definition of literature review in sociology

University Library

• Research Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Books, Encyclopedias, & Media
• Articles & Databases
• Methods/Stats/Datasets
• Annotated Bibliographies
• APA 6th Edition
• Majors, Minors, and Careers in Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

The scholarly conversation.

A literature review provides an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic. It allows the author to synthesize and place into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic. It helps map the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns. It forms the foundation for the author’s subsequent research and justifies the significance of the new investigation.

A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research.

• The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.
• The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.
• In the body of the review, the author should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups, the author can then discuss the merits of each article and analyze and compare the importance of each article to similar ones.
• The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.
• The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the literature review.

Key Questions for a Literature Review

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

• Who are the key researchers on this topic?
• What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?
• How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?
• Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?
• Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?
• How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?
• Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?
• How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation ?

Examples of Literature Reviews

Example of a literature review at the beginning of an article: Forbes, C. C., Blanchard, C. M., Mummery, W. K., & Courneya, K. S. (2015, March). Prevalence and correlates of strength exercise among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors . Oncology Nursing Forum, 42(2), 118+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=sonomacsu&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA422059606&asid=27e45873fddc413ac1bebbc129f7649c Example of a comprehensive review of the literature: Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature.   British Journal Of Nursing ,  25 (6), 303-306. For additional examples, see:

Galvan, J., Galvan, M., & ProQuest. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.). [Electronic book]

Pan, M., & Lopez, M. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. [ Q180.55.E9 P36 2008]

Useful Links

• Write a Literature Review (UCSC)
• Literature Reviews (Purdue)
• Literature Reviews: overview (UNC)
• Review of Literature (UW-Madison)

Evidence Matrix for Literature Reviews

The  Evidence Matrix  can help you  organize your research  before writing your lit review.  Use it to  identify patterns  and commonalities in the articles you have found--similar methodologies ?  common  theoretical frameworks ? It helps you make sure that all your major concepts covered. It also helps you see how your research fits into the context  of the overall topic.

• Evidence Matrix Special thanks to Dr. Cindy Stearns, SSU Sociology Dept, for permission to use this Matrix as an example.
• << Previous: Methods/Stats/Datasets
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/sociology

• Brandeis Library
• Research Guides

Doing a Literature Review in Sociology

Introduction, early in the process, during data analysis, getting ready to write, before submitting the paper.

• Searching: Early in the Process
• Organizing: Getting Ready to Write

Top Journals & Publishers

Recommended Journals

• American Journal of Sociology Published by University of Chicago Press, available through JSTOR
• American Sociological Review Published by the American Sociological Association, available through SAGE Journals database
• Annual Review of Sociology Published by Annual Reviews, available through Brandeis subscription to the Annual Reviews website
• Social Forces Published by Oxford University Press, most recent issues (2000-present) available through Project Muse database
• Social Problems Published by Oxford University Press, available through Brandeis subscription to Oxford University Press website
• Theory & Society Published by Springer, available through Brandeis's subscription to Springer Standard Collection

Recommended Publishers

Found a good book that we don't own?  Contact  [email protected]  to request a library purchase! 

A literature review helps you figure out what scholars, what studies, and what questions your project is in conversation with. It typically happens in stages throughout the life of your project – it is not something you do once and are then finished with!

This guide explores how to think about and do a literature review at four different stages of a project. On this page, Professor Wendy Cadge suggests how to think about each step. Get specific advice on strategies for searching and organizing on the subsequent pages of this guide.

​Wendy's Process

The first time I do a literature review is when I am thinking about possible research topics and questions and want to know what people have written about these questions and what they have found. I search the topics and questions broadly aiming to get a relatively comprehensive sense of what is known about my topic and whether there is space for another study that is going to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. I am trying to figure out both who is in this conversation (what scholars specifically but also in what fields), what they are talking about, and what is known and not known according to these experts.

The goal here is to figure out whether my study will be new and relevant and whether there is a way to motivate it both empirically and theoretically for the audience I am thinking of. I need this answer to be yes in order to proceed with the process.

As I do this initial literature review I am also refining my research question, asking myself whether it makes sense, how it relates to the ways others have approached my topic, etc. Often questions are too big (they will require thousands of pages to answer) or too small (you don’t need an empirical study to answer them) so I am also trying to get my question to be the right size as I do this first review.

My search strategies are as follows   Google Scholar and Sociological Abstracts with key terms, and focus on books published by major presses and articles in well-known journals. When I get hits I sort them into groups based on what they are - materials by sociologists, by other academics, by journalists, etc. I only read things that are published (no conference papers!) and read books in the top academic presses first (Chicago, UC Berkeley, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge) and things in well-known sociology journals. (See the box to the left for links to these journals.) Depending on the topic, I may read a lot written by non-sociologists to learn more . I read almost nothing in the popular media on the first go through.

I also don’t “read” everything - I skim books and read article abstracts to get an overview. The goal is to write 5-6 double spaced pages about what is known and what my study might add. I also want to have a set of more specific search terms and author names to search later. Typically I am mostly reviewing the sociology literature to think about how to fit this into a social science frame while also separating out “primary sources” to read later. These other sources about my topic include data (like government reports, statistical information etc.), which will be analyzed later rather than used for sociological framing.

Before I start collecting data I check with various colleagues to make sure my assessment of the literature and the place of my study in it (my 5-6 page document) makes sense and is convincing (i.e., I don’t want to waste my time gathering data to answer a question that people either don’t think is interesting, has already been answered in the literature, or isn’t going to add anything new and significant to the conversation. I don’t want to be the dud at the dinner party who is saying something people already know or doesn’t have anything to say.

Themes typically emerge in the process of analyzing the data that require me to revisit what I think I know about my topic and question from the literature. This is usually the place where I am trying to figure out what my empirical and theoretical arguments are. Often I have ideas about what my theoretical hooks or arguments might be but they come from other literatures, scholars or friends working in different parts of sociology, etc. This is often where I go back to the literature (via Annual Review articles and searches) to see how people have used certain concepts and to see if those concepts might help me articulate what I am finding. I also read the key empirical articles cited in the Annual Review articles to see how what I am finding is similar to and different from what others know and how I can relate to those studies with my data.

Search strategies Google scholar and Sociological Abstracts, Annual review articles, asking people who know the discipline better than I do where to go to learn about concept x or y. At this point I’m looking for ideas as I read that will help me make and articulate whatever arguments might be supported by my data.

By the time I finish this step I have a good sense of what my findings and argument are and how they fit i nto the existing conversation / literature.

If I have done the above two steps well, I probably have an outline by now that lays out what I think my findings are and how I am going to situate them and motivate them in existing literatures. Before I start to write I read through my entire Endnote database and I put citations and notes in the outline that will help me make certain points. If I see holes or don’t feel like the outline is tight enough I do more lit review at this point to help me situate my question as tightly as possible in existing literature. While articles are written in a way that makes it look like you do the lit review, then the data collection and analysis, then articulate the findings, etc. this is actually iterative for me through the whole process.

For more information on EndNote and other citation management software like Zotero, see the Organizing section of this guide .

Search strategies The same as what’s outlined above. Part of the trick here though is knowing when to stop searching and start writing! I try to start writing before I feel like I am finished reading because I will discover as I write what is missing and will go back and fill it in.

I have friends and colleagues read my paper and give me feedback. If this is going to a journal I look at the editorial board and make sure I have engaged with the ideas of any scholars on the editorial board that are relevant as these people are likely to be reviewers . I also always fill in a lot of citations after the article is drafted so I can see it as a whole and see what is and is not needed to make the argument more compelling.

Search strategies This is when I am looking up certain people usually on the web to see if I read relevant publications or am searching for a particular article. If I know I need some citations about a certain topic to support a point, this is also when I find them. This is usually the easiest part of the process.

• Next: Searching: Early in the Process >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 1:25 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.brandeis.edu/soclitreviews

How to write Literature Review: Explained with Examples

There is hardly any topic left in this time and age that has not been researched, discussed, or written. Therefore, while computing any academic paper (such as term paper, dissertation , etc.), you will encounter multiple works along the same line. When you read these already published works and use them to further your research, that is when and where a literature review is needed. Writing a literature review is an essential part of academic writing. You cannot claim ideas to be your original ideas when they already exist out there. Therefore, to give due credit to those people and the work who inspired you and/or helped you complete your research is the aim of a literature review. Thus, a review of existing literature allows you to tell your audience the pretext and the context of your work and place it in the current dialogue.

This article will talk about different types of literature reviews and how to write one. We will allocate necessary examples whenever it is necessary for better understanding.

Types of Literature Review

Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review is the most traditional literature review. Here the aim is to summarize and critique the body of literature you’re studying. A narrative review can also be used to establish conclusions and identify gaps in the border study. To perform a narrative review, you should have an exact research question or hypothesis to know exactly what you’re looking for.

Systematic Literature Review

Compared to other forms of literature, the systematic literature review is the more stringent one. It has a well-defined strategy that can be further divided into two types: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. 

Meta-analysis: In a meta-analysis review, you combine the results of multiple research on the same topic and then statistically analyze them. It identifies links and patterns and reaches a cohesive conclusion.

Meta-Synthesis: Opposing to meta-analysis, the meta-synthesis approach is based on procedures that are not statistical. This method combines analyses and interprets the results of several qualitative research projects. It is often used when conducting inductive research.

Argumentative Literature Review

As the name suggests, an argumentative review is done to either support or contradict an argument. It is done to reflect on an already existing assumption or a philosophical dilemma once again. However, there is a drawback of this approach in that it is mostly prejudiced in nature since the reviewer has already taken aside.

Integrative Literature Review

An integrative review examines and evaluates secondary sources. It aims to produce new frameworks and perspectives. The integrative literature review will be your only alternative if your research does not entail primary data collecting and analysis.

Theoretical Literature Review

Theoretical review is concerned with a body of knowledge accumulated in relation to a topic, concept, theory, or phenomenon. Theoretical literature reviews are useful for determining what ideas already exist, their relationships, and the extent to which existing theories have been studied and for generating new hypotheses to test.

Guide for writing the Literature Review

We cannot elaborate on all the various kinds of literature reviews in one article. Therefore we will focus on the narrative literature review and how to do it. Nonetheless, all the kinds of literature reviews are somewhat similar and follow the same outline.

Follow the steps listed below to write a splendid literature review:

• Start your Reading and Make Notes
• Plan your Review
• Write the Literature Review
• Recheck and Submit 

1.  Read and Make Notes

To be able to write a review, one needs to be well-read. Reading is the first step in the process of writing a literature review. You know what to read since you already know that topic and the themes you want to work on. Read around the various subtopics, examples, and contexts to build a holistic understanding of your topic. As you keep reading and researching, ensure that you maintain a record. A human brain can’t remember all that it reads. Therefore, it is imperative to make notes while reading for an extensive project like a literature review. We recommend that the best way to keep track of all the reading you have done is via maintaining an annotated bibliography.

An annotated bibliography is where you methodologically make notes. You keep a record of the author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, main argument, examples or sub-arguments, conclusion, and keywords.

A few resources from where you can read and research:

Few sites where you can maintain an annotated bibliography:

• Google Docs OR Word Document
• Google Sheets OR Excel
• Physically in a notebook or placards

2.  Planning

This is the step where you determine which type of review you want to take up for your academic work. You should make a rough outline in this stage, signifying what you wish to cover in your review and how. The review can be either a single body or divided thematically or topically that is absolutely up to you. The purpose of the literature review should be clear- informing the reader about the pre-existing work that has already been done and how it helps your study.

Let us take the example that you are writing a dissertation on “How capital influences the process of Food Experimentation” .

As said above, in this article we will take up the example of Narrative Literature Review , which means that the following things need to be highlighted when you write the review:

• The summary or the main argument
• How to help you in your study
• Where are the research gaps

3.  Writing the Literature Review

      A Literature Review should have the following components:

• A title (subtitle optional)

The Main Body

• Bibliography

Title and Subtitle

The literature review should have the same title as your main project. The title should reflect what your project is about in the least numbers possible. Use a subtitle if necessary to make your title more reflective.

Keywords are essential while writing a review of the literature. Since it is a vast body of literature, citing the keywords initially gives the reader a sense of idea about what they are about to read. Keywords are those concepts, theories, and/or ideas recurring throughout your literature review and your research project. Restrict your keywords to 6 to 8 only so that you do not overwhelm the reader.

For example, the keywords for your literature review can be:

Food Experimentation, Social capital, Cultural capital, Economic capital

The main body is where you write the central portion of your review. You can either write a free-flowing body or divide it into themes and topics. Reiterating the main point once again, the aim is to produce a review that conveys how the existing piece of literature helps further your study. You can either explain each resource separately or try to club them together if they have the same argument. You have to elucidate the main argument of reading and its relevance to your study, no matter which method you choose. In the end, you should be able to find a research gap and use it to facilitate your academic work, such as term papers or dissertations.

If you plan to write a review where each paragraph talks about one essential reading that helped you, then you can write it in this manner:

Start your paragraph by writing a general or broad statement about food and its relationship with different capitals. Then cite the major work with proper reference. After that, state its main argument. You can even write multiple viewpoints if necessary. After this, explain how this reading has helped you formulate your argument.

You can extend upon these lines, taking them as your frame:

Talking about food cannot be done without talking about money. The economic condition of a person is one of the biggest factors in food consumption. The classical work of Pierre Bourdieu, Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction will be applied to study the impact of three types of Capital on food experimentation. Economic capital allocates the money, social capital allows the people to access various foods, and cultural capital informs a class of people more about emerging food practices than some other less unaware classes.

The last paragraph or the last few lines of your review should be reserved for elaborating on the research gap in the realm of your research topic. You also explain how you aim to fill this gap or contribute to the discipline in the long run through your project.

Make sure to cite and reference as you go properly. Literature review, in its essence, is secondary writing taken from other sources; therefore, not referencing your work will lead to large amounts of plagiarism.

4.  Last Checks

The last step is to leave your work for a while. Take a breather and refresh your mind. Revisit your review again after this break, and then look at it from three perspectives to get the perfect version to submit. For the first perspective, put yourself in the shoes of an editor. Search and cull out grammatical mistakes and/or spelling errors. For the second revision, be yourself again and see if you’ve missed something or misinterpreted something. Lastly, look at the review from the reader’s point of view and eliminate any unnecessary jargon that does not add to your review’s quality. Once you have looked at your literature review from every possible angle, submit it and take a breath of relief.

Learn: How to Write Coursework?

Hello! Eiti is a budding sociologist whose passion lies in reading, researching, and writing. She thrives on coffee, to-do lists, deadlines, and organization. Eiti's primary interest areas encompass food, gender, and academia.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Literature Review

28 The Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of everything that has been written about a particular topic, theory, or research question. The word “literature” means “sources of information”. The literature will inform you about the research that has already been conducted on your chosen subject. This is important because we do not want to repeat research that has already been done unless there is a good reason for doing so (i.e. there has been a new development in this area or testing a theory with a new population, or even just to see if the research can be reproduced).  Literature reviews usually serve as a background for a larger work (e.g. as part of a research proposal), or it may stand on its own. Much more than a simple list of sources, an effective literature review analyzes and synthesizes information about key themes or issues.

Purpose of a literature review

The literature review involves an extensive study of research publications, books and other documents related to the defined problem.  The study is important because it advises you, as a researcher, whether the problem you identified has already been solved by other researchers.  It also advises you as to the status of the problem, techniques that have been used by other researchers to investigate the problem, and other related details.

A literature review goes beyond the search for information and includes the identification and articulation of relationships between existing literature and your field of research. The literature review enables the researcher to discover what has been already been written about a topic and to understand the relationship between the various contributions. This will enable the researcher to determine the contributions of each sources (books, article, etc.) to the topic. Literature reviews also enable the researcher to identify and (if possible) resolve contradictions, and also determine research gaps and/or unanswered questions.

Even though the nature of the literature review may vary with different types of studies, the basic purposes remain constant and could be summarized as follows:

• Provide a context for your research;
• Justify the research you are proposing;
• Ensure that your proposed research has not been carried out by another person (and if you find it has, then your literature review should specify why replication is necessary);
• Show where your proposed research fits into the existing body of knowledge;
• Enable the researcher to learn from previous theory on the subject;
• Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously;
• Highlight flaws in previous research;
• Outline gaps in previous research;
• Show how your proposed research can add to the understanding and knowledge of the field;
• Help refine, refocus, or even move the topic in a new direction

What is involved in writing a literature review?

• Research – to discover what has been written about the topic;
• Critical Appraisal – to evaluate the literature, determine the relationship between the sources and ascertain what has been done already and what still needs to be done;
• Writing – to explain what you have found

Generally speaking, it is helpful to think of the literature review as a funnel.  One starts with a broad examination of the research related to the issue, working down to look at more specific aspects of the issue, which leads to the gap or the specific issue that your research will address.

How to undertake a literature review

The first step in undertaking a literature review is to conduct a library search of academic research that has been done on your topic.  This can be done electronically, or if you are within close vicinity to a library, you can go in and use their computers to find electronic and print holdings. You can also use Google Scholar for your search.  In some cases, research conducted outside academia can serve as an important research source for your literature review. Indeed, such research can have important practical implications, as opposed to academic research which usually (although not always) tends toward theoretical applications.

However, it is important to understand who funded the research you review, in addition to the perspective and the purpose of the research.  This is becoming an issue in Canada as universities and colleges increasingly turn to industry for research funding grants (see How TransAlta used a university-sanctioned research project to lobby for the coal industry ).

As part of this first step there are a few more some things to be thinking about as you review the literature, as follows:

• Who are the various researchers who have studied this topic?  Who are the most prolific researchers/writers on this topic? Has a specific researcher or teams of researchers been identified as pioneers or leaders in this field of study?
• How have the various researchers defined key terms that are relevant to your topic? Have the definitions of any of the key terms evolved over time?
• What are the different theories that have been examined and applied to this topic? How, if at all, have the various theories applied to this topic over time evolved?
• What methodologies have been used to study this topic?  Have the methodologies evolved over time?

In addition to thinking about these questions, you should be taking notes during this process. It can be helpful to keep these notes in an Excel file.  For example, your notes should include the following information:

• If the article is empirical, write down the results of the research study in one or two sentences of your own words. e.g. “people who are between ages 18 – 35 are more likely to own a smart phone than those above or below.”  It is also a good idea to make note of the methods, the research design, the number of participants and details on the sample used in the study. Sometimes, you may even want to write down the names of the statistical procedures used to analyze the data or even some of the statistics, depending on your assignment.
• If the article is a review of previous research, look for the main points. It may be helpful to read or skim the whole article, look away, and ask yourself what you felt was the main idea.
• Write down any limitations or gaps you notice, anything that seems to contradict something you read elsewhere, or just anything that you think is important or interesting (Adjei, n.d.)

When reading through your sources, remember that you are looking for the “big picture,” not a collection of random, separate articles (an annotated bibliography).  You are also not trying to prove a point (an essay). You are looking for common themes and patterns in the research as a whole. You are also looking to see how the various pieces of research are linked, if at all.  As part of this process, you also want to identify research gaps or areas that require further research related your topic (Adjei, n.d.). In this regard, you cannot be expected to be an expert on your topic. A suggestion for finding gaps is to read the conclusion section of the academic journal articles and conference proceedings your search has uncovered.  Researchers often identify gaps in the research in their conclusion. They may even suggest areas for future research. However, remember, if a researcher suggested a gap 10 years ago, it is likely that the gap has now been addressed. To find a gap, look at the most recent research your literature review has uncovered (within 2-3 years of the current date). At this point in your search of the literature, you may realize that your research question needs to change or adapt.  This is a fairly common occurrence, as when you first develop a research question, you cannot be sure what the status of the research area is, until you undertake your review of the literature related to this topic. Finally, it is worth mentioning that it is very likely you will not include all of the resources you have read in your literature review. If you are asked to include 20 resources in your literature review, for example, expect to read approximately 30.

How to write a literature review

There are three parts to the literature review: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion.  In the following paragraphs we outline what to include in each of these sections. This section concludes with a variety of resources for you to check out.

Introduction

• The introduction must identify the topic by briefly discussing the significance of the topic including a statement that outlines the conclusion to be drawn from the literature review.
• If your literature review is part of a larger work, explain the importance of the review to your research question.
• Defend the importance of the topic by giving a broad overview of the scope of the work you are reviewing. For example, if you are interested in post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in paramedics, you might provide some stats to prove how much work time is lost by those suffering from PTSD.
• Clarify whether you are looking at the entire history of the field, or just a particular period of time.
• Discuss and assess the research according to specific organizational principles (see examples below), rather than addressing each source separately. Most, if not all, paragraphs should discuss more than one source. Avoid addressing your sources alphabetically as this does not assist in developing the themes or key issues central to your review.
• Compare, contrast, and connect the various pieces of research. Much of the research you are reading should be connected.  Or you may notice various themes within the research (i.e. effects of PTSD on sick time, effects of PTSD on families of paramedics, effects of PTSD on overall paramedic wellness, etc.).  If you have undertaken a thorough review of the literature, you should start to see the bigger picture of how the research on this topic has evolved over time, who the main researchers are on this topic, how the methods and theories related to this topic have changed (if at all), over time.
• Summarize the works you are reviewing. Just as in any written assignment, use logical organization and clear transitions. Spend more time on the researchers and bodies of research that are considered most important in the field and/or that are most relevant.

Based upon your research, suggest where the research in the field will or should go next. If you are proposing your own research study, show how you will contribute to the field and fill in any gaps. The conclusion would also be a good place to defend the importance of the topic, now that you have demonstrated the current state of thinking in the field.

Other resources to help you write a literature review

In conclusion, there is a plethora of resources, both here and online, that provide information on how to write a literature review. For example, check out these three, very helpful YouTube videos prepared by a professor at the University of Maryland, in the U.S.A:

• The Literature Review, Part 1
• The Literature Review, Part 2
• The Literature Review, Part 3

Table 5.1 also provides some suggested organizational techniques, as well as instances when you might use these various techniques.  The table also provides a writing sample to demonstrate the writing technique.

And remember, most university and college libraries also have valuable information on literature reviews.  Here is the link to one such website: JIBC Literature Review information [PDF]

Acceptable sources for literature reviews

There are a few acceptable sources for literature reviews, and I will list these in order from what will be considered most acceptable to less acceptable sources for your literature review assignments, as follows:

• Peer reviewed journal articles;
• Edited academic books;
• Articles in professional journals;
• Statistical data from government websites;
• Website material from professional associations (use sparingly and carefully);

The following sections will explain and provide examples of these various sources.

Peer reviewed journal articles (papers)

A peer reviewed journal article is a paper that has been submitted to a scholarly journal, accepted, and published.  Peer review journal papers go through a rigorous, blind review process of peer review. What this means is that two to three experts in the area of research featured in the paper have reviewed and accepted the paper for publication. The names of the author(s) who are seeking to publish the research have been removed (blind review), so as to minimize any bias towards the authors of the research. Albeit, sometimes a savvy reviewer can discern who has done the research based upon previous publications, etc.  This blind review process can be long (often 12 to 18 months) that may involve many back and forth edits on the behalf of the researchers, as they work to address the edits and concerns of the peers who reviewed their paper. Often, reviewers will reject the paper for a variety of reasons, such as unclear or questionable methods, lack of contribution to the field, etc. Because peer reviewed journal articles have gone through a rigorous process of review, they are considered to be the premier source for research. Peer reviewed journal articles should serve as the foundation for your literature review.

The following website will provide more information on peer-reviewed journal articles: Evaluating Information Sources: What Is A Peer-Reviewed Article? Make sure you watch the little video on the upper left-hand side of your screen, in addition to reading the material.

Edited academic books

An edited academic book is a collection of scholarly scientific papers written by different authors. The works are original papers, not published elsewhere (Wikipedia, 2018).  The papers within the text also go through a process of review; however, the review is often not a blind review because the authors have been invited to contribute to the book. Consequently, edited academic books are fine to use for your literature review, but you also want to ensure that your literature review contains mostly peer reviewed journal papers.

Articles in professional journals.

Articles from professional journals should be used with caution, as far as it relates to a source for your literature review.  This is because articles in trade journals are not usually peer reviewed, even though they may appear as such. A good way to find out is to read the “About us” section of the professional journal.  They should state there if the papers are peer reviewed. You can also google the name of the journal and add peer reviewed to the search and you should be able to find out that way.

Statistical data from governmental websites.

Governmental websites can be excellent sources for statistical data.  For examples, Statistics Canada collects and publishes data related to the economy, society, and the environment.

Website material from professional associations

Material from other websites can also serve as a source for statistics that you may need for your literature review.  As you want to justify the value of the research you are interested in, you might make use of a professional association´s website to learn how many members they have, for example.  As a hypothetical example, you might want to demonstrate, as part of the introduction to your literature review, why more research on the topic of PTSD in police officers is important.  You could use peer reviewed journal articles to determine the prevalence of PTSD in police officers in Canada in the last ten years and then use the Ontario Police Officers´ Association website to determine the approximate number of police officers employed in the Province of Ontario over the last ten years. This might help you create an approximation of how many police officers could be suffering with PTSD in Ontario.  That number could potentially help to justify a research grand down the road. But again, this type of website-based material should be used with caution and sparingly.

Text Attributions

• This chapter has been adapted from Unit 2: Literature Review in  Research Methods by  Joseph K. Adjei. © Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License .

The Literature Review Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Sociology Research Guide

• Picking a topic
• Background research and finding books
• Advanced searching in databases and Google
• Finding statistics
• Evaluating sources
• Literature Reviews

What is a Lit Review?

How to write a lit review.

• Video Introduction to Lit Reviews

Main Objectives

Examples of lit reviews, additional resources.

• SOC1: Morales (Cultural Artifact)
• SOC4: Ie (Literature Review)

What is a literature review?

• Either a complete piece of writing unto itself or a section of a larger piece of writing like a book or article
• A thorough and critical look at the information and perspectives that other experts and scholars have written about a specific topic
• A way to give historical perspective on an issue and show how other researchers have addressed a problem
• An analysis of sources based on your own perspective on the topic
• Based on the most pertinent and significant research conducted in the field, both new and old

• A descriptive list or collection of summaries of other research without synthesis or analysis
• An annotated bibliography
• A literary review (a brief, critical discussion about the merits and weaknesses of a literary work such as a play, novel or a book of poems)
• Exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible
• To convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic
• To explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and those ideas might be
• To learn how others have defined and measured key concepts    
• To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments and historical trends in a particular field or discipline
• To establish context for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
• To provide evidence that may be used to support your own findings
• To demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
• To suggest previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, and quantitative and qualitative strategies
• To identify gaps in previous studies and flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches in order to avoid replication of mistakes
• To help the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research
• To suggest unexplored populations
• To determine whether past studies agree or disagree and identify strengths and weaknesses on both sides of a controversy in the literature

• Choose a topic that is interesting to you; this makes the research and writing process more enjoyable and rewarding.
• For a literature review, you'll also want to make sure that the topic you choose is one that other researchers have explored before so that you'll be able to find plenty of relevant sources to review.

• Your research doesn't need to be exhaustive. Pay careful attention to bibliographies. Focus on the most frequently cited literature about your topic and literature from the best known scholars in your field. Ask yourself: "Does this source make a significant contribution to the understanding of my topic?"
• Reading other literature reviews from your field may help you get ideas for themes to look for in your research. You can usually find some of these through the library databases by adding literature review as a keyword in your search.
• Start with the most recent publications and work backwards. This way, you ensure you have the most current information, and it becomes easier to identify the most seminal earlier sources by reviewing the material that current researchers are citing.

The organization of your lit review should be determined based on what you'd like to highlight from your research. Here are a few suggestions:

• Chronology : Discuss literature in chronological order of its writing/publication to demonstrate a change in trends over time or to detail a history of controversy in the field or of developments in the understanding of your topic.  
• Theme: Group your sources by subject or theme to show the variety of angles from which your topic has been studied. This works well if, for example, your goal is to identify an angle or subtopic that has so far been overlooked by researchers.  
• Methodology: Grouping your sources by methodology (for example, dividing the literature into qualitative vs. quantitative studies or grouping sources according to the populations studied) is useful for illustrating an overlooked population, an unused or underused methodology, or a flawed experimental technique.

• Be selective. Highlight only the most important and relevant points from a source in your review.
• Use quotes sparingly. Short quotes can help to emphasize a point, but thorough analysis of language from each source is generally unnecessary in a literature review.
• Synthesize your sources. Your goal is not to make a list of summaries of each source but to show how the sources relate to one another and to your own work.
• Make sure that your own voice and perspective remains front and center. Don't rely too heavily on summary or paraphrasing. For each source, draw a conclusion about how it relates to your own work or to the other literature on your topic.
• Be objective. When you identify a disagreement in the literature, be sure to represent both sides. Don't exclude a source simply on the basis that it does not support your own research hypothesis.
• At the end of your lit review, make suggestions for future research. What subjects, populations, methodologies, or theoretical lenses warrant further exploration? What common flaws or biases did you identify that could be corrected in future studies?

• Double check that you've correctly cited each of the sources you've used in the citation style requested by your professor (APA, MLA, etc.) and that your lit review is formatted according to the guidelines for that style.

Your literature review should:

• Be focused on and organized around your topic.
• Synthesize your research into a summary of what is and is not known about your topic.
• Identify any gaps or areas of controversy in the literature related to your topic.
• Suggest questions that require further research.
• Have your voice and perspective at the forefront rather than merely summarizing others' work.
• Cyberbullying: How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are Bullied
• Use of Propofol and Emergence Agitation in Children
• Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza's 'Ethics'
• Literature Review Tutorials and Samples - Wilson Library at University of La Verne
• Literature Reviews: Introduction - University Library at Georgia State
• Literature Reviews - The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review - Boston College Libraries
• Write a Literature Review - University Library at UC Santa Cruz
• << Previous: ASA Style
• Next: Course Pages >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 9:47 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.elac.edu/Sociology

MERRIMACK COLLEGE MCQUADE LIBRARY

• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Get Started
• Reference Sources
• Developing a Research Question
• Find Books / E-books / DVDs
• Find Articles
• Find Images / Art
• Find Video / Film
• Database Search Strategies
• Types of Resources

Writing a Literature Review (University Library, UC Santa Cruz)

"the literature" and "the review" (virginia commonwealth university).

• Evaluate Sources
• Cite Sources
• Annotated Bibliography
• SOC Websites
• SOC Organizations
• Government Resources

Additional Online Resources

• How to: Literature reviews The Writing Center, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• The Literature Review A basic overview of the literature review process. (Courtesy of Virginia Commonwealth University)
• The Process: Search, Assess, Summarize, Synthesize Getting Started: Assessing Sources/Creating a Matrix/Writing a Literature Review (Courtesy of Virginia Commonwealth University)
• Review of Literature The Writing Center @ Univeristy of Wisconsin - Madison
• Tools for Preparing Literature Reviews George Washington University
• Write a Literature Review University Library, UC Santa Cruz

Your SOC Librarian

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a  literature review  surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• 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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

  3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new  primary  scholarship.

• << Previous: Types of Resources
• Next: Evaluate Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 12:15 PM
• URL: https://libguides.merrimack.edu/sociology

Literature Reviews in Sociology

Literature reviews, literature review process.

• Keywords/ Search Terms
• Search Strategies
• Source Types & Uses
• Background & Topic Overviews
• Published Research (Article Databases)
• Grey Literature (Policies & Reports)
• Data & Statistics
• ASA Citation Style
• Research Support

Lit Review Tools

Synthesis templates.

Synthesis grids are organizational tools used to record the main concepts of your sources and can help you make connections about how your sources relate to one another.

• Source Template Basic Literature Review Source Template from Walden University Writing Center to help record the main findings and concepts from different articles.
• Sample Literature Review Grids This spreadsheet contains multiple tabs with different grid templates. Download or create your own copy to begin recording notes.

Citation Managers

There are many different citation management tools. This guide will give you information about three of them: RefWorks, Zotero, and Mendeley .

All citation managers let you:

• add citations from databases (PsycINFO; Web of Science; Academic Search Complete, etc)
• organize your citations
• add PDF files; annotate PDFs
• format citations in multiple citation styles
• format citations  in Microsoft Word to create bibliographies
• share your citations with colleagues / classmates
• Questions to Consider

The term " literature review"  refers to both your final product (part of an article or a stand-alone publication) and the process of conducting the review. 

"...one of the first steps in planning a research project is to do a literature review: that is, to trawl through all the available information sources to track down the latest knowledge, and to assess it for relevance, quality, controversy and gaps.

The review can be used to show where you have gained inspiration to develop your ideas...it should also demonstrate you have a good understanding of the current conceptual frameworks in your subject, and that you can take a stance in placing your work within these."

A literature review includes: 

• Research theory & philosophy - to establish the intellectual context(s) of research related to your topic/ research question. 
• History of developments in your subject - to trace the background to present day thinking.
• Latest research and developments in your subject - to inform and practice, to discuss the conflicting arguments, and to detect a gap in knowledge.
• Research methods - to explore practical techniques that have been used, particularly those that might be relevant to your project. 

From Walliman, Nicholas. 2018.  Research Methods : the Basics . Second edition. Abingdon, Oxon.

Transcript of this Graphic

Literature Search and review on your topic

Questions to ask: 

• What are the key sources?
• What are the key theories, concepts and ideas?
• What are the epistemological and ontological grounds for the discipline?
• What are the main questions and problems that have been addressed? 
• How is knowledge on the topic structures and organized
• What are the origins and definitions of the topic?
• What are the political standpoints?
• What are the major issues and debates about the topic?

How have approaches to these questions increased our understanding and knowledge? 

• Research Pathways
• Steps to a Successful Review
• Additional Guidance for Conducting Reviews

You will likely go through the search process a number of times, performing different searches with different keyword combinations, to address the different components of your literature review. 

What Makes a Successful Literature Review?

Here are eight steps toward completing a successful literature review.

• Search terms : Formulate appropriate search terms as the basis for your literature searches.
• Database search tools : Use database search tools to identify relevant journal articles and related materials.
• Key publications : Identify a series of key publications in your area and use these as the bases for citation reference searches.
• Web search tools : Use web search tools to identify pieces of interest, in particular grey literature, relevant to you.
• Scanning : Scan abstracts of articles, reviews of books, executive summaries of government reports, and other summaries of published work to determine if you need to read the piece in full.
• Reading : Read the pieces you have identified and make notes from them. A synthesis grid may be useful for note taking and for facilitating writing the review.
• Note, a chronological or methodological organization may align better with your research question.
• Writing the review: Write the review, based on the thematic organization, in such a way that you can construct one or more interesting research questions which you will address in your investigation.

From Byrne, D. (2017). What makes a successful literature review?.  Project Planner . 10.4135/9781526408518.

SAGE Research Methods  is a collection of resources and tools intended to assist researchers as they plan, conduct and analyze their research projects. Access these tools under Research Methods at the top of the SAGE Research Methods platform.

• Next: Keywords/ Search Terms >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 8:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/sociology-lit-reviews

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Scholarly Articles
• Books | Videos | More
• Data Sources
• Literature Reviews
• Digital Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is an essential component of every research project. It requires “re-viewing” what credible scholars in the field have said, done, and found in order to help you:

• Identify what is currently known in your area of interest
• Establish an empirical/ theoretical/ foundation for your research
• Identify potential gaps in knowledge that you might fill
• Develop viable research questions and hypotheses
• Determine appropriate methodologies
• Decide upon the scope of your research
• Demonstrate the importance of your research to the field
• VCU Libraries Guide: How to Write a Literature Review

Helpful Tools for Literature Reviews

• Academic Phrasebank Examples of common phrases used in literature reviews and reports of research findings. The items in the Academic Phrasebank are mostly content neutral and generic in nature; in using them, therefore, you are not stealing other people’s ideas and this does not constitute plagiarism.
• How to Read a Journal Article Tips and tricks to make reading and understanding social science journal articles easier from ICPSR.

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way. Because you'll be reading a number of resources, a synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

• Writing a Literature Review & Using a Synthesis Matrix
• Excel Matrix Customize columns to fit your needs
• << Previous: Data Sources
• Next: Digital Sociology >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 2:45 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/sociology

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

• Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
• Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
• Identifying the Research Topic
• The Persuasive Argument
• Searching the Literature
• Creating a Synthesis
• Critiquing the Literature
• Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
• Presenting the Literature Review

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Higher Education Research
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mixed Methods Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Politics of Education
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Black Women in Academia
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Research in Sociology

• Choosing a Topic
• Evaluating Sources
• Locating Print and eBooks
• Searching for Articles
• Government Documents
• Surveys and Polls
• Citations/Annotated Bibliography

How to use Scientific Articles in a Literature Review

Video explanations of a literature review, what is a literature review, types of literature reviews.

• Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, ..., but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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. (n.d). The literature review: A few tips on conducting it. Retrieved from  http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• 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 literature reviews are written?

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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

Meta-analysis - "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing resarch 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 occured in different studies." (p. 197)

-Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

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. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x

From University of Connecticut Library

Traditional or Narrative

• Provides background for understanding current knowledge
• Critiques, summarizes and draws conclusions from a body of knowledge
• Identifies gaps or inconsistencies to be filled or corrected through further research and study
• Helps to refine the topic and research question
• Carries the flaw of becoming less useful as more information becomes available
• Identifies, appraises and synthesizes available evidence in order to answer a specified research question
• Applies a more rigorous approach that details the time frame of selected literature and method of critique and analysis
• Uses explicit and well-defined methods in order to minimize bias and increase reliability
• Includes as comprehensive an amount of studies as possible that includes both published and unpublished findings, such as "grey literature"

Meta-Analysis

• Systematically locates, appraises and synthesizes data from a large body of findings using statistical analysis and techniques
• Similar to a systematic review in that it integrates the findings of a large body of knowledge
• Attempts to correct flaws of traditional or narrative reviews by allowing researchers to synthesize a greater amount of studies
• Integrates and draws conclusions on research findings and seeks to detect broad patterns and relationships between studies

Meta-Synthesis

• Attempts to bring together, juxtapose, re-analyze and combine findings from multiple qualitiative studies using non-statistical techniques
• Seeks to discover or provide new interpretations, conceptions or theoretical developments
• Combines multiple studies to identify common key themes and elements
• May use findings from phenomenological, grounded theory or ethnographic studies

Borenstein, M.H., Viggins, L.V. & Julian, P.T. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley

Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach . British Journal of Nursing, 17 (1), 38-43.

Glasziou, P. (2001). Systematic Reviews in Health Care : A Practical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mays, C., Popay, N. & Jennie (2007).  Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research : A Guide to Methods . Great Britain: Open University Press.

From Bow Valley College Library

• << Previous: Citations/Annotated Bibliography
• Next: RefWorks >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://lewisu.libguides.com/sociology

University Library

• Evaluating Sources
• Finding Articles
• Reference Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Structure & Resources
• Types of Scholarly Articles

Literature Reviews

• Empirical Studies
• Qualitative Methods
• Not sure what 'peer review' means?
• Citation Searching
• How to Avoid Plagiarism
• Citing with APA style
• Citing with ASA style
• Writing Guides & Help
• Recommended Websites
• Media Resources
• Sociological Data
• Google Scholar
• CSU+ & InterLibrary Loan

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an explanation of what has been published on a subject by recognized researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment (sometimes in the form of an annotated bibliography, but more often it is part of the introduction to a   research report, essay, thesis or dissertation.) Critical literature reviews help to write your literature review more effectively: A literature review must do these things: a. be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing b. synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known c. identify areas of controversy in the literature d. formulate questions that need further research Before writing literature review ask yourself questions like these:

1. What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my review of literature helps to define?

2. What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies )?

3. What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., management , organizational behavior, 

marketing)?

4. How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?

5. Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?

6. Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?

7. Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Tips on writing a literature review (Hart 1998)

Lit Review Tips

Search for the most recent articles that deal with your topic; many of them will summarize the prior literature in the area, saving you valuable time. Remember to attribute even if you paraphrase!

Literature reviews can be overwhelming. You can't find everything. Just find the literature that gets discussed the most or is most relevant to your topic.

The goal of the literature review is to show that you understand the 'bigger picture' and can put your research and recommendations in context of others working in the field.

Need help writing a literature review?

Writing Literature Reviews : A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences by Jose L. Galvan.

Library North 2nd floor

H 61.8 G34 2014

• << Previous: Types of Scholarly Articles
• Next: Empirical Studies >>
• Last Updated: May 21, 2024 4:36 PM
• URL: https://libguides.calstatela.edu/sociology1

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Sociology: lit reviews.

• Quick start
• Get Articles
• Lit Reviews
• Sociology 127: Development and Globalization
• Sociology of Emotions (Soc 190)

Literature Review

In a  literature review you explore research that has come before you and is relevant to your topic. It can help you identify:

• Core research in the field
• Experts in the subject area
• Methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• Gaps in the literature -- or where your research would fit in

Helpful approaches:

• See what literature reviews already exist on your topic! Databases like Oxford Bibliographies Online: Sociology and Sociological Abstracts (limit the document type to literature review) can save you a lot of time. Also don’t forget the Annual Review of Sociology , and the Proquest Dissertations and Theses database; these in-depth pieces usually have comprehensive lists of references.
• Citation slogging (aka "snowballing") -- work your way back through citations (or footnotes) to key articles
• Forward citation -- see who has cited key articles using  Google Scholar  and  Web of Science Cited Reference Search  . ​

Writing Guidelines:

• Start with Writing for Sociology  from the UC Berkeley Sociology Department—it’s packed with great content!
• A great overview of the entire process from the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• A piece from the blog Everyday Sociology on “ How (and Why) to Write a Literature Review ”

Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are not the same as literature reviews; instead, they can be considered an extremely rigorous subset of literature reviews.  Generally, systematic reviews take a team of professionals and one to two years to complete, and they usually can't be done for avenues of research which are newly being explored (there needs to be an established body of literature to examine).  This makes them very helpful resources if they exist for your topic of interest!

You may wish to peruse UCSF's  Systematic Review Guide  for information.

If you do decide to do a systematic review, UC Berkeley licenses  Covidence , a tool to help you. In Covidence, you can  import citations ,  screen titles and abstracts ,  upload references ,  screen full text ,  create forms for critical appraisal ,  perform risk of bias tables ,  complete data extraction , and  export a PRISMA flowchart  summarizing your review process. As an institutional member, our users have priority access to Covidence support.   To access Covidence using the UC Berkeley institutional account ,  start at this page  and follow the instructions.

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Synthesizing the literature

Now That You Have All Those Articles, How Do You Synthesize Them?

Unlike the annotated bibliography, the literature review does not just summarize each article or book. Instead, they synthesize. Some researchers find it helpful to develop a framework, making a column for each element that they want to compare. The elements vary depending on the research, making it easier to understand the relationships between  all  the articles and how they relate to your research. Here's  one example !

How To Organize and Cite Your Research

Citation management tools  help you manage your research, collect and cite sources, and create bibliographies in a variety of citation styles.  Each one has its strengths and weaknesses, but any are easier than doing it by hand! The Library offers   workshops  on Endnote, Zotero, and Refworks. I'm also happy to help arrange a small group workshop, or one on one help with Zotero. 

For more information on the various tools available, and more on Zotero, see the "Managing Citations" tab in this guide!

Find Dissertations

Dissertations and Theses (Dissertation Abstracts) Full Text : indexes dissertations from over 1,000 North American, and selected European, graduate schools and universities from 1861 to the present. Full text for most of the dissertations added since 1997.

UC Berkeley dissertations : Search UC Library Search  by author. Also helpful to see dissertations written in your department which you can do by doing a subject search:

• subject:  university of california berkeley dept of psychology dissertations
• subject:  dissertations academic ucb psychology

Recent UC Berkeley dissertations are freely available online to anyone, anywhere with access to the internet. Also see  Find Dissertations and Theses  for other specialized sources.

• << Previous: Data
• Next: Citations >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 2:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/soc

Penn State University Libraries

Soc 001: introductory sociology.

• Literature Reviews: Strategies for Writing
• Fake News and Evaluating Sources

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review? The literature review is a critical look at the existing research that is significant to the work that you are carrying out. This overview identifies prominent research trends in addition to assessing the overall strengths and weaknesses of the existing research.

Purpose of the Literature Review

• To provide background information about a research topic.
• To establish the importance of a topic.
• To demonstrate familiarity with a topic/problem.
• To “carve out a space” for further work and allow you to position yourself in a scholarly conversation.

Characteristics of an effective literature review In addition to fulfilling the purposes outlined above, an effective literature review provides a critical overview of existing research by

• Outlining important research trends.
• Assessing strengths and weaknesses (of individual studies as well the existing research as a whole).
• Identifying potential gaps in knowledge.
• Establishing a need for current and/or future research projects.

Steps of the Literature Review Process

1) Planning: identify the focus, type, scope and discipline of the review you intend to write. 2) Reading and Research: collect and read current research on your topic. Select only those sources that are most relevant to your project. 3) Analyzing: summarize, synthesize, critique, and compare your sources in order to assess the field of research as a whole. 4) Drafting: develop a thesis or claim to make about the existing research and decide how to organize your material. 5) Revising: revise and finalize the structural, stylistic, and grammatical issues of your paper.

This process is not always a linear process; depending on the size and scope of your literature review, you may find yourself returning to some of these steps repeatedly as you continue to focus your project.

These steps adapted from the full workshop offered by the Graduate Writing Center at Penn State. 

Literature Review Format

 Introduction

• Provide an overview of the topic, theme, or issue.
• Identify your specific area of focus.
• Describe your methodology and rationale. How did you decide which sources to include and which to exclude? Why? How is your review organized?
• Briefly discuss the overall trends in the published scholarship in this area.
•  Establish your reason for writing the review.
•  Find the best organizational method for your review.
•  Summarize sources by providing the most relevant information.
•  Respectfully and objectively critique and evaluate the studies.
•  Use direct quotations sparingly and only if appropriate.

 Conclusion

•  Summarize the major findings of the sources that you reviewed, remembering to keep the focus on your topic.
•  Evaluate the current state of scholarship in this area (ex. flaws or gaps in the research, inconsistencies in findings) 
•  Identify any areas for further research.
•  Conclude by making a connection between your topic and some larger area of study such as the discipline. 
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Fake News and Evaluating Sources >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2023 10:48 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/shenangosoc001

Sociology: Literature Reviews

• Useful Databases
• UK Government and Statistics
• Organisations/Other Resources
• Search Tips
• Literature Reviews
• Referencing
• Dissertations
• SPSS and other software
• Disability and health
• Other libraries
• Welcome to inter library loans
• Pre-Registration Students
• Post-Registration Students

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an evaluative report of information found in the literature related to your selected area of study. The review should describe, summarise, evaluate and clarify this literature. It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you  determine the nature of your research.

During the course of your studies you may be required to carry out a literature review on a specfic topic. A literature review will often form part of your dissertation.

For guidance on literature reviews in Criminology and the Social Sciences, see: Denney, A.S. and Tewksbury, R. (2013) ‘How to Write a Literature Review’, Journal of criminal justice education , 24(2), pp. 218–234. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.730617 .

Writing literature reviews

Emerald's "How to guides.." are very useful for help starting research, In particular their guide on literature reviews:  How to write a literature review.

The first step in your literature review is to carry out a  literature search .

You can also find support for writing literature reviews and developing academic writing on the LET web pages , and on the MyLearning page for your module.

Literature Reviews as a Research Method

While many studies include background literature reviews to gather existing evidence before undertaking their own primary data collection, others may use literature reviews as a method themselves. This involves critically appraising the available evidence already constructed on a topic and drawing conclusions, and is a type of secondary, or desk-based research. You may choose this method for your undergraduate or postgraduate dissertation.

Studies that use literature reviews as a method include:

• Narrative reviews  e.g. Kiriakidis, S.P. and Kavoura, A. (2010) ‘Cyberbullying: A Review of the Literature on Harassment Through the Internet and Other Electronic Means’, Family & Community Health , 33(2), pp. 82–93.
• Systematic reviews e.g. Higgs, T., Carter, A. J., Tully, R. J. and Browne, K. D. (2017) ‘Sexual murder typologies: A systematic review’, Aggression and Violent Behavior , 35, pp. 1–12.
• Rapid evidence assessments e.g. Hobson, J.. Twyman-Ghoshal, A., Ash, D. P., and Banwell-Moore, R. (2022) Metropolitan Police Service Restorative Justice Rapid Evidence Assessment for Violence Against Women and Girls and Youth Violence. Project Report. University of Gloucestershire.
• Meta-analysis e.g. Baranyi, G., Di Marco, M. H., Russ, T. C., Dibben, C. and Pearce, J. (2021) ‘The impact of neighbourhood crime on mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis’,  Social science & medicine , 282, pp. 114106–114106.

For more information on this topic, see Dr Myrna Papadouka's excellent workshop: Literature Reviews as a Research Method (MDX users only). This article also contains a useful summary of different types of reviews.

If you come across one of these published literature reviews in your own topic, you can use these to help you gather the existing evidence, before going on to conduct your own research.

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Search Tips
• Next: Referencing >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 2:55 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mdx.ac.uk/sociology

SOCIOL 495S: Sociology Honors Thesis Seminar

• Getting Started
• Writing Your Literature Review
• Finding Articles
• Finding General Data
• Finding Subject Specific Data
• Software Resources
• Citing Sources

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a “critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles” (University of Wisconsin Writing Center).

Do not confuse a literature review with an annotated bibliography.

Information for this page is taken from the Thompson Writing Program .

• The introduction should explain why you are writing the review (“so what/who cares?”) and make some central claims about the current state of the literature (e.g. trends, debates, gaps, etc.).
• Organize the body of the paper by common denominators among sources, such as methodologies, conclusions, philosophical approaches, or possibly chronology (assuming topical subsections)
• The conclusion should summarize significant contributions to the field, situate the reviewed literature in the larger context of the discipline, point out flaws or gaps in the research, and/or suggest future areas of study.

Lit Review Process

Literature Review Tutorial

Questions to Ask

• How are sources similar in terms of methodologies, philosophies, claims, choice and interpretation of evidence, reliability, etc.?
• How do they differ?
• Do you observe gaps in the research or areas that require further study?
• Do particular issues or problems stand out?
• Do you want to compare texts in general or hone in on a specific issue or question?
• Determine your purpose.Understanding the purpose and expectations of the prompt will help you place appropriate emphasis on analysis or summary.
• Keep track of sources by writing a brief summary for each.
• Consider making a table or chart to map how different sources relate to/contrast with one another.
• Consider the significance of each work to the field. The amount of space you dedicate to an individual source denotes its significance within the body of literature.
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Mar 4, 2024 2:28 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/sociology_honors

Services for...

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

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

• Research by Subject
• All Databases (A-Z)
• Course Reserves
• Journals by Title
• A book on the shelf
• Digital Collections
• Interlibrary Loan
• Make Appointment with Librarian
• Schedule a Class (faculty)
• Poster Production / Media
• Online / Distance Services
• Book a Study Room
• Special Collections
• Study Rooms
• All Policies
• Support the Library
• BuleyWise Blog
• Buley Bulletin
• Floor Plans
• Library Directory
• Library Hours
• The Director's Page
• Library Impact Dashboard
• Beginning Your Research
• Reference and Statistics
• Locating Scholarly Articles
• Online Sources

What is a literature review?

How do i write one, for more information.

The American Sociological Association Style Guide can be found on the first floor at REF HM 569 .A54 2019.

For a brief introduction to ASA, click here .

A literature review is used to show that you have read, evaluated, and comprehended the published research on a particular topic. A literature review is structured to show to your professors that you understand the work that has been done in the past on a topic, and will serve as a jumping off point for whatever research you are conducting.   It can either be a stand-alone document, or a section at the beginning of a research paper, master’s thesis, special project, or report. Writing a literature review will require you to locate published research on a topic, read those materials, and write a description and evaluation of the works.

STEP ONE: What is your topic?

What is your research project? You really can’t begin to write a literature review until you have determined what your own research is about. Determine the problem and the population you are studying.  

STEP TWO: Time to visit the library!

Search SouthernSearch  and relevant online databases, such as SocIndex and JSTOR, to locate previously published research on your subject. This will involve finding books, journal articles, dissertations and theses, and possibly reports from governmental agencies or independent organizations.   

STEP THREE: Read and think!

Read and critically evaluate each item that you have located.   What are the researcher’s credentials? What kind of methodology was used? Do you find the research to be objective? Do you find the conclusions persuasive?   How does the research contribute to your understanding of the issue that you are researching? Are the researchers saying the same things, or are they coming to different conclusions? What are the relationships between the articles? What has been said, and what has not been said? What are some areas for future research?   

STEP FOUR: Start writing!

You may want to sort the materials you have read based on their different themes, theoretical foundations, or varying conclusions. Then, for each article, describe the research that was done and the conclusions of the authors. Discuss how that particular work contributes to the understanding of the subject that you are working on.

Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper REF Q 180.55 .M4 F56 2005

Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination  STACKS H 62 .H2566 1998

Preparing Literature Reviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches  STACKS Q 180.55 .E9 P36 2008

• << Previous: Online Sources
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 1:30 PM
• URL: https://libguides.southernct.edu/sociology

• 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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Mark Access Health Policy
• v.11(1); 2023
• PMC10392303

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology

Beata smela.

a Assignity, Cracow, Poland

Mondher Toumi

b Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Karolina Świerk

Clement francois, małgorzata biernikiewicz.

c Studio Slowa, Wroclaw, Poland

Emilie Clay

d Clever-Access, Paris, France

Laurent Boyer

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.

Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included.

Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance.

Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Introduction

A systematic literature review (SLR) summarizes the results of all available studies on a specific topic and provides a high level of evidence. Authors of the SLR have to follow an advanced plan that covers defining a priori information regarding the research question, sources they are going to search, inclusion criteria applied to choose studies answering the research question, and information regarding how they are going to summarize findings [ 1 ].

The rigor and transparency of SLRs make them the most reliable form of literature review [ 2 ], providing a comprehensive, objective summary of the evidence for a given topic [ 3 , 4 ]. On the other hand, the SLR process is usually very time-consuming and requires a lot of human resources. Taking into account a high increase of newly published data and a growing need to analyze information in the fastest possible way, rapid literature reviews (RLRs) often replace standard SLRs.

There are several guidelines on the methodology of RLRs [ 5–11 ]; however, only recently, one publication from 2021 attempted to construct a unified definition [ 11 ]. Generally, by RLRs, researchers understand evidence synthesis during which some of the components of the systematic approach are being used to facilitate answering a focused research question; however, scope restrictions and a narrower search strategy help to make the project manageable in a shorter time and to get the key conclusions faster [ 4 ].

The objective of this research was to collect and summarize available information on different approaches to the definition and methodology of RLRs. An RLR has been run to capture publications providing data that fit the project objective.

To find publications reporting information on the methodology of RLRs, searches were run in the Medline and EMBASE databases in November 2022. The following keywords were searched for in titles and abstracts: ‘targeted adj2 review’ OR ‘focused adj2 review’ OR ‘rapid adj2 review’, and ‘methodology’ OR ‘design’ OR ‘scheme’ OR ‘approach’. The grey literature was identified using Google Scholar with keywords including ‘targeted review methodology’ OR ‘focused review methodology’ OR ‘rapid review methodology’. Only publications in English were included, and the date of publication was restricted to year 2016 onward in order to identify the most up-to-date literature. The reference lists of each included article were searched manually to obtain the potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were first screened to exclude articles that were evidently irrelevant. The full texts of potentially relevant papers were further reviewed to examine their eligibility.

A pre-defined Excel grid was developed to extract the following information related to the methodology of RLR from guidelines:

• Definition,
• Research question and searches,
• Studies selection,
• Data extraction and quality assessment,
• Additional information.

There was no restriction on the study types to be analyzed; any study reporting on the methodology of RLRs could be included: reviews, practice guidelines, commentaries, and expert opinions on RLR relevant to healthcare policymakers or practitioners. The data extraction and evidence summary were conducted by one analyst and further examined by a senior analyst to ensure that relevant information was not omitted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies selection

A total of 3,898 records (3,864 articles from a database search and 34 grey literature from Google Scholar) were retrieved. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,813 articles were uploaded and screened. The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines [ 5–11 ] on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [ 12 , 13 ], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [ 4 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, seven guidelines were identified: from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 5 ], National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) [ 7 ], the UK government [ 8 ], the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [ 9 ], the Cochrane group [ 6 , 11 ], and one multi-national review [ 10 ]. Among the papers that did not describe the guidelines, Gordon et al. [ 4 ] proposed 12 tips for conducting a rapid review in the right settings and discussed why these reviews may be more beneficial in some circumstances. The objective of work conducted by Tricco et al. [ 13 ] and Pandor et al. [ 12 ] was to collect and compare perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, industry, journal editors, and healthcare providers, and to reach a consensus outlining the domains to consider when deciding on approaches for RLRs. Haby et al. [ 14 ] run a rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies to find out the best way to conduct an RLR in health policy and practice. In Tricco et al. (2022) [ 15 ], JBI position statement for RLRs is presented.

From all the seven identified guidelines information regarding definitions the authors used for RLRs, approach to the PICOS criteria and search strategy development, studies selection, data extractions, quality assessment, and reporting were extracted.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed methods guidance based on scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, as well as surveys sent to Cochrane representative and discussion among those with expertise [ 11 ]. They analyzed over 300 RLRs or RLR method papers and based on the methodology of those studies, constructed a broad definition RLR, one that meets a minimum set of requirements identified in the thematic analysis: ‘ A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner .’ This interpretation aligns with more than 50% of RLRs identified in this study. The authors additionally provided several other definitions, depending on specific situations or requirements (e.g., when RLR is produced on stakeholder’s request). It was additionally underlined that RLRs should be driven by the need of timely evidence for decision-making purposes [ 11 ].

Rapid reviews vary in their objective, format, and methods used for evidence synthesis. This is a quite new area, and still no agreement on optimal methods can be found [ 5 ]. All of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs are completed within shorter timeframes than SLRs, and also lack of time is one of the main reasons they are conducted. It has been suggested that most rapid reviews are conducted within 12 weeks; however, some of the resources suggest time between a few weeks to no more than 6 months [ 5 , 6 ]. Some of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs follow the SLR process, but certain phases of the process are simplified or omitted to retrieve information in a time-saving way [ 6 , 7 ]. Different mechanisms are used to enhance the timeliness of reviews. They can be used independently or concurrently: increasing the intensity of work by intensifying the efforts of multiple analysts by parallelization of tasks, using review shortcuts whereby one or more systematic review steps may be reduced, automatizing review steps by using new technologies [ 5 ]. The UK government report [ 8 ] referred to two different RLRs: in the form of quick scoping reviews (QSR) or rapid evidence assessments (REA). While being less resource and time-consuming compared to standard SLRs, QSRs and REAs are designed to be similarly transparent and to minimize bias. QSRs can be applied to rather open-ended questions, e.g., ‘what do we know about something’ but both, QSRs and REAs, provide an understanding of the volume and characteristics of evidence on a specific topic, allowing answering questions by maximizing the use of existing data, and providing a clear picture of the adequacy of existing evidence [ 8 ].

Research questions and searches

The guidelines suggest creating a clear research question and search protocol at the beginning of the project. Additionally, to not duplicate RLRs, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group encourages all people working on RLRs to consider registering their search protocol with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of reviews; however, so far they are not formally registered in most cases [ 5 , 6 ]. They also recommend involving key stakeholders (review users) to set and refine the review question, criteria, and outcomes, as well as consulting them through the entire process [ 11 ].

Regarding research questions, it is better to structure them in a neutral way rather than focus on a specific direction for the outcome. By doing so, the researcher is in a better position to identify all the relevant evidence [ 7 ]. Authors can add a second, supportive research question when needed [ 8 ]. It is encouraged to limit the number of interventions, comparators and outcomes, to focus on the ones that are most important for decision-making [ 11 ]. Useful could be also reviewing additional materials, e.g., SLRs on the topic, as well as conducting a quick literature search to better understand the topic before starting with RLRs [ 7 ]. In SLRs researchers usually do not need to care a lot about time spent on creating PICOS, they need to make sure that the scope is broad enough, and they cannot use many restrictions. When working on RLRs, a reviewer may spend more or less time defining each of the components of the study question, and the main step is making sure that PICOS addresses the needs of those who requested the rapid review, and at the same time, it is feasible within the required time frame [ 7 ]. Search protocol should contain an outline of how the following review steps are to be carried out, including selected search keywords and a full strategy, a list of data sources, precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, a strategy for data extraction and critical appraisal, and a plan of how the information will be synthesized [ 8 ].

In terms of searches running, in most cases, an exhaustive process will not be feasible. Researchers should make sure that the search is effective and efficient to produce results in a timely manner. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends involving an information specialist and conducting peer review of at least one search strategy [ 11 ]. According to the rapid review guidebook by McMaster University [ 7 ], it is important that RLRs, especially those that support policy and program decisions, are being fed by the results of a body of literature, rather than single studies, when possible. It would result in more generalizable findings applied at the level of a population and serve more realistic findings for program decisions [ 7 ]. It is important to document the search strategy, together with a record of the date and any date limits of the search, so that it can easily be run again, modified, or updated. Furthermore, the information on the individual databases included in platform services should always be reported, as this depends on organizations’ subscriptions and must be included for transparency and repeatability [ 7 , 8 ]. Good solution for RLRs is narrowing the scope or searching a limited number of databases and other sources [ 7 ]. Often, the authors use the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. In most reviews, two or more databases are searched, and common limits are language (usually restricted to English), date, study design, and geographical area. Some RLRs include searching of grey literature; however, contact with authors is rather uncommon [ 5 , 8 ]. According to the flexible framework for restricted systematic review published by the University of Oxford, the search should be run in at least one major scientific database such as PubMed, and one other source, e.g., Google Scholar [ 9 ]. Grey literature and unpublished evidence may be particularly needed and important for intervention questions. It is related to the fact that studies that do not report the effects of interventions are less likely to be published [ 8 ]. If there is any type of evidence that will not be considered by the RLRs, e.g., reviews or theoretical and conceptual studies, it should also be stated in the protocol together with justification [ 8 ]. Additionally, authors of a practical guide published by WHO suggest using a staged search to identify existing SLRs at the beginning, and then focusing on studies with other designs [ 5 ]. If a low number of citations have been retrieved, it is acceptable to expand searches, remove some of the limits, and add additional databases and sources [ 7 ].

Searching for RLRs is an iterative process, and revising the approach is usually needed [ 7 ]. Changes should be confirmed with stakeholders and should be tracked and reflected in the final report [ 5 ].

The next step in the rapid review is the selection of studies consisting of two phases: screening of titles and abstracts, and analysis of full texts. Prior to screening initiation, it is recommended to conduct a pilot exercise using the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-texts for the entire screening team in order to calibrate and test the review form [ 11 ]. In contrast to SLRs, it can be done by one reviewer with or without verification by a second one. If verification is performed, usually the second reviewer checks only a subset of records and compares them. Cochrane Group, in contrast, recommends a stricter approach: at least 20% of references should be double-screened at titles and abstracts stage, and while the rest of the references may be screened by one reviewer, the excluded items need to be re-examined by second reviewer; similar approach is used in full-text screening [ 11 ]. This helps to ensure that bias was reduced and that the PICOS criteria are applied in a relevant way [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]. During the analysis of titles and abstracts, there is no need to report reasons for exclusion; however, they should be tracked for all excluded full texts [ 7 ].

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to the WHO guide, the most common method for data extraction in RLRs is extraction done by a single reviewer with or without partial verification. The authors point out that a reasonable approach is to use a second reviewer to check a random sample of at least 10% of the extractions for accuracy. Dual performance is more necessary for the extraction of quantitative results than for descriptive study information. In contrast, Cochrane group recommends that second reviewer should check the correctness and completeness of all data [ 11 ]. When possible, extractions should be limited to key characteristics and outcomes of the study. The same approach to data extraction is also suggested for a quality assessment process within rapid reviews [ 5 , 9 , 11 ]. Authors of the guidebook from McMaster University highlight that data extraction should be done ideally by two reviewers independently and consensus on the discrepancies should always be reached [ 7 ]. The final decision on the approach to this important step of review should depend on the available time and should also reflect the complexity of the research question [ 9 ].

For screening, analysis of full texts, extractions, and quality assessments, researchers can use information technologies to support them by making these review steps more efficient [ 5 ].

Before data reporting, a reviewer should prepare a document with key message headings, executive summary, background related to the topic and status of the current knowledge, project question, synthesis of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. According to the McMaster University guidebook, a report should be structured in a 1:2:20 format, that is, one page for key messages, two pages for an executive summary, and a full report of up to 20 pages [ 7 ]. All the limitations of the RLRs should be analyzed, and conclusions should be drawn with caution [ 5 ]. The quality of the accumulated evidence and the strength of recommendations can be assessed using, e.g., the GRADE system [ 5 ]. When working on references quoting, researchers should remember to use a primary source, not secondary references [ 7 ]. It would be worth considering the support of some software tools to automate reporting steps. Additionally, any standardization of the process and the usage of templates can support report development and enhance the transparency of the review [ 5 ].

Ideally, all the review steps should be completed during RLRs; however, often some steps may need skipping or will not be completed as thoroughly as should because of time constraints. It is always crucial to decide which steps may be skipped, and which are the key ones, depending on the project [ 7 ]. Guidelines suggest that it may be helpful to invite researchers with experience in the operations of SLRs to participate in the rapid review development [ 5 , 9 ]. As some of the steps will be completed by one reviewer only, it is important to provide them with relevant training at the beginning of the process, as well as during the review, to minimize the risk of mistakes [ 5 ].

Additional information

Depending on the policy goal and available resources and deadlines, methodology of the RLRs may be modified. Wilson et al. [ 10 ] provided extensive guidelines for performing RLR within days (e.g., to inform urgent internal policy discussions and/or management decisions), weeks (e.g., to inform public debates), or months (e.g., to inform policy development cycles that have a longer timeline, but that cannot wait for a traditional full systematic review). These approaches vary in terms of data synthesis, types of considered evidence and project management considerations.

In shortest timeframes, focused questions and subquestions should be formulated, typically to conduct a policy analysis; the report should consist of tables along with a brief narrative summary. Evidence from SLRs is often considered, as well as key informant interviews may be conducted to identify additional literature and insights about the topic, while primary studies and other types of evidence are not typically feasible due to time restrictions. The review would be best conducted with 1–2 reviewers sharing the work, enabling rapid iterations of the review. As for RLRs with longer timeline (weeks), these may use a mix of policy, systems and political analysis. Structure of the review would be similar to shorter RLRs – tabular with short narrative summary, as the timeline does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of data. Besides SLRs, primary studies and other evidence may be feasible in this timeframe, if obtained using the targeted searches in the most relevant databases. The review team should be larger, and standardized procedures for reviewing of the results and data extraction should be applied. In contrast to previous timeframe, merit review process may be feasible. For both timeframes, brief consultations with small transdisciplinary team should be conducted at the beginning and in the final stage of the review to discuss important matters.

For RLRs spanning several months, more comprehensive methodology may be adapted in terms of data synthesis and types of evidence. However, authors advise that review may be best conducted with a small review team in order to allow for more in-depth interpretation and iteration.

Studies analyzing methodology

There have been two interesting publications summarizing the results of Delphi consensus on the RLR methodology identified and included in this review [ 12 , 13 ].

Tricco et al. [ 13 ] first conducted an international survey and scoping review to collect information on the possible approaches to the running of rapid reviews, based on which, they employed a modified Delphi method that included inputs from 113 stakeholders to explore the most optimized approach. Among the six most frequent rapid review approaches (not all detailed here) being evaluated, the approach that combines inclusion of published literature only, a search of more than one database and limitations by date and language, study selection by one analyst, data extraction, and quality assessment by one analyst and one verifier, was perceived as the most feasible approach (72%, 81/113 responses) with the potentially lowest risk of bias (12%, 12/103). The approach ranked as the first one when considering timelines assumes updating of the search from a previously published review, no additional limits on search, studies selection and data extraction done by one reviewer, and no quality assessment. Finally, based on the publication, the most comprehensive RLRs can be made by moving on with the following rules: searching more than one database and grey literature and using date restriction, and assigning one reviewer working on screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment ( Table 1 ). Pandor et al. [ 12 ] introduced a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) that were produced through the Delphi consensus of international experts through an iterative and rigorous process. Participants were asked to assess the importance of predefined items in four domains related to the rapid review process: interaction with commissioners, understanding the evidence base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. All items assigned to four domains achieved > 70% of consensus, and in that way, the first consensus-driven tool has been created that supports authors of RLRs in planning and deciding on approaches.

Six most frequent approaches to RLRs (adapted from Tricco et al. [ 13 ]).

Haby et al. [ 14 ] run searches of 11 databases and two websites and developed a comprehensive overview of the methodology of RLRs. With five SLRs and one RCT being finally included, they identified the following approaches used in RLRs to make them faster than full SLRs: limiting the number and scope of questions, searching fewer databases, limited searching of grey literature, restrictions on language and date (e.g., English only, most recent publications), updating the existing SLRs, eliminating or limiting hand searches of reference lists, noniterative search strategies, eliminating consultation with experts, limiting dual study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, minimal data synthesis with short concise conclusions or recommendations. All the SLRs included in this review were consistent in stating that no agreed definition of rapid reviews is available, and there is still no final agreement on the best methodological rules to be followed.

Gordon et al. [ 4 ] explained the advantages of performing a focused review and provided 12 tips for its conduction. They define focused reviews as ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which the components of the systematic process are applied to facilitate the analysis of a focused research question’. The first tip presented by the authors is related to deciding if a focused review is a right solution for the considered project. RLRs will suit emerging topics, approaches, or assessments where early synthesis can support doctors, policymakers, etc., but also can direct future research. The second, third, and fourth tips highlight the importance of running preliminary searches and considering narrowing the results by using reasonable constraints taking into account the local context, problems, efficiency perspectives, and available time. Further tips include creating a team of experienced reviewers working on the RLRs, thinking about the target journal from the beginning of work on the rapid review, registering the search protocol on the PROSPERO registry, and the need for contacting authors of papers when data available in publications are missing or incongruent. The last three tips are related to the choice of evidence synthesis method, using the visual presentation of data, and considering and describing all the limitations of the focused review.

Finally, a new publication by Tricco et al. from 2022, describing JBI position statement [ 15 ] underlined that for the time being, there is no specific tool for critical appraisal of the RLR’s methodological quality. Instead, reviewers may use available tools to assess the risk of bias or quality of SLRs, like ROBIS, the JBI critical appraisal tools, or the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Inconsistency in the definitions and methodologies of RLR

Although RLR was broadly perceived as an approach to quicken the conduct of conventional SLR, there is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR, so as to the best approaches to perform it. Only in 2021, a study proposing unified definition was published; however, it is important to note that the most accurate definition was only matching slightly over 50% of papers analysed by the authors, which underlines the lack of homogeneity in the field [ 11 ]. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more evidence is needed to define the most robust approaches [ 5 ].

Diverse terms are used to describe the RLR, including ‘rapid review’, focused systematic review’, ‘quick scoping reviews’, and ‘rapid evidence assessments’. Although the general principles of conducting RLR are to accelerate the whole process, complexity was seen in the methodologies used for RLRs, as reflected in this study. Also, inconsistencies related to the scope of the questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, study screening, full-text review, quality assessment, and evidence presentation were implied. All these factors may hamper decision-making about optimal methodologies for conducting rapid reviews, and as a result, the efficiency of RLR might be decreased. Additionally, researchers may tend to report the methodology of their reviews without a sufficient level of detail, making it difficult to appraise the quality and robustness of their work.

Advantages and weaknesses of RLR

Although RLR used simplified approaches for evidence synthesis compared with SLR, the methodologies for RLR should be replicable, rigorous, and transparent to the greatest extent [ 16 ]. When time and resources are limited, RLR could be a practical and efficient tool to provide the summary of evidence that is critical for making rapid clinical or policy-related decisions [ 5 ]. Focusing on specific questions that are of controversy or special interest could be powerful in reaffirming whether the existing recommendation statements are still appropriate [ 17 ].

The weakness of RLR should also be borne in mind, and the trade-off of using RLR should be carefully considered regarding the thoroughness of the search, breadth of a research question, and depth of analysis [ 18 ]. If allowed, SLR is preferred over RLR considering that some relevant studies might be omitted with narrowed search strategies and simplified screening process [ 14 ]. Additionally, omitting the quality assessment of included studies could result in an increased risk of bias, making the comprehensiveness of RLR compromised [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in situations that require high accuracy, for example, where a small relative difference in an intervention has great impacts, for the purpose of drafting clinical guidelines, or making licensing decisions, a comprehensive SLR may remain the priority [ 19 ]. Therefore, clear communications with policymakers are recommended to reach an agreement on whether an RLR is justified and whether the methodologies of RLR are acceptable to address the unanswered questions [ 18 ].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).