How to Write a Good Literature Review

It is likely that sometime in the course of a student’s graduate study, and sometimes even in her undergraduate study, she will be required to undertake an extensive research project and present the results of that research in what is known as a literature review. A literature review is an overview of scholarly research on a single topic. It may be one part of a larger text, such as a dissertation or journal article, or it may be a single text in itself. Because a literature review is a document that many students are unfamiliar with, many students are unsure of how to write a literature review and become intimidated by the literature review process. This need not be the case, as a literature review is a document that can be easily composed once the student has learned how to approach its organization.

The first step to learning how to write a literature review is to have a clear idea of what a literature review is. Many students who are confused about how to write a literature review assume that a literature review is the equivalent of a research paper. This is not the case. A research paper presents scholarly studies to make a point or argument; a literature review objectively presents an overview of research on a particular topic in order to suggest the scope and depth of scholarly opinion on that topic. In other words, a literature review does not present the opinions of the writer, and will not present an argument at all.

The most difficult decision to make when considering how to write literature reviews is how best to organize the material. The best way to ensure a good literature review is to compose a thorough outline before writing. Literature reviews should be organized by the subcategories of the topic they address. Therefore, the best way to approach a literature review is to make a list of all the studies that need to be included and then divide that list into topic subcategories. For instance, if the literature review were on compositional styles in the late Baroque period, the research the writer would present would likely include several different articles about varying types of late Baroque composition. The list should be broken down into subcategories of articles that address roughly the same style. For instance, in this list there would be a subcategory for chamber music compositions, vocal works, orchestral works, concerti, keyboard music, etc. The literature review should be organized in such a way that all of the articles in one subcategory are discussed before moving on to a different subcategory. Furthermore, it should be organized so that studies that build on each other are placed next to each other in the text. This will make the literature review more readable and understandable.

Once the writer has determined the overall organization of the literature review, the next step is to follow the outline by presenting a summary of each study. Each study in a literature review should have its own paragraph or set of paragraphs that clearly outlines (1) the authors of the research, (2) the year the research was published, (3) what the study sought to determine, (4) the way the study was executed, and (5) the study’s results or findings. All of this information should be discussed in an academic and objective fashion.

The literature review should conclude by describing the general ideas presented by the body of literature discussed in the study and pointing to any conclusions the research as a whole makes

about the topic at hand. It should then suggest areas of research in the particular topic that have yet to be investigated.

If students have further questions about how to write literature reviews, it may be helpful to read literature reviews written by both students and professionals. These can be found in academic journals and databases, and may also be available from a student’s professor. Examining existing literature review models will assist any student wishing to know how to write literature reviews that are accomplished and effective.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/studyskills/writing/literature

Writing a Literature Review

What is a literature review? Why do a literature review? How many texts? Writing the review Annotated bibliography

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a description of the literature relevant to a particular field or topic. This is often written as part of a postgraduate thesis proposal, or at the commencement of a thesis. A critical literature review is a critical assessment of the relevant literature. It is unlikely that you will be able to write a truly critical assessment of the literature until you have a good grasp of the subject, usually at some point near the end of your thesis.

How does a literature review differ from other assignments?

The review, like other forms of expository writing, has an introduction, body and conclusion, well-formed paragraphs, and a logical structure. However, in other kinds of expository writing, you use relevant literature to support the discussion of your thesis; in a literature review, the literature itself is the subject of discussion.

What counts as 'literature'?

‘Literature’ covers everything relevant that is written on a topic: books, journal articles, newspaper articles, historical records, government reports, theses and dissertations, etc. The important word is 'relevant'. Check with your supervisor or tutor when in doubt.

Back to top

Why do a literature review?

A literature review gives an overview of the field of inquiry: what has already been said on the topic, who the key writers are, what the prevailing theories and hypotheses are, what questions are being asked, and what methodologies and methods are appropriate and useful.

A critical literature review shows how prevailing ideas fit into your own thesis, and how your thesis agrees or differs from them.

How many references to look for?

This depends on what the literature review is for, and what stage you are at in your studies. Your supervisor or tutor should specify a minimum number of references.

Generally speaking, a reasonable number of references in a literature review would be:

undergraduate review: 5-20 titles depending on level. Honours dissertation: 20+ titles. Masters thesis: 40+ titles Doctoral thesis: 50+ titles.

Back to top

How to write a literature review

1. The literature search

Find out what has been written on your subject. Use as many bibliographical sources as you can to find relevant titles. The following are likely sources:

Bibliographies and references in key textbooks and recent journal articles. Your supervisor or tutor should tell you which are the key texts and relevant journals.

Abstracting databases, such as PsycINFO, Medline, etc. Citation databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus.

Many abstracting journals and electronic databases are available through the University Library's Research Gateway.

A useful reference book for information searches:

Lane, Nancy D 1996. Techniques for Student Research: A Practical Guide. Second edition. Melbourne: Longman (UC library call number Z 711.2 L36).

Using the specialist librarians

The University Library has three specialist librarians, one for each Faculty. They can help you decide which databases and bibliographies are relevant to your field, and can advise you on other sources for your literature search. Use them!

2. Noting the bibliographical details

Write down the full bibliographical details of each book or article as soon as you find a reference to it. This will save you an enormous amount of time later on.

3. Finding the literature

Once you have what looks like a list of relevant texts, you have to find them.

Use the UC library catalogue to see if the books and journals are held at UC. For ejournals, look at the A-Z listing. For books and journals, you can use the UC library pages to search other Canberra library

catalogues (including the National Library). For journals, use the LibrariesAustralia, http://librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au/ catalogue to see

which libraries in Australia (including government department libraries and other specialist libraries) hold the journals you are looking for.

If the book or journal you want is not held in Canberra, you may be able to access it through inter-library loans. Check with your supervisor to see if this facility is available to you. (Someone has to pay for inter-library loans!)

The full text of many journal articles can be found on electronic databases such as Business Source Complete, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect.

4. Reading the literature

Before you begin to read a book or article, make sure you written down the full details (see note bibliographical 2 above).

Take notes as you read the literature. You are reading to find out how each piece of writing approaches the subject of your research, what it has to say about it, and (especially for research students) how it relates to your own thesis:

Is it a general textbook or does it deal with a specific issue(s)? Is it an empirical report, a theoretical study, a sociological or political account, a historical

overview, etc? All or some of these? Does it follow a particular school of thought? What is its theoretical basis? What definitions does it use? What is its general methodological approach? What methods are used?

What kinds of data does it use to back up its argument? What conclusions does it come to?

Other questions may be relevant. It depends on the purpose of the review.

Usually, you won’t have to read the whole text from first to last page. Learn to use efficient scanning and skimming reading techniques.

5. Writing the review

Having gathered the relevant details about the literature, you now need to write the review. The kind of review you write, and the amount of detail, will depend on the level of your studies.

Important note: do not confuse a literature review with an annotated bibliography.

An annotated bibliography deals with each text in turn, describing and evaluating the text, using one paragraph for each text.

In contrast, a literature review synthesises many texts in one paragraph. Each paragraph (or section if it is a long thesis) of the literature review should classify and evaluate the themes of the texts that are relevant to your thesis; each paragraph or section of your review should deal with a different aspect of the literature.

Like all academic writing, a literature review must have an introduction, body, and conclusion.

The introduction should include:

the nature of the topic under discussion (the topic of your thesis) the parameters of the topic (what does it include and exclude)? the basis for your selection of the literature

The conclusion should include:

A summary of major agreements and disagreements in the literature A summary of general conclusions that are being drawn. A summary of where your thesis sits in the literature (Remember! Your thesis could become one

of the future texts on the subject—how will later research students describe your thesis in their literature reviews?)

The body paragraphs could include relevant paragraphs on:

historical background, including classic texts; current mainstream versus alternative theoretical or ideological viewpoints, including differing

theoretical assumptions, differing political outlooks, and other conflicts; possible approaches to the subject (empirical, philosophical, historical, postmodernist, etc); definitions in use; current research studies;

current discoveries about the topic; principal questions that are being asked; general conclusions that are being drawn; methodologies and methods in use;

… and so on.

HOW TO WRITE A LITERATURE REVIEW

Will G Hopkins PhD

Department of Physiology and School of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand.

Sportscience 3(1), sportsci.org/jour/9901/wghreview.html, 1999 (2618 words)

Reviewed by: Garry T Allison PhD, School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University, Shenton Park 6008, Australia; Mark Hargreaves PhD, School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood 3125, Australia

 

BACKGROUND. In this first section of the Summary, get the reader's interest with a sentence or two explaining the need for the review. LITERATURE. List the documents you included in the review. For example: 31 original investigations, one monograph, five reviews, four popular articles, one manuscript. FINDINGS. Write several sentences here to outline the main findings of the documents you reviewed. Give data and interpret magnitudes of effects. Use plain language and no abbreviations. CONCLUSIONS. This section of the Summary should need only a sentence or two. Try to include a conclusion of practical significance. FURTHER RESEARCH. Indicate what you think now needs to be done. The summary must consist of less than 300 words. Be as economical with words as possible, but do not compromise grammar. Reprint · Help

KEYWORDS: analysis, design, publishing, research, scientific writing

 

BACKGROUND

This article is written in the form of a literature review for the journal Sportscience. A few of the requirements for form and content are unique to Sportscience, but most are common to all good scientific journals. You can therefore use this article to help you write a review for any journal. You can also use this article to structure a literature review for a thesis, but check with your supervisor for any special requirements.

This article exists in slightly modified form as a template for a Sportscience review article. If you intend to submit a review to Sportscience, you should download the template from the Information for Authors page at the

Sportscience site.

Whether you are writing a review for Sportscience, another journal, or a thesis, you should read my guidelines on scientific writing (Hopkins, 1999a). Here are the main points from that article:

Avoid technical terms. Avoid abbreviations. Use simple sentences. Avoid common errors of punctuation and grammar. Use the first person (I, we) rather than the passive voice. Link your ideas into a sensible sequence without repetitions or

discontinuities. Get feedback on your article from colleagues.

In this Background section, make the topic interesting by explaining it in plain language and by relating it to actual or potential practical applications. Explain any scientific principles underlying the topic. Define and justify the scope of the review: why you are limiting it to certain sports, why you are including studies of non-athletes and non-human species, and so on.

LITERATURE

In this short section you should list how many of each kind of publication you summarized (for example, 31 original investigations, one monograph, five reviews, four popular articles, one manuscript), and how you found them (for example, a search of the sport-science database SportDiscus).

Be specific about any database search you performed. Include the key words you used, and the ways you refined your search if necessary. For example: "A search for overtrain* produced 774 references, which reduced to 559 when we limited the search to intermediate or advanced levels (not le=basic). Further restricting the search to psych* or mood produced 75 references. We read 47 of these as full papers. Of the 41 papers cited in this review, we were able to obtain the following only in abstract form: Jones et al. (1979) and Smith and Brown (1987)." Describe and justify briefly any papers or areas that you decided not to include.

FINDINGS

This section is the most important part of your review. Do not give a summary paper-by-paper; instead, deal with themes and draw together results from several papers for each theme. I have identified four themes for this section: assessing the quality of published work; interpreting effects; points of grammar and style; and a few remarks about tables and figures. These

themes are dealt with under subheadings. I encourage you to use such subheadings, which will make it easier for you to write the review and easier for others to read it.

Quality of Published Work

Look critically at any published work. The fact that something has been published does not mean the findings are automatically trustworthy.

Some research designs are better than others (see Hopkins, 1998a). The most trustworthy conclusions are those reached in double-blind randomized controlled trials with a representative sample of sufficient size to detect the smallest worthwhile effects. The weakest findings are those from case studies. In between are cross-sectional studies, which are usually plagued by the problem of interpreting cause and effect in the relationship between variables.

How subjects were sampled is an important issue. You can be confident about generalizing results to a population only if the sample was selected randomly from the population and there was a low proportion of refusals and dropouts (<30%).

Be wary of generalizing results from novice athletes to elites. Something that enhances performance in young or untrained individuals may not work so well in highly trained athletes, who may have less headroom for improvement.

There are big differences in the way data can be collected. At one extreme are qualitative methods, in which the researcher interviews subjects without using formal psychometric instruments (questionnaires). At the other extreme are quantitative methods, in which biological or behavioral variables are measured with instruments or techniques of known validity and reliability. In the middle are techniques with uncertain precision and questionnaires with open-ended responses.

Qualitative assessment is time consuming, so samples are usually small in size and non-representative, which in turn limit the conclusions that can be made about effects in a population. The conclusions may also be biased by the prejudices of the researcher-interviewer. Quantitative data collection is more objective, but for some projects it could miss important issues that would surface in an interview. A combination of qualitative methods for pilot work and quantitative methods for a larger study should therefore produce valuable conclusions, depending, of course, on the design.

You will probably find that your topic has been dealt with to some extent in

earlier reviews. Cite the reviews and indicate the extent to which you have based your review on them. Make sure you look at the key original papers cited in any earlier reviews, to judge for yourself whether the conclusions of the reviewers are justified.

Reviews, like original research, vary in quality. Problems with reviews include poor organization of the material and lack of critical thought. Some of the better reviews attempt to pull together the results of many papers using the statistical technique of meta-analysis. The outcomes in such reviews are usually expressed as relative risk, variance explained, or effect size, terms that you will have to understand and interpret in your review if you meet them. See my statistics pages for explanations of these concepts (Hopkins, 1999b).

Interpreting Effects

You cannot assess quantitative research without a good understanding of the terms effects, confidence limits of effects, and statistical significance of effects. An effect is simply an observed relationship between variables in a sample of subjects. An effect is also known as an outcome. Confidence limits and statistical significance are involved in generalizing from the observed value of an effect to the true value of the effect. The true value of the effect is the average value of the effect in the whole population, or the value of the effect you would get if you sampled the whole population. The confidence limits of an effect define the likely range of the true value of the effect: in short, how big or positive and how small or negative the effect could be. An effect is statistically significant if the likely range of the true value of the effect is unlikely to include the zero or null effect. Roughly speaking, statistically significant effects are unlikely to be zero, but such a rough interpretation is misleading: in sport and exercise science, the true value of an effect is never exactly zero.

Statistical significance is notoriously difficult to understand, whereas confidence limits are at once more simple and more informative. Confidence limits are appearing more frequently in publications, but most authors still use statistical significance. As a reviewer you therefore have to come to terms with statistical significance. Here are a few suggestions on how to cope.

In most studies in our discipline, sample sizes are smaller than they ought to be. So if a result is statistically significant, it will probably have widely separated confidence limits. Check to make sure the observed value of the effect is substantial (whatever that means--more about that in a moment). If it is, then you can conclude safely that the true value of the effect is likely to be a substantial. If the observed effect is not substantial--a rare occurrence for a statistically significant effect, because it means the sample size was too

large--you can actually conclude that the true value of the effect is likely to be trivial, even though it was statistically significant!

Problems of interpretation arise when researchers get a statistically non-significant effect. If the sample size is too small--as in almost all studies in sport and exercise science--you can get a statistically non-significant effect even when there is a substantial effect in the population. Authors of small-scale studies who do not understand this point will interpret a statistically non-significant effect incorrectly as evidence for no effect. So whenever you see a result that is not statistically significant, ignore what the author concludes and look at the size of the effect in question: if the effect is nearly zero and the sample size is reasonable, chances are there is indeed no worthwhile relationship in the population; if the effect is large, there may well be a substantial relationship in the population. But in either case, a bigger sample is required to be sure about what is going on. Sometimes the research may have been done: for example, moderate but non-significant effects in several studies probably add up to a moderate real effect, if the designs are trustworthy.

How big is a moderate effect anyway? And what about large effects, small effects, and trivial effects? Make sure you look closely at the effects and interpret their magnitudes, regardless of whether they are statistically significant; the authors often don't. There are two approaches: statistical and practical.

In the statistical approach, effects or outcomes are expressed as statistics that are independent of the units of measurement of the original variables. These statistics are the same ones referred to in the previous subsection: relative risk, variance explained, and effect size. Statisticians have come up with rules of thumb for deciding whether the magnitude of the effect is to be considered trivial, small, moderate, or large. For example, Cohen (1988) claims that an effect size of 0.2, a variance explained of 1% (equivalent to a correlation coefficient of 0.1), and a relative risk of 1.2 are the smallest effects worth detecting. I have extended Cohen's scale to effects of any magnitude, and I have made adjustments to his scale (Hopkins, 1998b).

In the practical approach, you look at the size of the effect and try to decide whether, for example, it would make any difference to an athlete's position in a competition. For many events, a difference in performance of 1% or even less would be considered worthwhile. This approach is the better one for most studies of athletes.

Whether you use the statistical or the practical approach, you must apply it to the confidence limits as well as the observed effect. Why? Because you want to describe how big or how small the effect could be in reality, not just how

big or small it was in the sample that was studied. If the researchers do not report confidence limits, you can calculate them from the p value. I have devised a spreadsheet for this purpose (Hopkins, 1998c).

Tables and Figures

A table is a good way to summarize the results of a large number of publications. Examples are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1: The effect of whatever on the performance of athletes in whatever sportsa.

  subjects findings reference

Sport1

  male international distance runners

2% decrease in 10-km time Bloggs et al. (1997)

  female club runners whatever whoever

Sport2

       

       aNumber footnotes as shown.

Table 2: Events in the development of whatever in whatever sportsa.

SportA

  1947 US National Association formed

  1956 Whatever

  1968  SportB

     

     aPut any footnotes here.

You should also try to include a graph or diagram from a paper, or draw one yourself, to liven up the appearance of the review. Make sure you get copyright clearance for any verbatim copying.

Hierarchical diagrams summarizing the relationships between concepts or variables can be confusing. Make them as simple as possible.

For Sportscience reviews, follow the instructions in the template on how to create figures. See below for examples (Figures 1-4). Paste figures and tables into the document after the paragraph where you first refer to them. (In other journals tables and figures go at the end of the manuscript.)

Figure 1: Informative title for a time seriesa.

Data are means. Bars are standard deviations (shown only for Groups B and C).aUse letters to label footnotes, if necessary.

Figure 2: Informative title for a scattergram.

Least-squares lines are shown for each variable.

Figure 3: Informative title for a bar graph.

Data are means. Bars are standard deviations.

Figure 4: Informative title for an outcomes figure.

Data are means. Bars are 95% confidence intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Use bullets to list the points you want to make here. You don't need an introductory sentence before the list.

Be brief. It's acceptable to have only one bullet point. Whenever possible, include practical recommendations in language

accessible to athletes and their professional support crew. Complete the checklist that appears at the end of the reference list,

and include it when you submit your review.

FURTHER RESEARCH

Write a paragraph or two on the research that needs to be done, and why. You may wish to use bullets to list the items.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

List the people who helped you and what they did. List substantial sources of funding for the project.

REFERENCES

There is a wide variety of styles for citing and listing references. Make sure you follow the instructions for the journal you are submitting your paper to. These references are in Sportscience style:

Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (second edition). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Hopkins WG (1998a). Quantitative research design. sportsci.org/resource/design/design.html: Internet Society for Sportscience

Hopkins WG (1998). A scale of magnitude for effect statistics. sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html: Internet Society for Sportscience

Hopkins WG (1998c). Calculating confidence limits. sportsci.org/resource/stats/generalize.html#calculate: Internet Society for Sportscience

Hopkins WG (1999). Guidelines on style for scientific writing. Sportscience 3(1), sportsci.org/jour/9901/wghstyle.html (4397 words)

Hopkins WG (1999b). A new view of statistics. sportsci.org/resource/stats: Internet Society for Sportscience

Checklist

Check these before you submit your review.

You have read the article on style. The Summary is no longer than 300 words (including the subheading

words). The Summary includes real data and magnitudes of effects. The content of the Summary is an accurate summary of the content of

the review. The content of each section is appropriate to the section. You performed a spelling check in the language appropriate for the

journal. References are in the style required by the journal.

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/wghreview.html

How to Write Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive survey of scholarly research on a particular topic. Literature reviews are commonly included in journal articles, research studies, and doctoral dissertations. It is likely that students in the graduate or advanced undergraduate phases of their studies will have to do a literature review at some point, especially if their fields are in the sciences or social sciences. Many students are intimidated by such an assignment because they do not have experience with this type of writing, and assume that they do not know how to write literature reviews. However, writing a literature review simply requires the student to compile information in a straightforward and organized fashion. This process begins with research and learning how to write literature review notes.

The research for a literature review should be comprehensive. This means that it should cover all major studies relevant to the topic of the review. It is unlikely that all sources on one topic will be found in one university library. Therefore, it may require the student to look beyond his or her own university to sources housed elsewhere. Throughout the entire research process, the student should keep extremely detailed notes of each study he or she examines. This includes noting the type of study that was carried out, what or who the study subjects were, the method of the study, the study’s means of data analysis, the study’s findings, and the researcher’s suggestions for further areas of study in the topic. It is imperative that a student take thorough notes; otherwise, the student will likely forget the details of the study necessary for inclusion in the literature review.

A literature review is a survey of research; it does not provide commentary on the research it presents. Unlike research papers, wherein students are required to analyze and engage the secondary sources they incorporate, a literature review is strictly a report. Sometimes students unfamiliar with how to write literature reviews assume they need to insert their critical assessments of the studies; this is not the case. The literature review simply requires the student to provide detailed summaries of various research studies and report on them in an objective fashion. This in itself is not difficult if the student has recorded detailed notes of his or her research and has prepared for the writing process by turning these notes into an outline.

Because literature reviews have such a volume of information, some students may be daunted by how to write literature review outlines. This process will simply require time and a word processor so that students can freely move information around in different orders. Often, the first concern students have regarding how to write literature review outlines is where to begin. It is always best to begin with the most general information first—the studies and sources that define the topic at hand and its significance—then progress to more detailed studies. The outline should be organized by the subcategories of the topic. Within each subcategory, there should be a list of the relevant studies on that topic. Research studies that are similar or suggest similar implications should be grouped together.

Once the outline is complete, the student is ready to write the literature review—a process that should be fairly straightforward now that the research is complete and the organization has been

determined. Students who have further concerns about how to write literature reviews should consult their instructors or read examples of literature reviews to see how others have completed them in the past.

http://www.essaytown.com/writing/write-literature-review-3

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about

This handout will explain what a literature review is and offer insights into the form and construction of a literature review 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 will 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.

top

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

Clarify

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.

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 70'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.

top

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.

Construct a working thesis statement

Then use the focus you've found to construct a thesis statement. Yes! Literature reviews have thesis statements as well! However, your thesis statement will not necessarily argue for a position or an opinion; rather it will argue for a particular perspective on the material. Some sample thesis statements for literature reviews are as follows:

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.

See our handout for more information on how to construct thesis statements.

Consider organization

You've got a focus, and you've narrowed it down to a thesis statement. 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.

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 and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

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.

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?

top

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.

top

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.

top

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing the original version of 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 the latest publications on this topic. 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.

Anson, Chris M. and Robert A. Schwegler, The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers. Second edition. New York: Longman, 2000.

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

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

Rosen, Leonard J. and Laurence Behrens. The Allyn and Bacon Handbook. Fourth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Troyka, Lynn Quitman. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002.

 

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/literature_review.html