a preventive measure. Consequently, there has been a growing identification of the potential importance of utilizing an institutional research collaboration platform for facilitating the online exchange of knowledge, skills, research techniques, and global talent management among employees of institutions operating across various countries. The active support of staff by the top management of an institution can play a key role in expediting the implementation of social networks for research collaboration within the institution (Zada et al., 2023 ).

Literature review

An institution’s scientific and technological advancement is contingent upon optimal resource utilization (Muñoz et al., 2022 ). Global talent hunt and management encompasses utilizing information and communication technologies (ICT) to provide a way for the exchange of research knowledge and techniques, thereby enabling the implementation of knowledge-based strategies (Muñoz et al., 2022 ). In a high research-level turbulent environment, it becomes imperative to effectively manage human capital (HUC) to facilitate the appropriate exchange of research knowledge and techniques (Salamzadeh, Tajpour, Hosseini, & Brahmi, 2023 ). Research shows that transferring research knowledge and techniques across national boundaries, exchanging best practices, and cultivating faculty skills are crucial factors in maintaining competitiveness (Farahian, Parhamnia, & Maleki, 2022 ; Shao & Ariss, 2020 ).

It is widely acknowledged in scholarly literature that there is a prevailing belief among individuals that talent possesses movability and that research knowledge and techniques can be readily transferred (Bakhsh et al., 2022 ; Council, 2012 ). However, it is essential to note that the matter is more complex than it may initially appear (Biondi & Russo, 2022 ). The proliferation of political and economic nationalism in developed knowledge-based economies poses a significant risk to exchanging research knowledge and techniques among faculty members in research and educational institutions worldwide (Arocena & Sutz, 2021 ). During and after COVID-19, knowledge transfer can be effectively facilitated by utilizing a research collaboration network platform (Duan & Li, 2023 ; Sulaiman et al., 2022 ). This circumstance is noticeable within the domain of international research and development, wherein academic professionals have the opportunity to utilize research collaboration platforms as a means of disseminating valuable research knowledge and techniques to their counterparts in various nations (Jain et al., 2022 ).

The scientific and technological advancement of institutions linked by intuition research and development level and research and development depend on the intuition’s quality of research, knowledge, and management (Anshari & Hamdan, 2022 ). However, there is a need to enhance the research team’s capacity to learn and transfer research knowledge and techniques effectively. Research suggests that institutional human capital (HUC) is critical in managing existing resources and hunting international talent, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic (Sigala, Ren, Li, & Dioko, 2023 ). Human capital refers to the combined implicit and crystal clear knowledge of employees within an institution and their techniques and capabilities to effectively apply this knowledge to achieve scientific and technological advancements (Al-Tit et al., 2022 ). According to Baron and Armstrong ( 2007 ) Human capital refers to the abilities, knowledge, techniques, skills, and expertise of individuals, particularly research team members, that are relevant to the current task.

Furthermore, HUC encompasses the scope of individuals who can contribute to this reservoir of research knowledge, techniques, and expertise through individual learning. As the literature shows, the concept of IC encompasses the inclusion of structural capital (STC), which requires fortification through the implementation of a proper global talent acquisition and management system (Pak et al., 2023 ; Phan et al., 2020 ). STC encompasses various mechanisms to enhance an institution’s performance and productivity (Barpanda, 2021 ). STC is extensively acknowledged as an expedited framework for HUC, as discussed by Bontis ( 1998 ) and further explored by Gogan, Duran, and Draghici ( 2015 ). During and after the COVID-19 epidemic, a practical approach to global talent management involves leveraging research collaboration network platforms to facilitate knowledge exchange among research teams (Arslan et al., 2021 ). However, the crucial involvement of top management support is imperative to effectively manage talent by utilizing research collaboration network platforms for knowledge transfer (Zada et al., 2023 ). Nevertheless, the existing body of knowledge needs to adequately explore the topic of talent management about knowledge transfer on research collaboration platforms, particularly in the context of institution-active management support (Tan & Md. Noor, 2013 ).

Conceptual model and research hypothesis

By analyzing pertinent literature and theoretical frameworks, we have identified the factors influencing staff intention in research and academic institutions to utilize research collaboration networks after the COVID-19 pandemic and achieve scientific and technical performance. This study aims to explain the determinants. Additionally, this study has considered the potential influence of top management support as a moderator on the associations between education and research institution staff intention on IC to utilize research collaboration platforms in the post-COVID-19 era and predictors. Through this discourse, we shall generate several hypotheses to serve as the basis for constructing a conceptual model (see Fig. 1 ).

Relationships between study variables: human capital, structural capital, top management support, and team scientific and technological performance. Source: authors’ development.

Human capital and team scientific and technological performance

According to Dess and Picken ( 2000 ), HUC encompasses individuals’ capabilities, knowledge, skills, research techniques, and experience, including staff and supervisors, relevant to the specific task. Human capital also refers to the ability to pay to this reservoir of knowledge, techniques, and expertize through individual learning (Dess & Picken, 2000 ). HUC refers to the combinations of characteristics staff possess, including but not limited to research proficiency, technical aptitude, business acumen, process comprehension, and other similar competencies (Kallmuenzer et al., 2021 ). The HUC is considered an institutional repository of knowledge, as Bontis and Fitz‐enz ( 2002 ) indicated, with its employees serving as representatives. The concept of HUC refers to the combined abilities, research proficiency, and competencies that individuals possess to address and resolve operational challenges within an institutional setting (Barpanda, 2021 ; Yang & Xiangming, 2024 ). The human capital possessed by institutions includes crucial attributes that allow organizations to acquire significant internal resources that are valuable, difficult to replicate, scarce, and cannot be substituted. It aligns with the theoretical framework of the RBV theory, as suggested by Barney ( 1991 ). IC is extensively recognized as a main factor in revitalizing organizational strategy and promoting creativity and innovation. It is crucial to enable organizations to acquire and effectively disseminate knowledge among their employees, contribute to talent management endeavors, and achieve scientific and technological performance (Alrowwad et al., 2020 ; He et al., 2023 ). Human capital is linked to intrinsic aptitude, cognitive capabilities, creative problem-solving, exceptional talent, and the capacity for originality (Bontis & Fitz‐enz, 2002 ). In talent management, there is a focus on enhancing scientific and technological performance and development. According to Shao and Ariss ( 2020 ), HUC is expected to strengthen employee motivation to utilize research collaboration networks for scientific knowledge-sharing endeavors. Based on these arguments, we proposed that.

Hypothesis 1 Human capital (HUC) positively impacts team scientific and technological performance using a research collaboration system.

Structural capital and team scientific and technological Performance

According to Mehralian, Nazari, and Ghasemzadeh ( 2018 ) structural capital (STC) encompasses an organization’s formalized knowledge assets. It consists of the structures and mechanisms employed by the institution to enhance its talent management endeavors. The concept of STC is integrated within the framework of institutions’ programs, laboratory settings, and databases (Cavicchi & Vagnoni, 2017 ). The significance of an organization’s structural capital as an internal tangible asset that bolsters its human capital has been recognized by scholars such as Secundo, Massaro, Dumay, and Bagnoli ( 2018 ), and This concept also lines up with the RBV theory (J. Barney, 1991 ). The strategic assets of an organization encompass its capabilities, organizational culture, patents, and trademarks (Gogan et al., 2015 ).

Furthermore, Birasnav, Mittal, and Dalpati ( 2019 ) Suggested that these strategic assets promote high-level organizational performance, commonly called STC. Literature shows that STC encompasses an organization’s collective expertise and essential knowledge that remains intact even when employees depart (Alrowwad et al., 2020 ; Mehralian et al., 2018 ; Sarwar & Mustafa, 2023 ). The institution’s socialization, training, and development process facilitates the transfer of scientific research knowledge, skills, and expertise to its team (Arocena & Sutz, 2021 ; Marchiori et al., 2022 ). The STC is broadly recognized as having important potential and is a highly productive resource for generating great value. STC motivates its team member to share expertise with their counterparts at subordinate organizations by utilizing an institution’s research collaboration network and achieving team-level scientific and technological performance. This method remains effective even in challenging environments where traditional means of data collection, face-to-face meetings, and travel are not feasible (Secundo et al., 2016 ). In light of the above literature and theory, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Structural capital (STC) positively impacts team scientific and technological performance using a research collaboration system.

Top management support as a moderator

If the relationship between two constructs is not constant, the existence of a third construct can potentially affect this relationship by enhancing or diminishing its strength. In certain cases, the impact of a third construct can adjust the trajectory of the relationship between two variables. The variable in question is commonly called the “moderating variable.” According to Zada et al. ( 2023 ), top management support to leaders efficiently encourages team members within institutions to share research scientific knowledge with their counterparts in different countries through international research collaboration systems. Similarly, another study shows that the active endorsement of the top management significantly affects the development of direct associations, thereby influencing the team and organization’s overall performance (Biondi & Russo, 2022 ; Phuong et al., 2024 ). Different studies have confirmed that top management support is crucial in fostering a conducive knowledge-sharing environment by offering necessary resources (Ali et al., 2021 ; Lee et al., 2016 ; Zada et al., 2023 ). During and after the COVID-19 epidemic, numerous nations implemented nonessential travel restrictions and lockdown measures. In the given context, utilizing a research collaboration system would effectively facilitate the exchange of research, skills, and knowledge among staff belonging to various subsidiaries of an institution (Rådberg & Löfsten, 2024 ; Rasheed et al., 2024 ). However, it is common for researchers to exhibit resistance to adopting a novel research technique, often citing various justifications for their reluctance. To address the initial hesitance of employees at subsidiary institutes towards utilizing research collaborative networking within the institute, top management must employ strategies that foster motivation, encouragement, and incentives. These measures help create an atmosphere where team members feel empowered to engage with the new system freely. Institutional theory asserts that top management support is crucial for aligning talent management with institutional norms. Human and structural capital, pivotal within the institutional framework, contributes to an institution’s capacity to attract and retain talent, enhancing legitimacy. Adaptation to scientific and technological advancements is imperative for international institutional competitiveness, as institutional theory dictates (Oliver, 1997 ). Grounded on the above discussion, we have hypothesized.

Hypothesis 3a : Top management support moderates the relationship between human capital (HUC) and team scientific and technological performance. Specifically, this relationship will be stronger for those with higher top management support and weaker for those with lower top management support.

Hypothesis 3b : Top management support moderates the relationship between structural capital (STC) and team scientific and technological performance through the use of research collaboration network platforms. Specifically, this relationship will be stronger for those with higher top management support and weaker for those with lower top management support.

Methods data and sample

Sample and procedures.

To test the proposed model, we collected data from respondents in China’s research and academic sector in three phases to mitigate standard method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ). In the first phase (T1-phase), respondents rated human capital, structural capital, and demographic information. After one month, respondents rated the team’s scientific and technological performance in the second phase (T2-phase). Following another one-month interval, respondents were asked to rate top management support in the third phase (T3-phase). In the first phase, after contacting 450 respondents, we received 417 usable questionnaires (92.66%). In the second phase, we received 403 usable questionnaires. In the third phase, we received 363 usable questionnaires (90.07%), constituting our final sample for interpreting the results. The sample comprises 63.4% male and 36.6% female respondents. The age distribution of the final sample was as follows: 25–30 years old (6.6%), 31–35 years old (57%), 36–40 years old (19.8%), and above 40 years old (16.5%). Regarding respondents’ experience, 45.7% had 1–5 years, 39.4% had 6–10 years, 11.3% had 11–15 years, and 3.6% had over 16 years. According to the respondents’ levels of education, 4.1% had completed bachelor’s degrees, 11.6% had earned master’s degrees, 78.8% were doctorate (PhD) scholars, and 5.5% were postdoctoral and above.

Measurement

To measure the variables, the current study adopted a questionnaire from previous literature, and age, gender, education, and experience were used as control variables. A five-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Human capital (HUC) was measured through an eight-item scale adopted by Kim, Atwater, Patel, and Smither ( 2016 ). The sample item is “The extent to which human capital of research and development department is competitive regarding team performance”. The self-reported scale developed by Nezam, Ataffar, Isfahani, and Shahin ( 2013 ) was adopted to measure structural capital. The scale consists of seven items. The sample scale item is “My organization emphasizes IT investment.” In order to measure top management support, a six-item scale was developed by Singh, Gupta, Busso, and Kamboj ( 2021 ), was adopted, and sample item includes “Sufficient incentives were provided by top management (TM) for achieving scientific and technological performance.” Finlay, the self-reported scale developed by Gonzalez-Mulé, Courtright, DeGeest, Seong, and Hong ( 2016 ) was adopted to gauge team scientific and technological performance and scales items are four. The sample item is “This team achieves its goals.”

Assessment of measurement model

In the process of employing AMOS for analysis, the initial step encompasses an assessment of the model to determine the strength and validity of the study variables. The evaluation of variable reliability conventionally revolves around two key aspects, which are indicator scale reliability and internal reliability. More precisely, indicator reliability is deemed to be recognized when factor loadings exceed the threshold of 0.60. In parallel, internal consistency reliability is substantiated by the attainment of values exceeding 0.70 for both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, aligning with well-established and recognized guidelines (Ringle et al., 2020 ).

To gauge the reliability of construct indicators, we utilized two key metrics which are composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The CR values for all variables were notably high, exceeding 0.70 and falling within the range of 0.882 to 0.955. This signifies a robust level of reliability for the indicators within each construct. Furthermore, the AVE values, which indicate convergent validity, exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.50, with each construct value varying from 0.608 to 0.653, thus affirming the presence of adequate convergent validity.

In addition to assessing convergent validity, we also examined discriminant validity by scrutinizing the cross-loadings of indicators on the corresponding variables and the squared correlations between constructs and AVE values. Our findings indicated that all measures exhibited notably stronger loadings on their intended constructs, thereby underscoring the measurement model’s discriminant validity.

Discriminant validity was recognized by observing average variance extracted (AVE) values that exceeded the squared correlations between constructs, as indicated in Table 1 . In conjunction with the Composite Reliability (CR) and AVE values, an additional discriminant validity assessment was conducted through a Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) analysis. This analysis entailed a comparison of inter-construct correlations against a predefined upper threshold of 0.85. The results demonstrated that all HTMT values remained significantly below this threshold, affirming satisfactory discriminant validity for each variable (Henseler et al., 2015 ). Every HTMT value recorded was situated beneath the specified threshold, thereby supplying supplementary confirmation regarding the constructs’ discriminant validity. In summary, the results of the outer model assessment indicate that the variables showcased commendable levels of reliability and validity, with the discriminant validity being suitably and convincingly established.

Moreover, correlation Table 2 shows that human capital is significantly and positively correlated with structural capital ( r  = 0.594**), TMS ( r  = 0.456 **), and STP ( r  = 0.517**). Structural capital is also significantly and positively correlated with TMS ( r  = 0.893**) and STP ( r  = 0.853**). Furthermore, TMS is significantly and positively correlated with STP (0.859**).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

A comprehensive confirmatory factor analysis was estimated by employing the software AMOS version 24 to validate the distinctiveness of the variables. CFA shows the fitness of the hypothesized four factors model, including human capital, structural capital, top management support, and team scientific and technological performance, as delineated in Table 3 ; the results show that the hypothesized four-factor model shows fit and excellent alternative models. Consequently, The study variables demonstrate validity and reliability, which makes the dimension model appropriate for conducting a structural path analysis, as advocated by Hair, Page, and Brunsveld ( 2019 ).

Hypotheses testing

This study used the bootstrapping approach, which involves 5,000 bootstrap samples to test the proposed study model and assess the significance and strength of the structural correlations. Using this approach, bias-corrected confidence intervals and p-values were generated in accordance with Streukens and Leroi-Werelds ( 2016 ) guidelines. First, we did an analysis that entailed checking the path coefficients and their connected significance. The findings, as shown in Table 4 , validate Hypothesis 1, revealing a positive correlation between HUC and STP ( β  = 0.476, p  < 0.001). Additionally, the finding validates Hypothesis 2, highlighting a positive association between structural capital and STP ( β  = 0.877, p  < 0.001). For the moderation analysis, we utilized confidence intervals that do not encompass zero, per the guidelines that Preacher and Hayes ( 2008 ) recommended.

In our analysis, we found support for Hypothesis 3a, which posited that top management support (TMS) moderates the relationship between human capital (HUC) and team scientific and technological performance (STP). The results in Table 4 showed that the moderating role, more precisely, the interaction between HUC and TMS, was substantial and positive ( β  = −0.131, p  = 0.001). These results suggest that TMS enhances the positive association between HUC and STP, as shown in Fig. 2 . Consequently, we draw the conclusion that our data substantiates hypothesis 3a. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3b posited that TMS moderates the relationship between STC and STP. The results indicate that TMS moderates the association between STC and STP ( β  = −0.141, p  = 0.001, as presented in Table 4 and Fig. 3 ).

The moderating effect of top management support (TMS) on the relationship between human capital (HUC) and team scientific and technological performance (STP). Source: authors’ development.

The moderating effect of top management support (TMS) on the relationship between structural capital (SUC) and team scientific and technological performance (STP). Source: authors’ development.

The current study highlights the importance of research and academic institutions effectively enhancing their scientific and technological capabilities to manage their global talent within an international research collaboration framework and meet future challenges. Additionally, it underscores the need for these institutions to facilitate scientific knowledge exchange among their employees and counterparts in different countries. The enhancement of talent management through the exchange of scientific research knowledge can be most effectively accomplished by utilizing a collaborative research system between educational and research institutions (Shofiyyah et al., 2023 ), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 landscape. This study has confirmed that enhancing the higher education and research institutions’ human capital (HUC) and structural capital (STC) could attract and maintain global talent management and lead to more effective scientific and technological progress. The findings indicate that the utilization of human capital (HUC) has a significant and positive effect on scientific and technological term performance (STP) (Hypothesis 1), which is consistent with previous research (Habert & Huc, 2010 ). This study has additionally demonstrated that the implementation of s tructural capital (STC) has a significant and positive effect on team scientific and technological performance (STP), as indicated by hypothesis 2, which is also supported by the previous studies finding in different ways (Sobaih et al., 2022 ). This study has also shown that top management support moderates the association between human capital (HUC) and team scientific and technological performance hypothesis 3a and the association between structural capital (STC) and team scientific and technological performance hypothesis 3b. These hypotheses have garnered support from previous studies’ findings in different domains (Chatterjee et al., 2022 ). The study’s empirical findings also confirm the substantial moderating influence exerted by top management support on the relationships between HUC and STP described in hypothesis 3a and STC and STP described in hypothesis 3b, as evidenced by the results presented in Table 4 . Additionally, graphical representations are conducted to investigate the impacts on hypotheses 3a and 3b resulting from the application of high-top management support (TMS) and weak TMS.

The effect of high-top management support (TMS) and weak TMS on Hypothesis 3a is depicted in Fig. 2 . The solid line illustrates the effects of robust TMS on Hypothesis 3a, while the dashed line shows the effects of weak TMS on Hypothesis 3a. The graphic description validates that, as human capital (HUC) increases, team scientific and technological performance (STP) is more pronounced when influenced by robust TMS than weak TMS. This is evidenced by the steeper slope of the solid line in comparison to the dashed line. This finding suggests that employees within the research and academic sectors are more likely to utilize research collaboration networks when influenced by HUC and receive strong support from the organization’s top management.

The graph in Fig. 3 shows the impact of solid top management support (TMS) and weak TMS on Hypothesis 3b. The dotted lines continuous on the graph correspond to the effects of robust TMS and weak TMS, respectively. Figure 3 illustrates that, with increasing top management support (TMS), scientific and technological performance (STP) increase is more significant for robust TMS than weak TMS. This is evident from the steeper slope of the continuous line compared to the slope of the dotted line. This finding suggests that employees within universities and institutes are more likely to engage in research collaboration systems when they receive strong support from top management despite enhanced structural support.

Theoretical contribution

The current study makes significant contributions to the existing body of knowledge by exploring the intricate dynamics between organizational intellectual capital and team performance within scientific and technological research, especially during the unprecedented times brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Through its detailed examination of human and structural capital, alongside the moderating impact of top management support, the study provides a multi-faceted understanding of how these factors interact to enhance team outcomes.

This research enriches the literature on intellectual capital by providing empirical evidence on the positive association between HUC and STC and team performance. HUC, which includes employees’ skills, knowledge, and expertise, is a critical driver of innovation and productivity (Lenihan et al., 2019 ). The study highlights how a team’s collective intelligence and capabilities can lead to superior scientific and technological outputs. This finding aligns with and extends previous research that underscores the importance of skilled HR in achieving organizational success (Luo et al., 2023 ; Salamzadeh et al., 2023 ). Structural capital, encompassing organizational processes, databases, and intellectual property, contributes significantly to team performance(Ling, 2013 ). The study illustrates how well-established structures and systems facilitate knowledge sharing, streamline research processes, and ultimately boost the efficiency and effectiveness of research teams. This aspect of the findings adds depth to the existing literature by demonstrating the tangible benefits of investing in robust organizational infrastructure to support research activities.

Another essential contribution of this study is integrating a research collaboration network as a facilitating factor. This network, including digital platforms and tools that enable seamless communication and collaboration among researchers, has become increasingly vital in remote work and global collaboration (Mitchell, 2023 ). By examining how these systems leverage HUC and STC to enhance team performance, the study provides a practical understanding of the mechanisms through which technology can facilitate team scientific and technological performance.

One of the most novel contributions of this study is its emphasis on the moderating role of top management support. The findings suggest that when top management actively supports research initiatives, provides required resources, and fosters innovation, the positive effects of human and structural capital on team performance are amplified (Zada et al., 2023 ). This aspect of the study addresses a gap in the literature by highlighting the critical influence of top management on the success of intellectual capital investments. It underscores the importance of managerial involvement and strategic vision in driving research excellence and team scientific and technological performance.

Practical implications

The practical implications of the current study are weightage for organizations aiming to enhance their research and innovation capabilities and boost their scientific and technical progress. Organizations should prioritize recruiting, training, and retaining highly skilled and trained researchers and professionals globally. This can be achieved through targeted hiring practices, offering competitive compensation and retention, providing continuous professional development opportunities, and developing proper research collaboration networks. Organizations can leverage their expertize to drive innovative research and technological advancements by nurturing a global, talented workforce. Investing in robust organizational structures, processes, and systems is critical (Joseph & Gaba, 2020 ). This includes developing comprehensive databases, implementing efficient research processes, securing intellectual property, and strengthening collaborations. These factors support efficient knowledge sharing and streamline research activities, leading to higher productivity and quality research outcomes (Azeem et al., 2021 ). Organizations should ensure that their infrastructure is adaptable and can support remote and collaborative work environments.

The current study emphasizes the importance of digital platforms and tools facilitating research collaboration. Organizations should adopt advanced research collaboration networks that enable seamless communication, data sharing, and talent management. These systems are particularly crucial in a globalized research environment where team members may be geographically dispersed. Investing in such technology can significantly enhance research projects’ productivity in a sustainable way (Susanto et al., 2023 ). Top Management plays a vital role in the success of research initiatives and contributes to scientific and technological performance. Top management should actively support research teams by providing required resources, setting clear strategic directions, and fostering a culture of innovation. This includes allocating budgets for organizational research and development, encouraging cross-border collaboration, recognizing and rewarding research achievements, and enhancing overall performance. Effective Management ensures that the intellectual capital within the organization is fully utilized and aligned with organizational developmental goals (Paoloni et al., 2020 ). Organizations should create a working atmosphere that encourages research, creativity, and innovation. This can be done by establishing innovation labs, promoting interdisciplinary research, recruiting international talents, sharing research scholars, and encouraging the sharing of ideas across different departments globally. A research-oriented culture that supports innovation can inspire researchers to pursue groundbreaking work and contribute to the organization’s competitive edge.

Limitations and future research direction

The research presents numerous theoretical and practical implications; however, it has. The potential limitation of common method bias could impact the findings of this study. This concern arises because the data for the study variables were obtained from a single source and relied on self-report measures (Podsakoff, 2003 ). Therefore, it is recommended that future studies be conducted longitudinally to gain additional insights into organizations’ potential to enhance efficiency. Furthermore, it is essential to note that the sample size for this study was limited to 363 respondents who were deemed usable. These respondents were drawn from only ten research and academic institutions explicitly targeting the education and research sector.

Consequently, this restricted sample size may hinder the generalizability of the findings. Future researchers may employ a larger sample size and implement a more systematic approach to the organization to enhance the comprehensiveness and generalizability of findings in the context of global talent management and scientific and technological advancement. Furthermore, in future investigations, researchers may explore alternative boundary conditions to ascertain whether additional factors could enhance the model’s efficacy.

Numerous academic studies have emphasized the significance of examining talent management outcomes in global human resource management (HRM). The continuous international movement of highly qualified individuals is viewed as a driving force behind the development of new technologies, the dissemination of scientific findings, and the collaboration between institutions worldwide. Every organization strives to build a qualified and well-trained team, and the personnel department of the organization focuses on finding ways to transfer knowledge from experienced workers to new hires. This study uses a research collaboration system to examine the relationship between organizational intellectual capital (Human and structural Capital) and team scientific and technological performance. Further, this study underscores the moderating role of top management support. These findings offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations can leverage their intellectual assets to foster higher productivity and innovation, especially in emergencies.

Data availability

Due to respondents’ privacy concerns, data will not be publicly available. However, it can be made available by contacting the corresponding author at a reasonable request.

Al-Tit AA, Al-Ayed S, Alhammadi A, Hunitie M, Alsarayreh A, Albassam W (2022) The impact of employee development practices on human capital and social capital: the mediating contribution of knowledge management. J Open Innov 8(4):218

Article   Google Scholar  

Al Ariss A, Cascio WF, Paauwe J (2014) Talent management: current theories and future research directions. J World Bus 49(2):173–179

Al Jawali H, Darwish TK, Scullion H, Haak-Saheem W (2022) Talent management in the public sector: empirical evidence from the Emerging Economy of Dubai. Int J Hum Resour Manag 33(11):2256–2284

Ali M, Li Z, Khan S, Shah SJ, Ullah R (2021) Linking humble leadership and project success: the moderating role of top management support with mediation of team-building. Int J Manag Proj Bus 14(3):545–562

Almeida F, Santos JD, Monteiro JA (2020) The challenges and opportunities in the digitalization of companies in a post-COVID-19 World. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 48(3):97–103

Alrowwad AA, Abualoush SH, Masa’deh RE (2020) Innovation and intellectual capital as intermediary variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational performance. J Manag Dev 39(2):196–222

Anshari M, Hamdan M (2022) Understanding knowledge management and upskilling in Fourth Industrial Revolution: transformational shift and SECI model. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst 52(3):373–393

Google Scholar  

Arocena R, Sutz J (2021) Universities and social innovation for global sustainable development as seen from the south. Technol Forecast Soc change 162:120399

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arslan A, Golgeci I, Khan Z, Al-Tabbaa O, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P (2021) Adaptive learning in cross-sector collaboration during global emergency: conceptual insights in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Multinatl Bus Rev 29(1):21–42

Azeem M, Ahmed M, Haider S, Sajjad M (2021) Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technol Soc 66:101635

Bakhsh K, Hafeez M, Shahzad S, Naureen B, Faisal Farid M (2022) Effectiveness of digital game based learning strategy in higher educational perspectives. J Educ e-Learn Res 9(4):258–268

Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120

Barney JB, Clark DN (2007) Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Oup Oxford

Baron A, Armstrong M (2007) Human capital management: achieving added value through people. Kogan Page Publishers

Barpanda S (2021) Role of human and structural capital on performance through human resource practices in Indian microfinance institutions: a mediated moderation approach. Knowl Process Manag 28(2):165–180

Biondi L, Russo S (2022) Integrating strategic planning and performance management in universities: a multiple case-study analysis. J Manag Gov 26(2):417–448

Birasnav M, Mittal R, Dalpati A (2019) Integrating theories of strategic leadership, social exchange, and structural capital in the context of buyer–supplier relationship: an empirical study. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 20:219–236

Bontis N (1998) Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manag Decis 36(2):63–76

Bontis N, Fitz‐enz J (2002) Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents. J Intellect Cap 3(3):223–247

Cavicchi C, Vagnoni E (2017) Does intellectual capital promote the shift of healthcare organizations towards sustainable development? Evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod 153:275–286

Chatterjee S, Chaudhuri R, Vrontis D (2022) Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support. J Bus Res 139:1501–1512

Council NR (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press

Davenport S, Carr A, Bibby D (2002) Leveraging talent: spin–off strategy at industrial research. RD Manag 32(3):241–254

Dess GG, Picken JC (2000) Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century. Organ Dyn 28(3):18–34

Duan W, Li C (2023) Be alert to dangers: collapse and avoidance strategies of platform ecosystems. J Bus Res 162:113869

Farahian M, Parhamnia F, Maleki N (2022) The mediating effect of knowledge sharing in the relationship between factors affecting knowledge sharing and reflective thinking: the case of English literature students during the COVID-19 crisis. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 17(1):1–25

Fasi MA (2022) An overview on patenting trends and technology commercialization practices in the university Technology Transfer Offices in USA and China. World Pat Inf 68:102097

Felin T, Hesterly WS (2007) The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):195–218

Fernandes C, Veiga PM, Lobo CA, Raposo M (2023) Global talent management during the COVID‐19 pandemic? The Gods must be crazy! Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 65(1):9–19

Gogan LM, Duran DC, Draghici A (2015) Structural capital—a proposed measurement model. Procedia Econ Financ 23:1139–1146

Gonzalez-Mulé E, Courtright SH, DeGeest D, Seong J-Y, Hong D-S (2016) Channeled autonomy: the joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organizational goal clarity. J Manag 42(7):2018–2033

Haak-Saheem W (2020) Talent management in Covid-19 crisis: how Dubai manages and sustains its global talent pool. Asian Bus Manag 19:298–301

Habert B, Huc C (2010) Building together digital archives for research in social sciences and humanities. Soc Sci Inf 49(3):415–443

Haider SA, Akbar A, Tehseen S, Poulova P, Jaleel F (2022) The impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing behavior through the mediating role of person–organization fit and moderating role of higher educational institute culture. J Innov Knowl 7(4):100265

Hair JF, Page M, Brunsveld N (2019) Essentials of business research methods. Routledge

Harsch K, Festing M (2020) Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational agility—a qualitative exploration. Hum Resour Manag 59(1):43–61

He S, Chen W, Wang K, Luo H, Wang F, Jiang W, Ding H (2023) Region generation and assessment network for occluded person re-identification. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 19:120–132

Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43:115–135

Jain N, Thomas A, Gupta V, Ossorio M, Porcheddu D (2022) Stimulating CSR learning collaboration by the mentor universities with digital tools and technologies—an empirical study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Manag Decis 60(10):2824–2848

Joseph J, Gaba V (2020) Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-making: a retrospective and road map for research. Acad Manag Ann 14(1):267–302

Kaliannan M, Darmalinggam D, Dorasamy M, Abraham M (2023) Inclusive talent development as a key talent management approach: a systematic literature review. Hum Resour Manag Rev 33(1):100926

Kallmuenzer A, Baptista R, Kraus S, Ribeiro AS, Cheng C-F, Westhead P (2021) Entrepreneurs’ human capital resources and tourism firm sales growth: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Tour Manag Perspect 38:100801

Kim KY, Atwater L, Patel PC, Smither JW (2016) Multisource feedback, human capital, and the financial performance of organizations. J Appl Psychol 101(11):1569

Kwok L (2022) Labor shortage: a critical reflection and a call for industry-academia collaboration. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 34(11):3929–3943

Lee J-C, Shiue Y-C, Chen C-Y (2016) Examining the impacts of organizational culture and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software process improvement. Comput Hum Behav 54:462–474

Lenihan H, McGuirk H, Murphy KR (2019) Driving innovation: public policy and human capital. Res policy 48(9):103791

Ling Y-H (2013) The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance—knowledge management as moderator. Asia Pac J Manag 30(3):937–964

Luo J, Zhuo W, Xu B (2023) The bigger, the better? Optimal NGO size of human resources and governance quality of entrepreneurship in circular economy. Manag Decis (ahead-of-print) https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2023-0325

Damsgaard J, Lyytinen K (2001) The role of intermediating institutions in the diffusion of electronic data interchange (EDI): how industry associations intervened in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong. Inf Soc 17(3):195–210

Marchiori DM, Rodrigues RG, Popadiuk S, Mainardes EW (2022) The relationship between human capital, information technology capability, innovativeness and organizational performance: an integrated approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 177:121526

Marinelli L, Bartoloni S, Pascucci F, Gregori GL, Briamonte MF (2022) Genesis of an innovation-based entrepreneurial ecosystem: exploring the role of intellectual capital. J Intellect Cap 24(1):10–34

Mehralian G, Nazari JA, Ghasemzadeh P (2018) The effects of knowledge creation process on organizational performance using the BSC approach: the mediating role of intellectual capital. J Knowl Manag 22(4):802–823

Mitchell A (2023) Collaboration technology affordances from virtual collaboration in the time of COVID-19 and post-pandemic strategies. Inf Technol People 36(5):1982–2008

Muñoz JLR, Ojeda FM, Jurado DLA, Peña PFP, Carranza CPM, Berríos HQ, Vasquez-Pauca MJ (2022) Systematic review of adaptive learning technology for learning in higher education. Eurasia J Educ Res 98(98):221–233

Nezam MHK, Ataffar A, Isfahani AN, Shahin A (2013) The impact of structural capital on new product development performance effectiveness—-the mediating role of new product vision and competitive advantage. Int J Hum Resour Stud 3(4):281

O’Dwyer M, Filieri R, O’Malley L (2023) Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed. J Technol Transf 48(3):900–931

Oliver C (1997) Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource‐based views. Strateg Manag J 18(9):697–713

Pak J, Heidarian Ghaleh H, Mehralian G (2023) How does human resource management balance exploration and exploitation? The differential effects of intellectual capital‐enhancing HR practices on ambidexterity and firm innovation. Human Resource Manag https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22180

Paoloni M, Coluccia D, Fontana S, Solimene S (2020) Knowledge management, intellectual capital and entrepreneurship: a structured literature review. J Knowl Manag 24(8):1797–1818

Patnaik S, Munjal S, Varma A, Sinha S (2022) Extending the resource-based view through the lens of the institution-based view: a longitudinal case study of an Indian higher educational institution. J Bus Res 147:124–141

Pellegrini L, Aloini D, Latronico L (2022) Open innovation and intellectual capital during emergency: evidence from a case study in telemedicine. Knowl Manag Res Pract 21(4), 765–776

Phan LT, Nguyen TV, Luong QC, Nguyen TV, Nguyen HT, Le HQ, Pham QD (2020) Importation and human-to-human transmission of a novel coronavirus in Vietnam. N Engl J Med 382(9):872–874

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Phuong QN, Le Ngoc M, Dong HT, Thao TLT, Tran T, Cac T (2024) Enhancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities in Vietnam: the role of vocational training and job placement centers. J Chin Hum Resour Manag 15(3):64–75

Podsakoff N (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 885(879):10.1037

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects inmultiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891

Rådberg KK, Löfsten H (2024) The entrepreneurial university and development of large-scale research infrastructure: Exploring the emerging university function of collaboration and leadership. J Technol Transf 49(1):334–366

Radhamani R, Kumar D, Nizar N, Achuthan K, Nair B, Diwakar S (2021) What virtual laboratory usage tells us about laboratory skill education pre-and post-COVID-19: Focus on usage, behavior, intention and adoption. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7477–7495

Rasheed MH, Khalid J, Ali A, Rasheed MS, Ali K (2024) Human resource analytics in the era of artificial intelligence: Leveraging knowledge towards organizational success in Pakistan. J Chin Hum Resour Manag 15:3–20

Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Mitchell R, Gudergan SP (2020) Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31(12):1617–1643

Roos G, Roos J (1997) Measuring your company’s intellectual performance. Long Range Plan 30(3):413–426

Salamzadeh A, Tajpour M, Hosseini E, Brahmi MS (2023) Human capital and the performance of Iranian Digital Startups: the moderating role of knowledge sharing behaviour. Int J Public Sect Perform Manag 12(1-2):171–186

Sarwar A, Mustafa A (2023) Analysing the impact of green intellectual capital on environmental performance: the mediating role of green training and development. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2209205

Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests. Sage

Secundo G, Dumay J, Schiuma G, Passiante G (2016) Managing intellectual capital through a collective intelligence approach: an integrated framework for universities. J Intellect Cap 17(2):298–319

Secundo G, Massaro M, Dumay J, Bagnoli C (2018) Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research: a critical case study in university settings. J Intellect Cap 19(1):157–177

Shao JJ, Ariss AA (2020) Knowledge transfer between self-initiated expatriates and their organizations: research propositions for managing SIEs. Int Bus Rev 29(1):101634

Shofiyyah NA, Komarudin TS, Hasan MSR (2023) Innovations in Islamic Education Management within the University Context: addressing challenges and exploring future prospects. Nidhomul Haq 8(2):193–209

Sigala M, Ren L, Li Z, Dioko LA (2023) Talent management in hospitality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Macao: a contingency approach. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 35(8):2773–2792

Singh SK, Gupta S, Busso D, Kamboj S (2021) Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. J Bus Res 128:788–798

Sobaih AEE, Hasanein A, Elshaer IA (2022) Higher education in and after COVID-19: the impact of using social network applications for e-learning on students’ academic performance. Sustainability 14(9):5195

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sommer LP, Heidenreich S, Handrich M (2017) War for talents—how perceived organizational innovativeness affects employer attractiveness. RD Manag 47(2):299–310

Stewart T (1991) Brainpower: how intellectual capital is becoming America’s most valuable. Fortune

Streukens S, Leroi-Werelds S (2016) Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur Manage J 34(6):618–632

Sulaiman F, Uden L, Eldy EF (2022) Online Learning in Higher Education Institution During COVID-19: A Review and the Way Forward. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education Challenges

Susanto P, Sawitri NN, Ali H, Rony ZT (2023) Employee performance and talent management impact increasing construction company productivity. Int J Psychol Health Sci 1(4):144–152

Tan CN-L, Md. Noor S (2013) Knowledge management enablers, knowledge sharing and research collaboration: a study of knowledge management at research universities in Malaysia. Asian J Technol Innov 21(2):251–276

Vaiman V, Sparrow P, Schuler R, Collings DG (2018) Macro talent management: a global perspective on managing talent in developed markets. Routledge

Vătămănescu E-M, Cegarra-Navarro J-G, Martínez-Martínez A, Dincă V-M, Dabija D-C (2023) Revisiting online academic networks within the COVID-19 pandemic–From the intellectual capital of knowledge networks towards institutional knowledge capitalization. J Intellect Cap 24(4):948–973

Wang Y, Lee L-H, Braud T, Hui P (2022) Re-shaping Post-COVID-19 teaching and learning: A blueprint of virtual-physical blended classrooms in the metaverse era. Paper presented at the 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW)

Wang Z, Wang N, Liang H (2014) Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Manag Decis 52(2):230–258

Xu A, Li Y, Donta PK (2024) Marketing decision model and consumer behavior prediction with deep learning. J Organ End Use Comput (JOEUC) 36(1):1–25

Yang G, Xiangming L (2024) Graduate socialization and anxiety: insights via hierarchical regression analysis and beyond. Stud High Educ 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2375563

Zada M, Khan J, Saeed I, Zada S, Jun ZY (2023) Linking public leadership with project management effectiveness: mediating role of goal clarity and moderating role of top management support. Heliyon 9(5)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, Hanjiang Normal University, Shiyan, 442000, China

Muhammad Zada

Facultad de Administración y Negocios, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, 8320000, Chile

School of Law, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubie, China

Imran Saeed

College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, Ilma University, Karachi, Pakistan

Shagufta Zada

Business School Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Muhammad Zada and Imran Saeed. Methodology: Jawad Khan. Software: Shagufta Zada. Data collection: Muhammad Zada, Shagufta Zada and Jawad Khan. Formal analysis: Imran Saeed and Jawad Khan. Resources: Muhammad Zada. Writing original draft preparation: Muhammad Zada and Imran Saeed. Writing review and editing: Jawad Khan, Shagufta Zada. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Zada .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The author sought and received ethical approval from the Research Ethical Committee School of Economics and Management at Hanjiang Normal University, China, with approval number 2023REC001, and the study complied with ethical standards.

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. All the participants were accessed with the support of the HR Department employed in China’s research and academia sector. Response Participants were provided with comprehensive information regarding the study’s purpose and procedures. Confidentiality and privacy were strictly implemented throughout the research process. Using the time lag data collection approach, we collected from 393 employees employed in China’s research and academic sector.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zada, M., Saeed, I., Khan, J. et al. Navigating post-pandemic challenges through institutional research networks and talent management. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1164 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03697-9

Download citation

Received : 28 February 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 09 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03697-9

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Trends and risks in mergers and acquisitions: a review.

1. Introduction

2. conceptual background, 2.1. the m&a process, 2.1.1. acquisition planning and targeting, 2.1.2. deal structuring and closing, 2.1.3. post-merger performance and control, 3. methodology, 3.1. database and searching strategy, 3.2. data refining and analysis, 4. findings, 4.1. keyword co-occurrence analysis, 4.2. geopolitical risks, 4.3. information asymmetry risks, 4.4. investor protection and litigation risks, 4.5. performance and reputational risks, 4.6. aggregate analysis of key areas, 5. conclusions and future directions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ahsan, Faisal Mohammad, Manish Popli, and Vikas Kumar. 2024. Formal institutions and cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Business Review 33: 102306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alam, Ahmed W., M. Kabir Hassan, and Hasanul Banna. 2024. An empirical investigation of banks’ sustainability performance under economic policy uncertainty. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 2024: 2309499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Argimón, Isabel, and María Rodríguez-Moreno. 2022. Risk and control in complex banking groups. Journal of Banking and Finance 134: 106038. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balachandran, Balasingham, Huu Nhan Duong, Hoang Luong, and Lily Nguyen. 2020. Does takeover activity affect stock price crash risk? Evidence from international M&A laws. Journal of Corporate Finance 64: 101697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbopoulos, Leonidas G., Samer Adra, and Anthony Saunders. 2020. Macroeconomic News and Acquirer Returns in M&As: The Impact of Investor Alertness. Journal of Corporate Finance 64: 101583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battauz, Anna, Stefano Gatti, Annalisa Prencipe, and Luca Viarengo. 2021. Earnouts: The real value of disagreement in mergers and acquisitions. European Financial Management 27: 981–1024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bauer, Florian, and Martin Friesl. 2024. Synergy Evaluation in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Attention-Based View. Journal of Management Studies 61: 37–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boone, Audra, and Vahap B. Uysal. 2020. Reputational concerns in the market for corporate control. Journal of Corporate Finance 61: 101399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bose, Sudipta, Kristina Minnick, and Syed Shams. 2021. Does carbon risk matter for corporate acquisition decisions? Journal of Corporate Finance 70: 102058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buehlmaier, Matthias M. M., and Josef Zechner. 2020. Financial Media, Price Discovery, and Merger Arbitrage. Review of Finance 25: rfaa037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, Wonseok, Chune Young Chung, and Kainan Wang. 2022. Firm-level political risk and corporate investment. Finance Research Letters 46: 102307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dahlen, Niklas, Alexander Lahmann, and Maximilian Schreiter. 2024. Panacea for M&A dealmaking? Investor perceptions of earnouts. Finance Research Letters 60: 104850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daley, Brendan, Thomas Geelen, and Brett Green. 2024. Due Diligence. The Journal of Finance 79: 2115–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darbyshire, Madison, Nicholas Megaw, and James Fontanella-Khan. 2024. How the investment world is trying to navigate geopolitics. Financial Times . July 5. Available online: https://www.ft.com/content/23ce295d-bf65-47fd-bebd-808b5a7bcab5 (accessed on 4 August 2024).
• DePamphilis, Donald M. 2018. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Restructuring Activities: An Integrated Approach to Process, Tools, Cases and Solutions , 9th ed. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier and Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong, Feng, and John Doukas. 2021. The effect of managers on M&As. Journal of Corporate Finance 68: 101934. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Souza, Reagan, Choy Yeing (Chloe) Ho, and Joey W. Yang. 2024. The cost of corporate social irresponsibility for acquirers. Journal of Banking and Finance 162: 107132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, Julan, and Yifei Zhang. 2024. ISDS disputes, adjudication and cross-border M&As. Journal of Corporate Finance 87: 102594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Even-Tov, Omri, James Ryans, and Steven Davidoff Solomon. 2022. Representations and warranties insurance in mergers and acquisitions. Review of Accounting Studies 29: 423–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feldman, Emilie R., and Exequiel Hernandez. 2022. Synergy in Mergers and Acquisitions: Typology, Life Cycles, and Value. Academy of Management Review 47: 549–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Florackis, Chris, Christodoulos Louca, Roni Michaely, and Michael Weber. 2022. Cybersecurity Risk. The Review of Financial Studies 36: 351–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu, Ming, Dongxu Li, and Xiaoran Ni. 2022. Too much to learn? The (un)intended consequences of RegTech development on mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance 76: 102276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemrajani, Pragati, Muskan Khan, and Rahul Dhiman. 2023. Financial risk tolerance: A review and research agenda. European Management Journal 41: 1119–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hickman, L. Emily. 2019. Information Asymmetry in CSR Reporting: Publicly-Traded versus Privately-Held Firms. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 11: 207–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoang, Khanh, Cuong Nguyen, and Hailiang Zhang. 2021. How does economic policy uncertainty affect corporate diversification? International Review of Economics and Finance 72: 254–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Chenchen, Neslihan Ozkan, and Fangming Xu. 2023. Shareholder Litigation Risk and Firms’ Choice of External Growth. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 58: 574–614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Jingong, and Taojun Xie. 2023. Technology centrality, bilateral knowledge spillovers and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance 79: 102366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• IMAA—Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances. 2024. M&A Statistics: Transactions and Activity by Year. M&A Trends|IMAA . Available online: https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/ (accessed on 27 July 2024).
• Imperatore, Claudia, Gabriel Pündrich, Rodrigo S. Verdi, and Benjamin P. Yost. 2024. Litigation risk and strategic M&A valuations. Journal of Accounting and Economics 78: 101671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeon, Chunmi, Seongjae Mun, and Seung Hun Han. 2022. Firm-level political risk, liquidity management, and managerial attributes. International Review of Financial Analysis 83: 102285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klitzka, Michael, Jianan He, and Dirk Schiereck. 2022. The rationality of M&A targets in the choice of payment methods. Review of Managerial Science 16: 933–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuo, Ya-Fen, Yi-Mien Lin, and Hsiu-Fang Chien. 2021. Corporate social responsibility, enterprise risk management, and real earnings management: Evidence from managerial confidence. Finance Research Letters 41: 101805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Fengchun, Ting Liang, and Hailian Zhang. 2021. Does economic policy uncertainty affect cross-border M&As?—A data analysis based on Chinese multinational enterprises. International Review of Financial Analysis 73: 101631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Hong-yan, Ruiqing He, and Qiang Fu. 2023. Does corporate social responsibility affect the performance of cross-border M&A of emerging market multinationals? Finance Research Letters 58: 104320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Keming. 2020. Does Information Asymmetry Impede Market Efficiency? Evidence from Analyst Coverage. Journal of Banking and Finance 118: 105856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Tingting, Tao Shu, Erin Towery, and Jasmine Wang. 2024. The Role of External Regulators in Mergers and Acquisitions: Evidence from SEC Comment Letters. Review of Accounting Studies 29: 451–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Makrychoriti, Panagiota, and Emmanouil G. Pyrgiotakis. 2024. Firm-level political risk and stock price crashes. Journal of Financial Stability 74: 101303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mandas, Marco, Oumaima Lahmar, Luca Piras, and Riccardo De Lisa. 2024. ESG Reputational Risk and Market Valuation: Evidence from the European Banking Industry. Research in International Business and Finance 69: 102286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maung, Min, Craig Wilson, and Weisu Yu. 2020. Does reputation risk matter? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 66: 101204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mingers, John, and Liying Yang. 2017. Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management. European Journal of Operational Research 257: 323–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, Hien T., Hieu V. Phan, and Hong Vo. 2023. Agency problems and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from shareholder-creditor mergers. International Review of Financial Analysis 90: 102937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ni, Xiaoran. 2020. Does stakeholder orientation matter for earnings management: Evidence from non-shareholder constituency statutes. Journal of Corporate Finance 62: 101606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ott, Christian. 2020. The risks of mergers and acquisitions—Analyzing the incentives for risk reporting in Item 1A of 10-K filings. Journal of Business Research 106: 158–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 10: 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pan, Yihui, Stephan Siegel, and Tracy Yue Wang. 2020. The Cultural Origin of CEOs’ Attitudes toward Uncertainty: Evidence from Corporate Acquisitions. The Review of Financial Studies 33: 2977–3030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paudyal, Krishna, Chandra Thapa, Santosh Koirala, and Sulaiman Aldhawyan. 2021. Economic policy uncertainty and cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Stability 56: 100926. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, Zhen, Fan Bai, and Feng Zhao. 2024. Digital finance, life cycle, and enterprise mergers and acquisitions. Finance Research Letters 67: 105784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Piesse, Jenifer, Cheng-Few Lee, Lin Lin, and Hsien-Chang Kuo. 2022. Merger and Acquisition: Definitions, Motives, and Market Responses. In Encyclopedia of Finance . Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2024. Global M&A Industry Trends: 2024 Mid-Year Outlook . PwC. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/deals/trends.html (accessed on 26 August 2024).
• Ranaldo, Angelo, and Fabricius Somogyi. 2021. Asymmetric information risk in FX markets. Journal of Financial Economics 140: 391–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, Huayu, Yue Liang, Hanwen Li, Jie Liu, and Guangxi Lu. 2021. Does geopolitical risk promote mergers and acquisitions of listed companies in energy and electric power industries. Energy Economics 95: 105115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Sangcheol, Yuping Zeng, and Bing Zhou. 2021. Information asymmetry, cross-listing, and post-M&A performance. Journal of Business Research 122: 447–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Souissi, Yasmine, Ferdaws Ezzi, and Anis Jarboui. 2024. Blockchain Adoption and Financial Distress: Mediating Role of Information Asymmetry. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 15: 3903–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swem, Nathan. 2022. Information in Financial Markets: Who Gets It First? Journal of Banking & Finance 140: 106488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tampakoudis, Ioannis, and Evgenia Anagnostopoulou. 2020. The effect of mergers and acquisitions on environmental, social and governance performance and market value: Evidence from EU acquirers. Business Strategy and the Environment 29: 1865–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vo, Hong, Hien T. Nguyen, and Hieu V. Phan. 2024. Corporate social responsibility and the choice of payment method in mergers and acquisitions. International Review of Financial Analysis 94: 103241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Muyun, and Ying Zhang. 2024. Excess goodwill and enterprise litigation risk. Finance Research Letters 67: 105819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wangerin, D. 2019. M&A Due Diligence, Post-Acquisition Performance, and Financial Reporting for Business Combinations. Contemporary Accounting Research 36: 2344–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Welch, Xena, Stevo Pavićević, Thomas Keil, and Tomi Laamanen. 2020. The Pre-Deal Phase of Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management 46: 843–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, Jared I. 2020. The Consequences of Limiting Shareholder Litigation: Evidence from Exclusive Forum Provisions. Journal of Corporate Finance 64: 101712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xue, Hao. 2024. Investors’ Information Acquisition and the Manager’s Value-Risk Tradeoff. Review of Accounting Studies . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Cheng, Chunhong Yang, and Cheng Liu. 2021. Economic policy uncertainty and corporate risk-taking: Loss aversion or opportunity expectations. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 69: 101640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

García-Nieto, M.; Bueno-Rodríguez, V.; Ramón-Jerónimo, J.M.; Flórez-López, R. Trends and Risks in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review. Risks 2024 , 12 , 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12090143

García-Nieto M, Bueno-Rodríguez V, Ramón-Jerónimo JM, Flórez-López R. Trends and Risks in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review. Risks . 2024; 12(9):143. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12090143

García-Nieto, Manuel, Vicente Bueno-Rodríguez, Juan Manuel Ramón-Jerónimo, and Raquel Flórez-López. 2024. "Trends and Risks in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review" Risks 12, no. 9: 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12090143

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals