Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

literature review overview

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

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.

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

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.

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

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.

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

literature review overview

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 19 February 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

  • Planning the Review
  • The Research Question
  • Choosing Where to Search
  • Organizing the Review
  • Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

  • Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

Cover Art

  • Next: Planning the Review >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

University of Texas

  • University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

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

Creative Commons License

Ask a Librarian

  • Clarify Your Topic
  • Research Your Topic
  • Write Your Review
  • Citing Your Sources
  • Other Guides and Resources
  • University of Washington Libraries
  • Library Guides
  • Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews: Overview

What is a literature review.

A literature review synthesizes scholarly literature on a topic by evaluating a selection of sources.

It describes common themes, but must also demonstrate the author's understanding of the literature through critical analysis, as well as identify gaps and/or controversies in the research.

The Basics of a Literature Review. (2014). Teaching and Learning Center University of Washington Tacoma. Retrieved from  https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2021-05/basics-of-lit-review1.pdf

Additional Assistance

Have more questions about your literature review?

  • Contact a Librarian for help locating research
  • Contact the Teaching and Learning Center f or help writing, revising and formatting

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

To help define the focus of your research topic.

To identify research already conducted in your field of interest, find gaps in existing scholarship, and avoid repetition of previous research.

To become familiar with significant earlier research and with current progress and/or controversy in your field of interest.

To  diagnose  the strengths and weaknesses in the works pertaining to your field of interest.

To assess the experts, theoretical approaches, methodologies, results, conclusions, and possible opportunities for future research in your field of interest.

Literature Review vs. Annotated Bibliography

Literature reviews and annotated bibliographies are highly useful for constructing your research project. Both provide an examination of relevant scholarly work pertaining to a specific topic, but there are also significant differences between them.

Literature Review vs. Annotated Bibliography Chart

  • Next: Clarify Your Topic >>
  • Last Updated: Mar 2, 2023 3:02 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/tacoma/literaturereview

Literature Reviews

  • Tools & Visualizations
  • Literature Review Examples
  • Videos, Books & Links

Business & Econ Librarian

Profile Photo

Click to Chat with a Librarian

Text: (571) 248-7542

What is a literature review?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. Often part of the introduction to an essay, research report or thesis, the literature review is literally a "re" view or "look again" at what has already been written about the topic, wherein the author analyzes a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles. Literature reviews provide the reader with a bibliographic history of the scholarly research in any given field of study. As such,  as new information becomes available, literature reviews grow in length or become focused on one specific aspect of the topic.

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

A literature review is NOT:

  • An annotated bibliography – a list of citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each citation. The annotations inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy and quality of the sources cited.
  • A literary review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work.
  • A book review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book.
  • Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners
  • The UNC Writing Center – Literature Reviews
  • The UW-Madison Writing Center: The Writer’s Handbook – Academic and Professional Writing – Learn How to Write a Literature Review

What is the difference between a literature review and a research paper?

The focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions, whereas academic research papers present and develop new arguments that build upon the previously available body of literature.

How do I write a literature review?

There are many resources that offer step-by-step guidance for writing a literature review, and you can find some of them under Other Resources in the menu to the left. Writing the Literature Review: A Practical Guide suggests these steps:

  • Chose a review topic and develop a research question
  • Locate and organize research sources
  • Select, analyze and annotate sources
  • Evaluate research articles and other documents
  • Structure and organize the literature review
  • Develop arguments and supporting claims
  • Synthesize and interpret the literature
  • Put it all together

Cover Art

What is the purpose of writing a literature review?

Literature reviews serve as a guide to a particular topic: professionals can use literature reviews to keep current on their field; scholars can determine credibility of the writer in his or her field by analyzing the literature review.

As a writer, you will use the literature review to:

  • See what has, and what has not, been investigated about your topic
  • Identify data sources that other researches have used
  • Learn how others in the field have defined and measured key concepts
  • Establish context, or background, for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
  • Explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and ideas might be
  • Contribute to the field by moving research forward
  • To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments in a particular field of study
  • Develop alternative research projects
  • Put your work in perspective
  • Demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
  • Provide evidence that may support your own findings
  • Next: Tools & Visualizations >>
  • Last Updated: Sep 7, 2023 8:35 AM
  • URL: https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/literaturereview
  • 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

Creative Commons

Duke University Libraries

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
  • Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
  • Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

literature review overview

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

literature review overview

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.

literature review overview

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 review overview

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.

literature review overview

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

literature review overview

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

Available online!

literature review overview

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

literature review overview

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

literature review overview

The literature review: Six steps to success

literature review overview

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

literature review overview

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

  • Next: Types of reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:45 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Duke University Libraries

Services for...

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

Twitter

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

Creative Commons License

  • 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
  • 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: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

  • What Is the Literature
  • Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

  • Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
  • Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
  • Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

  • Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
  • Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
  • Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
  • Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
  • Results - What was found in the course of the study
  • Discussion - What do the results mean
  • Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

  • Introduction
  • Literature Review
  • Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

  • Next: What Is the Literature >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview
  • Privacy Policy
  • SignUp/Login

Research Method

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
  • Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
  • Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
  • Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
  • Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
  • Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
  • Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
  • Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
  • State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
  • Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
  • Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
  • Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

  • Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
  • Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
  • Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
  • Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
  • Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
  • Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
  • Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

  • Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
  • Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
  • Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
  • Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
  • Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
  • Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

  • Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
  • Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
  • Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
  • Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

  • Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
  • Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
  • Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
  • Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
  • Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

  • To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
  • To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
  • To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
  • To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
  • To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
  • Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
  • Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
  • Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
  • I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
  • Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

  • Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
  • Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
  • Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
  • Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
  • Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
  • Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
  • Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
  • Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
  • Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
  • Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
  • Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
  • Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
  • Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Banner

  • Research Guides

Writing Literature Reviews

  • Literature Review Overview
  • Organizing Your Lit Review
  • Tips for Writing Your Lit Review

Need Assistance?

Find your librarian, schedule a research appointment, today's hours : , what is a literature review.

A literature review ought to be a clear, concise synthesis of relevant information. A literature review should introduce the study it precedes and show how that study fits into topically related studies that already exist. Structurally, a literature review ought to be something like a funnel: start by addressing the topic broadly and gradually narrow as the review progresses.

from Literature Reviews by CU Writing Center

Why review the literature?

Reference to prior literature is a defining feature of academic and research writing. Why review the literature?

  • To help you understand a research topic
  • To establish the importance of a topic
  • To help develop your own ideas
  • To make sure you are not simply replicating research that others have already successfully completed
  • To demonstrate knowledge and show how your current work is situated within, builds on, or departs from earlier publications

from Literature Review Basics from University of La Verne

Tips & Tricks

Before writing your own literature review, take a look at these resources which share helpful tips and tricks:

Lectures & Slides

  • Literature Reviews | CU Writing Center
  • Writing a Literature Review | CU Writing Center
  • Revising a Literature Review | CU Writing Center
  • Literature Reviews: How to Find and Do Them
  • Literature Reviews: An Overview

How-To Guides

  • Literature Reviews | Purdue OWL
  • Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina
  • Learn How to Write a Review of Literature | University of Wisconsin
  • Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide | University of Connecticut
  • Literature Reviews | Florida A & M
  • Conduct a Literature Review | SUNY
  • Literature Review Basics | University of LaVerne

Sample Literature Reviews

  • Sample Literature Reviews | University of West Florida
  • Sample APA Papers: Literature Review | Purdue OWL
  • Next: Organizing Your Lit Review >>
  • Last Updated: Apr 24, 2020 3:12 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.cedarville.edu/c.php?g=969394
  • skip to Main Navigation
  • skip to Main Content
  • skip to Footer
  • Accessibility feedback

Video: Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? Find out here

Writing a literature review is an inevitable part of being a graduate student. So, before spending hours of your time working on a project involving a literature review, it helps to understand what a "literature review" is, and why it is important. 

You may need to do a literature review as a part of a course assignment, a capstone project, or a master's thesis or dissertation. No matter the context, a literature review is an essential part of the research process. 

Some important functions of a literature review are that it helps you to understand a research topic and develop your own perspective on a problem. Not only that, it lets you show your instructor or thesis committee what you know about the topic. 

Your instructor or advisor may assume you know what a literature review is and that you understand what they are expecting from you. You might hear phrases like: "What does the literature show us?" "Connect your ideas to the literature." "Survey the literature on the topic." 

Well, before you can review the literature, you need to make sure you know what is meant by "the literature." A good definition of the literature is that it is a collection of all the scholarly writings on a topic. These writings can be in the form of scholarly, peer reviewed articles, books, and other sources like conference proceedings. These may be called annual meetings or conventions. The literature also includes dissertations written by other graduate students. Collectively, these make up the literature. 

Visually, the literature might look like this. Often there are major works that have been written on a topic, and then other, later, works that build on them. These later works tend to be extending or responding to the original papers in some way. Basically, the literature is a continuously evolving network of scholarly works that interact with each other. 

As you do your own research, you'll begin to understand the relationships in this evolving web and how your own ideas connect to it. 

I'm John Classen, Associate Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University. Research is about telling a story, kind of like a chain story where each writer starts with a partial story created by others and takes it where the imagination leads. The existing literature is the story so far. You have to know where you are before you can go forward. But research is not just one linear story; many different lines of study contribute to the story you are trying to write. 

Your job in the literature review is to see where all the loose ends are in the various fields that are most closely related to what you want to do and to figure out what needs to be done next. The background to any good story has to be explained carefully or the reader doesn't know why one thing is important and something else is not; the reader has to understand what's going on. 

In the same way, researchers need the background in the literature of their discipline to know what's going on in their field of study. So, how do you turn a network of articles into a cohesive review of the literature? How do you find and tell the "story" behind your research topic? 

Reviewing the literature is like participating in a conversation. As you read and evaluate articles you begin to understand how they are connected and how they form the story that the authors are telling. Then you start to formulate your own response or contribution. 

This process - discovering relationships in the literature and developing and connecting your own ideas to it - is what helps you turn a network of articles into a coherent review of the literature. 

So what does a literature review look like? There are different types of literature reviews that you may encounter, or be required to write, while in graduate school. Literature reviews can range from being selective to comprehensive. They can also be part of a larger work or stand alone. 

A course assignment is an example of a selective review. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up the entire work. The literature review in a thesis or dissertation is an example of a comprehensive review that is part of a larger work. 

Most research articles begin with a selective literature review to establish the context for the research reported in the paper. Often this is part of the introduction. Other literature reviews are meant to be fairly comprehensive and also to stand alone. This means that the entire article is devoted to reviewing the literature. 

A literature review that introduces an article can look like this. Here is an article about cognitive behavioral therapy. Here is the literature review, in this article it is part of the introduction. You can tell that the introduction includes a literature review because it discusses important research that has already been published on this topic. 

Here is an example of a stand alone literature review article, in this case, about employment. The article's title states that this is a review of the literature on the topic. However, not all review articles will have the term 'literature review' in their title. In-depth review articles like this are an excellent starting place for research on a topic. 

So, at this point, you may be asking yourself just what's involved in writing a literature review? And how do I get started? 

Writing a literature review is a process with several key steps. Let's look at each part of this process in more detail. 

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. Then, of course, you'll need to do some research using article databases, the library catalog, Google Scholar, and other sources to find scholarly information. 

All along you'll be using your brain. You'll want to evaluate what you find and select articles, books, and other publications that will be the most useful. Then, you will need to read through these articles and try to understand, analyze, and critique what you read. 

While researching and organizing your paper, you'll collect a lot of information from many different sources. You can use citation management software like RefWorks, EndNote, or Zotero to help you stay organized. Then, of course, you'll need to write and revise your paper and create your final bibliography. 

One more thing: Writing a literature review is a process, but it is not always a linear process. One step does lead to another, but sometimes your research or reading will point you back to earlier steps as you learn more about your topic and the literature. 

At this point you might be wondering how do I actually review the literature I find? Let's look at what it means to review the literature. 

In the most general sense it means that you collect and read all the relevant papers and other literature on your topic. You want to provide an overview but also highlight key concepts and important papers. As you read you may start by describing and summarizing each article. Then you can start to make connections by comparing and contrasting those papers. 

You will also need to evaluate, analyze, and organize the information from your reading. When you work with the literature you will read and critically examine articles and books to see what's important or out of scope and analyze arguments for strengths and weaknesses. 

When working with the literature it is important to look for relationships between publications. Some of the important relationships between publications that you discover might include major themes and important concepts, as well as critical gaps and disagreements. 

But don't fall into the trap of making your review a laundry list of summaries of the works you read. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography. 

Your goal should be to go one step further and integrate and synthesize what you find in the literature into something new. Ideally, you will create your own conceptual map or outline of the literature on your topic. 

For example, let's say as you read you discover three major concepts that are important in the literature and relevant to your research. You should then identify how the literature - that is, the content in individual articles, books, and other publications - relates to the concepts you discovered. Some publications may be relevant to several concepts; others may apply to only one concept. What's important is that you develop and present your own organization and understanding of the literature. 

Then, when you write your literature review you will end up with a document that is organized by the concepts and relationships you found and developed based on your reading and thinking. Your review will not only cover what's been published on your topic, but will include your own thoughts and ideas. You will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research. 

Researching and writing a good literature review is a challenging and sometimes intimidating process. Don't be afraid to seek assistance, whether from your adviser or instructor, campus writing center, or your librarian. Many librarians have subject specialties and can be especially helpful in identifying valuable resources and showing you how to obtain relevant information.

Video added on January 15, 2020

  • Eleanor Smith: Content development, scripting
  • Kim Duckett: Screencasting, editing
  • Sarah Bankston: Narration
  • Dr. John Classen: Scripting, narration
  • Andreas Orphanides : Web development
  • Susan Baker: Graphics, animation, and web design

license for creative commons

This video is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license.

Top of page

Grad Coach

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

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

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

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

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

The function of the lit review

But wait – is this the right time?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

literature review overview

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

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

1: The Introduction Section

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

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

Example of literature review outline structure

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

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

Free Webinar: Literature Review 101

2: The Body Section

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

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

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

The body section of your literature review is the where you'll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

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

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

Adopting the chronological structure allows you to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time.

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

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

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

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

The thematic structure allows you to organise your literature by theme or category  – e.g. by independent variables.

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

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

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

Option 3: Methodological

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

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

The methodological structure allows you to organise your chapter by the analysis method  used - e.g. qual, quant or mixed.

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

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

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

3: The Conclusion Section

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

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

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

In the conclusion section, you’ll need to present the key findings of your literature review and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you'll  need to make it clear what your study will add  to the literature.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

Literature Review Course

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

Literature review 101 - how to find articles

27 Comments

Marin

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

ISHAYA JEREMIAH AYOCK

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

Qaiser

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

Maurice Kagwi

Awesome article for my research.

Ache Roland Ndifor

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

Malik Imtiaz Ahmad

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

Franklin Zon

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Dozie

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

KAWU ALHASSAN

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

CYRUS ODUAH

Thank you very much, very helpful

Michael Sanya Oluyede

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

Karla Buchanan

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

Enang Lazarus

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

Biswadeb Dasgupta

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

Vik

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

S Dlamini

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

PATRICK MACKARNESS

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Abraham

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

Nour

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

Lindiey

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

NAGARAJU K

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

Vakaloloma

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

Alphonse NSHIMIYIMANA

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

Resa

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

Gerald Gormanous

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

kan

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

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

U.S. flag

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
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

  • formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
  • searching the extant literature,
  • screening for inclusion,
  • assessing the quality of primary studies,
  • extracting data, and
  • analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

  • Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
  • Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
  • Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
  • Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
  • Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
  • Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

  • Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
  • Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
  • Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
  • A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
  • Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
  • Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
  • Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
  • Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
  • Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
  • Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
  • Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
  • Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
  • Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
  • Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
  • Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
  • Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
  • Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
  • Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
  • Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
  • Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
  • Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
  • King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
  • Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
  • Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
  • Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
  • Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
  • Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
  • Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
  • Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
  • Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
  • Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
  • Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
  • Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
  • Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
  • Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
  • Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
  • Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
  • Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
  • Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
  • Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
  • Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
  • Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
  • Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
  • Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
  • Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
  • Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
  • Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
  • Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
  • Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
  • Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
  • Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
  • Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

  • Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
  • PDF version of this title (4.5M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

  • Introduction
  • Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
  • Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
  • Concluding Remarks

Related information

  • PMC PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

  • Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

Portland State University logo

ARCH 433/533 Contemporary Issues Seminar: What is a Literature Review?

  • Beginning Your Research
  • Reference Works
  • What is a Literature Review?
  • Cite Sources

What's a Literature Review?

A Literature Review...

  • Provides comprehensive discussion of the scholarly research that has already been done on a topic.
  • Includes some summary of important articles on a topic.
  • Includes comparison: between how different authors discuss the same topic and how the topic has been handled over time.
  • Synthesizes previous ideas on a topic, but also looks for gaps in the literature: what needs to be investigated further?

What Should a Literature Review Do?

A Literature Review should...

  • Relate directly and clearly to your thesis or research question.
  • Synthesize and contextualize results, not just report them.
  • Identify areas of controversy in the literature.
  • Formulate questions that need further research.

Adapted from “The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It”, by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter, University of Toronto: www.writing.utoronto.ca (file linked below)

  • The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This two-page PDF handout created by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter at the University of Toronto has excellent guidance on conducting a literature review.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

This excellent overview of the literature review explains what a literature review and outlines processes and best practices for doing one. It includes input from an NCSU professor on what a literature review is and what it should do. (Shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US license, attributed to North Carolina State University Libraries ).

Literature Review Guides

  • Literature Reviews for Public Affairs and Policy by Catherine Davenport Last Updated Nov 13, 2023 67 views this year
  • Research for Thesis & Dissertation Literature Reviews by Kimberly Pendell Last Updated Feb 8, 2024 414 views this year
  • << Previous: Find Books
  • Next: Cite Sources >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 19, 2024 11:22 AM
  • URL: https://guides.library.pdx.edu/c.php?g=1380834

SMU Libraries logo

  •   SMU Libraries
  • Scholarship & Research
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Bridwell Library
  • Business Library
  • DeGolyer Library
  • Fondren Library
  • Hamon Arts Library
  • Underwood Law Library
  • Fort Burgwin Library
  • Exhibits & Digital Collections
  • SMU Scholar
  • Special Collections & Archives
  • Connect With Us
  • Research Guides by Subject
  • How Do I . . . ? Guides
  • Find Your Librarian
  • Writing Support

Evidence Syntheses and Systematic Reviews: Overview

  • Choosing a Review

Analyze and Report

What is evidence synthesis.

Evidence Synthesis: general term used to refer to any method of identifying, selecting, and combining results from multiple studies. There are several types of reviews which fall under this term; the main ones are in the table below: 

Types of Reviews

General steps for conducting systematic reviews.

The number of steps for conducting Evidence Synthesis varies a little, depending on the source that one consults. However, the following steps are generally accepted in how Systematic Reviews are done:

  • Identify a gap in the literature and form a well-developed and answerable research question which will form the basis of your search
  • Select a framework that will help guide the type of study you’re undertaking
  • Different guidelines are used for documenting and reporting the protocols of your systematic review before the review is conducted. The protocol is created following whatever guideline you select.
  • Select Databases and Grey Literature Sources
  • For steps 3 and 4, it is advisable to consult a librarian before embarking on this phase of the review process. They can recommend databases and other sources to use and even help design complex searches.
  • A protocol is a detailed plan for the project, and after it is written, it should be registered with an appropriate registry.
  • Search Databases and Other Sources
  • Not all databases use the same search syntax, so when searching multiple databases, use search syntaxes that would work in individual databases.
  • Use a citation management tool to help store and organize your citations during the review process; great help when de-duplicating your citation results
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria already developed help you remove articles that are not relevant to your topic. 
  • Assess the quality of your findings to eliminate bias in either the design of the study or in the results/conclusions (generally not done outside of Systematic Reviews).

Extract and Synthesize

  • Extract the data from what's left of the studies that have been analyzed
  • Extraction tools are used to get data from individual studies that will be analyzed or summarized. 
  • Synthesize the main findings of your research

Report Findings

Report the results using a statistical approach or in a narrative form.

Need More Help?

Librarians can:

  • Provide guidance on which methodology best suits your goals
  • Recommend databases and other information sources for searching
  • Design and implement comprehensive and reproducible database-specific search strategies 
  • Recommend software for article screening
  • Assist with the use of citation management
  • Offer best practices on documentation of searches

Related Guides

  • Literature Reviews
  • Choose a Citation Manager
  • Project Management

Steps of a Systematic Review - Video

  • Next: Choosing a Review >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 5:40 PM
  • URL: https://guides.smu.edu/evidencesyntheses

Literature Reviews

  • Getting Started
  • Choosing a Type of Review
  • Developing a Research Question
  • Searching the Literature
  • Searching Tips
  • ChatGPT [beta]
  • Documenting your Search
  • Using Citation Managers
  • Concept Mapping
  • Concept Map Definition

MindMeister

  • Writing the Review
  • Further Resources

Additional Tools

Google slides.

GSlides can create concept maps using their Diagram feature. Insert > Diagram > Hierarchy will give you some editable templates to use.

Tutorial on diagrams in GSlides .

MICROSOFT WORD

MS Word can create concept maps using Insert > SmartArt Graphic. Select Process, Cycle, Hierarchy, or Relationship to see templates.

NVivo  is software for qualitative analysis that has a concept map feature. Zotero libraries can be uploaded using ris files. NVivo Concept Map information.

A concept map or mind map is a visual representation of knowledge that illustrates relationships between concepts or ideas. It is a tool for organizing and representing information in a hierarchical and interconnected manner. At its core, a concept map consists of nodes, which represent individual concepts or ideas, and links, which depict the relationships between these concepts .

Below is a non-exhaustive list of tools that can facilitate the creation of concept maps.

literature review overview

www.canva.com

Canva is a user-friendly graphic design platform that enables individuals to create visual content quickly and easily. It offers a diverse array of customizable templates, design elements, and tools, making it accessible to users with varying levels of design experience. 

Pros: comes with many pre-made concept map templates to get you started

Cons : not all features are available in the free version

Explore Canva concept map templates here .

Note: Although Canva advertises an "education" option, this is for K-12 only and does not apply to university users.

literature review overview

www.lucidchart.com

Lucid has two tools that can create mind maps (what they're called inside Lucid): Lucidchart is the place to build, document, and diagram, and Lucidspark is the place to ideate, connect, and plan.

Lucidchart is a collaborative online diagramming and visualization tool that allows users to create a wide range of diagrams, including flowcharts, org charts, wireframes, and mind maps. Its mind-mapping feature provides a structured framework for brainstorming ideas, organizing thoughts, and visualizing relationships between concepts. 

Lucidspark , works as a virtual whiteboard. Here, you can add sticky notes, develop ideas through freehand drawing, and collaborate with your teammates. Has only one template for mind mapping.

Explore Lucid mind map creation here .

How to create mind maps using LucidSpark: 

Note: U-M students have access to Lucid through ITS. [ info here ] Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

literature review overview

www.figma.com

Figma is a cloud-based design tool that enables collaborative interface design and prototyping. It's widely used by UI/UX designers to create, prototype, and iterate on digital designs. Figma is the main design tool, and FigJam is their virtual whiteboard:

Figma  is a comprehensive design tool that enables designers to create and prototype high-fidelity designs

FigJam focuses on collaboration and brainstorming, providing a virtual whiteboard-like experience, best for concept maps

Explore FigJam concept maps here .

literature review overview

Note: There is a " Figma for Education " version for students that will provide access. Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

literature review overview

www.mindmeister.com

MindMeister  is an online mind mapping tool that allows users to visually organize their thoughts, ideas, and information in a structured and hierarchical format. It provides a digital canvas where users can create and manipulate nodes representing concepts or topics, and connect them with lines to show relationships and associations.

Features : collaborative, permits multiple co-authors, and multiple export formats. The free version allows up to 3 mind maps.

Explore  MindMeister templates here .

  • << Previous: Using Citation Managers
  • Next: Writing the Review >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:47 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Taxonomy of competence models based on an integrative literature review

  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Nargiza Mikhridinova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1341-6788 1 , 2 ,
  • Carsten Wolff 2 &
  • Wim Van Petegem 1  

An individual competence is one of the main human resources, which enables a person to operate in everyday life. A competence profile, formally captured and described as a structured model, may enable various operations, e.g., a more precise evaluation and closure of a training gap. Such application scenarios supported by information systems are particularly compelling for the era of digitalisation, although research on adequate models capturing competence profiles is still lacking; moreover, no research was revealed synthesizing models of competence, enabling operationalisation possibilities. To fulfil this gap, current research develops a classification of competence models in the form of taxonomy, derived from operational characteristics of competence constructs. Given conceptual fuzziness of the competence term and complex, interdisciplinary scope of the study, the research method follows integrative literature review principles: results of an extensive search conducted in three iterations were critically analysed and further synthesized in the form of taxonomy. This critical analysis was performed based on an overview of twenty-four competence models with a lens of working definitions of competence framework and model concepts. As a result, all three outcomes highlight the power of competence models: (1) the overview summarises models’ development methods, operationalisation, and purposes in a specific application domain, while (2) working definitions and (3) the taxonomy aim at overcoming a conceptual ambiguity of competence concepts. In addition, the presented taxonomy may serve as a knowledge base or a decision support tool on competence model selection when it comes to development of a competence management tool.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

1.1 research motivation.

The term of competence is distressed by both phenomena of polysemy and synonymy, when one can approach the same term with different meanings and other way around (Antera, 2021 ). The competence research movement takes its origin from the psychological domain through works of White ( 1959 ) and McClelland ( 1973 ), their research has contributed significantly to the development of the education research: both scholars emphasized a holistic meaning of competence and its contribution to the overall development of a personality and human intelligence within educational and development domains. Though most researchers would treat McClelland as a founder of the “modern competence movement” in early 1970’s, the understanding of the concept of competence remained ambiguous and fuzzy since then (Le Deist & Winterton, 2005 ; Stevens, 2013 ).

In addition to the synonymy and polysemy issues, the terms of “competence” and “competency” are interchangeably used in literature as well, although these terms underline different personal characteristics (Le Deist & Winterton, 2005 ; Moolman, 2017 ; Teodorescu, 2006 ; Vare et al., 2022 ). Scholars noted that “it has become the convention to use the plural “competences” when referring to occupational standards” in the UK, although “when referring to competence in a more general sense, the plural “competencies” is applied (Cheetham & Chivers, 1996 ). Later, to synthesize various international perspectives and interpretations of the competence concepts, Vare et al. ( 2022 ) presented a competence concept map on how the term may be understood.

Despite the fact, that no consensus is achieved in defining the competence, as well as competency models and frameworks, these phenomena are extensively researched and often linked to a specific occupation and standard, which would define a relevant level of performance (Glaesser, 2019 ). A competency model is defined by Marrelli et al. ( 2005 ) as “an organizing framework that lists the competencies required for effective performance in a specific job, job family […], organisation, function, or process”. Respectively, Stevens ( 2013 ) defines competency modeling as “an attribute-based form of work analysis”, which heavily focuses on “future roles that align with a strategic plan and defining maximum performance in those roles through worker attributes”. A competency framework is defined by George ( 2022 ) as “a structure that sets out and defines each individual competency […] required by individuals working in an organisation or part of that organisation”, in addition, Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ) highlights that a competence framework is usually considered as “a mechanism to link human resource development with organisational strategy”. From these four different definitions, one can see that the concepts of competency model and competency framework are also interchangeably and synonymously used by scholars (this aspect of conceptual confusion will be addressed and clarified later in the paper). Despite the conceptual ambiguity, competency models may become particularly useful to systematically approach human resource development (Stevens, 2013 ) and management (Marrelli et al., 2005 ), and would be beneficial for enhancement of education and graduates’ employability (Moolman, 2017 ).

The fuzziness of the competence definition in educational research was already highlighted by Hartig and Klieme ( 2006 ) and Koeppen et al. ( 2008 ). Overcoming this ambiguity is crucial for adequate competence modeling and assessment: relevant measurement approaches should be adapted and advanced, “given the complexity of competence constructs” (Koeppen et al., 2008 ). In this context, reliable measurement of competences is particularly important nowadays since technology-based assessment of competences is “driven by the rapid development of computer technology rather than by well-founded theories”, while to secure valid competence measures, one should base them on “theoretically sound and empirically tested competence models” (Koeppen et al., 2008 ). Therefore, for advancing research and competence concepts, scholars provide the next two definitions of theoretical models (Hartig & Klieme, 2006 ; Klieme et al., 2008 ):

“ Models of competence levels define the specific situational demands that can be mastered by individuals with certain levels or profiles of competencies”, which are “particularly useful for assessing and evaluating educational outcomes”. This describes to which degree or on which level a competence is present or needed.

“ Models of competence structures deal with the relations between performances in different contexts and seek to identify common underlying dimensions”, which are “especially interesting for explaining performance in specific domains in terms of underlying basic abilities and can provide a basis for more differentiated measurement results of individual-centred assessments”. This describes which elements or sub-constructs a competence description includes and how they are related.

According to our understanding, the definition of a competence model can involve both, the models of levels and the models of structures. For modelling the complexity of competences both might be needed. Therefore, in the following analysis competence models with models of levels, models of structures and combinations of both are considered.

Measurement of competences is only one example of possible application domains in education. Giving competences an operational aspect,—understanding “what do they basically mean”,—will allow them becoming a resource rather than a conceptually ambiguous problem (Vare et al., 2022 ). “Operational aspect” includes, among others, aspects of defining “rules used to assign a value to what is observed, and how to interpret the value” (Engel & Schutt, 2014 ), and operationalisation can be defined as “the translation of concepts into tangible indicators of their existence” (Saunders et al., 2012 ) or as “the process of specifying the operations that will indicate the value of cases on a variable” (Engel & Schutt, 2014 ). Operationalisation according to our understanding is the way how the competence models are used, e.g., for competence assessment, and how they are interpreted. In case of competence operationalisation, breaking down its concept into sub-constructs may help to indicate possible operations and application scenarios.

The aim of this literature research study is to advance theoretical research on the competence concept by creating a taxonomy of competence models, which is mainly focusing on competence operationalisation (meaning: what are the competence models good for, and how they are used). The paper comprises four chapters: stating the research motivation and related research questions will accomplish this chapter; a disclosure of the research method enabling a selection of 24 relevant papers out of 3029 detected items, which are then summarised in the overview of competence models, will happen in the second chapter; the taxonomy development and discussion will be an essence of the third chapter; a summary of the conducted research, future implications and limitations will conclude this paper in the form of the last, fourth chapter.

1.2 Related studies

To bring competence research forward, and not to develop new (meta-) frameworks, scholars tend to build taxonomies of competences based on already existing frameworks and standards. This way, a Taxonomy of Essential Competencies for Program Evaluators was established by Stevahn et al. ( 2005 ) as a crosswalk of three relevant professional standards and four types of competent evaluators were defined by proficiency levels. The same year, a French research group published a typology of competence adopted from Cheetham and Chivers ( 1996 ) together with a holistic model of competence of Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ) based on analysis of different occupational standards and competence frameworks. Later on, this model served as a foundation of the Typology of knowledge, skills and competences (Winterton et al., 2006 ) and as a reference model for analysing earlier-developed (1964–1996) models of competence (Winterton, 2009 ).

Among more recent findings, Seemiller and Whitney ( 2019 ) developed a learning taxonomy to reflect leadership competency development, as well as Nijhuis et al. ( 2015 ) developed a taxonomy for project management competences. In 2021, a taxonomy of social-emotional competences called “ DOMASEC ” was developed to link relevant terms and constructs across established frameworks and disciplines (Schoon, 2021 ). Such an integrative alignment helps to guide the conceptualisation and operationalisation of competences (Schoon, 2021 ) and eventually brings it to the holistic definition and understanding of the competence concept (Antera, 2021 ).

Nevertheless, the above-mentioned taxonomies represent competences within domain-specific competence frameworks, and do not grasp competences holistically. For instance, Luiz Neto et al. ( 2022 ) develop a “consolidated matrix” and a “cognitive map” to describe the evolution of learning and to classify competence levels, respectively; these developed concepts claim to contribute to professional competence assessment. But given the context-specificity, learning and competence acquisition should happen in domain-specific situations (Koeppen et al., 2008 ), and since the authors do not connect the developed concepts to specific competence models/structures, those lack a situational context and, therefore, limit their further application.

From this short discourse, one may notice that there have been certain deficiencies in a sound, elaborated research on competence models, which would contribute to studying “the interaction between individual abilities and the environment, different levels of competence, and developmental processes” (Koeppen et al., 2008 ); more than a decade ago, the researchers were highlighting that adequate models to capture “contextualized competence constructs” were “still lacking”. As previously mentioned and as will be summarised again in the next sub-chapter, the issue of a competence fuzziness still remains unsolved today (Antera, 2021 ; Vare et al., 2022 ). In addition, as will be shown in the second chapter, no taxonomy or similar classification was revealed to describe and classify models of competence structures , dealing with interrelations between competence sub-constructs; this makes the study even more attractive for scholars and practitioners interested in application of competence concepts and models. Such applications supported by digitally-processed competence data were proved to be useful for both students and teachers, particularly when it comes to planning competence development journeys (Mikhridinova et al., 2022 ) or empirical assessment of competences (Klieme et al., 2008 ) in complex, real-life scenarios (Baaken et al., 2015 ; de Los Ríos et al., 2010 ). In a global sense, an adequate and contemporary competence research supported by “theoretical models of competence” advances development of entire educational systems (Klieme et al., 2008 ).

1.3 Problem statement and research questions

Competence is a complex and ambiguous concept which makes the competence research spread across multiple disciplines. In formulating research agendas on the competence topic, researchers emphasize a need for “clear conceptual distinctions” (Glaesser, 2019 ), understanding what constitutes the competence construct and how to operationalise (Deardorff, 2015 ) or measure it (Murawski & Bick, 2017 ). However, valid measures of competences should be based on “theoretically sound and empirically tested competence models” (Koeppen et al., 2008 ), and before measurement or other operations, there is a need for concept definition, particularly when the concept is “surrounded by high confusion” (Antera, 2021 ).

As shown previously, no research was revealed so far trying to synthesize and integrate models or structures of competence with an overview of relevant application domains, sub-constructs, and operationalisation possibilities. To fulfil this gap, this research aims at answering the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1 : What is a competence model formally capturing competences or competence profiles, and which types of these models do exist in a recent literature?

RQ2 : Are there taxonomies or typologies of competence models in the sense of RQ1 already available and validated? If not, how such a taxonomy may look like?

RQ3 : What characteristics and features do these competence models have in respect to application and operationalisation scenarios?

As highlighted above, the competence term is a vague and ambiguous concept, and a subject of polysemy and synonymy issues, meaning that different terms may be used to represent the “ competence model ” as well as other way around: the term of “ competence model ” can represent a competency model/framework, which is out of scope of the current research. To emphasize the scope of the study, there is a need to highlight that two definitions of “ model of competence levels ” and “ models of competence structures ” given by Hartig and Klieme ( 2006 ) and Klieme et al. ( 2008 ) will be particularly considered while searching for the literature sources. The “ model of competence levels ” can be associated with competency model/framework and relevant standards. While the “ model of competence structures ” is very interesting for the current research, as this definition assumes a formal description of a competence. This will be the current understanding of the structure behind a “ competence model ” in this research. Nevertheless, Koeppen et al. ( 2008 ) also highlighted that both models complement each other, what can mean, that a competency model/framework may be based on a formal description of a competence structure; this view will be particularly considered for building the search and selection strategy of the research method.

2 Research method

2.1 methodology.

Considering the conceptual fuzziness of the competence term, and a potential spread across multiple disciplines, the research followed at the beginning an exploration strategy to capture a wider range of research papers (Stevens, 2013 ) on the formal description of competences and competence models. Later, the selected sources were critically analysed to narrow down the research towards its initial scope, formed out of the research questions (RQ’s) and supported by definitions (Def’s) given in the previous chapter (Fig.  1 ). To get the required answers to the questions stated above, and given the complex scope of the study, the method of integrative literature review was selected to follow (Robin & Kathleen, 2005 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Torraco, 2005 ). This type of literature review creates transparency through an extensive search strategy, and based on a critical analysis synthesizes available sources to create new frameworks and perspectives. A taxonomy constitutes one of such frameworks, namely a “conceptual classification of constructs” (Torraco, 2005 ). The advantageous role of applying taxonomies is recognized in information systems literature and in other domains like pedagogy, as it contributes to structural organisation of knowledge, and theory building in general (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). In frames of this study, the taxonomy aims to overcome the conceptual ambiguity of the competence term by:

synthesizing competence sub-constructs in a structured classification,

looking at how competence model can be formally described, and

what operational aspects it can grasp.

figure 1

Research process flowchart

As was already highlighted by Vare et al. ( 2022 ), understanding what the competences “basically mean” will allow them becoming a resource rather than a conceptually ambiguous problem ; in terms of the selected methodology,—one should rather focus on understanding the concept than just consolidating various definitions of it.

The taxonomy term is often confused as classification, typology and taxonomy are claimed to be used interchangeably (Bailey, 1994 ; Doty, 1994 ; Nickerson et al., 2013 ). Although typology is different from taxonomy as the first one determines a conceptual classification, and the latter – an empirical one (Bailey, 1994 ), the term of taxonomy is the most used one among objects’ grouping systems disregard the type of classification (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). A central problem in taxonomy development is a selection of the relevant dimensions and characteristics, which can be done inductively, deductively or intuitively; besides, it is advised to employ an iterative approach to arrive at the useful taxonomy (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). Therefore, in case of finding a similar taxonomy or other classification of competence models in surveyed papers, it is assumed that it can be used as a basis for further iterative development of the current taxonomy.

2.2 Literature review strategy

Since the competence research lies across different disciplines, the subject areas were not limited to one specific domain but instead considered various areas (see Table  1 ), where the formal description of an individual competence profile would be of interest.

To make sure that only papers in their final published shape are included in the search, the range of publication years was limited by the year of 2022 and included recent journal articles published since 2017. As a source type, journal papers were selected since the competence concept has been highly researched and journal publications may guarantee a higher quality due to a peer-reviewed mode. The two databases of (Elsevier) Scopus and Web of Science were selected as the first one provides a good overview of global research and latter one – represents a multidisciplinary database of high-impact journals (Dresch et al., 2015 ). The content of titles, keywords and abstracts was determined by terms used by Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ), McClelland ( 1973 ), Stevens ( 2013 ), and Vare et al. ( 2022 ) as well as by mind mapping of possible terms representing “model”, “formal description” and “taxonomy” (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). Firstly, the search was based on relevant titles and keywords combination and used an exact search as well as “*”-wildcard to represent several unknown characters; this is mostly done due to the different usage of the competence term (Stevens, 2013 ) as well as due to the different writing in British and American English. To report the flow of literature search and relevant sources identification, the PRISMA statement (Liberati et al., 2009 ) was chosen and adapted (see Fig.  2 ).

figure 2

Papers' selection process based on the PRISMA statement (Liberati et al., 2009 )

As can be seen in Fig.  3 , the first search yielded only in 102 items of research papers. Among these 102 items, terms like “competence-based approach” were often used in addition to “competence model”, and therefore, it was decided to iterate the search with different search strings based on this finding. This way, the second iteration focused only on the search of keywords combination; here “?”-wildcard was used to represent a single character due to the general use of relevant syntactic combinations. The third iteration searched for papers based on combination of keywords and abstracts without the wildcard application (Table  1 ).

figure 3

Papers' selection process in three iterations

As a result, search strings of the second and third iterations generated ten and eighteen times more items, respectively, than the first iteration. To guarantee a systematic selection process, exclusion criteria ( excl_crit ) were set as shown in Fig.  2 . Criteria excl_crit_1 - and excl_crit_2 were applied in set-up spread sheets by means of Microsoft Excel, where bibliographic data of publications were analysed.

Important to mention that before applying excl_crit_1 to items of the second and third iterations, a detection of duplicates between the iterations was done, which led to the exclusion of 288 duplicated items (Fig.  3 ).

To fasten the screening process of titles and abstracts, the next filtering approach was created based on the scope of the current literature review:

titles and keywords of papers were screened for terms of “aptitude”, “competenc*” and “skill”, and then

abstracts were screened for the same terms, and in addition for terms like “framework”, “set”, “archetype”, “formulati*”, “represent”, “catalog”, “conceptuali*”, “structure*”, “systemi*”, “taxonom*”, “typolog*”, “defin*”, “descript*”, “formali*”, and “metamodel”.

This approach was reflected as (1;0) set in rows of respective items, which were summed up per titles, keywords, and abstracts. First, titles were checked: those items with the sum of binary results equal “0” (in titles and keywords) were excluded, then, the remaining items were checked (read and analysed towards the scope of the current research) in combination with keywords. Then, the abstracts of released papers after the titles’ check were screened the same way: those with “0” results in abstracts were sorted out, and remaining ones were checked in combination with keywords. This filtering approach allowed a faster screening process based on the assumption: the more terms of interest are included in titles, keywords, and abstracts, the higher is a chance to find a paper on the scope of the study. Therefore, papers with a bigger sum in relevant rows of titles, keywords, and abstracts were more carefully checked, than those with smaller sum values. Screening of titles and abstracts yielded in 252 remaining items of research papers.

Spread sheets in Microsoft Excel may support a “first level of coding” but shouldn’t be used for further analysis since those are rather a repository tool (Bandara et al., 2015 ). Therefore, on the next stage, every full paper was individually surveyed to assess eligibility based on the checklist principle (Barbour, 2001 ; Okoli & Schabram, 2012 ), described by a flowchart shown in Fig.  4 . This process flow was realised by means of Microsoft Forms to get a systematic overview of the surveyed items. Under scope-out reasons excl_crit_3 -criteria were listed, under “main construct” – competency, competence, skill, or “other” constructs were foreseen, and under “construct’s description type” – the type of competence model description. The survey released 71 papers for further analysis.

figure 4

Process flow of the full papers’ survey

The main purpose of this stage of literature review was to capture every formal description of competence models without critical analysis of the content, which is foreseen on the next step.

2.3 Critical analysis and synthesis

Critical analysis invites authors to break down a literature research topic into its fundamental elements like main concepts and relationships among them, applications of the topic and other characteristics. A critique lays a basis of critical analysis, which helps to identify strengths and deficiencies of considered literature (Torraco, 2005 ).

In case of the current research, the main concept is a competence model, and on a previous stage it was decomposed to considered sub-constructs and their description type. The main critique towards the resulting overview may be formulated as follows: (a) whether the quality of considered papers is sufficient, which resulted in excl_crit_4 (no given theoretical foundation of the model, competence model is not discussed in detail, and insufficient quality of the content); (b) whether it gives a clear picture of the next characteristics of competence model description:

type of description,

type of competence model,

main construct and its elements, and

purpose of the description/model development.

Application of this critique resulted in 24 papers. Most of the papers were sorted out due to insufficient quality of research presented and/or focus laid mostly on skills rather than competence concepts. Semantic analysis in the form of word frequency query for (a) automatically identified themes, and (b) author keywords and abstracts can be found in Fig.  5 . The query was run on NVivo qualitative data analysis software with minimum length of four symbols and displaying fifty-most frequent words. As may be noticed, the themes, as a common content of papers, as well as keywords and abstracts reflecting the scope of papers enjoy different wordings of the competence term. As highlighted by Tang ( 2023 ), it is not recommended to imply auto-coding for themes when the analysis requires “close, interpretive reading of the data”. Therefore, these two figures are placed only to create a first glance on the content of papers and to confirm again a need to critically analyse the selected papers rather than rely on automatically detected themes.

figure 5

Word frequency of ( a ) automatically identified themes, ( b ) keywords and abstracts

The next step is synthesis of 24 selected papers such as integrating existing and new ideas to create a taxonomy. The overview of the chosen models, alphabetically ordered by respective authors, is given in Table  2 .

The table summarizes labels (names of the constructs) as given by authors, competence constructs’ operationalisation, purposes, and development methods of the models, as well as respective research areas addressed, without a further synthesis yet. Nevertheless, the table shows how the selected models were developed and how the competence elements were operationalised to fulfil the models’ purposes in a specific application domain and research areas. Most of the papers were published in 2017 and frequently address Computer Science research area, coded as R2; codes of research areas (explained at the bottom of Table  2 ) enable an easier grasping of research fields addressed, particularly when it comes to their combinations.

As can be noticed, a formal description of competences is widely applied within and across various disciplines, and often addresses training and education purposes. The competence constructs ( Operationalisation column) underline competence elements which should be determined to enable Purpose of the Model . For that, skills and knowledge are often mentioned to be applied, combined with either abilities (Bohlouli et al., 2017 ; Uhm et al., 2017 ) or attitudes (D’Aniello et al., 2021 ; Gaeta et al., 2017 ; Salman et al., 2020 ; Zandbergs et al., 2019 ). Although authors use the KSA abbreviation (K – knowledge, S – skill, A – ability/attitude) to reflect these three elements, it is not employed in the table to avoid possible confusion. On the opposite, authors are consistent in using the KSAOs term, namely knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (Fernández-Sanz et al., 2017 ; Schulze et al., 2017 ), therefore, the term is employed the way it is. Another insight is that the Model’s Label column represents a “zoo” of various concepts: scholars interchangeably use framework and model terms, or both – as in case of Framework of the Star-Chef Competency Model (Suhairom et al., 2019 ).

The derived overview is a useful outcome of this study by its own: it summarises formally captured “competence” models developed in 2017–2022 period and applied in various research areas. Although those models are not always called competence models, these concepts do correspond to the definitions of “models of competence structures” and “models of competence levels” given by Hartig and Klieme ( 2006 ) and Klieme et al. ( 2008 ). These two groups of theoretical models indeed perfectly complement each other, since when a “model of competence structures” is integrated in a certain competence framework or another properly described context, the “model of competence levels” becomes operative to measure or evaluate an outcome of competences’ interaction.

The next chapter will synthesise these two concepts in the form of competence model and framework definitions, based on which a taxonomy of competence models is developed.

3 Taxonomy of competence models

3.1 taxonomy development.

As highlighted before, it is recommended to apply an iterative approach to taxonomy development for deriving a useful classification. Since no similar classification was revealed among the surveyed papers which could serve as a starting point (for a first iteration of taxonomy), development ab initio is required.

A central problem in taxonomy development is a selection of the relevant characteristics that are “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive” (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). At the beginning of development process, a meta-characteristic serving the purpose of the taxonomy should be selected, after, characteristics are to be determined, which are then grouped into dimensions. In case of the current taxonomy, the main meta-characteristic is a competence model; the characteristics include, by now, development method, purpose, and constructs’ operationalisation, which need to be synthesized further. The challenge here is not only to derive additional characteristics, using both inductive and deductive approaches, but to group them in relevant and meaningful dimensions. Bailey ( 1994 ) has specifically highlighted that finding the “appropriate conceptual labels” could be difficult and particularly challenging is to “incorporate them into existing bodies of theory”. Additionally considering the previously mentioned ambiguity of competence-related concepts, an understanding of paradigms like construct , model , and framework is needed to develop a respective categorisation.

According to Stenner and Rohlf ( 2023 ), constructs are “the means by which science orders observations”, which are created through inductive methods, including creation of construct labels to express respective hypotheses. Transition from theory to model happens when constructs, – as a complex idea or as a concept derived from simpler ones – are validated or embedded “within a larger theoretical framework” (L’Abate, 2013 ). As defined by McGinnis and Ostrom ( 2014 ), frameworks “organize diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry” and “attempt to identify the universal elements” relevant for the theories in the same domain; while a model comprises a “manifestation of a general theoretical explanation in terms of the functional relationships among independent and dependent variables important in a particular setting”. To sum up, a competence construct may be considered as a complex concept made-up by various sub-constructs.

Based on these considerations, the next two working definitions of a competence framework and model are derived:

Competence frameworks represent a set of terms describing which competences and/or competence (sub-) constructs are foreseen for a specific purpose. When a competence construct enables observing various functional relationships among its sub-constructs, it becomes then a competence model , which is preferably but not necessarily embedded in a competence framework

To uncover possible functional relationships and conceptual labels, a definition of models given by Knuuttila ( 2011 ) is adopted; models are defined by the scholar as “epistemic tools, concrete artefacts, which are built by various representational means , and are constrained by their design in such a way that they enable the study of certain scientific questions and learning through constructing and manipulating them”. Additionally, Hughes ( 1997 ) addressed the representational capacity of models through denotation, demonstration , and interpretation , namely what meaning elements of a model have, what internal dynamic leading to new conclusions a model has, and what can it demonstrate back to the world.

The highlighted terms and other characteristics of models given by the scholars, including the definitions of models of competence structures and levels (Hartig & Klieme, 2006 ; Klieme et al., 2008 ), provide a source for the conceptual labels which we developed for the taxonomy representation (Fig. 6 ):

Denotation of Underlying Dimensions define the ways in which constructs of competences can be expressed,

Flexibility of Constructs describe how competence (sub-) constructs can be operated and manipulated,

Representational Means summarise forms and media with which competence constructs can be represented and clustered if applicable,

Demonstration of Continuous Progression reflects the internal dynamic of competence (how it develops over time, measured on a scale),

Interpretation of Continuous Progression tells how the demonstration of competence constructs can be interpreted, and

Intended Purpose justifies how and for what the competence model was designed, outlining possible applications realised in competence (management) systems.

figure 6

Taxonomy of competence models

As may be concluded from the context above, the first three labels reflect competences as models of structures, the next two labels categorise models of levels, and the last one shows the outcomes of combining these two groups of models in a system. Technically, these conceptual labels serve the aim to systemize dimensions, used to group various characteristics of competence models.

3.2 Taxonomy description

Below, the conceptual labels grouping the taxonomy dimensions are described in more detail, including a further explanation of taxa. Each category of characteristics represent a so-called taxon (Nickerson et al., 2013 ), ID’s mentioned as a superscript in relevant taxa refer to the sources (Table  2 ), where this particular characteristic is used.

Denotation of underlying dimensions

As mentioned above, this label underlines ways in which constructs of competences can be expressed.

Possible sub-constructs of a competence can be described by its input-based (competency, knowledge, skill, ability, attitude, trait, motive, value, self-image, experience) and output-based (action, activity, behaviour, performance, context) characteristics, or a competence itself may become an input for a to-be-acquired, output competence. This phenomenon is highlighted by Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ) in their holistic model of competence: a meta-competence is considered as an “input that facilitates the acquisition of output competences” at the base of cognitive, functional and social competences. Although, deconstruction is not always a case: Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) use a competence tree, where a competence is constituted by its textually described sub-competences. This doesn’t prevent a competence model to be flexibly used for the competence assessment; or as shown by Fernández-Sanz et al. ( 2017 ), in some frameworks, competences are listed in parallel to knowledge and skills’ elements, and not on the level above, where these elements would be part of a competence concept. As mentioned above, among usual sub-constructs such concepts like competency, knowledge, skill, ability, attitude, behaviour, trait, motive, value, self-image, experience, and context are listed, which are sometimes grouped in a KSA or KSAO term, where “A” interchangeably stands for ability or attitude. The correct usage here is “ability” as a part of KSA taxonomy introduced by Stahl and Luczak ( 2000 ). According to this taxonomy, knowledge and skills relate to a specific task and may be trained and educated; while abilities relate to individual traits, which are not influenced a lot by education and training. Gasmi and Bouras ( 2017 ) describe a competency as KSA, too, and consider the same nature of competency being an outcome of a training or a requirement for a certain occupation. Wilhelm et al. ( 2019 ) highlight the same attribute of inner resources, to which KSA together with experience are affiliated, since only inner resources can be trained, which are expressed through competences into performance. Nguyen ( 2022 ) use the same input-/output-based approach to conceptually describe individually- (knowledge, skill, ability, and personality) and socially situated activities and behaviours. Schulze et al. ( 2017 ) employ KSAOs to predict communication outcomes, and Shum et al. ( 2018 ) specify that skill, as a part of competency, reflects an ability “to exhibit behaviours”, which are in its turn “observable and measurable actions”. Therefore, sub-constructs can be grouped as input- or output-based, or none of it.

To underline a span, typical for competence, three types are employed, namely, actual, prerequisite, and target. After acquisition, a competence is treated as acquired, which can be matched with a required one; these terms are also mentioned as actual or available, and requested competences. To put these characteristics on the homogenously continuous scale, the terms provided by Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) are adopted, since the authors see the process of competency acquisition as “a long-term process that can occur in a variety of acquisition contexts”; accordingly, a prerequisite competency means a minimum level required to engage in a certain activity, and a target one – a maximum level of competency.

A competence may have sub-constructs which can be described by a certain evidence grade. When no evidence of a competence can be confirmed, it means that this is either not existing or it is difficult to evaluate as the subconstructs were hidden. Competence models adapted from the Iceberg model of competence Spencer and Spencer ( 1993 ) operate with such hidden and visible characteristics of competences. In their “synoptic view of competence”, Salman et al. ( 2020 ) distinguish between visible/hard and hidden/soft aspects, where the latter one underline attributes “that tend to be deeper and pivotal to personality” in comparison to visible, apparent individual characteristics; the authors underline that together, these characteristics determine how a person performs in a job, an output of which can be visible or not. Suhairom et al. ( 2019 ) simplify the “visible competency” by assigning to it only qualification and experience, but it also arises from the “hidden” one and represents underlying capabilities and motivations. Gaeta et al. ( 2017 ) see the same evolving pattern, but their definition of evidence is the same as later discussed by Paquette et al. ( 2021 ): they operate with the evidence concept to confirm (with a certain confidence level) an acquired competence, which may be supported with specific documents and performed activities. Based on this discussion, we grade evidence as visible, hidden or none of it.

Flexibility of constructs

Six categories, namely atomistic/holistic (conceptualisation dimension), binary/continuum (scaling dimension) and specific/general (contextualisation dimension) are taken from Child and Shaw ( 2020 ); although authors applied these distinctions to characterize competency frameworks’ purposes, as will be shown, those can be also applied to characterize competence models, too.

Holistic vs. atomistic characteristics of conceptualisation given by Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) underline a relation of competency statements towards overall abilities of an individual. Salman et al. ( 2020 ) study the concept of competence holistically, and provide a synoptic view of competence, which reflects an interaction of its elements. Same as Korytkowski ( 2017 ), who considers relations between competences. An example of an atomistic competence conceptualisation may be found in the work by Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ), where one of the competence assessment approaches was based on multiple choice questions, a so-called “checklist style” highlighted by Child and Shaw ( 2020 ). In general, the holistic characteristic of a competence model enables a broader study of its concept by uncovering the interrelation of its sub-constructs, while the atomistic one may generate more precise assessment scenarios. A disadvantage of an atomistic view is that it can limit the conceptual view on a competence considering only one specific knowledge domain.

Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) consider how general and specific contexts are integrated into competency frameworks, and in frames of competence models, El Asame and Wakrim ( 2018 ) define these characteristics as being “competent in a context but may not be so in a different context”, while Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) treat these as “a more generic or more specific resource according to the knowledge components”. Schulze et al. ( 2017 ) study the Spitzberg’s model of communication applied in two specific modes of communication, while Gaeta et al. ( 2017 ) and Paquette et al. ( 2021 ), in addition to the context of competence performance, consider where it has been acquired.

Scaling dimension is presented by binary and continuum characteristics, which are taken from Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) the way they are: how a competence can be measured is relevant for both competence frameworks and models. The binary characteristic underlines whether a person is competent, while the continuum one describes various levels of competence. As already highlighted above, the competence is often conceptualized as expression of resources into performance, which can be then measured; but since the selected papers describe various methods of qualitative and quantitative measurement of competence sub-constructs, which cannot be homogenously categorised, the continuum characteristic of competence models is extended to a separate conceptual label Demonstration of Continuous Development in the section on competence levels in Fig. 6 .

Korytkowski ( 2017 ) highlights that a competence described as a continuous parameter may be considered as a dynamic one, too, that changes over time “due to training, learning, forgetting and fatigue”. The last term expresses an exhaustion of competence, while the first two aspects may be grouped as a competence acquisition, since, as highlighted by Wilhelm et al. ( 2019 ), a competence “can neither be transferred nor taught, but only acquired in a specific context”. Nevertheless, Korytkowski ( 2017 ) use learning and forgetting terms to describe acquisition and loss of competences, respectively. In addition, Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) use the notion of a loss or gap function to capture the deviance between acquired and required competence data scores. Based on these considerations, we introduce the dimension dynamic change with the categories acquisition, loss, and fatigue.

The fact that competences are interrelated is highlighted by Korytkowski ( 2017 ). Indeed, sub-constructs in simple competence models may be considered as stand-alone concepts, while in complex ones, sub-constructs allow comparison and interaction with each other. While Heller et al. ( 2017 ) considers a pairwise incomparability of competences, Gasmi and Bouras ( 2017 ) study matching of two competence profiles enabled by comparison of quantified competence levels, and Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) provide several scenarios on competence comparison: using actual and prerequisite/target competences to measure a respective gap; applying a meta-feature of “association between competencies” in various ontology models; and employing skill and performance scales “to compare manually any two competencies”. A synergy of competences and interaction expressed through relation forces between competences is considered by Korytkowski ( 2017 ), the latter one can be assessed by applying a “description of the required competences on the basis of the percentage or temporary share”. On the level of sub-constructs, Schulze et al. ( 2017 ) study outcomes of KSAOs’ interaction to find differences between performances in two modes of communication. This leads to the interrelation categories of comparison, interaction, and none of them.

Representational means

This label describes how competences are noted or coded. It contains three dimensions, namely clusters of competence constructs, expressed in different modes , and media , in which a manipulation is “materialised” (Knuuttila, 2011 ).

The competence elements may be clustered in a hierarchy (Bohlouli et al., 2017 ; D’Aniello et al., 2021 ; Korytkowski, 2017 ), in a dimension (Feng & Richards, 2018 ; Salman et al., 2020 ; von Treuer & Reynolds, 2017 ), in a set (Costa & Santos, 2017 ; Heller et al., 2017 ; Nguyen, 2022 ; Shum et al., 2018 ), or grouped by its type (Li et al., 2020 ; Paquette et al., 2021 ). One may argue in regard to the terms applied: e.g., Feng and Richards ( 2018 ) distinguish among four types of professional competency based on the typology of Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ), but as highlighted above, the holistic model is rather based on dimensions than just competence types. Similarly, von Treuer and Reynolds ( 2017 ) use terms of meta competencies’ dimensions to highlight their functionality across core competencies’ dimensions. Li et al. ( 2020 ) operate with terms of sets and dimensions as well, but the description of competences is based on attributes and performances, making it rather a type or category of descriptors.

To enhance a representational capacity, such modes like graphs, mathematical notations, and means of natural language may be employed. Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) and Korytkowski ( 2017 ) employ graphs to express competence models but considering that diagrams, charts, knowledge graphs, and other pictorial representations may be summarised under the graph term, more competence models using graphical expression can be classified as graphs, too. Heller et al. ( 2017 ) and Korytkowski ( 2017 ) employ mathematical notations mainly while describing the models; whereas it is often a case, when at least competence assessment is performed using formulas as done by Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ). Natural language can be perceived as the most used mode but in this taxonomy, natural language strings are meant, applied to formally captured competences in such specifications like RDCEO, HR-XML and ASN-DL (El Asame & Wakrim, 2018 ; Paquette et al., 2021 ).

The categories of media may be used to “produce” representations of competence models: abstract media, catalogues, codebooks, services, and tools. Heller et al. ( 2017 ) operate with “abstract skills”, and in general employ mathematical notations, where a certain level of abstraction is required. Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) highlight that abstraction is required, too, for transforming competency proposals into software ontology format; an ontology itself operates with abstracted entities, representing “people, real-world objects and also abstract concepts”. Nguyen ( 2022 ) employ a competence model to catalogue Industry 4.0 competencies, namely a “standardized list of competencies” based on the O*NET Content Model (U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration, 2023 ). To analyse representation of a digital curator’s profile in related literature sources, Feng and Richards ( 2018 ) develop a coding scheme, which is not only extending the holistic competence model of Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ) but may represent a competence model by itself, realised in the form of a codebook. Li et al. ( 2020 ) create a codebook of competency variables, later grouped in 26 categories of international project manager competences. Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) highlight that a developed ontology may be employed in a variety of software-enabled services, and Zandbergs et al., ( 2019 ) describe an ontology to build a competence management service for non-formal education, aiming at abstracting from individual competence interpretation, which differs “from one framework to another”. Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) describe a framework of a tool, which addresses vocational training purposes too, together with job assignment and recruitment processes. Similar, Korytkowski ( 2017 ) addresses performance of employees by providing a concept of a tool, describing capabilities of workers who perform repetitive tasks. Thus, we assume that the media categories list but are not limited to abstract, catalogue, codebook, tool, and ontology.

Demonstration of continuous progression

The scaling dimension under Flexibility of Constructs label , assumed either binary or continuum scaling of a competence, the continuum characteristic though is rather big and needs to be differentiated separately.

Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) describe progression indicators of a competency , using the “emerging, developing, and secure” levels. These levels capture a certain stage of learning, which needs to be developed before starting with the next one: emerging means that “learners have been taught the skill but only occasionally apply their understanding”, developing level occurs when “learners begin to apply their understanding”, and secure – when they “consistently work at this level”. Another scale in educational context suggested by Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) considers competency from “lower” to “upper” levels. And in frames of education/industry collaboration, Gasmi and Bouras ( 2017 ) employ three competency levels: knowing, capable, competent, which specify “the required level of a competency in an occupation”; in addition, the authors suggest assigning numerical values to these levels to enable relevant computations. Nevertheless, such a layered, built one on another, consideration of progression indicators suggested by Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) is perceived by us as more sophisticated, and therefore emerging, developing, and secure characteristics of a competency sub-construct are adopted.

Experience is often mentioned to measure how an individuum is competent based on previously performed, relevant work. Korytkowski ( 2017 ) describe experience by the number of finished repetitive tasks performed by a worker. Other sources suggest a quantification of relevant work experience, represented by a duration of time, trainings, or acquired licenses (Uhm et al., 2017 ; Wilhelm et al., 2019 ). For instance, Uhm et al. ( 2017 ) derive the “related work experience” element from the O*NET Content Model (U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration, 2023 ) to analyse how many years of experience an employee should have, depending on a certain BIM role. Additionally, the authors provide BIM job description terms to describe which BIM experience is needed for every level of the O*NET elements.

Levels of proficiency and mastery or expertise were found in the considered papers to be put on a scale from 1 to 5, and 1 to 10, respectively. Costa and Santos ( 2017 ) and Fernández-Sanz et al. ( 2017 ) employ the e-Competence framework (European Commission, 2014 ) to operate with ICT competency profiles, which are ranging from 1 to 5 in their proficiency levels. In their “lightweight competence semantic model”, D’Aniello et al. ( 2021 ) represent competencies as knowledge, skills, and attitudes, represented by “mastery and expertise” parameters, put on a “given scale”, which, for instance, could range from 0 to 10, namely, from “no competence” to “very expert in that competence”. As can be seen, this ranging in both cases is very subjective, and is not a standardised way to measure relevant parameters. For our taxonomy, we assume that levels of proficiency and mastery or expertise can be represented by numeric scales.

Interpretation of continuous progression

After a certain level of competence progression is demonstrated, conclusions from a demonstrated level may be drawn on how an individual is competent and how the competence is progressing.

As highlighted by authors of several selected papers of this study, only outcomes of competence application like activities, behaviours and other actions of performance can be measured. El Asame and Wakrim ( 2018 ), in their model of learning, use four levels of performance: beginner, intermediate, advanced, and mastery, while Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) suggest using “expert” level instead of “mastery”. At the same time, the latter authors consider performance indicators from a broader perspective, namely “frequency, scope, autonomy, complexity and context”, which can be combined to either classify a competency into one of performance classes (awareness, familiarisation, productivity, and expertise) or to assess a competency on (1…10)-performance scale. The mentioned classes can be also ranged between “beginner” and “expert” performance levels, and therefore this scale is respectively adopted to interpret an individual performance.

Intended purpose

This label categorizes “the established empirical findings” as outcomes of the competence models’ application, realised by the competence (management) system. This label justifies a synthesis of competence structures and competence levels.

As it was previously defined (s. working definitions given in sub-chapter 3.1), a competence construct, if it enables the description of various functional relationships among its sub-constructs, becomes a competence model, which is preferably but not necessarily embedded into a competence framework. This way, authors of several selected papers employed a competence model to standardise or conceptually describe a competence framework relevant for a certain occupational role. In addition, Costa and Santos ( 2017 ), Suhairom et al. ( 2019 ) and Uhm et al. ( 2017 ) mention quantification possibilities of relevant competence elements, while Feng and Richards ( 2018 ), Ma et al. ( 2021 ) and von Treuer and Reynolds ( 2017 ) describe dimensions and categories or types of competencies required to practice certain occupations. The integration of competence frameworks into one represents another type of standardisation. Fernández-Sanz et al. ( 2017 ) analyse several frameworks where the ICT occupation is represented, and through entity relationships a “consistent model” of an e-skills matching tool is developed. Li et al. ( 2020 ) study project management standards and project manager profiles to conceptualise a profile of a “competent international project manager”. Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) develop a “purpose-led approach” of competency frameworks’ development, which is later used to categorise eight competency frameworks.

Assessment of competences is another usual application of competence models. Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) and Zandbergs et al. ( 2019 ) address individual competence assessment to evaluate a competence gap an employee may have; in both studies, the gap is considered as a difference between acquired and required competence levels. A term of cognitive diagnostic comes from the psychological domain, the main purpose is the diagnosis of skills, based on “a probabilistic modeling of data” (Heller et al., 2015 ). Evaluation of worker performance is considered by Korytkowski ( 2017 ), aiming at a better description of capabilities possessed by multi-skilled workers. Therefore, we categorize the competence assessment methods into individual assessment, cognitive diagnosis, and work performance. This is probably not an exhaustive set of categories but for the time being it is the set which can be derived from the analysed literature.

A problem of resources allocation (e.g., mapping people to tasks) was addressed in the selected papers on a one-to-one basis, for instance, when matching a required competence with an actual/acquired one, or on a many-to-one basis, when forming a team to work together on a given project. Bohlouli et al. ( 2017 ) claim that their competence analytics model can be applied in various scenarios, and optimal job assignment is one of them. Gasmi and Bouras ( 2017 ) propose an ontology to model a matching process between individual curriculum and occupation competence profiles. D’Aniello et al. ( 2021 ) address a problem of team formation, where a team would consist of members who possess adequate competencies required for a given project.

Competence models are widely applied to manage training processes and other educational processes . El Asame and Wakrim ( 2018 ) develop a model for training and education to enable learners maintaining their learning experience based on extensive competence description. Similarly, Gaeta et al. ( 2017 ) suggest an approach helping employees engage in learning activities based on the identified gaps. Paquette et al. ( 2021 ) develop a competency ontology to enable a personalisation of learning environments. Design of trainings and educational initiatives in the field of nursing and healthcare services are addressed by Ma et al. ( 2021 ) and Song et al. ( 2022 ), and a similar problem in hospitality management field is addressed by Shum et al. ( 2018 ); while Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) suggest a design method for competence framework development, which can be applied in any field, including planning of educational journeys and their evaluation. Gasmi and Bouras ( 2017 ) study an evaluation of a competence gap which should be precisely addressed by an individual, while Gaeta et al. ( 2017 ) address a bigger issue, namely “gap between higher education outcomes and the industry needs”. Therefore, we assume that with the help of competence models management of training processes can be categorized into learning personalisation, training and evaluation processes design, and gap evaluation procedures.

4 Discussion

This research contributes to overcoming the conceptual ambiguity of competence-related concepts by unpacking the resources and power of formal competence models, which capture formal notations of competence profiles. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deal with the quantity and complexity of the presented concepts and definitions. Figure  7 aims at further explanation and describes a flow of the concepts and the derived findings in the form of a concept map.

figure 7

Concept map of literature review’s findings

The definitions of models of competence structures and levels given by Hartig and Klieme ( 2006 ) and Klieme et al. ( 2008 ) helped not only to form the search and selection strategies but also were actively used in the developed taxonomy. Nonetheless, in the selected papers the difference between models and frameworks was not clearly addressed, moreover, the terms were even sometimes used together. Therefore, the working definitions of a competence construct, model and framework finally state the differences between the concepts and invite scholars to distinguish carefully between those.

This paper puts the focus on competence models, not on competence frameworks. In addition, the focus was laid on understanding the competence concept than just consolidating various definitions of it. Nevertheless, such consolidation helped Salman et al. ( 2020 ) to develop a definitional framework of competence, consisting of visible/hard and hidden/soft aspects, which were adopted in the current taxonomy. Important to mention, that their framework is strongly based on the Iceberg model of Spencer and Spencer ( 1993 ), since the respective research focused on a typology of competences rather than possible operationalisations, and extensively addressed a historical development of theoretical research on competences. Similarly, study of competence definitions enabled El Asame and Wakrim ( 2018 ) to develop a competence model for training and education.

Such competence models integrate both the models of structures and the models of levels, if needed. When these definitions are in place, “users” of competence-based research findings will be able to eliminate the ambiguity around competence-related concepts. Taxonomy development is one example how the definition was applied to derive respective conceptual labels, and dimensions constituted by models’ characteristics (Fig. 6 ). In its turn, these are characteristics of competence models, with which one can operate to fulfil various purposes of the considered models (Table  2 ).

After comparing the overview and the taxonomy, one will notice that these concepts are related but the terms are not the same: this is done with the purpose of generalisation and providing once again a common vocabulary of formally captured competence models. For instance, Child and Shaw ( 2020 ) developed a binary distinguishment towards competence frameworks but since those binary characteristics were clearly defined, they were easily integrated in the taxonomy of competence models, too.

Following the descriptions of the developed taxonomy, a certain logic can be noted: first, a competence is deconstructed (if applicable), and described by its type and evidence grade. Such deconstruction is needed to (flexibly) operate with competence sub-constructs, which are then grouped in various clusters, and represented in various modes and media. In case the model was “flexible enough” and a continuum scaling of a competence was in place, this continuum can be put on levels to either demonstrate the competence progression or interpret respective competence assessments. Consequently, when competence structures “meet” competence levels, a certain system of competence profiles is enabled, which allows various scenarios like standardisation, human resource assessment, resources allocation, and training optimisation.

The taxonomy is “opened” on purpose with a characteristic of none sub-constructs since a competence is not broken down into sub-constructs in some cases. The next dimension, type of denotation, can be rather perceived as a level than a type, based on the used wording. But when it comes to switching occupations or job roles, the target state of a competence would reflect a new competence or a competence profile. Evidence grade of a competence contains an interesting characteristic called hidden, which also assumes soft aspects of a competence (Salman et al., 2020 ) . Operationalisation of such soft aspects of a competence were not explicitly highlighted in the taxonomy as the selected papers describe more clearly how the visible or hard aspects are captured.

The Flexibility of Constructs -label represents various dimensions, and the most interesting dimension here is interrelation : it was not addressed in detail in the considered models, and as mentioned above, it would be particularly interesting to involve such interaction characteristics when it comes to assignment problems as examined by D’Aniello et al. ( 2021 ). The further investigation of the interrelation of competence sub-constructs may be a very relevant research topic, especially with respect to hidden or soft factors.

It is logically clear that if no deconstruction was performed, no clustering would take place neither, although clustering helps to structure competence sub-constructs for further manipulations. The dimensional characteristics though can be of the biggest interest thanks to the typology of Le Deist and Winterton ( 2005 ). A mode of mathematical notation is highly interesting, too, particularly when it comes to algebraic operations. At the same time this mode can limit either the competence description or application of competence models: in the first case, by simply assigning numeric values to competence sub-constructs the whole model can become too simplistic to produce expected outcomes, and in the second, users of competence management systems may need more introduction and explanation on how (mathematically described) models work. But such media as tool is supposed to eliminate possible complexities in applying abstract competence models in practice which may require “enormous efforts and dedicated personnel” (D’Aniello et al., 2021 ). It is also worth mentioning that following the methodology of Nickerson et al. ( 2013 ), characteristics should be “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive”, which is obviously not the case of media dimension: e.g., competence descriptions can be stored in catalogues and codebooks, which are integrated in tools as (abstract) databases.

The competence levels part of the taxonomy tells how competence models contribute to describing levels of a competence demonstrated, and how this demonstration can be interpreted. Demonstration starts from the learning path described by progression indicators, which are built on one another (Child & Shaw, 2020 ): to be secure , learners should first achieve emerging and then developing levels. These characteristics may relate to the experience dimension, too, but in the selected papers the “layered”, multilevel view on experience was not covered. On the opposite, one can notice that the next three dimensions of experience , proficiency and mastery/expertise are rather an example for possible categories than a final and comprehensive set. For instance, experience dimension could have a binary distinguishment, too: experienced or non-experienced. But quantification of the relevant experience contributes to a wider range of possible operations with competence models. For instance, number of executed tasks’ repetitions allows an estimation of how long it would take a worker to execute the same type of tasks (Korytkowski, 2017 ). But how much one should be experienced in months, years, or acquired licences is determined by the “owners” of a certain competence management process, same as with proficiency and expertise dimensions described by previously defined scales.

The conceptual label of Intended Purpose shows how both the models of competence structures, and the levels interact with each other to produce certain outcomes of a competence (management) system. The dimensions here are described rather by examples than characteristics, which are certainly not “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive” (Nickerson et al., 2013 ). Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate how powerful the competence models could be in addressing diverse issues in training, assessment, and resources allocation. The examples are interrelated in the purposes they address; that is to say, when a profile of a certain occupational role is captured, it can be used not only for standardisation but also for further assessment and training. For instance, one can check which competence sub-constructs are expected to be in place for the next level, and by training of which resources (s. sub-constructs dimension) this next level can be reached.

Reflecting on the derived taxonomy of competence models, we perceive the conceptual labels, dimensions, and respective characteristics as well-developed based on the integrative literature review. Nonetheless, the characteristics might be incomplete and sometimes serving as example on how to characterize a certain aspect of a competence model. Being a work-in-progress, this taxonomy synthesises the findings derived from the selected papers, during development of which several ambiguous competence concepts could be clarified. Even though the taxonomy should be validated and elaborated, as described in the next concluding chapter, it can be already used as a competence vocabulary or a checklist on available competence characteristics, and/or a tool, supporting competence model development.

5 Conclusions

5.1 summary.

This study provides a synthesis of retrieved competence models in the form of taxonomy based on an integrative literature review. On the way to this taxonomy, two other outcomes have evolved: an overview of competence models, formally describing and capturing competence profiles, and a working definition of a competence construct, model, and framework. The overview is useful by its own since it summarises competence models addressing various purposes in different research areas and ways of competence sub-constructs operationalisation; in addition, this summary shows how differently the competence models are approached and respectively labelled by authors. To address this ambiguity, a working definition of competence models and frameworks, as well as the taxonomy itself, had been developed, mostly operating with definitions of “models of competence structures”, “models of competence levels”, and those taken from philosophy of science body of knowledge. The latter one had to be consulted to reduce the bias and subjectivity in selecting the conceptual labels, as part of the taxonomy development process.

The first research question was about models of formally captured competences – what they are, and which types of these models exist in a recent literature. The overview of competence models (Table  2 ) has summarised recently developed models, the working definition in sub-chapter 3.1 clarified the difference between competence models and frameworks from the philosophy-of-science point of view, and finally, the taxonomy categorised the models in several dimensions.

The second research question inquired on similar taxonomies or typologies of competence models, which are already available and validated; and if not – how such taxonomy may look like. A rapid review at the beginning of the study, the integrative literature review method together with the exhaustive search and systematic selection processes have confirmed that there were no similar taxonomies already available in the relevant body of knowledge. Therefore, a new taxonomy ab initio was developed based on the critical analysis and synthesis approaches, and considerations from philosophy of science while creating relevant conceptual labels.

The third and last research question was devoted to characteristics and features of the (retrieved) competence models in respect to application and operationalisation scenarios. This question was covered by the taxonomy itself, which is discussed in detail in sub-chapter 3.2, where the conceptual labels cover the operational aspects of the models. Especially, the Intended Purpose conceptual label, as already highlighted above, can be considered as an outcome of the competence system, which evolves by merging two types of competence models, namely structures and levels, to enable certain application scenarios. Unfortunately, such fast evolving applications are rather driven by acceleration of digital technologies than by sound, well-established and contemporary competence research. This demand was proven during the study and respectively addressed by synthesizing operational characteristics of recently developed models of competence. All involved stakeholders are highly encouraged first to follow the patterns of deep, theoretical research on competences, and only then take an advantage of available technologies. Such a conscious approach towards digital processing of individual competence profiles will advance a proper development of educational eco-systems.

5.2 Limitations and future research

The selected framework for taxonomy development assumes an iterative approach, which was not fully addressed by this study. This step, as well as additional literature research on every dimension of the taxonomy, would improve the content validity of the taxonomy. It will make the taxonomy a more generalised and complete tool, characterising any competence model in given dimensions and taxa. Another approach could involve expert reviews as it was done by Tett et al. ( 2000 ) or application of case studies as performed by Fuchs et al. ( 2019 ). In case of the latter approach, a formally captured competence profile could be tested by the taxonomy-based description. This will make the taxonomy an empirically tested research outcome.

The next two limitations are related to the methodology applied: to make this study feasible, a timeframe of the literature search was limited to six years, but it could consider more years, and additional data-driven approaches to filter the initially retrieved paper items. In addition, the taxonomy development method supposes a selection of characteristics, which are “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive”. For instance, the last dimension of training optimisation considers “learning personalisation” and “design of training/evaluation” characteristics, which do not obviously correspond this exclusive/exhaustive condition.

In addition to the generalisation and validation of the taxonomy, further research on competence models will focus on a comparative analysis of competence models to define requirements of a new or meta competence model. This step together with the development of “theoretically sound and empirically tested competence models” (Koeppen et al., 2008 ) are important and necessary endeavours to be taken to unpack a high potential of formalised competence profiles.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were generated in this study. Furthermore, primary and secondary sources supporting the findings of this study were all publicly available at the time of submission.

Antera, S. (2021). Professional competence of vocational teachers: A conceptual review. Vocations and Learning, 14 (3), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09271-7

Article   Google Scholar  

Baaken, T., Kiel, B., & Kliewe, T. (2015). Real world projects with companies supporting competence development in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education , 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p129

Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An Introduction to classification techniques . SAGE Publications, Inc.

Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., & Beekhuyzen, J. (2015). Achieving rigor in literature reviews: Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 37 , 154–204. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03708

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bohlouli, M., Ansari, F., Kakarontzas, G., & Angelis, L. (2015). An adaptive model for competences assessment of it professionals. In M. Fathi (Ed.), Integrated systems: Innovations and applications (pp. 91–110). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15898-3_6

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of professional competence background to research and need for a model. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20 (5), 20–30.

de Los Ríos, I., Cazorla, A., Díaz-Puente, J. M., & Yagüe, J. L. (2010). Project-based learning in engineering higher education: Two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.202

Deardorff, D. K. (2015). Intercultural competence: Mapping the future research agenda. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48 (2015), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.002

Doty, D. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 230–251.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Dresch, A., Pacheco Lacerda, D., & Valle Antunes Jr., J. A. (2015). Design science research: A method for science and technology advancement . Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07374-3

Engel, R. J., & Schutt, R. K. (2014). Conceptualization and measurement. In Fundamentals of social work research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

European Commission. (2014). e-Skills: The International dimension and the Impact of Globalisation: Final Report . Retrieved July 10, 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/6841?locale=en

Fuchs, C., Barthel, P., Herberg, I., Berger, M., & Hess, T. (2019). Characterizing approaches to digital transformation: Development of a taxonomy of digital units. 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik , pp 632–646. Retrieved August 10, 2023. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=wi2019

Gaeta, M., Orciuoli, F., Fenza, G., Mangione, G. R., & Ritrovato, P. (2012). A semantic approach for improving competence assessment in organizations. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2012 , 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2012.168

George, S. (2022). Competence & competency frameworks | factsheets | CIPD . Retrieved July 24, 2023. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/competency-factsheet/

Glaesser, J. (2019). Competence in educational theory and practice: A critical discussion. Oxford Review of Education, 45 (1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1493987

Hartig, J., & Klieme, E. (2006). In Schweizer, K. (Ed.), Competence and competence diagnosis (in German) (pp. 127–143). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33020-8_9

Harvard University.(2014). Competency Dictionary. https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Sites/HR/files/HarvardUniversity Competency Dictionary FY14 - final.pdf

Heller, J., Stefanutti, L., Anselmi, P., & Robusto, E. (2015). On the link between cognitive diagnostic models and knowledge space theory. Psychometrika, 80 (4), 995–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9457-x

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and Representation . 64 , 325–336. https://www.jstor.org/stable/188414

Keyton, J. (2015). Outcomes and the criterion problem in communication competence research. Communication Competence , 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110317459-024

Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42 (2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034

Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216 (2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61

L’Abate, L. (2013). The meaning of constructs. In L’Abate, L. (Ed.), Beyond the systems paradigm. springerbriefs in psychology (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7444-9_1

Le Boterf, G. (2008). Rethinking competence. Going beyond conventional wisdom: fifteen proposals (in French) . Groupe Eyrolles: Editions d’Organisations.

Le Deist, F. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource Development International, 8 (1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000338227

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Luiz Neto, A., da Silva, L. F., & Penha, R. (2022). Sandbox of competence: A conceptual model for assessing professional competence. Administrative Sciences , 12 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ADMSCI12040182

Marrelli, A. F., Tondora, J., & Hoge, M. A. (2005). Strategies for developing competency models. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 32 (5–6), 533–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-005-3264-0

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “Intelligence.” American Psychologist, 28 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034092

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society , 19 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

Mikhridinova, N., Ngereja, B. J., Hussein, B., Van Petegem, W., Otegi-Olaso, J. R., & Wolff, C. (2022). Competence-based support for project-based learning in virtual settings. In Proceedings of ICL2022 – 25th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (Vol. 3, Issue September). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9

Moolman, H. (2017). A conceptual competence-based framework for enhancing the employability of graduates. The Journal of Independent Teaching and Learning, 12 (2), 26–43.

Murawski, M., & Bick, M. (2017). Digital competences of the workforce – a research topic? Business Process Management Journal, 23 (3), 721–734. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2016-0126

Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (3), 336–359. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26

Nijhuis, S. A., Vrijhoef, R., & Kessels, J. W. M. (2015). Towards a taxonomy for Project Management competences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 194 , 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.132

Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2012). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824

Robin, W., & Kathleen, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Saunders, M. A., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (6th ed.). Pearson.

Schoon, I. (2021). Towards an integrative taxonomy of social-emotional competences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.515313

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Seemiller, C., & Whitney, R. (2019). Creating a taxonomy of leadership competency development. Journal of Leadership Education , 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.12806/v19/i1/r5

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104 , 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance . Wiley John + Sons.

Stahl, J., & Luczak, H. (2000). Personnel planning in concurrent engineering: A case study. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10 (1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6564(200024)10:1%3c23::AID-HFM2%3e3.0.CO;2-S

Stenner, A. J., & Rohlf, R. J. (2023). Construct definition methodology and generalizability theory applied to career education measurement. In W. P. Fisher Jr. & P. J. Massengill (Eds.), Explanatory models, unit standards, and personalized learning in educational measurement: Selected Papers by A. Jackson Stenner (pp. 17–30). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3747-7_2

Stevahn, L., King, J. A., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26 (1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273180

Stevens, G. W. (2013). A critical review of the science and practice of competency modeling. Human Resource Development Review, 12 (1), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312456690

Stiftung Umweltbildung Schweiz. (2014). Position paper of the conference for environmental education (in German) . Retrieved July 10, 2023. https://education21.ch/sites/default/files/uploads/pdf-d/bne/dossiers_zugaenge/2011_FUB-REE_Positionspapier-Umweltbildung.pdf

Tang, R. (2023). Harnessing Insights with NVivo. In Okoko, J.M., Tunison, S., Walker, K.D. (Eds.), Varieties of qualitative research methods: Selected contextual perspectives (pp. 209–215). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_34

Teodorescu, T. (2006). Competence versus competency: What is the difference? Performance Improvement, 45 (10), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.027

Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a “Hyperdimensional” taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance, 13 (3), 205–251. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_1

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration. (2023). The O*NET® content model . Retrieved July 10, 2023. https://www.onetcenter.org/content.html

Vare, P., Lausselet, N., & Rieckmann, M. (Eds.). (2022). Competences in education for sustainable development: Critical Perspectives (1st ed.). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91055-6

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66 (5), 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934

Winterton, J. (2009). Competence across Europe: Highest common factor or lowest common denominator? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33 (8), 681–700. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590910993571

Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F., & Stringfellow, E. (2006). Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: Clarification of the concept and prototype. In Cedefop reference series . Retrieved July 10, 2023. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/3048_en.pdf

Surveyed Articles

Bohlouli, M., Mittas, N., Kakarontzas, G., Theodosiou, T., Angelis, L., & Fathi, M. (2017). Competence assessment as an expert system for human resource management: A mathematical approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 70 , 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.046

Child, S. F. J., & Shaw, S. D. (2020). A purpose-led approach towards the development of competency frameworks. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44 (8), 1143–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1669773

Costa, C., & Santos, M. Y. (2017). The data scientist profile and its representativeness in the european e-competence framework and the skills framework for the information age. International Journal of Information Management, 37 (6), 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.010

D’Aniello, G., Gaeta, M., Lepore, M., & Perone, M. (2021). Knowledge-driven fuzzy consensus model for team formation. Expert Systems with Applications , 184 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115522

El Asame, M., & Wakrim, M. (2018). Towards a competency model: A review of the literature and the competency standards. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (1), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9596-z

Feng, Y., & Richards, L. (2018). A review of digital curation professional competencies: Theory and current practices. Records Management Journal, 28 (1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-09-2016-0022

Fernández-Sanz, L., Gómez-Pérez, J., & Castillo-Martínez, A. (2017). e-Skills match: A framework for mapping and integrating the main skills, knowledge and competence standards and models for ICT occupations. Computer Standards & Interfaces , 51 , 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.11.004

Gaeta, M., Marzano, A., Miranda, S., & Sandkuhl, K. (2017). The competence management to improve the learning engagement. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 8 (3), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-016-0399-7

Gasmi, H., & Bouras, A. (2017). Ontology-based education/industry collaboration system. IEEE Access, 6 , 1362–1371. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2778879

Heller, J., Anselmi, P., Stefanutti, L., & Robusto, E. (2017). A necessary and sufficient condition for unique skill assessment. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 79 , 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.05.004

Korytkowski, P. (2017). Competences-based performance model of multi-skilled workers with learning and forgetting. Expert Systems with Applications, 77 , 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.004

Li, Y., Sun, T., Shou, Y., & Sun, H. (2020). What makes a competent international project manager in emerging and developing countries? Project Management Journal, 51 (2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820901387

Ma, H., Lin, L., Zhang, S., Lei, L., Huang, J., Lu, F., & Luo, Y. (2021). Exploring competencies of military nurses in general hospitals in China: A qualitative content analysis. BMC Nurs, 20 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00673-5

Nguyen, A. T. (2022). Industry 4.0 competencies: a model for the Vietnamese workforce. Industrial and Commercial Training , 54 (2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-08-2021-0057

Paquette, G., Marino, O., & Bejaoui, R. (2021). A new competency ontology for learning environments personalization. Smart Learning Environments , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00160-z

Salman, M., Ganie, S. A., & Saleem, I. (2020). The concept of competence: A thematic review and discussion. European Journal of Training and Development, 44 (6–7), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2019-0171

Schulze, J., Schultze, M., West, S. G., & Krumm, S. (2017). The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required for face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: similar or distinct constructs? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32 (3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9465-6

Shum, C., Gatling, A., & Shoemaker, S. (2018). A model of hospitality leadership competency for frontline and director-level managers: Which competencies matter more? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74 , 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.002

Song, Y., Chun, D., Xiong, P., & Wang, X. (2022). Construction of talent competency model for senior care professionals in intelligent institutions. Healthcare (Switzerland), 10 (5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050914

Suhairom, N., Musta’amal, A. H., Mohd Amin, N. F., Kamin, Y., & Abdul Wahid, N. H. (2019). Quality culinary workforce competencies for sustainable career development among culinary professionals. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 81 , 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.010

Uhm, M., Lee, G., & Jeon, B. (2017). An analysis of BIM jobs and competencies based on the use of terms in the industry. Automation in Construction , 81 , 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.002

von Treuer, K. M., & Reynolds, N. (2017). A Competency Model of Psychology Practice: Articulating Complex Skills and Practices. Frontiers in Education , 2 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00054

Wilhelm, S., Förster, R., & Zimmermann, A. B. (2019). Implementing competence orientation: Towards constructively aligned education for sustainable development in university-level teaching-and-learning. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071891

Zandbergs, U., Grundspeņķis, J., Judrups, J., & Briķe, S. (2019). Development of ontology based competence management model for non-formal education services. Applied Computer Systems, 24 (2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.2478/acss-2019-0014

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Nargiza Mikhridinova & Wim Van Petegem

Fachhochschule Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

Nargiza Mikhridinova & Carsten Wolff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nargiza Mikhridinova .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mikhridinova, N., Wolff, C. & Van Petegem, W. Taxonomy of competence models based on an integrative literature review. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12463-y

Download citation

Received : 03 October 2023

Accepted : 15 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12463-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Competence Model
  • Integrative Literature Review
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. How to write a literature review in research paper

    literature review overview

  2. Overview of literature review.

    literature review overview

  3. Helping You in Writing a Literature Review Immaculately

    literature review overview

  4. 😱 Sample of review of literature. Sample format of a literature review

    literature review overview

  5. 15 Literature Review Examples (2024)

    literature review overview

  6. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    literature review overview

VIDEO

  1. Review of literature

  2. Part 2 Writing the Review of Literature

  3. Writing a Literature Review

  4. 1) DW Chapter 2 Overview

  5. Effective Review of Literature

  6. Writing Literature review on history 2024

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write a Literature Review

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

  2. Writing a Literature Review

    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).

  3. Literature Reviews

    A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.

  4. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines

    Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines Add to Mendeley https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Knowledge production within the field of business research is accelerating at a tremendous speed while at the same time remaining fragmented and interdisciplinary.

  5. 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

  6. What is a Literature Review?

    A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the ...

  7. What is a literature review?

    A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations.

  8. Overview

    A literature review synthesizes scholarly literature on a topic by evaluating a selection of sources. It describes common themes, but must also demonstrate the author's understanding of the literature through critical analysis, as well as identify gaps and/or controversies in the research. The Basics of a Literature Review. (2014).

  9. Literature Review Overview

    A literary review - a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work. A book review - a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book. Sources: Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners The UNC Writing Center - Literature Reviews

  10. Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide

    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).

  11. Getting started

    What is a literature review? 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 ...

  12. Writing a Literature Review

    A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that provides an overview of a particular topic. Literature reviews are a collection of the most relevant and significant publications regarding that topic in order to provide a comprehensive look at what has been said on the topic and by whom. The basic components of a literature review include:

  13. 5. The Literature Review

    Definition 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.

  14. How to Write a Literature Review

    A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually.

  15. Literature Review

    Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...

  16. Literature Review Overview

    A literature review ought to be a clear, concise synthesis of relevant information. A literature review should introduce the study it precedes and show how that study fits into topically related studies that already exist. Structurally, a literature review ought to be something like a funnel: start by addressing the topic broadly and gradually ...

  17. How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template)

    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.

  18. Video: Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

    What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? Find out here Transcript Video added on January 15, 2020 Credits Eleanor Smith: Content development, scripting Kim Duckett: Screencasting, editing Sarah Bankston: Narration Dr. John Classen: Scripting, narration

  19. How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)

    Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic. Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these. Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one) Inform your own methodology and research design. To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure.

  20. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

    Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .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 .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...

  21. Writing a literature review

    Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...

  22. Literature review

    A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article.

  23. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews

    The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples f...

  24. What is a Literature Review?

    This excellent overview of the literature review explains what a literature review and outlines processes and best practices for doing one. It includes input from an NCSU professor on what a literature review is and what it should do. (Shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US license, attributed to North Carolina State University Libraries).

  25. Evidence Syntheses and Systematic Reviews: Overview

    Usually narrative summary, tables: Scoping review or systematic map(?) Seeks to identify gaps, trends, themes, and opportunities for evidence synthesis on a broad topic: ... Narrative literature review: Standalone review (not to be confused with a literature review in an empirical study), may be broad or focused, represents a range of levels of ...

  26. PDF Literature Review: An Overview

    Literature Review: An Overview Having happily found a suitable topic, the beginning researcher is usually "raring to go." Too often the review of related literature is seen as a necessary evil to be completed as fast as possible so that that one can get on with the "real research." This perspective is due to a

  27. Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Concept Mapping

    A concept map or mind map is a visual representation of knowledge that illustrates relationships between concepts or ideas. It is a tool for organizing and representing information in a hierarchical and interconnected manner. At its core, a concept map consists of nodes, which represent individual concepts or ideas, and links, which depict the relationships between these concepts.

  28. Taxonomy of competence models based on an integrative literature review

    An individual competence is one of the main human resources, which enables a person to operate in everyday life. A competence profile, formally captured and described as a structured model, may enable various operations, e.g., a more precise evaluation and closure of a training gap. Such application scenarios supported by information systems are particularly compelling for the era of ...