literature review unsw

• Search all things Library

Support for your research

Library services and UNSW resources to support you in your research studies to find and manage information resources.

Key services

Expert on demand

Book a brief session with a subject-specialist librarian to have your research questions answered.

Research consultations

Book in-depth consultations on research strategies, tailored to your individual or group needs.

Outreach Librarians

Contact for discipline specific queries related to Library services and scholarly collections.

Resources available through UNSW

Access to online resources Access online resources on and off campus.

UNSWorks Institutional repository of UNSW Open Access publications, non-traditional research outputs, theses and research datasets.

UNSW Library collection Search the Library's collections and databases.

Collection news Keep up to date with the Library's subscribed resources including changes in access, resources no longer available and alternative resources.

Information resources Multidisciplinary information resources for study and research.

Subject guides Key resources to help you get started finding information on your topic.

Confidential data sources Apply for the ABS TableBuilder products, CURFs, Census DataPacks and HILDA.

Text & Data Mining and APIs Information on using APIs and Text Data Mining on Library resources and beyond.

Publishing strategy guide This guide takes you through planning an effective publishing strategy and advises sources and tools that will help you achieve the best results.

Resources not held by UNSW

Interlibrary loans UNSW staff and students can apply for an interlibrary loan when UNSW Library does not hold an item.

Resource recommendations Resource recommendations are available for UNSW Research staff or HDR candidates to support your research.

Other information

Managing references Create a personal library or database of references and generate bibliographies.

Copyright for study and research Find out more about copyright for your research and creative work.

UNSW Research Keep up to date with important issues affecting researchers at UNSW.

Literature reviews Search the Library's collections to find examples of literature reviews as well as systematic reviews .

Useful links

Support for academics

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

Structure of a Critical Review

Critical reviews, both short (one page) and long (four pages), usually have a similar structure. Check your assignment instructions for formatting and structural specifications. Headings are usually optional for longer reviews and can be helpful for the reader.

Introduction

The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for a journal article review and two or three paragraphs for a longer book review. Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain the topic of the text. Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument. Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response.

Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. You can also briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review.

The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).

You can choose how to sequence your critique. Here are some examples to get you started:

• Most important to least important conclusions you make about the text.
• If your critique is more positive than negative, then present the negative points first and the positive last.
• If your critique is more negative than positive, then present the positive points first and the negative last.
• If there are both strengths and weakness for each criterion you use, you need to decide overall what your judgement is. For example, you may want to comment on a key idea in the text and have both positive and negative comments. You could begin by stating what is good about the idea and then concede and explain how it is limited in some way. While this example shows a mixed evaluation, overall you are probably being more negative than positive.
• In long reviews, you can address each criterion you choose in a paragraph, including both negative and positive points. For very short critical reviews (one page or less), where your comments will be briefer, include a paragraph of positive aspects  and another of negative.
• You can also include recommendations for how the text can be improved in terms of ideas, research approach; theories or frameworks used can also be included in the critique section.

Conclusion & References

This is usually a very short paragraph.

• Restate your overall opinion of the text.
• Briefly present recommendations.
• If necessary, some further qualification or explanation of your judgement can be included. This can help your critique sound fair and reasonable.

If you have used other sources in you review you should also include a list of references at the end of the review.

Summarising and paraphrasing for the critical review

The best way to summarise

• Scan the text. Look for information that can be deduced from the introduction, conclusion, title, and headings. What do these tell you about the main points of the article?
• Locate the topic sentences and highlight the main points as you read.
• Reread the text and make separate notes of the main points. Examples and evidence do not need to be included at this stage. Usually they are used selectively in your critique.

Paraphrasing means putting it into your own words. Paraphrasing offers an alternative to using direct quotations in your summary (and the critique) and can be an efficient way to integrate your summary notes.

The best way to paraphrase

• Review your summary notes
• Rewrite them in your own words and in complete sentences
• Use reporting verbs and phrases, e.g. 'The author describes…', 'Smith argues that …'.
• Use quotation marks if If you include unique or specialist phrases from the text.

  Next: Some general criteria for evaluating texts

Essay and assignment writing guide.

• Essay writing basics
• Essay and assignment planning
• Answering assignment questions
• Editing checklist
• Structure of a critical review
• General criteria for evaluating
• Sample extracts
• Annotated bibliography
• Reflective writing
• ^ More support

News and notices

Guide to Using Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection for UNSW Students Published:  20 May 2024

Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence at UNSW Published:  17 May 2024

Scholarly Resources 4 Students | scite.ai 21 May 2024

Discover your Library: Main Library 21 May 2024

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

Select Publications

By Professor Tak Wing Yiu

Conference papers.

Ahiadu AA; Abidoye RB; Yiu TW , 2024 , 'Commercial Property Performance and Economic Policy Uncertainty: A Sub-Class Analysis of Retail Rents' , in 30th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference - Gold Coast, Australia (January 2024) , Gold Coast, Australia , presented at 30th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference , Gold Coast, Australia , 14 January 2024 - 17 January 2024 , https://www.prres.org/uploads/1352/242/Commercial-Property-Performance-and-Economic_Policy-Uncertainty-A-sub-class-analysis-of-retail-rents.docx

Ortega N; Sutrisna M; Paes D; Feng Z; Yiu TWK , 2023 , 'A Systematic Literature Review of the Previous Applications to the Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Process (STAMP)' , Auckland, New Zealand , presented at 46th Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) International Conference , Auckland, New Zealand , 26 November 2023 - 28 November 2023

Shad HK; Lovreglio R; Feng Z; Paes D; Yiu TWK , 2023 , 'Augmented Reality for the Excavation Industry: Needs, Expectations, and Challenges' , Auckland, New Zealand , presented at 46th Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) International Conference , Auckland, New Zealand , 26 November 2023

Wu RW; Yiu TW; Jelodar MB , 2022 , 'Real-time Employee Monitoring Technologies in the Construction Sector - Effect, Readiness and Theoretical Perspectives: The case of New Zealand' , in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1101/8/082010

Yiu TW; Lu Z; Ang KP , 2021 , 'A study of construction disputes in the new zealand context' , in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering , pp. 2075 - 2083 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8079-6_190

Yiu TW; Hayalie H; Zhong R , 2021 , 'Commitment to construction health and safety – the worker’s perspective' , in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering , pp. 2085 - 2095 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8079-6_191

Pradeep ASE; Amor R; Yiu TW , 2020 , 'Blockchain Improving Trust in BIM Data Exchange: A Case Study on BIMCHAIN' , in Construction Research Congress 2020: Computer Applications - Selected Papers from the Construction Research Congress 2020 , pp. 1174 - 1183

Erri Pradeep AS; Yiu TW; Amor R , 2019 , 'Leveraging blockchain technology in a bim workflow: A literature review' , in International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019, ICSIC 2019: Driving Data-Informed Decision-Making , pp. 371 - 380 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/icsic.64669.371

Lee CK; Yiu TW; Cheung SO , 2018 , 'A macro-micro framework of ADR use in the Malaysian construction industry' , in Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, 2016 , pp. 97 - 106 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6190-5_10

Gao Y; González VA; Yiu TW , 2017 , 'Serious Games vs. Traditional Tools in Construction Safety Training: A Review' , in Lean and Computing in Construction Congress - Volume 1: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction , Heriot-Watt University , presented at Lean and Computing in Construction Congress - Joint Conference on Computing in Construction , 04 July 2017 - 07 July 2017 , http://dx.doi.org/10.24928/jc3-2017/0070

Lee CK; Yiu TW; Cheung SO , 2015 , 'Perceived risks, obligations, and uncertainties: Antecedents of unpaid contractors' intention to suspend works against non-payment' , in ISEC 2015 - 8th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference: Implementing Innovative Ideas in Structural Engineering and Project Management , pp. 1009 - 1014

Jelodar MB; Yiu TW; Wilkinson S , 2014 , 'A multi-objective decision support system for selecting dispute resolution methods in the construction industry' , in Computing in Civil and Building Engineering - Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering , pp. 1642 - 1649 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784413616.204

Chow PT; Cheung SO; Yiu TW , 2012 , 'A cusp catastrophe model of withdrawal in construction project dispute negotiation' , in Automation in Construction , pp. 597 - 604 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.006

Yiu TW; P. T. C; Leung WY; S. O. C , 2011 , 'Uncertainties of Construction Negotiation: A Preliminary Study' , in Modern Methods and Advances in Structural Engineering and Construction(ISEC-6) , Research Publishing Services , presented at Modern Methods and Advances in Structural Engineering and Construction , 21 June 2011 - 26 June 2011 , http://dx.doi.org/10.3850/978-981-08-7920-4_s1-l08-cd

Yiu TW; Chow PT; Leung WY; Cheung SO , 2011 , 'Uncertainties of construction negotiation: A preliminary study' , in ISEC 2011 - 6th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference: Modern Methods and Advances in Structural Engineering and Construction , pp. 65 - 70 , http://dx.doi.org/10.3850/978-981-08-7920-4-S1-L08-cd

Yiu KTW; Cheung SO , 2005 , 'Process driven construction mediation outcomes' , in Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, QUT Research Week 2005 - Conference Proceedings

Yiu TW; Cheung SO; Cheung KW; Suen CH , 2003 , 'A WWW-based learning framework for construction mediation' , in Bontempi F (ed.) , SYSTEM-BASED VISION FOR STRATEGIC AND CREATIVE DESIGN, VOLS 1-3 , A A BALKEMA PUBLISHERS , ITALY, ROME , pp. 1739 - 1743 , presented at 2nd International Conference on Structural and Construction Engineering , ITALY, ROME , 23 September 2003 - 26 September 2003 , https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000187006900259&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=891bb5ab6ba270e68a29b250adbe88d1

Wong YM; Yiu TW; Cheung SO; Suen CH , 2003 , 'Impossibility claims in construction projects' , in Bontempi F (ed.) , SYSTEM-BASED VISION FOR STRATEGIC AND CREATIVE DESIGN, VOLS 1-3 , A A BALKEMA PUBLISHERS , ITALY, ROME , pp. 403 - 408 , presented at 2nd International Conference on Structural and Construction Engineering , ITALY, ROME , 23 September 2003 - 26 September 2003 , https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000187006900063&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=891bb5ab6ba270e68a29b250adbe88d1

Guo BHW; Scheepbouwer E; Yiu TW; González V , 'Overview and Analysis of Digital Technologies Designed for Construction Safety Management' , in EPiC Series in Education Science , EasyChair , presented at AUBEA 2017: Australasian Universities Building Education Association Conference 2017 , http://dx.doi.org/10.29007/zvfp

Back to profile page

Filter by type

• Book Chapters 16
• Journal articles 100
• Conference Papers 19
• Preprints 2

ORCID as entered in ROS

UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Telephone +61 2 93851000 Authorised by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) UNSW CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G ABN: 57 195 873 179

Join the conversation

• Member Group of Eight
• Member Universitas 21
• Member Global Alliance of Technological Universities
• Member Association of Pacific Rim Universities
• Member PLuS Alliance
• UNSW Futures
• Interdisciplinary Research
• World Class Research Infrastructure
• Grand Challenges
• Thought Leadership & Public Engagement
• Knowledge Exchange
• ARTU - Aggregate Ranking of Top Universities
• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research & Enterprise)
• Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research)
• Applying for a Scholarship
• External Scholarships
• Higher Degree Research Programs
• Submitting an Application
• Finding a Supervisor
• Fees and Costs
• Thesis Preparation
• Examination
• Arc UNSW – Postgraduate Council
• Arc UNSW – Student Life
• Financial Support
• New to UNSW Research
• Events & Workshops
• Study with Us
• Extend Your Career
• Research Career Opportunities
• Biomedical Sciences
• Contemporary Humanities and Creative Arts
• Defence and Security
• Fundamental and Enabling Sciences
• ICT, Robotics and Devices
• Law, Business and Economics
• Next Generation Materials and Technologies
• Social Policy, Government and Health Policy
• Water, Climate, Environment and Sustainability
• Fellows of Learned Academies
• Research News & Stories
• Research Ethics & Compliance Support
• Research Integrity for Staff
• Supervisors and Research Integrity
• Gene Technology
• Animal Research Ethics
• Human Research Ethics
• Radiation Safety
• Research Export Controls
• About the RSO
• Partner with us
• Partner With Us
• Services for Researchers
• Current Funding Opportunities
• Managing your Funding
• Resources and Quicklinks
• Analytical Centre (MWAC)
• Contacts & About Us
• Data Management, Storage and Tools
• Network Labs
• Other Infrastructure Funding Schemes
• Shared Research Equipment
• UNSW Research Infrastructure Scheme
• Pricing Tool
• Researcher Hub (UNSW login)
• Research News
• UNSW Centres and Institutes
• Find a Researcher
• FAQ: Researcher Profiles - Tags & Codes