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 sports a.

  subjects findings reference
Sport1
  male international 2% decrease in 10-km time Bloggs et al. (1997)
distance runners
  female club runners whatever whoever
Sport2
       
       
a
Number footnotes as shown.
Table 2: Events in the development of whatever in
whatever sportsa.
SportA
  1947 US National Association formed

  1956 Whatever

  1968  
SportB
     
     
a
Put 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).
a
Use 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