how to make a literature review question

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 1. Identify the Question
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?

Identify the question

Developing a research question.

• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• 6. Synthesize
• 7. Write a Literature Review

From Topic to Question (Infographic)

This graphic emphasizes how reading various sources can play a role in defining your research topic.

( Click to Enlarge Image )

Text description of "From Topic to Question" for web accessibility

In some cases, such as for a course assignment or a research project you're working on with a faculty mentor, your research question will be determined by your professor. If that's the case, you can move on to the next step .  Otherwise, you may need to explore questions on your own. 

A few suggestions

Photo Credit: UO Libraries

According to The Craft of Research (2003) , a research question is more than a practical problem or something with a yes/no answer. A research question helps you learn more about something you don't already know and it needs to be significant enough to interest your readers.

Your Curiosity + Significance to Others = Research Question

How to get started.

In a research paper, you develop a unique question and then synthesize scholarly and primary sources into a paper that supports your argument about the topic.

• Identify your Topic (This is the starting place from where you develop a research question.)
• Refine by Searching (find background information) (Before you can start to develop a research question, you may need to do some preliminary background research to see (1) what has already been done on the topic and (2) what are the issues surrounding the topic.) HINT: Find background information in Google and Books.
• Refine by Narrowing (Once you begin to understand the topic and the issues surrounding it, you can start to narrow your topic and develop a research question. Do this by asking the 6 journalistic question words.

Ask yourself these 6 questions 

These 6 journalistic question words can help you narrow your focus from a broad topic to a specific question.

Who : Are you interested in a specific group of people? Can your topic be narrowed by gender, sex, age, ethnicity, socio-economic status or something else? Are there any key figures related to your topic?

What : What are the issues surrounding your topic? Are there subtopics? In looking at background information, did you notice any gaps or questions that seemed unanswered?

Where : Can your topic be narrowed down to a geographic location? Warning: Don't get too narrow here. You might not be able to find enough information on a town or state.

When : Is your topic current or historical? Is it confined to a specific time period? Was there a causative event that led your topic to become an area of study?

Why : Why are you interested in this topic? Why should others be interested?

How : What kinds of information do you need? Primary sources, statistics? What is your methodology?

Detailed description of, "Developing a Research Question" for web accessibility

• << Previous: Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• Next: 2. Review Discipline Styles >>
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 5:17 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Choosing a Type of Review

Developing a Research Question

Finding example literature reviews.

• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

Goldilocker Tool

UM Librarians have developed a quick tool called Goldilocker  to help beginners who are struggling to refine their Research Question. 

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH QUESTION

Before searching for sources, you need to formulate a Research Question — this is what you are trying to answer using the existing academic literature. The Research Question pinpoints the focus of the review .

Your first step involves choosing, exploring, and focusing a topic. At this stage you might discover that you need to tweak your topic or the scope of your research as you learn more about the topic in the literature.

THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND: 

• The question must be "researchable" — it can be answered with accessible facts and data
• Questions often start with How, Why, What, Which
• The question opens the door for other areas of inquiry — it identifies a gap in existing research
• Questions should be open-ended and focus on cause and effect

TRY TO AVOID: 

• Simple yes/no questions, or questions with an easy answer (what is the radius of the moon?)
• Questions that can only be answered by an opinion (does it smell nice when it rains?)
• Questions that involve secret information (what is the recipe for Coca-Cola?)
• Questions that are too broad or too narrow

REFINING YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION

Two examples of refining research questions that could be considered either too broad or too narrow.

USING DATABASE FILTER TOOLS

It can be helpful to read existing literature reviews on your topic to get an idea of major themes, how authors structure their arguments, or what reviews look like in your discipline.

DOCUMENT TYPE FILTERS

Many library databases have the option to highlight just Review Articles after you perform a search. Filters above show what the Document Type filter looks like, with a "Review" option. These examples are from Scopus and ProQuest. The "Review" filter here refers to free-standing, comprehensive Review Articles on a topic, as opposed to a shorter literature review inside a scholarly article.

LIT REVIEWS INSIDE ARTICLES

It is also worth taking a look at the shorter literature reviews inside scholarly articles. These can sometimes be called "Background" or "Background Literature." Look for a section typically following the Introduction that covers the history or gives context on the paper's topic.

EXAMPLE REVIEW ARTICLES

Here are a few examples of Review Articles in different disciplines. Note sometimes an article can be a Review Article without the word "review" in the title.

HUMANITIES — Art — " Art and Crime: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City " from the journal Geography Compass

SCIENCES — Climate Change — " Mercury Isotopes in Earth and Environmental Sciences " from the journal  Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences

SOCIAL SCIENCES — Psychology — " Structural Competency and the Future of Firearm Research " from the journal Social Science & Medicine

• << Previous: Choosing a Type of Review
• Next: Searching the Literature >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

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

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

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

What is a literature review? [with examples]

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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Assistant Professor in Plant Biology

The Plant Science Program in the Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Te...

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

Postdoctoral Fellow

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tulane University School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate - Immunology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate

Vice president, nature communications portfolio.

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key leadership role in the market-leading journal Nature Portfolio and help drive its overall contribution.

New York City, New York (US), Berlin, or Heidelberg

Springer Nature Ltd

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

• What is a Literature Review?

The Research Questions

• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search
• Organize Key Findings
• Reference Management

Background vs. Foreground Questions

You may need to find answers to background questions (i.e. about general knowledge) before seeking answers to foreground questions (i.e. about specific knowledge, such as information that might inform a clinical decision).

The research questions on this page are for foreground questions.

A well-formulated research question:

• starts your entire search process
• provides focus for your searches
• guides the selection of literature sources

Question formats are helpful tools researchers can use to structure a question that will facilitate a focused search. Such formats include: PICO , PEO , SPIDER , and  COSMIN . Other formats can be found here .  

The  PICO  format is commonly used in evidence-based clinical practice.  This format creates a "well-built" question that identifies four concepts: (1) the P atient problem or P opulation, (2) the I ntervention, (3) the C omparison (if there is one), and (4) the O utcome(s) .

Example : In adults with recurrent furunculosis (skin boils), do prophylactic antibiotics, compared to no treatment, reduce the recurrence rate?  ( Cochrane Library Tutorial, 2005 )

The  PEO  question format is useful for qualitative research questions. Questions based on this format identify three concepts: (1) P opulation, (2) E xposure, and (3) O utcome(s) .

Example:  In infants, is there an association between exposure to soy milk and the subsequent development of peanut allergy ( Levine, Ioannidis, Haines, & Guyatt, 2014 )?

The  SPIDER  question format was adapted from the PICO tool to search for qualitative and mixed-methods research.  Questions based on this format identify the following concepts: (1) S ample, (2) P henomenon of I nterest, (3) D esign, (4) E valuation, and (5) R esearch type .

Example:  What are young parents’ experiences of attending antenatal education? 

Search for ( S  AND  P of I   AND ( D  OR  E ) AND  R ) ( Cooke, Smith, & Booth, 2012 ).

The COSMIN  ( CO nsensus-based  S tandards for the selection of health status M easurement IN struments ) format is used for systematic review of measurement properties.  Questions based on this format identify (1) the construct or the name(s) of the outcome measurement instrument(s) of interest,  (2) the target population, (3) the type of measurement instrument of interest, and (4) the measurement properties on which the review focuses.

Visit the COSMIN website to view the COSMIN manual and checklist.

• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Selection Criteria >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 21, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Define your research question.

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

Defining your research question is the key to beginning, so while you may be clear on the area you want to study, chances are there are some nuances that you need to think through. 

Part of this process may require exploratory searching in databases so that you can see what's already been published on your topic. Even if it's a new area, it's likely something has already been published in at least an adjacent area of study. 

Some things to consider:

• What is my central question or issue that the literature can help define?
• What is already known about the topic?
• Is the scope of the literature being reviewed wide or narrow enough?
• Is there a conflict or debate in the literature?
• What connections can be made between the texts being reviewed?
• What sort of literature should be reviewed? Historical? Theoretical? Methodological? Quantitative? Qualitative?
• What criteria should be used to evaluate the literature being reviewed?
• How will reviewing the literature justify the topic I plan to investigate?

Source:  https://libguides.library.kent.edu/c.php?g=389868&p=2645658

For more on the research question:  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/how-to-write-a-research-question

Video on Defining the Research Question

When you pick your topic, it's not set in stone. Picking and adjusting your topic is an integral part of the research process! This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. (3 minutes)

• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Help and Support
• Research Guides

Systematic Reviews - Research Guide

• Defining your review question
• Starting a Systematic Review
• Developing your search strategy
• Where to search
• Appraising Your Results
• Documenting Your Review
• Find Systematic Reviews
• Software and Tools for Systematic Reviews
• Guidance for conducting systematic reviews by discipline
• Library Support

Review question

A systematic review aims to answer a clear and focused clinical question. The question guides the rest of the systematic review process. This includes determining inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing the search strategy, collecting data and presenting findings. Therefore, developing a clear, focused and well-formulated question is critical to successfully undertaking a systematic review.

 A good review question:

• allows you to find information quickly
• allows you to find relevant information (applicable to the patient) and valid (accurately measures stated objectives)
• provides a checklist for the main concepts to be included in your search strategy.

How to define your systematic review question and create your protocol

• Starting the process
• Defining the question
• Creating a protocol

Types of clinical questions

• PICO/PICo framework
• Other frameworks

Research topic vs review question

A  research topic   is the area of study you are researching, and the  review question   is the straightforward, focused question that your systematic review will attempt to answer. 

Developing a suitable review question from a research topic can take some time. You should:

• perform some scoping searches
• use a framework such as PICO  
• consider the FINER criteria; review questions should be  F easible, I nteresting, N ovel, E thical and R elevant
• check for existing or prospective systematic reviews.

When considering the feasibility of a potential review question, there should be enough evidence to answer the question whilst ensuring that the quantity of information retrieved remains manageable. A scoping search will aid in defining the boundaries of the question and determining feasibility.

For more information on FINER criteria in systematic review questions, read Section 2.1 of the Cochrane Handbook .

Check for existing or prospective systematic reviews

Before finalising your review question, you should determine if any other systematic review is in progress or has been completed on your intended question (i.e. consider if the review is N ovel).

To find systematic reviews you might search specialist resources such as the Cochrane Library , Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database  or the Campbell Collaboration . "Systematic review" can also be used as a search term or limit when searching the recommended databases .

You should appraise any systematic reviews you find to assess their quality. An article may include ‘systematic review’ in its title without correctly following the systematic review methodology. Checklists, including those developed by AMSTAR and JBI , are useful tools for appraisal.

You may undertake a review on a similar question if that posed by a previously published review had issues with its methodology such as not having a comprehensive search strategy, for example. You may choose to narrow the parameters of a previously conducted search or to update the review if it was published some years ago. 

Searching a register of prospective systematic reviews such as PROSPERO  will allow you to check that you are not duplicating research already underway.

Once you have performed scoping searches and checked for other systematic reviews on your topic, you can focus and refine your review question. Any PICO elements identified during the initial development of the review question from the research topic should now be further refined.

The review question should always be:

• unambiguous
• structured.

Review questions may be broad or narrow in focus; however, you should consider the FINER criteria when determining the breadth of the PICO elements of your review question.

A question that is too broad may present difficulty with searching, data collection, analysis, and writing, as the number of studies retrieved would be unwieldy. A broad review question could be more suited to another type of review .

A question that is too narrow may not have enough evidence to allow you to answer your review question. Table 2.3.a in the Cochrane Handbook summarises the advantages and disadvantages of broad versus narrow reviews and provides examples of how you could broaden or narrow different PICO elements.

It is essential to formulate your research question with care to avoid missing relevant studies or collecting a potentially biased result set.

A systematic review protocol is a document that describes the rationale, question, and planned methods of a systematic review. Creating a protocol is an essential part of the systematic review process, ensuring careful planning and detailed documentation of what is planned before undertaking the review.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist outlines recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol, including:

• review question, with PICO elements defined
• eligibility criteria 
• information sources (e.g. planned databases, trial registers, grey literature sources, etc.)
• draft search strategy. 

Systematic reviews must have pre-specified criteria for including and excluding studies in the review. The Cochrane Handbook states that "predefined, unambiguous eligibility criteria are a fundamental prerequisite for a systematic review." 

The first step in developing a protocol is determining the PICO elements   of the review question and how the intervention produces the expected outcomes in the specified population. You should then specify the types of studies   that will provide the evidence to answer your review question. Then outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on these PICO elements.

For more information on defining eligibility criteria, see Chapter 3 of the Cochrane Handbook .

A key purpose of a protocol is to make plans to minimise bias in the findings of the review; where possible, changes should not be made to the eligibility criteria of a published protocol. Where such changes are made, they must be justified and documented in the review. Appropriate time and consideration should be given to creating the protocol.

You may wish to register your protocol in a publicly accessible way. This will help prevent other people from completing a review on your topic.

If you intend to publish a systematic review in the health sciences, it should conform to the IOM Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews .

If you intend to publish a systematic review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , it should conform to the Methodological Expectations in Cochrane Intervention Review s (MECIR).

A clinical question needs to be directly relevant to the patient or problem and phrased to facilitate the search for an answer. A clear and focused question is more likely to lead to a credible and useful answer, whereas a poorly formulated question can lead to an uncertain answer and create confusion.

The population and intervention should be specific, but if any or both are described too narrowly, it may not be easy to find relevant studies or sufficient data to demonstrate a reliable answer.

PICO is a framework for developing a focused clinical question. 

Slightly different versions of this concept are used to search for   quantitative   and   qualitative reviews, examples are given below:

PICO for quantitative studies

Here is an example of a clinical question that outlines the PICO components:

PICo for qualitative studies

Here is an example of a clinical question that outlines the PICo components:

Two other mnemonics may be used to frame questions for qualitative and quantitative studies -  SPIDER   and  SPICE .

SPIDER for qualitative or quantitative studies

SPIDER   can be used for both qualitative and quantitative studies:

Within social sciences research,  SPICE  may be more appropriate for formulating research questions:

More question frameworks

For more question frameworks, see the following:

• Table 1 Types of reviews , from ' What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. '
• Framing your research question , CQ University 
• Asking focused questions - Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Tips and examples for formulating focused questions
• Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address Discusses the formulation of review questions in detail
• PICO for Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine EBVM Toolkit from the RCVS
• PICO worksheet
• PICo worksheet
• << Previous: Starting a Systematic Review
• Next: Developing your search strategy >>
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 1:16 PM
• URL: https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/systematic

Library Services

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES

• Guides and databases
• Library skills
• Systematic reviews

Formulating a research question

• What are systematic reviews?
• Types of systematic reviews
• Identifying studies
• Searching databases
• Describing and appraising studies
• Synthesis and systematic maps
• Software for systematic reviews
• Online training and support
• Live and face to face training
• Individual support
• Further help

Clarifying the review question leads to specifying what type of studies can best address that question and setting out criteria for including such studies in the review. This is often called inclusion criteria or eligibility criteria. The criteria could relate to the review topic, the research methods of the studies, specific populations, settings, date limits, geographical areas, types of interventions, or something else.

Systematic reviews address clear and answerable research questions, rather than a general topic or problem of interest. They also have clear criteria about the studies that are being used to address the research questions. This is often called inclusion criteria or eligibility criteria.

Six examples of types of question are listed below, and the examples show different questions that a review might address based on the topic of influenza vaccination. Structuring questions in this way aids thinking about the different types of research that could address each type of question. Mneumonics can help in thinking about criteria that research must fulfil to address the question. The criteria could relate to the context, research methods of the studies, specific populations, settings, date limits, geographical areas, types of interventions, or something else.

Examples of review questions

• Needs - What do people want? Example: What are the information needs of healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?
• Impact or effectiveness - What is the balance of benefit and harm of a given intervention? Example: What is the effectiveness of strategies to increase vaccination coverage among healthcare workers. What is the cost effectiveness of interventions that increase immunisation coverage?
• Process or explanation - Why does it work (or not work)? How does it work (or not work)?  Example: What factors are associated with uptake of vaccinations by healthcare workers?  What factors are associated with inequities in vaccination among healthcare workers?
• Correlation - What relationships are seen between phenomena? Example: How does influenza vaccination of healthcare workers vary with morbidity and mortality among patients? (Note: correlation does not in itself indicate causation).
• Views / perspectives - What are people's experiences? Example: What are the views and experiences of healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?
• Service implementation - What is happening? Example: What is known about the implementation and context of interventions to promote vaccination for seasonal influenza among healthcare workers?

Examples in practice :  Seasonal influenza vaccination of health care workers: evidence synthesis / Loreno et al. 2017

Example of eligibility criteria

Research question: What are the views and experiences of UK healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?

• Population: healthcare workers, any type, including those without direct contact with patients.
• Context: seasonal influenza vaccination for healthcare workers.
• Study design: qualitative data including interviews, focus groups, ethnographic data.
• Date of publication: all.
• Country: all UK regions.
• Studies focused on influenza vaccination for general population and pandemic influenza vaccination.
• Studies using survey data with only closed questions, studies that only report quantitative data.

Consider the research boundaries

It is important to consider the reasons that the research question is being asked. Any research question has ideological and theoretical assumptions around the meanings and processes it is focused on. A systematic review should either specify definitions and boundaries around these elements at the outset, or be clear about which elements are undefined. 

For example if we are interested in the topic of homework, there are likely to be pre-conceived ideas about what is meant by 'homework'. If we want to know the impact of homework on educational attainment, we need to set boundaries on the age range of children, or how educational attainment is measured. There may also be a particular setting or contexts: type of school, country, gender, the timeframe of the literature, or the study designs of the research.

Research question: What is the impact of homework on children's educational attainment?

• Scope : Homework - Tasks set by school teachers for students to complete out of school time, in any format or setting.
• Population: children aged 5-11 years.
• Outcomes: measures of literacy or numeracy from tests administered by researchers, school or other authorities.
• Study design: Studies with a comparison control group.
• Context: OECD countries, all settings within mainstream education.
• Date Limit: 2007 onwards.
• Any context not in mainstream primary schools.
• Non-English language studies.

Mnemonics for structuring questions

Some mnemonics that sometimes help to formulate research questions, set the boundaries of question and inform a search strategy.

Intervention effects

PICO  Population – Intervention– Outcome– Comparison

Variations: add T on for time, or ‘C’ for context, or S’ for study type,

Policy and management issues

ECLIPSE : Expectation – Client group – Location – Impact ‐ Professionals involved – Service

Expectation encourages  reflection on what the information is needed for i.e. improvement, innovation or information.  Impact looks at what  you would like to achieve e.g. improve team communication .

• How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information / Wildridge & Bell, 2002

Analysis tool for management and organisational strategy

PESTLE:  Political – Economic – Social – Technological – Environmental ‐ Legal

An analysis tool that can be used by organizations for identifying external factors which may influence their strategic development, marketing strategies, new technologies or organisational change.

• PESTLE analysis / CIPD, 2010

Service evaluations with qualitative study designs

SPICE:  Setting (context) – Perspective– Intervention – Comparison – Evaluation

Perspective relates to users or potential users. Evaluation is how you plan to measure the success of the intervention.

• Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice / Booth, 2006

Read more about some of the frameworks for constructing review questions:

• Formulating the Evidence Based Practice Question: A Review of the Frameworks / Davis, 2011
• << Previous: Stages in a systematic review
• Next: Identifying studies >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 10:09 AM
• URL: https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/systematic-reviews

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Make a Literature Review in Research (RRL Example)

What is an RRL in a research paper?

A relevant review of the literature (RRL) is an objective, concise, critical summary of published research literature relevant to a topic being researched in an article. In an RRL, you discuss knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your study topic. If there are conflicts or gaps in existing literature, you can also discuss these in your review, as well as how you will confront these missing elements or resolve these issues in your study.

To complete an RRL, you first need to collect relevant literature; this can include online and offline sources. Save all of your applicable resources as you will need to include them in your paper. When looking through these sources, take notes and identify concepts of each source to describe in the review of the literature.

A good RRL does NOT:

A literature review does not simply reference and list all of the material you have cited in your paper.

• Presenting material that is not directly relevant to your study will distract and frustrate the reader and make them lose sight of the purpose of your study.
• Starting a literature review with “A number of scholars have studied the relationship between X and Y” and simply listing who has studied the topic and what each scholar concluded is not going to strengthen your paper.

A good RRL DOES:

• Present a brief typology that orders articles and books into groups to help readers focus on unresolved debates, inconsistencies, tensions, and new questions about a research topic.
• Summarize the most relevant and important aspects of the scientific literature related to your area of research
• Synthesize what has been done in this area of research and by whom, highlight what previous research indicates about a topic, and identify potential gaps and areas of disagreement in the field
• Give the reader an understanding of the background of the field and show which studies are important—and highlight errors in previous studies

How long is a review of the literature for a research paper?

The length of a review of the literature depends on its purpose and target readership and can vary significantly in scope and depth. In a dissertation, thesis, or standalone review of literature, it is usually a full chapter of the text (at least 20 pages). Whereas, a standard research article or school assignment literature review section could only be a few paragraphs in the Introduction section .

Building Your Literature Review Bookshelf

One way to conceive of a literature review is to think about writing it as you would build a bookshelf. You don’t need to cut each piece by yourself from scratch. Rather, you can take the pieces that other researchers have cut out and put them together to build a framework on which to hang your own “books”—that is, your own study methods, results, and conclusions.

What Makes a Good Literature Review?

The contents of a literature review (RRL) are determined by many factors, including its precise purpose in the article, the degree of consensus with a given theory or tension between competing theories, the length of the article, the number of previous studies existing in the given field, etc. The following are some of the most important elements that a literature review provides.

Historical background for your research

Analyze what has been written about your field of research to highlight what is new and significant in your study—or how the analysis itself contributes to the understanding of this field, even in a small way. Providing a historical background also demonstrates to other researchers and journal editors your competency in discussing theoretical concepts. You should also make sure to understand how to paraphrase scientific literature to avoid plagiarism in your work.

The current context of your research

Discuss central (or peripheral) questions, issues, and debates in the field. Because a field is constantly being updated by new work, you can show where your research fits into this context and explain developments and trends in research.

A discussion of relevant theories and concepts

Theories and concepts should provide the foundation for your research. For example, if you are researching the relationship between ecological environments and human populations, provide models and theories that focus on specific aspects of this connection to contextualize your study. If your study asks a question concerning sustainability, mention a theory or model that underpins this concept. If it concerns invasive species, choose material that is focused in this direction.

Definitions of relevant terminology

In the natural sciences, the meaning of terms is relatively straightforward and consistent. But if you present a term that is obscure or context-specific, you should define the meaning of the term in the Introduction section (if you are introducing a study) or in the summary of the literature being reviewed.

Description of related relevant research

Include a description of related research that shows how your work expands or challenges earlier studies or fills in gaps in previous work. You can use your literature review as evidence of what works, what doesn’t, and what is missing in the field.

Supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue your research is addressing that demonstrates its importance: Referencing related research establishes your area of research as reputable and shows you are building upon previous work that other researchers have deemed significant.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can differ in structure, length, amount, and breadth of content included. They can range from selective (a very narrow area of research or only a single work) to comprehensive (a larger amount or range of works). They can also be part of a larger work or stand on their own.

• A course assignment is an example of a selective, stand-alone work. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up an entire work on its own.
• The literature review in a dissertation or thesis is both comprehensive and helps make up a larger work.
• A majority of journal articles start with a selective literature review to provide context for the research reported in the study; such a literature review is usually included in the Introduction section (but it can also follow the presentation of the results in the Discussion section ).
• Some literature reviews are both comprehensive and stand as a separate work—in this case, the entire article analyzes the literature on a given topic.

Literature Reviews Found in Academic Journals

The two types of literature reviews commonly found in journals are those introducing research articles (studies and surveys) and stand-alone literature analyses. They can differ in their scope, length, and specific purpose.

Literature reviews introducing research articles

The literature review found at the beginning of a journal article is used to introduce research related to the specific study and is found in the Introduction section, usually near the end. It is shorter than a stand-alone review because it must be limited to very specific studies and theories that are directly relevant to the current study. Its purpose is to set research precedence and provide support for the study’s theory, methods, results, and/or conclusions. Not all research articles contain an explicit review of the literature, but most do, whether it is a discrete section or indistinguishable from the rest of the Introduction.

How to structure a literature review for an article

When writing a literature review as part of an introduction to a study, simply follow the structure of the Introduction and move from the general to the specific—presenting the broadest background information about a topic first and then moving to specific studies that support your rationale , finally leading to your hypothesis statement. Such a literature review is often indistinguishable from the Introduction itself—the literature is INTRODUCING the background and defining the gaps your study aims to fill.

The stand-alone literature review

The literature review published as a stand-alone article presents and analyzes as many of the important publications in an area of study as possible to provide background information and context for a current area of research or a study. Stand-alone reviews are an excellent resource for researchers when they are first searching for the most relevant information on an area of study.

Such literature reviews are generally a bit broader in scope and can extend further back in time. This means that sometimes a scientific literature review can be highly theoretical, in addition to focusing on specific methods and outcomes of previous studies. In addition, all sections of such a “review article” refer to existing literature rather than describing the results of the authors’ own study.

In addition, this type of literature review is usually much longer than the literature review introducing a study. At the end of the review follows a conclusion that once again explicitly ties all of the cited works together to show how this analysis is itself a contribution to the literature. While not absolutely necessary, such articles often include the terms “Literature Review” or “Review of the Literature” in the title. Whether or not that is necessary or appropriate can also depend on the specific author instructions of the target journal. Have a look at this article for more input on how to compile a stand-alone review article that is insightful and helpful for other researchers in your field.

How to Write a Literature Review in 6 Steps

So how do authors turn a network of articles into a coherent review of relevant literature?

Writing a literature review is not usually a linear process—authors often go back and check the literature while reformulating their ideas or making adjustments to their study. Sometimes new findings are published before a study is completed and need to be incorporated into the current work. This also means you will not be writing the literature review at any one time, but constantly working on it before, during, and after your study is complete.

Here are some steps that will help you begin and follow through on your literature review.

Step 1: Choose a topic to write about—focus on and explore this topic.

Choose a topic that you are familiar with and highly interested in analyzing; a topic your intended readers and researchers will find interesting and useful; and a topic that is current, well-established in the field, and about which there has been sufficient research conducted for a review. This will help you find the “sweet spot” for what to focus on.

Step 2: Research and collect all the scholarly information on the topic that might be pertinent to your study.

This includes scholarly articles, books, conventions, conferences, dissertations, and theses—these and any other academic work related to your area of study is called “the literature.”

Step 3: Analyze the network of information that extends or responds to the major works in your area; select the material that is most useful.

Use thought maps and charts to identify intersections in the research and to outline important categories; select the material that will be most useful to your review.

Step 4: Describe and summarize each article—provide the essential information of the article that pertains to your study.

Determine 2-3 important concepts (depending on the length of your article) that are discussed in the literature; take notes about all of the important aspects of this study relevant to the topic being reviewed.

For example, in a given study, perhaps some of the main concepts are X, Y, and Z. Note these concepts and then write a brief summary about how the article incorporates them. In reviews that introduce a study, these can be relatively short. In stand-alone reviews, there may be significantly more texts and more concepts.

Step 5: Demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed.

In a literature review intro for an article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond to and/or confirm those sections in your own study. For a stand-alone literature review, this may mean highlighting the concepts in each article and showing how they strengthen a hypothesis or show a pattern.

Discuss unaddressed issues in previous studies. These studies that are missing something you address are important to include in your literature review. In addition, those works whose theories and conclusions directly support your findings will be valuable to review here.

Step 6: Identify relationships in the literature and develop and connect your own ideas to them.

This is essentially the same as step 5 but focused on the connections between the literature and the current study or guiding concepts or arguments of the paper, not only on the connections between the works themselves.

Your hypothesis, argument, or guiding concept is the “golden thread” that will ultimately tie the works together and provide readers with specific insights they didn’t have before reading your literature review. Make sure you know where to put the research question , hypothesis, or statement of the problem in your research paper so that you guide your readers logically and naturally from your introduction of earlier work and evidence to the conclusions you want them to draw from the bigger picture.

Your literature review will not only cover publications on your topics but will include your own ideas and contributions. By following these steps you will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research and you can turn a network of related works into a focused review of the literature.

Literature Review (RRL) Examples

Because creating sample literature reviews would take too long and not properly capture the nuances and detailed information needed for a good review, we have included some links to different types of literature reviews below. You can find links to more literature reviews in these categories by visiting the TUS Library’s website . Sample literature reviews as part of an article, dissertation, or thesis:

• Critical Thinking and Transferability: A Review of the Literature (Gwendolyn Reece)
• Building Customer Loyalty: A Customer Experience Based Approach in a Tourism Context (Martina Donnelly)

Sample stand-alone literature reviews

• Literature Review on Attitudes towards Disability (National Disability Authority)
• The Effects of Communication Styles on Marital Satisfaction (Hannah Yager)

Additional Literature Review Format Guidelines

In addition to the content guidelines above, authors also need to check which style guidelines to use ( APA , Chicago, MLA, etc.) and what specific rules the target journal might have for how to structure such articles or how many studies to include—such information can usually be found on the journals’ “Guide for Authors” pages. Additionally, use one of the four Wordvice citation generators below, choosing the citation style needed for your paper:

Wordvice Writing and Academic Editing Resources

Finally, after you have finished drafting your literature review, be sure to receive professional proofreading services , including paper editing for your academic work. A competent proofreader who understands academic writing conventions and the specific style guides used by academic journals will ensure that your paper is ready for publication in your target journal.

See our academic resources for further advice on references in your paper , how to write an abstract , how to write a research paper title, how to impress the editor of your target journal with a perfect cover letter , and dozens of other research writing and publication topics.

Top 10 Questions for a Complete Literature Review

An excellent literature review integrates information in such a way that it provides a new framework to build upon. It is a way of contextualizing your work and showcasing a bigger picture before you pin down to your research problem. It not only highlights principle issues in your field but also provides new perspectives on the research topic. Careful skimming of literature introduces the readers to relevant terminologies frequently used in context of their work. Literature review assists in recognizing related research findings and relevant theories. Furthermore, it aids in pinpointing the methodologies that one may adopt for research.

5 Steps to Begin the Literature Review

There are five steps that one should follow before preparing to conduct the literature review :

• Identify all the literature relevant to your topic of interest. Explore all the different types of literature including theoretical literature, applied literature, literature that talks about research methods, or a combination thereof.
• Using multiple keywords and strategies capture the most accurate and relevant data. Conduct an extensive search in multi-disciplinary databases.
• Group your findings into a detailed summary of what is known and what needs to be explored.
• Identify existing gaps or any unresolved issues
• Formulate broad questions that warrant further research

How to Best Critique a Research paper

For extracting maximum information from a research paper , researchers must ask the following questions!

• Has the author formulated an appropriate research question based on the problem/issue?
• Is the research question clearly defined in terms of its scope and relevance?
• Was there an alternative or better perspective to approach the research question?
• What is the author’s orientation towards the research problem – is it a critical analysis or interpretation based?
• Has the author extensively evaluated the literature considering both latest and relevant articles?
• How has the author defined the basic components (population, interventions, outcomes) of the study? Are the measurements valid, accurate and statistically significant? Are the conclusions based accurate interpretations of the data?
• Is there an objective based, unbiased reasoning provided for the problem statement or is the author merely attempting to prove his/her preconceived beliefs and opinions?
• How does this article contribute to your understanding of the research problem?
• What are the strengths, limitations and shortcomings of the study?

10 Questions for a Comprehensive Literature Review

1. Do I have clearly defined research aims prior to commencing the review?

It is important to choose a focused question that can efficiently direct your search. It can assist you to create a list of keywords related to your research problem. Furthermore, it helps in identifying relevant databases to search for related journals and articles.

2. Have I correctly identified all the sources that will help me define my problem statement or research question?

Literature is not limited to journal articles, thesis, and dissertations. One should also refer to credible internet sources, conference proceedings that provide latest unpublished papers, as well as government and corporate reports. Books, although do not have latest information, can serve as a good starting point to read background information.

3. Have I considered all kinds of literature – including both qualitative and quantitative research articles?

An exhaustive literature survey helps you position your research within the context of existing literature effectively creating a case as to why further study is necessary. Your search has to be robust enough to ensure that you have browsed through all the relevant and latest articles. Rather than reading everything, researchers must refer and follow the most relevant work!

4. Do I have enough empirical or theoretical evidence to support my hypothesis?

Discovering new patterns and trends becomes easy if you gather credible evidence from earlier works. Furthermore, it helps in rationalizing the significance of your study.

5. Have I identified all the major inconsistencies or other shortcomings related to my research topic?

Researchers should not only refer to articles that present supporting evidence but also focus on those that provide inconclusive or contradictory information. It helps to identify any open questions left by researchers in previous studies.

6. Is my relationship diagram ready?

A relationship diagram is an effective way of recognizing links between different elements of a complex research topic. It is an immensely important tool that helps in clarifying and structuring research specific findings and interpretations at various stages of the project. It is an effective way of representing your current understanding of the research topic. In addition, a good relationship diagram can help you find new insights owing to a clear picture of all the probable relationships between key concepts, variables and key factors.

7. Have I gathered sufficient evidence from the literature about the accuracy and validity of the designs or methods that I plan to use in my experiments?

It is paramount to use methodologies and research techniques that have scientific reliability. Moreover, since methods especially used in qualitative research are often more subjective, it becomes crucial for researchers to reflect on the approach and explain the criteria for selecting a particular method.

8. Have I identified the purpose for which articles have been shortlisted for literature review?

You can expedite your literature writing process if you tag your articles based on its purpose of inclusion in the review report. Following are the tags that can be added to articles:

• Show how latest developments or develop a theoretical base to your study
• Demonstrate limitations, inconsistencies or shortcomings of previous studies
• Critique or support certain methods or findings
• Replicate the study in a different setting (region/population)
• Indicate how the study supports or contradicts your findings
• Use it as a reference to further build your research
• Provide a general understanding of concerns relevant to your research topic

9. Have I recorded all the bibliographic information regarding my information sources?

Recording and cataloguing your bibliographical details and references is absolutely crucial for every researcher. You may use commercial software such as Reference manager, End Note, and Pro Cite to manage your references. Furthermore, you may also keep a record of keyword searches that you have performed.

10. Will my literature review reflect a report that is created after a through critical analysis of the literature?

An excellent literature review must be structured, logical, and coherent. It is a great opportunity to demonstrate that you have critically analyzed and understood the relevant body of literature underpinning your research. It is important to structure your literature into appropriate sections that discuss themes or presents trends. Grouping your literature helps in indicating relationships and making comparisons.

Still have more queries related to literature review and synthesis? Post your queries here and our experts will be happy to answer them! You can also visit our Q&A forum for frequently asked questions related to research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Research Manuscripts Using AI-Powered Insights: Enago reports for effective research communication

Language Quality Importance in Academia AI in Evaluating Language Quality Enago Language Reports Live Demo…

• Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

Beyond Spellcheck: How copyediting guarantees error-free submission

Submitting a manuscript is a complex and often an emotional experience for researchers. Whether it’s…

How to Find the Right Journal and Fix Your Manuscript Before Submission

Selection of right journal Meets journal standards Plagiarism free manuscripts Rated from reviewer's POV

• Manuscripts & Grants

Research Aims and Objectives: The dynamic duo for successful research

Picture yourself on a road trip without a destination in mind — driving aimlessly, not…

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 20 May 2024

Fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research and decision making: a practice review

• Iván Sarmiento 1 , 2 ,
• Anne Cockcroft 1 ,
• Anna Dion 1 ,
• Loubna Belaid 1 ,
• Hilah Silver 1 ,
• Katherine Pizarro 1 ,
• Juan Pimentel 1 , 3 ,
• Elyse Tratt 4 ,
• Lashanda Skerritt 1 ,
• Mona Z. Ghadirian 1 ,
• Marie-Catherine Gagnon-Dufresne 1 , 5 &
• Neil Andersson 1 , 6  

Archives of Public Health volume  82 , Article number:  76 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) is a graphic technique to describe causal understanding in a wide range of applications. This practice review summarises the experience of a group of participatory research specialists and trainees who used FCM to include stakeholder views in addressing health challenges. From a meeting of the research group, this practice review reports 25 experiences with FCM in nine countries between 2016 and 2023.

The methods, challenges and adjustments focus on participatory research practice. FCM portrayed multiple sources of knowledge: stakeholder knowledge, systematic reviews of literature, and survey data. Methodological advances included techniques to contrast and combine maps from different sources using Bayesian procedures, protocols to enhance the quality of data collection, and tools to facilitate analysis. Summary graphs communicating FCM findings sacrificed detail but facilitated stakeholder discussion of the most important relationships. We used maps not as predictive models but to surface and share perspectives of how change could happen and to inform dialogue. Analysis included simple manual techniques and sophisticated computer-based solutions. A wide range of experience in initiating, drawing, analysing, and communicating the maps illustrates FCM flexibility for different contexts and skill bases.

Conclusions

A strong core procedure can contribute to more robust applications of the technique while adapting FCM for different research settings. Decision-making often involves choices between plausible interventions in a context of uncertainty and multiple possible answers to the same question. FCM offers systematic and traceable ways to document, contrast and sometimes to combine perspectives, incorporating stakeholder experience and causal models to inform decision-making. Different depths of FCM analysis open opportunities for applying the technique in skill-limited settings.

Peer Review reports

Collaborative generation of knowledge recognises people’s right to be involved in decisions that shape their lives [ 1 ]. Their participation makes research and interventions more relevant to local context and priorities and, thus, more likely to be effective [ 2 ]. A commitment to the co-creation of knowledge proposes that people make better decisions when they have the benefit of both scientific and other forms of knowledge. These include context-specific understanding, knowledge claims based on local settings, experience and practice, and organisational know-how [ 3 ]. Participatory research expands the idea of what counts as evidence, opening space for the experience and knowledge of stakeholders [ 4 , 5 ]. The challenge is how to create a level playing field where diverse knowledges can contribute equally. We present fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) as a rigorous and transparent tool to combine different perspectives into composite theories to guide shared decision-making [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

In the early 1980s, the combination of fuzzy logic [ 9 ] to concept mapping of decision making [ 10 , 11 ] led to FCM [ 12 ]. Fuzzy cognitive maps are directed graphs [ 13 ] where nodes correspond to factors or concepts, and arrows describe directed influences. Using this basic structure for causal relationships, users can represent their knowledge of complex systems, including many interacting concepts. Many variables are not easily measured or estimated with precision or are hard to circumscribe within a formal definition, for example, wellbeing, cultural safety, or racism [ 14 , 15 ]. Nevertheless, their causes and effects are important to capture for decision-making. Fuzzy cognitive maps offer a formal structure to include these kinds of variables in the analysis of complex health issues.

The flexibility of the technique allows for systematic mapping of knowledge from multiple sources to identify influences on a particular outcome while supporting collective learning and decision making [ 16 ]. FCM has been used across multiple fields with applications that include modelling, prediction, monitoring, decision-making, and management [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. FCM has been applied in medicine to aid diagnosis and treatment decision-making [ 21 , 22 ]. FCM has also supported community and stakeholder engagement in environmental sciences [ 23 , 24 ] and health by examining conventional and Indigenous understanding of causes of diabetes [ 25 ].

Many implementation details contribute to interpretability of FCM, a common concern for researchers new to the technique. This review addresses these practical details when we used FCM to include local stakeholder understanding of causes of health issues in co-design of actions to tackle those issues. The focus is on transparent mapping of stakeholder experience and how it meets requirements for trustworthy data collection and initial analysis. The methods section describes what fuzzy cognitive maps are and how we documented our experience using them. We describe tools and procedures for researchers using FCM to incorporate different knowledges in health research. The results summarize experience in four stages of mapping: framing the outcome of concern, drawing the maps, performing basic analyses, and using the resulting maps. The discussion contrasts our practices with those described in the literature, identifying potential limitations and suggesting future directions.

Methods of the practice review

Fuzzy cognitive maps are graphs of causal understanding [ 6 ]. The unit of meaning in fuzzy cognitive mapping is a relationship, which corresponds to two nodes (concepts) linked by an arrow. Arrows originate in the causes and point to their outcomes. A cause can lead to an outcome directly or through multiple pathways (succession of arrows). Figure  1 shows a fuzzy cognitive map of causes of healthy maternity according to indigenous traditional midwives in the South of Mexico [ 26 ].

Fuzzy cognitive map of causes of a healthy maternity according to indigenous traditional midwives in Guerrero, Mexico. ( a ) Graphical display of a fuzzy cognitive map. The boxes are nodes, and the arrows are directed edges. Strong lines indicate positive influences, and dashed lines indicate negative influences. Thicker lines correspond to stronger effects. ( b ) Adjacency matrix with the same content as the map. Rows and columns correspond to the nodes. The value in each cell indicates the strength of the influence of one node (row) on another (column). Reproduced without changes with permission from the authors of [ 26 ]

The “fuzzy” appellation refers to weights that indicate the strength of relationships between concepts. For example, a numeric scale with values between one and five might correspond to very low , low , medium , high or very high influence. If the value is 0, there is no causal relationship, and the concepts are independent. Negative weights indicate a causal decrease in the outcome, and positive weights indicate a causal increase in the outcome. A tabular display of the map, an adjacency matrix, has the concepts in columns and rows. The value in a cell indicates the weight of the influence of the row concept on the column concept (Fig.  1 ). A map can also be represented as an edge list. This shows relationships across three columns: causes (originating node), outcomes (landing node) and weights. Some maps use ranges of variability for the weights (grey fuzzy cognitive maps) [ 27 ] or fuzzy scales to indicate changing states of factors [ 21 ].

Following rules of logical inference, the relationships between concepts can suggest potential explanations for how they work together to influence a specific outcome [ 28 , 29 ]. One might interpret a cognitive map as a series of if-then rules [ 9 ] describing causal relationships between concepts [ 12 ]. For example, if the quality of health care increases, then the population’s health should also improve. Maps can incorporate feedback loops [ 30 ], such as: if violence increases, then more violence happens.

An international participatory research group met in Montreal, Canada, to share FCM experience and discussed its application. FCM implementation in all cases shared a common ten-step protocol [ 6 ], with results of almost all exercises published in peer-reviewed journals. The lead author of each publication presented their work and corroborated the synthesis reflected the most important aspects of their experiences. A webpage details the methods, materials, and tools members of the group have used in practice ( https://ciet.org/fcm ).

As a multilevel training exercise, the meeting included graduate students, emerging researchers with their first research projects and experienced FCM researchers. Nine researchers presented their experience, challenges and lessons learned. The senior co-author (NA) led a four-round nominal group discussion covering consecutive mapping stages: (1) who defined the research issue and how, (2) procedures for building maps and the role of participants at each point, (3) analysis tools and methods and (4) use of the maps. Before the session, participants received the published papers concerning the FCM projects under discussion and the guiding questions about the four themes. After the meeting, the first author (IS) transcribed and drew on the session recording to draft the manuscript. All authors subsequently contributed to the manuscript, which follows the approach used to describe our work with narrative evaluations [ 31 ]. The summary of FCM methods used, the results of the practice review, follows the categories used in the nominal group to inquire about FCM implementation.

Researchers reported their practice in three different FCM applications. Most cases mapped stakeholder knowledge in the context of participatory research [ 26 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 39 ]. They also described using FCM to contextualise mixed-methods literature reviews in stakeholder perspectives [ 5 , 40 , 41 , 42 ] and to conduct secondary quantitative analysis of surveys [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. A fourth FCM application, not discussed in detail in this paper, is in graduate teaching. A master’s program in Colombia and a PhD course in Canada incorporated the creation of cognitive maps as a learning tool, with each student building a map to describe how their research project could contribute to promoting change.

Table  1 summarises the characteristics of the 25 FCM practices reviewed. The number of maps varied from a handful to dozens. Table  2 summarises the processes of defining the issue, drawing, analysing, and using the three different kinds of maps: stakeholder knowledge, mixed-methods literature reviews, and questionnaire data. Table  3 summarises the FCM processes in each of the four mapping stages. Of 23 FCM publications from the group since 2017 (see Additional File 1 ), four describe methodological contributions [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 35 ], and the rest describe the use of FCM in specific contexts.

Stage 1. Who defined the issue and how

Focus group discussions or conversations with partners were the most common methods for defining the issue to be mapped. Cases #6 (pregnant and parenting adolescents) and #20 (women’s satisfaction with HIV care) used literature maps to identify priorities with participants in Canada, while cases #5 (immigrant’s unmet postpartum care needs) and #7 (child protection involvement) contextualised literature-based maps with stakeholder knowledge. In cases #15 and #16 on violence against women and suicide among men in Botswana, community members involved in another project raised these issues as concerns. Two cases used FCM in the secondary analysis of survey data to answer questions defined by the research teams (#1 Mexico dengue) and academic groups (#2 Colombia medical education).

All cases used a participatory research framework [ 46 ]. FCM worked both in well-established partnerships (#8 and #9 involved researchers and Indigenous communities in Mexico, and #20 well-established partnerships with women living with HIV) and in the early stages of trust building (#6 adolescent parents in Canada).

Almost all cases reported two levels of ethical review: institutional boards linked with universities and local entities (health ministries and authorities, advisory boards, community organisations or leaders). Most review boards were unfamiliar with FCM, and some requested additional descriptions and protocols to help them understand the method. In Guatemala (#17) and Nunavik (#18), Indigenous authorities and a steering committee requested a mapping session themselves before approving the project. Most projects used oral consent, mainly due to the involvement of participants with a wide range of literacy levels and in contexts of mistrust about potential misuse of signed documents (Indigenous groups in #8) or during virtual mapping sessions (women living with HIV in #20).

Strengths-based or problem-focused

Most cases followed a strengths-based approach, focusing on what influences a positive outcome (for example, what causes good maternal health instead of what causes maternal morbidity or mortality). Some cases created two maps: one about causes of a positive outcome and one about causes of the corresponding negative outcome (#8 causes and risks for safe birth in Indigenous communities, and #10 causes and protectors of short birth interval). Building two maps helped to unearth additional actionable concepts but was time-consuming and tiring for the stakeholders creating the maps.

Broad concepts or tight questions

A recurring issue was how broad the question or focus should be. A broad question about ‘what influences wellbeing’ fitted well with the holistic perspectives of Mayan communities but posed challenges for drawing, analysing, and communicating maps with many concepts and interactions (#17, Guatemala). A very narrowly defined outcome, on the other hand, might miss potentially actionable causes.

Stage 2. Drawing maps

In the group’s experience, most people readily understand how to make maps, given their basic structure (cause, arrow and consequence). Based on their collective experience, the research group developed a protocol to increase replicability and data quality in FCM, particularly for stakeholder maps, which often involve multiple facilitators and different languages. Creating maps from literature reviews and questionnaire data did not have some of the complications of creating maps with stakeholders but also benefitted from detailed protocols.

Stakeholder maps

The mapping cases reviewed here included mappers ranging from highly trained university researchers (#9 on safe birth) to people without education and speaking only their local language (#8 in Mexico, #10 and #21 in Nigeria, #11 and #12 in Uganda). Meeting participants discussed the advantages and disadvantages of group and individual maps. Groups stimulate the emergence of ideas but include the challenge of ensuring all participants are heard. Careful training of facilitators and managing the mapping sessions as nominal groups helped to increase the participation of quieter people. Groups of not more than five mappers were much easier to facilitate without losing the creative turbulence of a group. Most cases relied on small homogeneous groups, run separately by age and gender, to avoid power imbalances among the map authors. Individual sessions worked well for sensitive topics. They accommodated schedules of busy participants and worked for mappers not linked to a specific community.

Basic equipment for mapping is inexpensive and almost universally available. Most researchers in our group used either sticky notes on a large sheet of paper or magnetic tiles on a metal whiteboard (Fig.  2 ). Some researchers had worked directly with free software to draw the electronic maps ( www.mentalmodeler.com or www.yworks.com/products/yed ), while others digitised the physical maps, often from a photograph. Three cases conducted FCM over the internet or telephone, with individual mappers (#9, #20 and #25) constructing their maps online in real-time.

Fuzzy cognitive maps from group sessions in Uganda and Nigeria. ( a ) A group of women in Uganda discusses what contributes to increasing institutional childbirths in rural communities. They used sticky notes and markers on white paper to draw the maps. ( b ) A group of men in Northern Nigeria uses a whiteboard and magnetic tiles to draw a map on causes of short birth intervals

Group mapping sessions typically had a facilitator and a reporter to take notes on the discussions. Reporters are crucial in recording explanations about the meaning of concepts and links. Experienced researchers stressed that careful training of facilitators and reporters, including several rounds of field practice, is essential to ensure quality. We developed materials to support training and quality control of mapping sessions (#21 Nigeria), available at www.ciet.org/fcm . In Nigeria (#21), the research team successfully field-tested the use of Zoom technology via mobile handsets with internet connection by the cellular network to allow virtual participation of international researchers in FCM sessions in the classroom and communities.

Many mappers in community groups had limited or no schooling and only verbal use of their local language. It worked well in these cases for the facilitators to write the concepts on the labels in English or Spanish, while the discussion was in the local language. Facilitators frequently reminded the groups about the labels of the concepts in the local language. In case #16 in Botswana, more literate groups wrote the concepts in Setswana, and the facilitators later translated them into English. Most researchers found that the FCM graphical format helped to overcome language barriers, and it seems to have worked equally well with literate and illiterate groups. Additional file 2 lists common pitfalls and potential solutions during group mapping sessions.

Identifying causes of the issue

Some mapping sessions started by asking participants what the central issue of the map meant to them. This was useful for comparing participant views about the main topic (#8 and #9 maternal health in Indigenous communities and #20 satisfaction with HIV care) and in understanding local concepts of broad topics (#17 Indigenous wellbeing). In Nigeria (#21), group discussions defined elements of adolescent sexual and reproductive health before undertaking FCM, and facilitators shared the list of elements with participants in mapping sessions. In Nunavik (#13 Canada, Inuit women on HPV self-sampling), participating women received an initial presentation to create a common understanding to discuss HPV self-sampling, an unfamiliar technique in Inuit communities.

Some cases created stakeholder maps from scratch, asking participants what they thought would cause the main outcome (#8 to 10, 14 to 19, 21, and 23 to 25). Other cases reviewed the literature first and presented the findings to participants (#5, 7 and 20). In these cases, the facilitators reminded participants that literature maps might not represent their experiences. They encouraged them to add, remove and reorganise concepts, relationships, and weights until they felt the map represented their knowledge.

Once participants had identified concepts (nodes), facilitators had to carefully consider the wording of the labels to represent the meaning of each node and identify potential duplicates. They confirmed duplications with participants and removed repeated nodes. In case #19, participating girls first had one-on-one conversations to discuss and prioritise what they thought contributed to a balanced diet. In a second activity, the actual mapping session, participants organised those concepts into categories and voted on their priorities for action. The Nigerian cases, with large numbers of maps, included creation of an iterative list of labels, with new concepts added after each mapping session to ensure the use of standard labels in future sessions when the mappers confirmed that the standard label wording indicated what they wanted to convey. This step is helpful in the combination of maps that we describe in stage 3.

Drawing arrows

Some maps showed mainly direct influences on the central issue, while others identified multiple relationships between concepts in the map. When the central issue was too broad, participants found it hard to assign relationships between concepts (#17). Facilitators frequently asked participants to clarify the meaning of proposed causal pathways or how they perceived one factor would lead to another and to the main outcome (see Additional file 2 ). To ensure arrows were appropriately labelled as positive or negative, some facilitators used standardised if-then questions to draw the relationships. For example, if factor A increases, does factor B increase or decrease? (#9).

All the presented cases used a scale from one to five to indicate the weights of links. Many Indigenous participants insisted that all the concepts were equally important (#8, 13 and 18). Careful training of facilitators encouraged participant weighing (#10, 15 and 16). It was often helpful to identify the two relationships with extreme upper and lower weights and use those as a reference to weight the rest of the relationships.

Verifying the maps

Stakeholder sessions ended with a verification of the final map. This initial member checking preceded any additional analysis. Participants readily accepted the technique and reported satisfaction that they could see concrete representations of their knowledge by the end of the FCM sessions (#13). It reaffirmed what they knew and what they could contribute in a meaningful way. In Ghana (#19 adolescent nutrition), young participants described mapping sessions as empowering when interviewed six months later [ 42 ].

Synthesis of literature reviews

FCM can portray qualitative and quantitative evidence from the literature in the same terms as stakeholder experience and beliefs and is a cornerstone of an innovative and systematic approach called the Weight of Evidence. In this approach, stakeholders interpret, expand on, and prioritise evidence from literature reviews (#5 unmet postpartum care needs [ 5 , 34 ], #3 maternal health in communities with traditional midwives [ 40 ], #4 medical evacuation of Indigenous pregnant women [ 47 ], #7 child protection investigations among adolescent parents, and #22 community participation in health research) [ 41 ].

Case #5 (Weight of Evidence) demonstrated how to convert quantitative effect estimates (e.g., odds ratio, relative risk) into a shared format to facilitate comparison between findings [ 5 ]. When multiple effect estimates described the same relationship, appropriate techniques [ 7 , 48 , 49 ] allowed for calculating pooled estimates. In #5, qualitative concepts represented ‘unattached’ nodes when the studies suggested they contributed to the outcome of interest. The researchers updated the literature maps with stakeholder views using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model with non-informative priors [ 50 ].

In scoping reviews with a broader topic and more heterogeneity of sources (#3, #22) [ 40 ], the map reported the relationships and their supporting data, such as quotes for qualitative studies and odds ratios for quantitative ones, instead of unifying the results in a single scale. Each relationship was counted as 1 (present) with positive or negative signs. Data extraction used a predefined format in which at least two independent researchers registered the relationships after reading the full texts. Each included study contributed to the model in the same way it would contribute to an overall discourse about the topic.

Maps from questionnaire data

Researchers used questionnaire data to generate maps of a behavioural change model in dengue prevention in Mexico [ 43 ] and cultural safety among medical trainees in Colombia [ 44 , 45 ]. The dengue project produced separate maps for men and women, while the Colombian map included all participants. Each map had seven nodes, one for each domain of change in the CASCADA model of behavioural change (Fig.  3 ): Conscious knowledge, Attitudes, positive deviation from Subjective norms, intentions to Change behaviour, Agency, Discussion of possible action and Action or change of practice [ 51 ]The surveys included questions for each intermediate result, and the repeat survey during the impact assessment provided a counterfactual comparison. For example, in Mexico (#1), Conscious knowledge (first C) was the ability to identify a physical sample of a mosquito larva during the interview, and Action (last A) focused on participation in collective activities in the neighbourhood to control mosquito breeding sites. The maps in Colombia (#2) explored the CASCADA network of partial results towards the students’ self-reported intention to change their patient-related behaviour.

Maps from questionnaire data from the study on dengue control in Guerrero, Mexico. Green arrows are positive influences, and red arrows correspond to negative influences. The control group showed a negative influence in the results chain with a cumulative net influence of 0.88; the intervention group showed no such block and a cumulative net influence of 1.92. Reproduced without changes with permission from the authors of [ 43 ]

The arrows linking the nodes received a weight ( w ) equivalent to the odds ratio (OR) between the outcomes, transformed to a symmetrical range (-1 to 1) using the formula proposed by Šajna:

Stage 3. Tools and methods to analyse the maps

Comparing levels of influence.

Initial analysis of maps includes a pattern correspondence table that lists and contrasts direct and indirect influences reported from different sources. Free software allows for digitising maps and converting them into lists of relationships or matrices for more complex analyses. In our analysis approach, we first calculate the transitive closure (TC) of each map. This mathematical model provides the total influence of one concept on all others after considering all the possible paths linking them [ 7 ]. Two models are available [ 52 ]: fuzzy TC, recommended for maps with ad hoc concepts, and probabilistic TC, often used for maps with predetermined concepts. With the transitive closure of a map, it is possible to build a pattern correspondence table comparing influences according to different knowledge sources. Table  4 shows an example.

Additional tools for analysing the maps include centrality scores from social network analysis. These measures compare the sum of the absolute values of the weights of incoming or outgoing edges to identify the total importance of a node [ 53 ]. Higher levels of out-degree centrality indicate more influence on other concepts, and higher values of in-degree centrality suggest that the concepts are important outcomes in the map [ 16 ].

Operator-independent weighting

In response to the challenges of participant weighting in some contexts, we applied Harris’ discourse analysis to calculate overall weights across multiple maps based on the frequency of each relationship across the whole discourse (e.g., multiple maps from stakeholders or studies in literature reviews). Harris intended to have an operator-independent alternative to identify the role of morphemes (part of a word, a word or several words with an irreducible meaning) in a discourse, exclusively from their occurrence in the text [ 54 ]. Because it used frequency, among other criteria (partial order, redundancies and dependencies), it did not depend on the researcher’s assumptions of meaning. Similarly, we intended to understand the causal meaning of relationships identified through FCM with an operator-independent procedure. A concept that caused an outcome across multiple maps would have a stronger causal role than a concept that caused the same outcome only in one or two maps. We found that analysis of maps using discourse analysis and participant weighting produced similar results [ 35 ].

Combining maps

In many cases, the analysis included bringing the transitive closure maps together as an average representation of stakeholder groups. Combining maps often required reconciling differences in labels across maps. This was also an opportunity to generate categories to describe groups of related factors. Some cases involved stakeholders in this process, while others applied systematic researcher-led procedures followed by member checking exercises to confirm categories. Combining maps used weighted or unweighted averages of each relationship’s weight across maps. It also used stakeholder-assigned Bayesian priors to update corresponding relationships identified in the literature [ 5 ].

Reduction of maps

Stakeholder and literature maps usually have many factors and relationships, making their analysis complex and hindering communication of results. We created reduced maps following a qualitative synthesis of nodes and a mathematical procedure to calculate category level weights [ 35 ]. Some maps in Canada have engaged participants in defining the categories as they progress with the mapping session (#7). However, creating categories within individual mapping sessions can lead to difficulties with comparability between groups when the categorisation varies between them.

Sensemaking of relationships

Weighting by stakeholders helps prioritise direct and indirect influences that contribute to an outcome. Stakeholder narratives and weights helped to develop explanations of how different factors contribute to the outcomes. In cases #5 and #7, an additional literature search based on factors identified by stakeholders contributed to creating explanatory accounts. The reporting of women’s satisfaction with HIV care (#20) used quotes recorded in the mapping sessions to explain the narratives of the most meaningful relationships. The analysis of maps on violence against women in Botswana (#15) identified important intermediate factors commonly depicted along the pathways from other factors to the main outcome.

Stage 4. How maps were used

Researchers described how they edited and simplified complex maps to make them more accessible, including to people with limited literacy, in Mexico, Nigeria, and Uganda (#8 and 10 to 12). In addition to creating category maps, they used colour coding, labels in the local language for the most influential factors, arrows of different thicknesses according to their weight, and different sizes of boxes for concepts according to their importance based on centrality scores. When sharing results, they often contrasted maps from different stakeholders. In Canada (#5 and #7), researchers developed explanatory frameworks from the mapping exercises, and stakeholders refined this framework and identified priority areas for action. In Canada (#5 and #7), Botswana (#14) and Uganda (#11 and #12), stakeholders viewed and discussed the summary maps from other groups. The maps, further discussed by stakeholders, helped inform the design of media-based communication interventions in Ghana (#19) and Nigeria (#10).

Our experiences with FCM resonate with and adds considerable detail to earlier FCM authors [ 18 , 19 ], including those offering protocols for meaningful participation in environmental sciences [ 16 , 49 ]. The most recent literature reviews on the use of FCM have not discussed the contributions we described here [ 20 , 22 , 55 , 56 ] and do not provide details on practical decisions across the mapping process or on the implications of stakeholder authorship. This review provides practical insights for FCM researchers before they generate maps, during data collection and in analysis. The use of FCM to increase data sources in the coproduction of knowledge brings numerous challenges and multiple potential decisions. This paper summarises how we approached these challenges across 25 real-world projects and responds to the questions we often receive from researchers new to the method. These methodological considerations are essential to increase trustworthiness of FCM applications and for an adequate interpretation of its results.

Variability in facilitation of mapping sessions with stakeholders is well recognised as a source of potential differences between groups [ 19 ]. In our experience, the behaviour and attitudes of researchers and facilitators can influence the content of the maps. Careful quality control and member checking can help minimise this influence [ 57 ]. To achieve high-quality, informative maps, our experience highlights the need for clear protocols for data collection, including careful training of facilitators and ongoing supervision and monitoring. This has been essential in some of our projects, which have involved hundreds of participants in creating hundreds of maps.

Our group also used FCM in contextualising mixed-methods literature reviews. Knowledge synthesis is seldom free of reviewer interpretations [ 58 ], and formal protocols for data collection, analysis, synthesis, and presentation could increase the reliability and validity of findings [ 59 ]. Singer et al. also used FCM to summarise qualitative data [ 60 ], a promising application that benefits from FCM’s if-then configurations and linguistic descriptions of concepts and relationships. In our practice, FCM was a practical support to develop formal protocols, to generate pooled effect estimates across studies [ 58 ] and to summarising heterogeneous sources. Weight of Evidence is an innovation to incorporate stakeholder perspectives with scientific evidence, thus addressing the common challenge of contextualising literature findings with local realities. The application of FCM in modelling questionnaire data helps to evaluate result chains as knowledge networks.

Despite its name (fuzzy) and tolerance for uncertainty, FCM is not fuzzy or vague [ 61 ]. It incorporates multiple dimensions of decision-making, including impressions, feelings, and inclinations, in addition to careful reasoning of events and possibilities [ 9 , 62 ]. FCM is a participatory modelling approach [ 63 ] that improves conventional modelling with real-world experience. FCM can help formalise stakeholder knowledge and support learning about an issue to promote action [ 64 ]. An important part of the literature focuses on applying learning algorithms for scenario planning [ 55 , 65 ]. Our group reported positive changes and increased agency among mappers. Future research might explore the impact of FCM as an intervention, both on those sharing their knowledge and on those using the models. The commitment to operator-independent procedures has led us to adapt Harris’s discourse analysis to complement the sometimes-problematic weighing step [ 35 ]. Notwithstanding our ability to generate operator-independent weights, the question of whose views the models represent and who is empowered remains valid and should be discussed in every case [ 66 ].

There is very little literature on FCM in education. FCM could help students clarify the knowledge they share in class [ 67 ]. FCM can also formalise steps to connect and evaluate students’ progression towards concrete learning objectives, a helpful feature in game-based learning [ 68 ]. In our experience, mapping sessions had a transformative effect as participants reflected on what they knew about the main issue and appreciated their knowledge being presented in a tangible product. Further studies could investigate how group and individual characteristics evolve throughout the mapping process.

Decision-making involves choosing alternatives based on their expected impacts. Many people think of FCM in the context of predictive models using learning algorithms [ 55 , 56 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. There is also potential for informing other AI-driven methods by incorporating expert knowledge in the form of fuzzy cognitive maps into complex graph-based models [ 73 , 74 ]. The concern in participatory research and, therefore, use of FCM in participatory research, is equitable engagement in informed decision making. We used FCM not as a predictive tool but for making sense of scenarios and theories to inform choices, recognising multiple possible ways of seeing any issue. Map interpretation hinges on who the authors are and the type of data depicted (opinions, observations, or components of a theory. These soft models characterise direct and indirect dependencies that are difficult to incorporate in formal approaches like differential equations [ 28 ]. Current work of the research group explores participant-led FCM weighting to inform Bayesian analysis of quantitative data and ethnographic approaches to understand deeper meanings of factors depicted in FCM.

A potential concern about FCM is whether the sample size and selection are adequate, yet FCM reports rarely discuss this. There are no formal procedures to estimate the required sample size for mapping exercises (total number of participants, maps, or people in a group session). Singh and Chudasama, for example, continued mapping sessions until the list of causal factors identified reached saturation [ 75 ]. A participatory research approach, however, would conduct as many mapping sessions as much as necessary to allow all voices, especially those of the most marginalised, to be heard. Our application of Harris’ discourse analysis allows quicker mapping sessions, avoiding the often lengthy weighting process; this can increase the number of maps that can be created with finite resources. The combination of maps results in more robust models because more knowledge informs the final output [ 76 ]. Multiple alternatives exist for combining maps [ 5 , 8 , 21 , 77 ]. Our work has explored Bayesian updating using stakeholder weights as priors [ 5 ].

Strengths and limitations

Almost all the experiences described in this review are published and provide further details on specific topics. This practice review reflects the experience in participatory research and thus mainly focused on stakeholder maps. Our group pioneered the use of FCM for contextualising systematic reviews in stakeholder experience. We also used FCM to analyse and to portray progress in changing a results chain in a modified theory of planned behaviour. Operator bias is a constant concern in our FCM practice, reflected in the review of efforts to avoid operator influence in generating the maps, in the coding of map concepts into categories, and especially in weighting of maps, where our innovation relies on Harris’ discourse analysis.

The general use of FCM has well-recognised challenges and limitations. It is easy to forget that cognitive maps reflect opinions and personal experience, which can differ between map authors and from biological causality. This is seldom a major problem in our participatory research practice, where we frame FCM as different perspectives to engage stakeholders or as an entry point to dialogue. As with most visual techniques, the maps are static and do not model the longitudinal evolution of the depicted knowledge network. Viewers might assume relationships in the maps are linear, which is not always the case [ 76 ]. For example, the effect of higher age on maternal health outcomes would be very different for teenagers and older mothers.

Most map readers make inferences from the causes to the outcome, the direction of the arrow not inviting a reversed cause from the outcome. Different approaches to causal reasoning could affect map construction, weighting and interpretation; although relatively robust to cultural and educational differences, our experience includes cultural groups that have more complex views of causal relationships than can be reflected in FCM.

Several questions about conducting FCM remain unanswered, such as how to standardise (and limit) the influence of facilitators, how to use FCM with people living with visual or hearing loss, or how to create meaningful maps using distance communication, such as social media, or when participants have limited time for the exercise.

FCM is a flexible and robust way to share multiple stakeholder perspectives. Although mostly applied to beliefs and experiences, it can also portray published evidence and questionnaire data in formats comparable with subjective experience. FCM requires multiple practical decisions that have implications for interpreting and sharing results. We review these methodological decisions in 25 research projects in different contexts since 2016. Insights might be relevant to researchers interested in using FCM and can contribute to applying it in a more systematic way. Clear protocols and quality control improve the reliability of fuzzy cognitive maps. FCM helps build a shared understanding of an issue across diverse knowledge sources and can provide a systematic and transparent basis for shared decision-making.

Data availability

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article and its additional files.

Wallerstein NB, Duran B. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract. 2006;7:312–23.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: a systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0141091.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver S, Roche C, Stewart R, Bangpan M, Dickson K, Pells K, et al. Stakeholder engagement for development impact evaluation and evidence synthesis. London: Centre for Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL); 2018. https://doi.org/10.51744/CIP3 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Dion A, Joseph L, Jimenez V, Gutierrez AC, Ben Ameur A, Robert E, et al. Grounding evidence in experience to support people-centered health services. Int J Public Health. 2019;64:797–802.

Dion A, Carini-Gutierrez A, Jimenez V, Ben Ameur A, Robert E, Joseph L, et al. Weight of evidence: participatory methods and bayesian updating to contextualize evidence synthesis in stakeholders’ knowledge. J Mix Methods Res. 2021;JMMR–19–03:155868982110374.

Google Scholar  

Andersson N, Silver H. Fuzzy cognitive mapping: an old tool with new uses in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75:3823–30.

Giles BG, Haas G, Šajna M, Findlay CS. Exploring aboriginal views of health using fuzzy cognitive maps and transitive closure: a case study of the determinants of diabetes. Can J Public Health. 2008;99:411–7.

Kosko B. Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. Int J Approximate Reasoning. 1988;2:377–93.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zadeh LA. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;SMC–3:28–44.

Axelrod R, editor. Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 1976.

Langfield-Smith K, Wirth A. Measuring differences between cognitive maps. J Oper Res Soc. 1992;43:1135.

Kosko B. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1986;24:65–75.

Harary Frank, Norman RZ, Cartwright D. Structural models: an introduction to the theory of directed graphs. New York: Wiley; 1965.

Zadeh LA. On the analysis of large-scale systems. In: Klir GJ, Yuan B, editors. Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems: Selected papers by Lotfi A Zadeh. 1996. pp. 195–209.

Seising R, Tabacchi M. Fuzziness, philosophy, and medicine. In: Seising R, Tabacchi M, editors. Fuzziness and medicine. Berlin: Springer; 2013. pp. 3–8.

Gray SA, Zanre E, Gray SRJ. Fuzzy cognitive maps as representations of mental models and group beliefs. In: Papageorgiou EI, editor. Fuzzy cognitive maps for applied sciences and engineering. Berlin: Springer; 2014. pp. 29–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Papageorgiou EI, Salmeron JL. A review of fuzzy cognitive maps research during the last decade. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2013;21:66–79.

Glykas M, editor. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Advances in theory, methodologies, tools and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2010.

Jetter AJ, Kok K. Fuzzy cognitive maps for futures studies—A methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures. 2014;61:45–57.

Apostolopoulos ID, Papandrianos NI, Papathanasiou ND, Papageorgiou EI. Fuzzy cognitive map applications in Medicine over the last two decades: a review study. Bioengineering. 2024;11:139.

Papageorgiou EI. A new methodology for decisions in medical informatics using fuzzy cognitive maps based on fuzzy rule-extraction techniques. Appl Soft Comput. 2011;11:500–13.

Amirkhani A, Papageorgiou EI, Mohseni A, Mosavi MR. A review of fuzzy cognitive maps in medicine: taxonomy, methods, and applications. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017;142:129–45.

Gray S, Gray S, De kok JL, Helfgott AER, O’Dwyer B, Jordan R et al. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 2015;20.

Gray S, Chan A, Clark D, Jordan R. Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity. Ecol Modell. 2012;229:88–96.

Giles BG, Findlay CS, Haas G, LaFrance B, Laughing W, Pembleton S. Integrating conventional science and aboriginal perspectives on diabetes using fuzzy cognitive maps. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:562–76.

Sarmiento I, Paredes-Solís S, Loutfi D, Dion A, Cockcroft A, Andersson N. Fuzzy cognitive mapping and soft models of indigenous knowledge on maternal health in Guerrero, Mexico. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:125.

Salmeron JL. Modelling grey uncertainty with fuzzy grey cognitive maps. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37:7581–8.

Zadeh LA. Fuzzy logic reaches adulthood. Control Eng. 1996;43:50.

Dickerson JA, Kosko B. Virtual worlds as fuzzy cognitive maps. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1994;3:173–89.

Osoba O, Kosko B. Causal modeling with feedback fuzzy cognitive maps. In: Davis PK, O’Mahony A, Pfautz J, editors. Social-behavioral modeling for Complex systems. Wiley; 2019. pp. 587–616.

Tonkin K, Silver H, Pimentel J, Chomat AM, Sarmiento I, Belaid L, et al. How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the most significant change in ten countries. Archives Public Health. 2021;79:18.

Tratt E, Sarmiento I, Gamelin R, Nayoumealuk J, Andersson N, Brassard P. Fuzzy cognitive mapping with Inuit women: what needs to change to improve cervical cancer screening in Nunavik, northern Quebec? BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:529.

Sarmiento I, Ansari U, Omer K, Gidado Y, Baba MC, Gamawa AI, et al. Causes of short birth interval (kunika) in Bauchi State, Nigeria: systematizing local knowledge with fuzzy cognitive mapping. Reprod Health. 2021;18:74.

Dion A, Klevor A, Nakajima A, Andersson N. Evidence-based priorities of under‐served pregnant and parenting adolescents: addressing inequities through a participatory approach to contextualizing evidence syntheses. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20:118.

Sarmiento I, Cockcroft A, Dion A, Paredes-Solís S, De Jesús-García A, Melendez D, et al. Combining conceptual frameworks on maternal health in indigenous communities—fuzzy cognitive mapping using participant and operator-independent weighting. Field Methods. 2022;34:1525822X2110704.

Sarmiento I, Field M, Kgakole L, Molatlhwa P, Girish I, Andersson N et al. Community perceptions of causes of violence against young women in Botswana: fuzzy cognitive mapping. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2023;:1–57.

Sarmiento I, Kgakole L, Molatlhwa P, Girish I, Andersson N, Cockcroft A. Community perceptions about causes of suicide among young men in Botswana: an analysis based on fuzzy cognitive maps. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2023;:1–23.

Cockcroft A, Sarmiento I, Andersson N. Shared perceived causes of suicide among young men and violence against young women offer potential for co-designed solutions: intervention soft-modelling with fuzzy cognitive mapping. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2023;:1–22.

Ghadirian M, Marquis G, Dodoo N, Andersson N. Ghanaian female adolescents perceived changes in nutritional behaviors and social environment after creating participatory videos: a most significant change evaluation. Curr Dev Nutr. 2022;6:nzac103.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sarmiento I, Paredes-Solís S, Dion A, Silver H, Vargas E, Cruz P, et al. Maternal health and indigenous traditional midwives in southern Mexico: contextualisation of a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e054542.

Sarmiento I, Paredes-Solís S, Morris M, Pimentel J, Cockcroft A, Andersson N. Factors influencing maternal health in indigenous communities with presence of traditional midwifery in the Americas: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037922.

Gagnon-Dufresne M-C, Sarmiento I, Fortin G, Andersson N, Zinszer K. Why urban communities from low-income and middle-income countries participate in public and global health research: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e069340.

Andersson N, Beauchamp M, Nava-Aguilera E, Paredes-Solís S, Šajna M. The women made it work: fuzzy transitive closure of the results chain in a dengue prevention trial in Mexico. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(Suppl 1):133–73.

Pimentel J, Cockcroft A, Andersson N. Impact of game jam learning about cultural safety in Colombian medical education: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:132.

Pimentel J, Cockcroft A, Andersson N. Game jams for cultural safety training in Colombian medical education: a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e042892.

Andersson N. Participatory research-A modernizing science for primary health care. J Gen Fam Med. 2018;19:154–9.

Silver H, Sarmiento I, Pimentel J-P, Budgell R, Cockcroft A, Vang ZM, et al. Childbirth evacuation among rural and remote indigenous communities in Canada: a scoping review. Women Birth. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2021.03.003 .

Borenstein M, Hedges LV. Effect size for meta-analysis. In: Cooper HM, Hedges L V, Valentine J, editors. Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 3rd edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. pp. 208–43.

Özesmi U, Özesmi SL. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Modell. 2004;176:43–64.

Rosenberg L, Joseph L, Barkun A. Surgical arithmetic: epidemiological, statistical, and outcome-based approach to surgical practice. CRC; 2000.

Andersson N, Ledogar RJ. The CIET Aboriginal youth resilience studies: 14 years of capacity building and methods development in Canada. Pimatisiwin. 2008;6:65–88.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Niesink P, Poulin K, Šajna M. Computing transitive closure of bipolar weighted digraphs. Discrete Appl Math (1979). 2013;161:217–43.

Papageorgiou EI, Kontogianni A. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping in environmental decision making and management: a methodological primer and an application. International perspectives on Global Environmental Change. InTech; 2012.

Harris ZS. Discourse analysis. Language (Baltim). 1952;28:1.

Felix G, Nápoles G, Falcon R, Froelich W, Vanhoof K, Bello R. A review on methods and software for fuzzy cognitive maps. Artif Intell Rev. 2019;52:1707–37.

Jiya EA, Georgina ON. A review of fuzzy cognitive maps extensions and learning. J Inform Syst Inf. 2023;5:300–23.

Olazabal M, Neumann MB, Foudi S, Chiabai A. Transparency and reproducibility in participatory systems modelling: the case of fuzzy cognitive mapping. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2018;35:791–810.

Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Leeman J, Crandell JL. Mapping the mixed methods–mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mix Methods Res. 2012;6:317–31.

Wheeldon J. Mapping mixed methods research: methods, measures, and meaning. J Mix Methods Res. 2010;4:87–102.

Singer A, Gray S, Sadler A, Schmitt Olabisi L, Metta K, Wallace R, et al. Translating community narratives into semi-quantitative models to understand the dynamics of socio-environmental crises. Environ Model Softw. 2017;97:46–55.

Zadeh LA. Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inf Sci (N Y). 2008;178:2751–79.

Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, Canada: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2013; 1934-.

Voinov A, Jenni K, Gray S, Kolagani N, Glynn PD, Bommel P, et al. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: selecting the right tool for the job. Environ Model Softw. 2018;109:232–55.

Stave K. Participatory system dynamics modeling for sustainable environmental management: observations from four cases. Sustainability. 2010;2:2762–84.

Papageorgiou EI. Learning algorithms for fuzzy cognitive maps - a review study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics Part C (Applications Reviews). 2012;42:150–63.

Chambers R. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Inform Syst Developing Ctries. 2006;25:1–11.

Cole JR, Persichitte KA. Fuzzy cognitive mapping: applications in education. Int J Intell Syst. 2000;15:1–25.

Luo X, Wei X, Zhang J. Game-based learning model using fuzzy cognitive map. In: Proceedings of the first ACM international workshop on Multimedia technologies for distance learning - MTDL ’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2009. p. 67.

Nápoles G, Espinosa ML, Grau I, Vanhoof K. FCM expert: software tool for scenario analysis and pattern classification based on fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Artif Intell Tools. 2018;27:1860010.

Papageorgiou K, Carvalho G, Papageorgiou EI, Bochtis D, Stamoulis G. Decision-making process for photovoltaic solar energy sector development using fuzzy cognitive map technique. Energies (Basel). 2020;13:1427.

Papageorgiou EI, Papageorgiou K, Dikopoulou Z, Mouhrir A. A web-based tool for fuzzy cognitive map modeling. In: International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. 2018. p. 73.

Nápoles G, Papageorgiou E, Bello R, Vanhoof K. On the convergence of sigmoid fuzzy cognitive maps. Inf Sci (N Y). 2016;349–350:154–71.

Apostolopoulos ID, Groumpos PP. Fuzzy cognitive maps: their role in Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Appl Sci. 2023;13:3412.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mkhitaryan S, Giabbanelli PJ, Wozniak MK, de Vries NK, Oenema A, Crutzen R. How to use machine learning and fuzzy cognitive maps to test hypothetical scenarios in health behavior change interventions: a case study on fruit intake. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:2478.

Singh PK, Chudasama H. Assessing impacts and community preparedness to cyclones: a fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Clim Change. 2017;143:337–54.

Kosko B. Foreword. In: Glykas M, editor. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Advances in theory, methodologies, tools and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2010. pp. VII–VIII.

Papageorgiou K, Singh PK, Papageorgiou EI, Chudasama H, Bochtis D, Stamoulis G. Participatory modelling for poverty alleviation using fuzzy cognitive maps and OWA learning aggregation. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0233984.

Dion A, Nakajima A, McGee A, Andersson N. How adolescent mothers interpret and prioritize evidence about perinatal child protection involvement: participatory contextualization of published evidence. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2022;39:785–803.

Belaid L, Atim P, Ochola E, Omara B, Atim E, Ogwang M, et al. Community views on short birth interval in Northern Uganda: a participatory grounded theory. Reprod Health. 2021;18:88.

Belaid L, Atim P, Atim E, Ochola E, Ogwang M, Bayo P, et al. Communities and service providers address access to perinatal care in Postconflict Northern Uganda: socialising evidence for participatory action. Fam Med Community Health. 2021;9:e000610.

Skerritt L, Kaida A, Savoie É, Sánchez M, Sarmiento I, O’Brien N, et al. Factors and priorities influencing satisfaction with care among women living with HIV in Canada: a fuzzy cognitive mapping study. J Pers Med. 2022;12:1079.

Cockcroft A, Omer K, Gidado Y, Mohammed R, Belaid L, Ansari U, et al. Impact-oriented dialogue for culturally safe adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Bauchi State, Nigeria: protocol for a codesigned pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022;11:e36060.

Sarmiento I, Zuluaga G, Paredes-Solís S, Chomat AM, Loutfi D, Cockcroft A, et al. Bridging western and indigenous knowledge through intercultural dialogue: lessons from participatory research in Mexico. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:e002488.

Ansari U, Pimentel J, Omer K, Gidado Y, Baba MC, Andersson N, et al. Kunika women are always sick: views from community focus groups on short birth interval (kunika) in Bauchi state, northern Nigeria. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20:113.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Umaira Ansari, Michaela Field, Sonia Michelsen, Khalid Omer, Amar Azis, Drs Shaun Cleaver and Sergio Paredes were present in the nominal group discussion. Dr Mateja Šajna read and commented on initial versions of this manuscript. The data and methods used for this paper are available in the manuscript. All authors read, contributed to, and approved the final manuscript.

The work for this manuscript did not receive external funding. The individual FCM projects received financial support from a range of funding bodies, acknowledged in the individual publications about the projects. All individual funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research contributed to the publication costs of this manuscript. 

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges, Montreal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada

Iván Sarmiento, Anne Cockcroft, Anna Dion, Loubna Belaid, Hilah Silver, Katherine Pizarro, Juan Pimentel, Lashanda Skerritt, Mona Z. Ghadirian, Marie-Catherine Gagnon-Dufresne & Neil Andersson

Universidad del Rosario, Grupo de Estudios en Sistemas Tradicionales de Salud, Bogota, Colombia

Iván Sarmiento

Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia

Juan Pimentel

Institut Lady Davis pour la Recherche Médicale, Montreal, Canada

Elyse Tratt

École de santé publique, Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Marie-Catherine Gagnon-Dufresne

Centro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales, Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Mexico

Neil Andersson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IS and NA designed the study and drafted the initial version of the manuscript. All the authors read and contributed to the sections for which their work was more relevant.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iván Sarmiento .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sarmiento, I., Cockcroft, A., Dion, A. et al. Fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research and decision making: a practice review. Arch Public Health 82 , 76 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01303-7

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2023

Accepted : 30 April 2024

Published : 20 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01303-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Fuzzy cognitive mapping
• Participatory modelling
• Weight of evidence
• Stakeholder engagement
• Fuzzy logic
• Public health
• Global health

Archives of Public Health

ISSN: 2049-3258

• General enquiries: [email protected]