stages of development literature review

• Franklin University |
• Help & Support |
• Locations & Maps |

• | Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

• Select not listed in the Select Your Institution drop down menu.
• Enter your Franklin email address and click Go
• click "Already a user? Click here" link
• Enter your Franklin email and the password you used to create your Safari account.

Continue Close

Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Framing the Literature Review

Literature Review Process

• Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance  -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• 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?

Development of the Literature Review

Four stages:.

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study and the research questions or hypotheses to follow.
• Places the problem into a particular context  that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provides the framework for reporting the results  and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.
• Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored.
• Evaluation of resources  -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic.
• Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

Sources and expectations.  if your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:.

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

Find Models.   When reviewing the current literature, examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have organized their literature reviews. Read not only for information, but also to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research review.

Narrow the topic.  the narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources., consider whether your sources are current and applicable.  s ome disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. this is very common in the sciences where research conducted only two years ago could be obsolete. however, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed because what is important is how perspectives have changed over 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 consider by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not., follow the bread crumb trail.  the bibliography or reference section of sources you read are excellent entry points for further exploration. you might find resourced listed in a bibliography that points you in the direction you wish to take your own research., ways to organize your literature review, chronologically:  .

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published or the time period they cover.

By Publication:  

Order your sources chronologically by publication date, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Conceptual Categories:

The literature review is 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 example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most.

Methodological:  

A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher.  A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Sections of Your Literature Review:  

Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy.

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• 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.
• Selection Methods : the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
• Standards : the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Writing Your Literature Review

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

Use Evidence:

A literature review 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 research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use Quotes Sparingly:  

Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute your own summary and interpretation of the literature.

Summarize and Synthesize:  

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep Your Own Voice:  

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording.

Use Caution When Paraphrasing:  

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help >>
• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 2:44 PM
• URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/LITREVIEW

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:07 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• 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 of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• 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., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• 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?
• 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?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

• Research Guides
• Vanderbilt University Libraries

Peabody Library

Literature reviews.

• Developing a Literature Review
• Steps to Success: The Literature Review Process
• Literature Reviews Webinar Recording
• Literature Review Table
• Writing Like an Academic
• Publishing in Academic Journals
• Managing Citations This link opens in a new window

The Literature Review

What Is a Literature Review? According to the seventh edition of the APA Publication Manual, a literature review is "a critical evaluation of material that has already been published."  As one embarks on creating a literature review, it is important to note that the grouping of components within a literature review can be arranged according to the author's discretion.  However, it is important for the author to ensure the review reflects current APA publication standards.

• Next: Steps to Success: The Literature Review Process >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 7:50 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/litreviews

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

• "Literature review" defined
• Research Communication Graphic
• Literature Review Steps
• Search techniques
• Finding Additional "Items
• Evaluating information
• Citing Styles
• Ethical Use of Information
• Research Databases This link opens in a new window
• Get Full Text
• Reading a Scholarly Article
• Author Rights
• Selecting a publisher

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps:

1. Define your topic. The first step is defining your task -- choosing a topic and noting the questions you have about the topic. This will provide a focus that guides your strategy in step II and will provide potential words to use in searches in step III.

2. Develop a strategy. Strategy involves figuring out where the information might be and identifying the best tools for finding those types of sources. The strategy section identifies specific types of research databases to use for specific purposes.

3. Locate the information . In this step, you implement the strategy developed in II in order to actually locate specific articles, books, technical reports, etc.

4. Use and Evaluate the information. Having located relevant and useful material, in step IV you read and analyze the items to determine whether they have value for your project and credibility as sources.

5. Synthesize. In step V, you will make sense of what you've learned and demonstrate your knowledge. You will thoroughly understand, organize and integrate the information --become knowledgeable-- so that you are able to use your own words to support and explain your research project and its relationship to existing research by others.

6. Evaluate your work. At every step along the way, you should evaluate your work. However, this final step is a last check to make sure your work is complete and of high quality.

Continue below to begin working through the process.

5. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem-Solving: the Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

A.  Many students have difficulty selecting a topic. You want to find a topic you find interesting and will enjoy learning more about.

B.   Students often select a topic that is too broad.  You may have a broad topic in mind initially and will need to narrow it.

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.  

1). Try this technique for brainstorming to narrow your focus.   

a) Step 1.  Write down your broad topic.

b) Step 2. Write down a "specific kind" or "specific aspect" of the topic you identified in step 1.  

c) Step 3. Write down an aspect  --such as an attribute or behavior-- of the "specific kind" you identified in step 2.  

d) Step 4.  Continue to add  levels of specificity as needed to get to a focus that is manageable. However, you may want to begin researching the literature before narrowing further to give yourself the opportunity to explore what others are doing and how that might impact the direction that you take for your own research.                     

2) Three examples of using the narrowing technique. These examples start with very, very broad topics, so the topic at step 3 or 4 in these examples would be used for a preliminary search in the literature in order to identify a more specific focus.  Greater specificity than level 3 or 4 will ultimately be necessary for developing a specific research question. And we may discover in our preliminary research that we need to alter the direction that we originally were taking.

a) Example 1.      

             Step 1. information security

                      Step  2. protocols

                              Step 3.  handshake protocol

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.  

            Step 1. information security

                     Step 2. single sign-on authentication

                              Step 3.  analyzing

                                       Step 4. methods

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on methods for analyzing the security of single sign-on authentication

c) Example 3.  The diagram below is an example using the broad topic of "software" to show two potential ways to begin to narrow the topic. 

C. Once you have completed the brainstorming process and your topic is more focused, you can do preliminary research to help you identify a specific research question . 

1) Examine overview sources such as subject-specific encyclopedias and textbooks that are likely to break down your specific topic into sub-topics and to highlight core issues that could serve as possible research questions. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find these encyclopedias]

2). Search the broad topic in a research database that includes scholarly journals and professional magazines (to find technical and scholarly articles) and scan recent article titles for ideas. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find trade and scholarly journal articles]

D. Once you have identified a research question or questions, ask yourself what you need to know to answer the questions. For example,

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

2. What has already been answered by prior research of other scholars?

E.  Use the answers to the questions in C. to identify what words  to use to describe the topic when you are doing searches.

1. Identify key words

a.  For example , if you are investigating "security audits in banking", key terms to combine in your searches would be: security, audits, banking.

2.  Create a list of alternative ways of referring to a key word or phrase

a.For example , "information assurance" may be referred to in various ways such as: "information assurance," "information security," and "computer security."

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

3. As you are searching, pay attention to how others are writing about the topic and add new words or phrases to your searches if appropriate.

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information. 

A. Start by considering what types of source might contain the information you need .  Do you need a dictionary for definitions? a directory for an address? the history of a concept or technique that might be in a book or specialized encyclopedia? today's tech news in an online tech magazine or newspaper?  current research in a journal article? background information that might be in a specialized encyclopedia? data or statistics from a specific organization or website?  Note that you will typically have online access to these source types.

B. This section provides a description of some of the common types of information needed for research.  

1. For technical and business analysis , look for articles in technical and trade magazines . These articles are written by information technology professionals to help other IT professionals do their jobs better. Content might include news on new developments in hardware or software, techniques, tools, and practical advice. Technical journals are also likely to have product ads relevant to information technology workers and to have job ads. Examples iof technical magazines include Network Computing and IEEE Spectrum .

2. To read original research studies , look for articles in scholarly journals and conference proceedings . They will provide articles written by  information technology professionals who are reporting original research; that is, research that has been done by the authors and is being reported for the first time. The audience for original research articles is other information technology scholars and professionals. Examples of scholarly journals include Journal of Applied Security Research , Journal of Management Information Systems , IEEE Transactions on Computers , and ACM Transactions on Information and System Security .

3. For original research being reported to funding agencies , look for technical reports on agency websites. Technical reports are researcher reports to funding agencies about progress on or completion of research funded by the agency.

4. For in-depth, comprehensive information on a topic , look for book-length volumes . All chapters in the book might be written by the same author(s) or might be a collection of separate papers written by different authors.

5. To learn about an unfamiliar topic , use textbooks ,  specialized encyclopedias and handbooks to get get overviews of topics, history/background, and key issues explained.

6. For instructions for hardware, software, networking, etc., look for manuals  that provide step-by-step instructions.

7. For technical details about inventions (devices, instruments, machines), look for patent documents .

C.   NOTE -  In order to search for and find original research studies,  it will help if you  understand  how information is produced, packaged  and  communicated  within your profession. This is explained in the tab  "Research Communication: Graphic."

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

A. Use search tools designed to find the sources you want.  Types of sources were described in section II. above. 

Always feel free to Ask a librarian for assistance when you have questions about where and how locate the information you need.

B. Evaluate the search results (no matter where you find the information)

1. Evaluate the items you find using at least these 5 criteria:

a. accuracy -- is the information reliable and error free?

1) Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?

2) Is there adequate documentation: bibliography, footnotes, credits?

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

b. authority -- is the source of the information reputable?

1) How did you find the source of information: an index to edited/peer-reviewed material, in a bibliography from a published article, etc.?

2) What type of source is it: sensationalistic, popular, scholarly?

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

1) What is the purpose of the information: to inform, persuade, explain, sway opinion, advertise?

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

d. currency -- is the information current? does it cover the time period you need?

e. coverage -- does it provide the evidence or information you need?

2. Is the search producing the material you need? -- the right content? the right quality? right time period? right geographical location? etc. If not, are you using

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

c. are you using the right words to describe the topic?

3. Have you discovered additional terms that should be searched? If so, search those terms.

4. Have you discovered additional questions you need to answer? If so, return to section A above to begin to answer new questions.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

1. Evaluate: Does the material answer your question(s)? -- right content? If not, return to B.

2. Evaluate: Is the material appropriate? -- right quality? If not, return to B.

B. Extract the information from the source : copy/download information, take notes, record citation, keep track of items using a citation manager.

1. Note taking (these steps will help you when you begin to write your thesis and/or document your project.):

a. Write the keywords you use in your searches to avoid duplicating previous searches if you return to search a research database again. Keeping track of keywords used will also save you time if your search is interrupted or you need return and do the search again for some other reason. It will help you remember which search terms worked successfully in which databases

b. Write the citations or record the information needed to cite each article/document you plan to read and use, or make sure that any saved a copy of the article includes all the information needed to cite it. Some article pdf files may not include all of the information needed to cite, and it's a waste of your valuable time to have to go back to search and find the items again in order to be able to cite them. Using citation management software such as EndNote will help keep track of citations and help create bibliographies for your research papers.

c. Write a summary of each article you read and/or why you want to use it.

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

B. Present the information (create report, speech, etc. that communicates)

C. Cite material using the style required by your professor or by the venue (conference, publication, etc.). For help with citation styles, see  Guide to Citing Sources .  A link to the citing guide is also available in the "Get Help" section on the left side of the Library home page

6. Evaluate your work.

VI. Evaluate the paper, speech, or whatever you are using to communicate your research.

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

C. Ask another student or colleague to provide constructive criticism of your paper/project.

• << Previous: Research Communication Graphic
• Next: Search techniques >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

Doing a literature review: an 8-step process

Overview of my presentation in the Middlesex University PhD coursework - with embedded videos of the 8 steps

Anne-Wil Harzing - Mon 1 Jan 2024 09:31 (updated Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14)

Copyright 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing. All rights reserved. First version, 2 January 2024

Step 1: Information management strategies

Step 2: situating the literature review, step 3: sources of literature, step 4: keeping current, step 5: how much is enough, step 6: different types of papers.

• Step 7a: Seven criteria to evaluate coverage
• Step 7b: Twelve guidelines to evaluate references

Step 8: The literature review in your thesis

Your challenge is very different from what mine was during my PhD. I completed my PhD before the internet was available. So my challenge was to get access to information and find the time and money to do so. Oftentimes, this involved traveling to various libraries across the country.

Your challenge is to manage the wealth of information you have easy access to, but not to waste too much time on completely irrelevant information. This step provides you with some tips on how to approach this.

In this step, you learn why a literature review is important in no less than six of the nine stages of the research process. Before watching it, try and list the stages where you think it might be important.

In this step, we review the various sources you can use for literature reviews: books, journal articles, government and industry resources, working papers, and conference papers. I show you the relative merits of each of these.

Here I share my top tips on how to keep up to date with new publications. You can find more information about this here: How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload? .

Note that my tips focus on the "old-fashioned" tried-and-tested approaches. This process has now been facilitated by many dedicated tools, often using artificial intelligence. I can't say I like working with these as they do not facilitate the deep engagement that I think is needed for academic research, but they might well work for you.

The next step is deciding when to stop. How do you know you have "enough"? When can you stop? Well obviously, you never completely stop reviewing the literature, as it is important in so many stages of the review process (see step 2).

But in deciding when you can start writing up, I do suggest the use of a relevance tree in this video. I also show how you can use tables to effectively summarise literature. Further tips on how many references to use in writing up can be found here: How many references is enough?

In this step, I review three types of papers to look out for to maximise the effectiveness of your literature review: review papers, star papers, model papers.

Step 7a: 7 criteria to evaluate coverage

How do you evaluate whether all the literature you have collected is actually useful for your thesis or article?

In this step I go through seven criteria you can use to evaluate coverage of the collected literature: relevance, currency, reliability, audience, accuracy, scope, and objectivity.

Step 7b: 12 guidelines to evaluate references

If you are going to use the literature to reference arguments in your thesis, this step covers twelve guidelines you can use to evaluate other academics' referencing practices as well as to make sure you do this right. They are also described in detail in this blogpost: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility?

My twelve guidelines are based on research in my own PhD, written up as a paper that turned out to be very hard to publish. If you are interested, you can read the full story here: How to publish an unusual paper? Referencing errors, scholarship & credibility .

This last step reveals what criteria are used to evaluate the literature review in your own thesis: synthesis, critical appraisal, and application to the research question. I also explain what your literature should not look like and why a good literature review helps you to get papers published.

Related blogposts

• Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper
• Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts
• A framework for your literature review article: where to find one?

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14

Anne-Wil Harzing's profile and contact details >>

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

What is a Literature review; The factors involved and its Development

Importance Of Proofreading For Scientific Writing Methods and Significance

Tips For How To Write A Scientific Research Paper

What is a literature review; the factors involved and its development.

A literature review is an exhaustive appraisal of all the valid literature in a field of study that seeks to understand the development of knowledge in the field. In doing so, it provides an explanation, interpretation, summary, and critical assessment of the knowledge of the field with respect to the research question in consideration. Literature review provides an exhaustive overview of the development of knowledge in the field while also informing the reader of the author’s depth in the field and demonstrates the research’s place within the field .

What to do in the literature review

• provide an outline of the issue or theory under investigation, extrapolates to include the objectives.
• Categorize different literature in the field of study based on various criteria.
• Compare and contrast between different works.
• Conclude with providing an assessment and singling out works that give the best arguments and make a significant contribution to the knowledge of the field

Development of the Literature Review

Four Stages of development while doing a literature review includes the following:

• Formulation of a problem- this is a crucial step, whereby you setup a criteria through which to select relevant literature.
• Searching for relevant literature- find appropriate literature for the criteria you have set from reliable sources.
• Evaluating and appraising the literature- many methods could be employed for this step. You could read the introduction and the abstract to filter and select the ones you deem suitable.
• Analysing and synthesizing pertinent literature- This forms the crux of the review paper, the final part where you read, analyse, and synthesize the literature to provide the chain of development of knowledge in the field

What to consider when choosing the literature for the review. Literature must be critically evaluated before being reviewed. When choosing scientific works for the review, look for the following:

1. Originality of the work Choose works based on their originality.

2. Methodology and its credibility Evaluate the methodology of each work and assess their credibility. 3. The objectivity of the author This is important to understand and will provide you with a better guideline of the purpose of the work. 4. The persuasiveness of the arguments Each work has different tones and some of the arguments are more persuasive than the rest. 5. The significance of the work to field. This is a key aspect when choosing literature for review. Do not overlook the works that added significant value to the field

What are the analytical features of a literature review.

The literature review  isn’t just a summary of all the critical points in the knowledge of the field, it is an analysis, primarily. The literature review provides a summary and synthesis of the literature, categorized in a defined organizational pattern. Do the following in a literature review:

• Reinterpret old materials in the light of new information in the field, thereby, combine old with new materials.
• Doing the above step will help you in providing the chain of progression of knowledge in the field.
• Evaluate the sources and provide an overview of significant works to your problem.
• Identify gaps that exist in the chain of knowledge, which can be exploited for further research. Provide the information on research gaps when concluding the literature review.

Related Topics:

Literature review services

Scientific Literature Review

Scientific Research Support Services

Scientific Editing Services  

Meta Analysis Research

• Scientific  editing services
• Manuscript editing services
• Manuscript proofreading services  
• Manuscript proofreading services

pubrica-academy

Related posts.

How To Extract Quantitative Data For Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ?

PUB - How EBP can be used for technology development

How EBP Can Be Used For Technology Development

How EBP enable healthcare professionals to provide informed decision

Comments are closed.

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

• My Library Account
• Articles, Books & More
• Course Reserves
• Site Search
• Advanced Search
• Sac State Library
• Research Guides
• Writing a Literature Review
• 6 Stages to Writing a Literature Review
• What is a Literature Review?
• Literature Review Examples
• Organizing Your Literature Review
• Managing your Citations
• Further Reading on Lit Reviews

Academic Phrasebank

• Last Updated: Jun 6, 2024 9:36 AM
• URL: https://csus.libguides.com/litreview

This website may not work correctly because your browser is out of date. Please update your browser .

• How to do a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review in international development

Resource link

This guidance note from Jessica Hagen-Zanker and Richard Mallett of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) outlines an eight-stage approach to writing a literature review that complies with the principles of a systematic review while still also allowing for innovation and reflexivity. 

"We discuss all stages of the review process, but pay particular attention to the retrieval phase, which, we argue, should consist of three interrelated tracks – important for navigating difficult 'information architecture'. We end by clarifying what it is in particular that sets this approach apart from fuller systematic reviews, as well as with some broader thoughts on the nature of ‘the literature review’ within international development and the social sciences more generally. The paper should thus be seen as sitting somewhere between a practical toolkit for those wishing to undertake a rigorous, evidence-focused review and a series of reflections on the role, purpose and application of literature reviews in policy research." (Hagen-Zanker and Mallett, 2013)

• Shortcomings of orthodox literature reviews 3
• Systematic reviews in development studies 4
• Stage 1: Setting the research question 7
• Stage 2: Writing a protocol 8
• Stage 3: Setting the inclusion/exclusion criteria 8
• Stage 4: Writing the search strings 9
• Stage 5: Retrieval 9
• Stage 6: Screening 12
• Stage 7: Evidence assessment 12
• Stage 8: Analysis 15

Hagen-Zanker, J., and Mallett, R., (2013). How to do a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review in international development , Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Retrieved from: https://odi.org/en/publications/how-to-do-a-rigorous-evidence-focused-literature-review-in-international-development-a-guidance-note/

Back to top

© 2022 BetterEvaluation. All right reserved.

College & Research Libraries ( C&RL ) is the official, bi-monthly, online-only scholarly research journal of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association.

C&RL is now on Instragram! Follow us today.

Afton Fawn Ussery is Instructional and Access Services Librarian at Delta State University, email: [email protected] .

Sofiya Petrova Dahman is Resource Delivery/ILL Librarian at University of Memphis, email: [email protected] .

C&RL News

ALA JobLIST

Advertising Information

• Research is an Activity and a Subject of Study: A Proposed Metaconcept and Its Practical Application (76749 views)
• Information Code-Switching: A Study of Language Preferences in Academic Libraries (40031 views)
• Three Perspectives on Information Literacy in Academia: Talking to Librarians, Faculty, and Students (28489 views)

Growing OkraOut: A Case Study

Lessons from 5 years of collaborative design, development, and implementation while building an lgbtq+ library outreach program.

Afton Fawn Ussery and Sofiya Petrova Dahman *

In the past five years, Delta State University’s academic library has made significant efforts to develop sustainable outreach programs that support the LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer+) community. This program has increased the library’s visibility and enhanced its image among its students, faculty, and staff. The article describes the outreach program’s effort, and the collected data will provide a framework for others interested in designing and hosting such programs, including adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Background Information

Members of the Roberts-LaForge Library at Delta State University have hosted an LGBTQ+ Pride event for the past five years. The event and committee are known as OkraOut, which refers to the university’s student mascot of the Fighting Okra. The student body voted on the mascot in the late 1980s/early 1990s as the school’s unofficial mascot. Inspired by Boyer’s (1996, p. 18) definition of scholarship of engagement, this committee held diverse events to promote library services, while also increasing the quality of engagement activities for the local community and the university population at a small college campus.

Problem Statement

The LIS literature on the information needs of, and specific outreach to, LGBTQ+ students is an emerging focus of Academic Libraries, yet there are still few examples in the scholarly literature of programs like OkraOut. This case study aims to detail the process of developing such outreach to help address that gap. This study also adds to the current body of research, examples, and knowledge concerning collaborations between universities, across campus, and the community in outreach programs.

Introduction

Many libraries provide inclusive acknowledgments in their mission or vision statements. However, equally important is how libraries can do more to celebrate and proudly serve all users. We, as librarians, must go the extra step to celebrate and give visibility to our most “invisible regulars” (Naidoo, 2013, p. 40). This article suggests ways for academic libraries, specifically, to be more proactive and to move beyond simple steps such as mission statement language, or buying more LGBTQ+ books for June Pride displays.

The Seeding Stage

The authors met and began working together at Delta State University in 2016. They witnessed a need in their community and were motivated to create an event celebrating a specific population of patrons. ALA’s (American Library Association) Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgender (GLBT) Round Table Toolkit states that:

It is vital to create a welcoming environment for GLBT library users in their communities, campuses, and schools. Library users of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, nationalities, socio-economic classes, and abilities look for materials that include and celebrate diverse experiences within GLBT communities and promote accessible and inclusive programming. With this statement in mind, the authors recognized that their academic library was not fulfilling the needed accessible and inclusive programming.

This need was even more crucial as the authors’ library is located in the middle of the Mississippi Delta. Delta State University is a small four-year public university with library services that serves around 5,000 students, faculty, staff, and community members. According to the University’s mini factbook of 2020–2021 (Delta State University, 2021), Mississippi and Tennessee are the top two states represented among the students. Two thousand four hundred forty-one students were from Mississippi, and sixty-two were from Tennessee, two hours north of Cleveland, Mississippi.

Currently, there are no explicit, comprehensive statewide non-discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people in Mississippi. Instead, there are discriminatory anti-LGBTQ+ laws, including the MS HB 1523 and the Religious Liberty Accommodations Act. The legislature allows people and organizations to decline services to queer people based on religious beliefs. In 2021, Mississippi’s governor signed SB 2536, an anti-transgender sports bill, marking the first piece of specifically anti-transgender legislation to become law. These laws restrict and negatively affect the LGBTQ+ community. Unfortunately, the number of harmful laws against the LGBTQ+ communities is rising nationwide; the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) declared 2021 the “worst year for LGBTQ+ state legislative attacks” (Ronan, 2021).

Tennessee is also home to sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Such bills include anti-transgender legislation SB126, which restricts access to gender-affirming care by limiting health providers’ ability to prescribe Hormone Replacement Therapy to prepubertal minors. Violations of this bill result in a misdemeanor. Along with the anti-transgender sports bill that the Tennessee Governor signed into law, the HB3 and SB228 bills prohibit transgender students from participating in school sports and require student-athletes to be gendered as assigned at birth, demonstrated by their original birth certificate. Outside the school buildings and inside the state’s communities, there are the HB1182 and SB1224 bills, which require businesses that allow people to use restrooms according to their gender identity to post a warning at the entrance of the building and bathrooms.

The authors were aware of the political atmosphere in their region; in addition, they witnessed an interest on campus for LGBTQ+ displays within the library, so they sought to create an event or outreach opportunity for inclusion. Previously, there was a Gay and Lesbian Alliance Student Organization, but it had declined in interaction over the years. At the inception of OkraOut, there were no current on-campus, or even in-community, support groups or events for LGBTQ+ individuals. Outreach activities allow libraries to serve users by being more visible, and developing more substantial campus and community relationships, and so the authors started planning what would become OkraOut.

Keeran and Forbes (2018, p. 250) note that the four critical elements of a successful outreach program are: 1. strategic vision and planning; 2. program development and implementation; 3. community outreach; and 4. expanding outreach audiences. This article’s authors relied on these elements and worked specifically to expand outreach to include all patrons. Librarians and staff have an ethical and professional duty to provide information to all they serve. For example, the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and Codes of Ethics urges librarians and libraries to offer resources and services to all persons, regardless of their backgrounds or views. The authors assembled a committee to contribute ideas, planning, and developing and implementing action. The duties of the event planning committee also included providing information on sexuality, gender identity, and coming out for library patrons. This outreach was to position the library as a key information source for the queer community.

Literature Review

As mentioned, the information needs of LGBTQ+ students in academic libraries is an emerging focus of LIS literature. Strategies, case studies, and best practices for providing library support and services to specialized student populations are responses to this need. The authors have included similar studies within this literature review for further interest.

Research suggests that LGBTQ+ students may experience higher than-usual stresses and difficulties when transitioning from high school. According to Dentato et al. (2013), identity formation often occurs during high school and further on through the colligate experience. There is a growing understanding that libraries must also be active in supporting that development (Dentato, et. al, 2013, p. 10). Renn and Bilodeau (2005, p. 42) add that the post-secondary curriculum—including the library—is vital in facilitating LGBTQ identity development. They viewed models of identity development through the perspectives of student affairs professionals. Doing so developed helpful literature concerning LGBTQ+ people of color, life span approach to LGBTQ+ identity development, and approaches to transgender identity development.

Mehra and Braquet (2011, pp. 401–422) examined the reference department and how they assisted LGBTQ+ patrons. They created an exploratory practice-based framework that identified strategic goals, objectives, and activities for each of the five areas of modern-day references, such as access to electronic resources, user instruction, library commons, outreach liaison, and virtual reference, with a focus on meeting the needs of LGBTQ individuals during the coming out process. They utilized qualitative studies and action research conducted by two library and information science professionals in an academic library. They sought to extend the idea of a traditional reference interaction—one focused solely on information provision—to a more encompassing conceptualization and implementation that designs, delivers, and accesses reference services in a community engagement context to develop fair and equitable services for LGBTQ patrons. Todorinova and Ortiz-Myers (2019, pp. 66–87) engaged public services librarians working in administrative or managerial positions in a conversation about LGBTQ+ needs. There was uncertainty between the library’s role in promoting LGBTQ+ friendliness and the role of the larger university, which may be related to the uncertain position of the library in the campus environment. However, the empathy that librarians, in both decision and non-decision-making roles, have towards LGBTQ students opens up the possibility of deeper conversations and proactive, innovative support services in the future.

Hawkins et al. (2017, p. 316–327) detail conversations among professionals in health sciences librarianship about the needs of LGBTQ patrons. The authors echo the importance of understanding the terminology, and of developing standard cultural competencies in serving LGBTQ users. An example of this in action is hosting safe space training. Safe space training workshops provide information on LGBTQ+ culture and engage in identifying and avoiding microaggressions in speech or actions.

Another example of the importance of providing resources that support and celebrate underrepresented communities is creating helpful library guides. Kohout-Tailor and Klar (2021, p. 173) recommend creating multiple guides and working with various partners on campus. They wrote, “once you identified areas that may need support, creating or growing a partnership to make sure the resources truly meet a need is next. Communicate with colleagues both within and outside of your library or institution to make connections and start the conversation of how best the library can provide resources that support EDI programs or initiatives.” They offer a starting point on how to begin a form of outreach.

Editor and Student Engagement Librarian at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Zoe Bastone (2020, p. 24) explains, “that while there is a wide agreement that outreach is a necessary component in an academic library’s operations, there is a gap in the literature regarding how to create outreach programs that are efficient and effective and can account for unexpected additions to the outreach program.” This article helps fill that gap by discussing the programming of a small academic library. The outreach examined in this article developed through collaborations between universities, across campus, and within the community. However, as mentioned, there is a lack of previous research in academic libraries on building LGBTQ+ outreach events within a case study format. For example, while the authors searched in the database LISTA, “case study” and “outreach programs or outreach services” brought up only 90 hits between 1978 and 2022; 42 included academic libraries, and none included the words “queer or LGBTQ or gay or LGBT or lesbian or homosexual or transgender.” The authors will focus intensely on outreach to develop strong outreach campaigns for underserved groups. This is especially important given the continued growth of minority enrollment in higher education (Puente et. al, 2009, p. 30). The article will reveal the methods of adaptability that the committee used to meet the changing needs of their outreach program over five years and during a world pandemic.

Research Questions

The research questions for this study were as follows:

RQ1. How to start an outreach initiative?

RQ2. How to continue to grow an annual program?

RQ3. How to react during a period of dramatic upheaval and change?

Data Collection

Methodology.

There is published research that quantifies the development, and even influence, of library outreach on student and community involvement with their academic library, as academic libraries commonly host events to attract students and the surrounding community. These events can provide opportunities for interaction, generate informative discussion, and familiarize students with the library’s services. Yin (2017, p. 5) describes qualitative case study methodology as: “Whatever the field of interest, the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. Case studies allow you to focus in-depth on a case and to retain a holistic and real-world perspective.” This article presents a checklist of the four critical elements of a successful outreach program. The checklist includes strategic vision and planning, program development and implementation, community outreach, and expanding outreach audiences. The objective of this article is to provide academic libraries and their staff with practical application of this checklist by linking all its four elements with the authors’ experiences.

The definition of the case study evolved through the work of the library committee, which works tirelessly to conduct an event each year. Collaboration between the authors began during the Summer of 2017. Shortly after, the authors met to work together and—over an extended period—shared similar thoughts and feelings in order to understand and analyze the university’s overall climate, where LGBTQ+ issues remained largely unaddressed. This unified desire for outreach grew into a huge show of celebration of LGBTQ+ people that also provided exploratory data-collecting possibilities. The resulting committee included university staff, faculty, and students. The committee later incorporated more help from community volunteers as well. Officially, the committee was first called to order by two library staff members and three university faculty members. The group’s strategic vision was to grow campus LGBTQ+ support and engagement and then have the student organizations take the eventual reigns. This committee never saw themselves as the sole owners of OkraOut, but as developers and supporters of the campus need. They built the programs and structure. The committee began meeting at the beginning of each Fall semester. For the first couple of years, weekly meetings were held in the library up until the event occurred in October. After the event, a meeting would be held to review and start plans for next year. As the COVID-19 pandemic began, the resulting committee meetings were held through email and occasional Zoom meetings.

Delta State University’s campus is a small area with close collaborations. Because of that, library administration, as well as other departmental administrations, were updated frequently on the developments; this event planning committee would not have been able to accomplish its visions without their support. Committee members were also provided time for the meetings and events. The committee itself had to be built up before building OkraOut. At first, the committee members were similar-minded individuals that were supportive of each other and known to each other through different outreach programs. Then, after the event began to be known throughout campus as an annual event, more volunteers and students reached out. The effort led to the development of a significant LGBTQ and ally network that facilitate future programming and support. This article represents the actualized and envisioned library services for the progressive support of LGBTQ individuals, as described in the following section.

RQ1. How to Start an Outreach Initiative?

Germination Stage

Strategic vision and planning are the first critical elements of a successful outreach program. The beginning of the growing stage of okra is called the germination stage, in which the seeds will produce some roots and leaves. Following this metaphor, the OkraOut program first sprouted in October 2017. That year, Chase Ollis published an article through the Association of College and Research Libraries (2017) calling for libraries to “Standing Up for Our Communities.” He wrote:

Faced with a dramatic policy shift that contradicts the core values of libraries, an awakening of hate groups empowered by the shift, and the perpetual suspense that accompanies uncertain times, librarians are rising to the challenge of maintaining safe spaces in America’s libraries by advocating for intellectual freedom and declaring that libraries are for everyone.

Ollis illustrated the charge for engagement in communities. While providing access to LGBTQ+ resources is essential, providing a diverse, inclusive space and educational opportunities is crucial.

In October 2017, the university held the first LGBTQ+ History Month Celebration with an inaugural event called initially OkraOut Front. The event’s purpose was to bring together the university students, faculty, staff, and local community members who support and advocate for an inclusive and diverse society. More importantly, the event ensured that queer people on campus and in the local community were being represented and recognized with access to diverse collections and services—a priority for the library. The idea for the OkraOut Front library outreach event first appeared in June 2017 after one of the authors posted a picture promoting the academic library’s pride book display. The image received a lot of interest on social media, and the authors began further engaging with students who had revealed that they were queer. The positive engagement revealed a need as little was held to support queer people on campus and locally.

The first step in growing OkraOut was to find collaborators. Both authors held staff positions at the library at the time but were supported by the library’s administration to pursue various campus and community engagements. Identifying nonprofit organizations and LGBTQ+ allies was time-consuming, but not impossible. A partnership with the academic library on the university’s campus and statewide organizations was essential to the development of the event. Locally, there were a few campus and community organizations, including the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, the Gender and Sexuality Alliance student organization, and the Mississippi Department of Health with its HIV/AIDS chapter. Most organizations supporting diversity were based in Jackson, a two-hour drive from campus. These groups included the Human Rights Campaign of Mississippi and Free Mom Hugs of Mississippi. The authors also sought assistance from other university organizations. For example, in the program’s first two years, the committee collaborated with the Sarah Isom Center for Women and Gender Studies, as well as the Center for Inclusion and Cross-Cultural Engagement at the University of Mississippi. This partnership helped extend awareness and provided additional educational and planning tips for the OkraOut committee. The University of Mississippi’s organizations had more funding and experience in offering diverse programs. Such support watered OkraOut’s roots. The authors conducted research and held conversations. A small committee began to grow, and their first act was to plan the first pride event for the university.

On October fifth, 2017, the OkraOut outreach celebration was held a week before National Coming Out Day. National Coming Out Day is an annual LGBT+ awareness day observed on October eleventh to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in “coming out of the closet.” The event was advertised in the first-year seminar courses, campus publicity, via social media platforms (Facebook), among staff and faculty members, and printed materials were distributed around campus and placed on community boards. The side of the library’s lawn stood as a stage where student bands, poets, and ensembles performed music written or composed by queer individuals throughout history. The Delta State University’s marching band opened the event by playing “Over the Rainbow.” The authors prepared an LGBTQ+ movement history timeline to provide more information, resources, and facts.

The program included 114 RSVPs and was free, open to the public, and family-friendly. The event educated the audience about the use of pronouns, acknowledged Mississippi organizations that support LGBTQ+ people, illustrated how to find help or answers, and identified persons that would provide support and assistance on campus and in the state. This first event was seen as a success. With that in mind, the committee and the library administration decided that the program should continue to grow and become an annual library outreach event. The first crucial step of starting an outreach initiative was deemed a success by the feedback from participants. For example, a community member wrote on Facebook:

God sent you here for a reason, and keep doing great things so that all people can feel love and acceptance!!! You are amazing and I can say that even though we have never met!!! I feel compelled to share my story of my family and the struggles we have faced Much Love to you and yours (Anonymous, community user, 2017).

Further, a student commented, “Thank you so much for sharing! This is amazing” (Anonymous, DSU student, 2017), and a faculty member added, “Great job tonight! Thank you for your efforts! My class enjoyed!” (Anonymous, DSU Faculty, 2017).

The second step of a successful outreach program is the development and implementation stage. Once ideas are promising, it is important to continue to repeat and build upon them. In 2018 sprouting occurred again, and the OkraOut committee met to repeat the successful library outreach event. Many of the setup props as the previous year were used again. To continue the music essence, “Vogue” was settled as the theme of the 2018 LGBTQ+ History celebration.

The guest speaker in 2018 was someone whom one of the authors befriended the previous year when researching OkraOut, Dr. Jaime Harker. She spoke at the event and again the next day at Delta State University’s art gallery about her book, The Lesbian South . Before the event, the committee advertised a Google form that allowed patrons to share their personal coming out stories, including the option of remaining anonymous or releasing their name. The stories were then printed out and shared at the outreach event. Later, the university’s archives and museum archived the responses with permission.

At the end of the 2018 event, a local dance teacher was invited to teach classic vogue dance moves, and then the crowd could take part in voguing down the stage. The university’s then president and vice president of student affairs led the voguing. Students, faculty, and families took part in the large dance party. The dancing crowd was large, growing from around 100 to 200 participants from the previous year. Officially on the OkraOut Facebook website, 129 people RSVPed. A student later commented on the site, “love that they included an ally flag” (Anonymous, DSU student, 2018). A faculty member wrote, “Love this!” (Anonymous, DSU faculty, 2018). After the event was officially over, an open mic night for poetry was held down the street at a local coffee shop.

RQ2. How to Continue to Grow an Annual Program?

Young Seedling Stage

OkraOut saw a change in its direction and size as it further bloomed in 2019. The third step of a successful outreach program is the inclusion of community outreach; thus, in 2019 the OkraOut committee sought entertainers from outside the university. In a bit of foreshadowing, Liam Stack had written, earlier that year, a piece in the New York Times titled, “Drag Queen Story Hour Continues Its Reign at Libraries, Despite Backlash” (2019). He wrote on the rise of Drag Queen Story hours throughout the country, even in areas with discriminatory laws. Stack (2019) noted that:

Drag performers regularly entertain children at libraries and community centers in progressive enclaves like New York and Los Angeles as well as red-state towns like Juneau, Alaska, and Lincoln, Neb….Melissa Bean, who started the Middle Tennessee chapter of Drag Queen Story Hour, agreed. Unfortunately, backlash often takes place as well. For example, two libraries in central Ohio canceled drag events after receiving what the library council said were “hostile threats.” Stack poignantly added in the interview a quote from Ms. Bean, the statistics of the L.G.B.T. community and how many people might be in it don’t change because of your ZIP code and your population density, said Ms. Bean, who lives near Sparta, population 5,029, There are L.G.B.T. people here who need us.

At OkraOut’s first committee meeting of the year, members agreed that 2019’s outreach event should be more extensive, including multiple activities and outreach formats, as the previous two years had been so successful. Inspiration for a theme came from the New York Public Library, which held a program called Love & Resistance: Stonewall 50, referring to the Stonewall Uprising—a series of protests by members of the gay community in response to a police raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York City—in 1969. Those protests have become a symbol of resistance to social and political discrimination.

With that in mind, the theme emerged as OkraOut Resistance and History: An event to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, a milestone in the LGBTQ+ History movement. To celebrate in a larger fashion, the committee enthusiastically chose to host the first-ever drag show on campus. The committee utilized social media, including dressing up in unicorn costumes, printing flyers, creating videos, and advertising on the university’s marquee. This event was free and family-friendly. The music, costumes, and performances fit a family-friendly event. A rainbow cake and cupcakes were shared, and various campus and equality organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign, MomHugs.org, and My Brother’s Keeper, hosted tables with provided information on resources.

Because of backlash to the wording of being family-friendly and some negative messages on social media in response to a drag show, the location was moved from the library’s lawn to a theater on campus for easier security. Those security concerns were brought to the attention of the campus police. Although they were found unwarranted, the event has moved indoors to monitor entrances better. This proved helpful as, according to the RSVPs on the group’s webpage, the committee was expecting at least 133 people. However, the event had its largest turnout, and the performance theater—which has 350 seats—was standing room only.

The OkraOut committee experienced support from faculty, staff, students, and community members. Before the event, community members posted support on social media by writing, “Y’all come out and support Okra Out! this Thursday. Bring your kids. Show them that the diversity of humans is beautiful. And if you disagree with that, keep your hatefulness to yourself” (Anonymous, Community member A, 2019). After the show, many community members reached out with stories such as the following:

I couldn’t believe people I know and thought I liked were saying horrible things. I lost so much respect for many people bc of all of that I’m proud dsu is doing this and proud people like you guys are here to help They talk about bullies in schools where they are the bullies of this town in my opinion. It’s so sad If there is ever a time for others to learn I’ll be happy to share how my own family learned to accept my trans brother And there is way way more to the story (Anonymous, Community member B, 2019).In response to the first drag show on campus, attendees posted, “This was our 3rd year to go to Okra Out as a family. It was such an amazing event, as usual, and our family and friends had a ball!” (Anonymous, drag show attendee A, 2019) and, “We had so much fun at the 3rd Okra Out! The kids absolutely loved the first-ever drag show at DSU” (Anonymous, drag show attendee B, 2019).

Before the drag show, a faculty member held an OkraOut Pride yoga session outside the theater. Also, an exhibit of the national campaign from Zeiss Lenses Americas shared different interpretations of love in the theater’s lobby. With the permission of the local photographer, Rory Doyle, his photographs of local members of the LGBTQIA+ community—including Delta State University professors and students—were also displayed (with the subjects’ permission).

The OkraOut committee 2019 produced a series of zines for the first time in 2019. Three zines were created and published with information submitted by students, faculty, staff, and community members. The authors and artists included personal stories, poetry, artwork, and words of encouragement. They were promoted by the Language and Literature department. Once printed, student volunteers distributed the zines and left them throughout the student union and other sitting locations throughout campus. Two years before, Kate Kitchens, an academic reference and instruction librarian, presented the idea of zines at the Iowa Library Association conference in a presentation called “Moving Beyond Queer Acceptance: Creating a New Community Culture” (2017). This presentation focused on their guide, “Librarian Field Notes,” for librarians who wanted to provide services to support their queer patrons but did not know where to start. Using zines was an avenue that offered a way to understand queer communities and their unique needs better. During the first year zines were printed in a faculty member’s office, so they were in black and white. Student volunteers used crayons to color in part of the title page. Later, when more funds were available, the committee could print the zines in color. The OkraOut zines became an essential and creative asset to the outreach events and continue today.

RQ3. How to React during a Period of Dramatic Upheaval and Change?

Flowering During Frosting Stage

The fourth element in a successful outreach initiative is to continue to expand the outreach audience. This aspect was even more necessary in the fourth year of OkraOut. Sometimes growth is difficult and must be pushed through, and the year 2020 certainly taught everyone a lesson in resilience. Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Standards for Distance Learning Library Services state,

All students, faculty members, administrators, staff members, or any other members of an institution of higher education are entitled to the library services and resources of that institution, including direct communication with the appropriate library personnel, regardless of where they are physically located in relation to the campus; where they attend class with regard to the institution’s main campus; or the modality by which they take courses. Academic libraries must, therefore, meet the information and research needs of all these constituents, wherever they may be. In 2020, every student became a distance learning student due to the pandemic of COVID-19, and the OkraOut committee had to decide how to provide services and outreach safely. Because OkraOut has evolved over the past few years into a multifaceted and flexible program, it could adapt during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Greenblatt (2001) argues that the LGBTQ community has been transformed with the help of the Internet and social media. Those outlets contribute many opportunities for academic libraries to bring value to LGBTQ students in terms of information services, programming, collections, and much more. Many projects were fast-tracked to meet this unique need, including creating a webpage to host our events and present our mission statement and other information. The Systems librarian built an OkraOut online archive ( https://www.deltastate.edu/library/okra-out/ ) to collect and make accessible photographs, personal stories, and additional information about the events of 2020 and previous years. To further spread the program’s outreach and protect the collected stories, the committee contacted the Invisible Histories Project and sent OkraOut information to the Library of Congress for their LGBTQ+ archives.

By October 2020, the committee felt comfortable hosting one in-person event within federal guidelines. A Pride walk on the campus quad, a grassy area at the Delta State University entrance, was held. The event occurred outside, and there was enough room for social distancing while wearing masks. Pride packs were presented to the first 100 attendees. They contained stickers, flags with a tutorial on making them a face mask, zines, and LGBTQ+ fast facts. At the start of the walk, representation flags were displayed, and volunteers were encouraged to write stories and create artwork for future zines.

OkraOut grew in 2020 to be more than just the celebration on or around National Coming Out Day. It was a whole month of celebration, and outreach and virtual events were held throughout October. Through the new webpage, the library shared a drag queen story time of a fabulous reading of Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas.” The webpage also provided a link to the screening of the independent film Gay Chorus Deep South and a zoom pride yoga session. The site recorded 93 views that month.

Because of the program’s growth, the committee also wanted to help the LGBTQ+ student organization on campus and looked for ways to increase visibility. In 2020, committee members applied for a grant with the L.G.B.T.Q. Fund of Mississippi to do just that. OkraOut was awarded a grant of $3,500, which was used for safe space training on campus for faculty, staff, and students and to help establish the student organization.

The committee sought to find a medium to meet the needs of the students on and off campus, and to continue the trend of increasing the number of events each year. To meet this challenge, they ensured an equal number of virtual events and in-person events in case of cancellations because of COVID-19 case spikes. OkraOut hoped for more in-person events in 2021, but the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic continued to prove challenging. Nonetheless, 2021’s theme was chosen as LOVE IS LOVE, and throughout October, a LOVE is LOVE Wall was present on the first floor of the Student Union. This poignant but straightforward theme reflected the past two years of trauma felt by the unceasing pandemic.

With the support of the Office of Student Life, Delta State University’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee, and the academic library, OkraOut held an adult drag show and fundraiser for the student pride organization at a local restaurant. Then a Rainbow Run on the campus’s quad and a family-friendly drag show were held on campus. After Delta State University’s second drag show, the audience was welcomed to visit tables with representatives and information about supporting health organizations. One of the article’s authors also created the university’s first Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion library guide in honor of OkraOut. This library guide quickly became the most viewed LibGuide for the Roberts-LaForge Library. As of September 2022, the DEI library guide has been viewed 1,144 times. The following closest number of views is the Dual Credit LibGuide, with 539 views.

Academic presentations were also held, one in-person and one virtually. In a first collaboration with the University of Memphis, author Dr. Phillip Gordon was invited to both campuses to discuss his book, Gay Faulkner , and present a lecture on acknowledging the Queer South. While Delta State University did have a moderately well-attended in-person event, the University of Memphis used live stream technology and witnessed a more significant online presence than the in-person event. OkraOut’s virtual event included a presentation on “Teaching, Learning, and Living the Queer South” by Dr. David Baylis, a former faculty member. The online components were viewed 389 times.

With the grant funds described above, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee Chair organized virtual Safe Space training workshops throughout October. It worked with OkraOut committee members to help reorganize the Pride student organization at the university. The Pride student organization now includes 40 members, representing 1.64 percent of the student body.

The committee did recognize the difficulty of having lower on-campus numbers than in previous years. Nonetheless, during Homecoming—the last week of October—OkraOut had a float in the university’s parade for the first time; the float increased visibility on campus and in the community. Responses to that year’s OkraOut effort on social media included a comment from a community member that, “A colorful time was had by all,” and a student posted, “Thank you for making this world a better and a little bit safer place!”

Plans for the Future of the Program, Okra Pod Bearing Stage

Feedback on OkraOut’s outreach events was essential to gather because a few weeks after each event, we held a post-event committee meeting to determine improvements for the next year, and to celebrate our efforts to advocate for diversity and inclusion. Even with the trials of the last few years, the OkraOut committee has retained its excitement and vigor. The committee has only grown and continued to bring in individuals from all university areas. They all look forward to the future of the outreach programs. Most importantly, they plan to continue and strengthen collaborations with other higher education and nonprofit institutions. Building those connections and networking will boost the outreach possibilities. Of course, there is also a need to better utilize technology for virtual attendance in this new era.

Larger ideas include creating a statement about the commitment to diversity and inclusion, publishing that statement on our library site, and possibly planning monthly events instead of only holding in one month to encourage further engagement. More previously discussed, centralized events include having a gay mass in partnership with the local Episcopal Church, and creating a queer and trans-community closet with the university’s Career Services. Currently, the committee is also looking at grants to use within the greater community. Again, these events rely on teamwork and the relationships built from them. The OkraOut program is sprouting new growths every year. The committee, which began with one event in 2017 has, five years later, hosted nine events throughout the month of October.

In repeating a statement from the methodology, this unified hope for outreach grew into a vast celebration of LGBTQ+ people, and provided exploratory data-collecting possibilities.

Through starting an outreach program, the authors realized that initiative and collaboration take time to implement successfully. However, the first step for librarians and staff is to recognize the power of library promotion and embrace the issues of their community. Services, resources, and materials are only small parts of what makes an academic library valuable to its campus community. The librarians and staff also have a one-on-one impact on the students and community. Over the past five years, OkraOut’s committee has grown from five members to sixteen members, and has been chaired by a library staff member in four out of five years. This growth exhibits the volunteer spirit of the committee members.

Also, during that time, the committee witnessed the attendance of events swell from 100 people to over 350 people attending, with an understandable dip to 93 in 2020. (As seen in Figure 1.)

The main takeaway from that growth is that a library’s marketing, outreach, and promotion should illustrate that the library cares and that it, with its partnerships, takes service seriously. This also exhibits the support and the resulting need for the outreach initiative. As illustrated, libraries, especially academic libraries, can and should play an integral role in helping LGBTQ+ students, faculty, and staff feels seen. Support should spread further than just an LGBTQ+ collection in the library. The Library Bill of Rights puts it best: “To that end, libraries and library workers should embrace equity, diversity, and inclusion in everything that they do.” With the spread of outreach and the audience growth, Robert-LaForge Library’s staff members have taken an active role in educating the community by instructing Safe Space sessions and utilizing grant funding. Safe Space training sessions have become a valid workshop on campus. Faculty, staff, and students are welcome to attend these semesterly sessions to learn more about pronouns and stereotypes to reduce the often unwelcoming, and biased, environment that LGBTQ+ people navigate daily. Ally connections are strengthened, and students will be aware that places of shelter are needed. A comment shared by a student after the fifth OkraOut expressed that it was truly appreciated.

This article concludes with the hope that the audience continues to give visibility, celebrate, educate, support marginalized communities, and identify ways to get engaged and advocate for queer people on campus and in their communities. The efforts can be small or large, but the action should remain. OkraOut was planned to be educational, festive, and entertaining while also bringing to the table essential questions about diversity and inclusion, thus showing support, and giving visibility to the queer people and allies on campus, and in the community. By spreading the idea that the library was an institution that guards and supports everyone’s right to access knowledge and culture and advocates for all patrons, OkraOut positioned the library as a safe space. This article exhibits small and large efforts, but the essential fact remains that the ideas were planted, watered with support, and that the outreach began to grow.

Further Impact and Studies

Despite some improving social circumstances for some LGBTQ+ people, much progress still needs to be made. This article, in particular, can be helpful to libraries, librarians, and universities in recognizing the required progress. Librarians may realize that they need more training on LGBTQ+ terminology, culture, and information resources. Library administrators may find this paper useful in identifying connections between librarian outreach goals and the larger vision of library services.

Beyond the library, university and student affairs administrators may find this paper interesting as it emphasizes the role of collaboration. It also provides a valuable example of how the library can partner in broader university outreach initiatives and that wide-reaching impact can be felt with any outreach efforts. Ultimately, research will be needed to illustrate in more detail how well librarians address LGBTQ+ needs within their universities and communities and the role of academic libraries in those outreach initiatives.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge and thank those who helped grow OkraOut. This was a collaborative effort within the library, the institution, the community, and the state. The following is just a snapshot of organizations and people who made this outreach event possible:

Okra Out Planning Committee | DSU Library Services Administration | DSU Department of Music | DSU Department of Languages and Literature | DSU Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee | DSU Pride Alliance | DSU Office of Student Affairs | Delta Music Institute | Campaign for Southern Equality | DSU Department of Art | DSU Division of Social Sciences and History | DSU Canterbury Ministry | DSU Office of Student Life | DSU Police Department | Human Rights Campaign of MS |  Free Mom Hugs of MS | Sarah Isom Center for Women and Gender Studies | Center for Inclusion and Cross-Cultural Engagement at the University of Mississippi |

Dr. David Baylis | Dr. Jaime Harker | Danza Locke Reifers | Kayla Selby | Michelle E. Johansen | Brandy N. Collins | Jonathan Szot | Dr. Karen Fosheim | Robin Webb | Brittany K. Mann | Haley B. Scroggins | Holly E. Senter | Elizabeth C. Swindle | Charles T. Salazar | Rochelle Owsley | Maia Elgin-Wegmann | Maya M. McGinnis | Dr. William J. Ash-Houchen | Dr. Kelsey Evans-Amalu | Dr. Melanie R. Anderson | Sykina Butts | Mr. Bill LaForge and Mrs. Nancy LaForge | Jeff Slagell | Dr. Vernell Bennett-Fairs | Dr. Jamie Dahman | Denisha Cook | Dr. Jacqueline Goldman | Kara Goldman | Lynne Lambdin | Celeste ArgiFlex | Tiko Jones | Gunter McCourt | Aubrey Ombre | Zoey Adams | Iris Lefluer | 

ACLU. (2021). Legislation Affecting LGBTQ Rights Across the Country 2021 . American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed in February 2022. https://www.aclu.org/legislation-affecting-lgbtq-rights-across-country-2021

American Library Association. (2006). Library Bill of Rights. Accessed November 2021. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

American Library Association. (2009). Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table . Access November 2021. https://www.ala.org/ala/glbtrt/welcomeglbtround.htm  

American Library Association. (2017). Professional Ethics . Accessed November 2021. http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

Anonymous, Community member. (2017, October). God sent you here for a reason . Facebook comment.

Anonymous, Community member A. (2019, October). “Y’all come out…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, Community member B. (2019, October). “I couldn’t believe…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, DSU Faculty. (2017, October). “Great job tonight…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, DSU Faculty. (2018, October). “Love this…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, DSU Student. (2017, October). “Thank you so much…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, DSU Student (2018, October). “Love that they included…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, Drag show attendee A. (2019, October). “This was our 3rd year…” Facebook comment.

Anonymous, Drag show attendee B. (2019, October). “We had so much fun…” Facebook comment.

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2016). Standards for Distance Learning Library Services . Accessed November 2021. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardsdistancelearning .

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2020). Pandemic Resources for Academic Libraries: Distance Education and Engagement. Accessed November 2021, https://acrl.libguides.com/pandemic/distance

Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , 49(7), 18–33.

Bastone, Z. (2020). Creating an Outreach Plan that Accounts for the Seen and Unseen. Journal of Library Outreach & Engagement , 1 (1), 24–39.  

Campaign for Southern Equality. (2021). Five Anti-LGBTQ Bills Passed in Tennessee You Should Know About . Accessed November 2021. https://southernequality.org/five-anti-lgbtq-bills-passed-in-tennessee-you-should-know-about/

Dentato, M.P., Craig, S.L., Messinger, L., Lloyd, M., and McInroy, L.B. (2013). Outness among LGBTQ Social Work Students in North America: The Contribution of Environmental Supports and Perceptions of Comfort. Social Justice , 10.

Delta State University. (2021). Mini Factbook 2020–2021 . Accessed November 2021. https://www.deltastate.edu/PDFFiles/irp/factbooks/2020-21-Mini-Factbook.pdf

Greenblatt, E. (2005). Exploring LGBTQ Online Resources.  Journal of Library Administration,  43(3–4), 85–101.

Hawkins, B.W., Morris, M., Nguyen, T., Siegel, J., and Vardell, E. (2017). Advancing the Conversation: Next Steps for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Sciences Librarianship. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 10 5 (4), 316–27.

Keeran, P., and Forbes, C. (2018). Successful Campus Outreach for Academic Libraries: Building Community through Collaboration . New York City: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kitchens, K. (2017). Librarian Field Notes . Accessed November 2021. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intersections-queer-library-outreach-zine

Kohout-Tailor, J., and Klar, L. (2021). COVID-19, Collections, and Collaboration: Promoting Inclusivity from the Ground Up. C&RL News, 82(4), 171–174

Koontz, C., and Mon, L. (2014). Marketing and Social Media: A Guide for Libraries, Archives, and Museums. New York: Rowman& Littlefield. 

Kraemer, E., Keyse, D., and Lombardo, S. (2003). Beyond these walls: Building a library outreach program at Oakland University. The Reference Librarian, 39(82), 5–17.

Mehra, B., and Braquet, D. (2011). Progressive LGBTQ reference: Coming out in the 21st century. Reference Services Review, 39, 401–422.

Monnier, R. (2021). Pivoting Partnership Programming During a Pandemic: Centennial Celebrations in 2020. Public Services Quarterly, 17(1), 53–58.

Naidoo, J. (2013). Over the Rainbow and under the Radar: Library Services and Programs to LGBTQ Families. Children and Libraries, 11(3), 34–40.

Ollis, C. (2017). Standing Up for Our Communities: Best practices and resources for public libraries serving LGBTQ youth. American Libraries. Accessed November 2021. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2017/06/21/standing-up-lgbtq-youth-communities/

Puente, M.A., Gray, L., and Agnew, S. (2009). The expanding library wall: Outreach to the University of Tennessee’s multicultural/international student population. Reference Services Review, 37(1), 30–43.

Renn, K., and Bilodeau, B. (2005). Leadership Identity Development Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Leaders. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice , 42(3).

Ronan, W. (2021). 2021 Slated to Become Worst Year for LGBTQ State Legislative Attacks as Unprecedented Number of States Poised to Enact Record-Shattering Number of Anti-LGBTQ Measures I nto Law . Human Rights Campaign. Accessed November 2021. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/2021-slated-to-become-worst-year-for-lgbtq-state legislative-attacks

Stack, L. (2019, June 6). Drag Queen Story Hour Continues Its Reign at Libraries, Despite Backlash. New York Times , https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/us/drag-queen-story-hour.html .

Todorinova, L., and Ortiz-Myers, M. (2019). The role of the academic library in supporting LGBTQ students: A survey of librarians and library administrators at LGBTQ-friendly colleges and universities.  College & Undergraduate Libraries, 26(1), 66–87.

Yin, R. (2017) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. New York City, SAGE Publications.

* Afton Fawn Ussery is Instructional and Access Services Librarian at Delta State University, email: [email protected] ; Sofiya Petrova Dahman is Resource Delivery/ILL Librarian at University of Memphis, email: [email protected] . ©2024 Afton Fawn Ussery and Sofiya Petrova Dahman, Attribution-NonCommercial ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) CC BY-NC.

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

© 2024 Association of College and Research Libraries , a division of the American Library Association

Print ISSN: 0010-0870 | Online ISSN: 2150-6701

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6701

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 July 2024

Selection of renewable energy development path for sustainable development using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: the case of Malaysia

• Taikun Li 1 ,
• Hong Wang 2 &
• Yonghui Lin 3  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  15082 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

70 Accesses

Metrics details

• Energy and society
• Environmental social sciences
• Sustainability

Malaysia's excessive energy consumption has led to the depletion of traditional energy reserves such as oil and natural gas. Although Malaysia has implemented multiple policies to achieve sustainable national energy development, the current results are unsatisfactory. As of 2022, only 2% of the country's electricity supply comes from renewable energy, which accounts for less than 30% of the energy structure. Malaysia must ensure energy security and diversified energy supply while ensuring sustainable energy development. This article uses the fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making(MCDM) method based on cumulative prospect theory to help decision-makers choose the most suitable renewable energy for sustainable development in Malaysia from four dimensions of technology, economy, society, and environment. The results show that solar power is the most suitable renewable energy for sustainable development, followed by biomass, wind, and hydropower, but the optimal alternative is sensitive to the prospect parameters. Finally, it was analyzed that efficiency, payback period, employment creation, and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions are the most critical factors affecting the development of renewable energy in Malaysia under the four dimensions. Reasonable suggestions are proposed from policy review, green finance, public awareness, engineering education, and future energy. This research provides insightful information that can help Malaysian decision-makers scientifically formulate Sustainable development paths for renewable energy, analyze the problems encountered in the current stage of renewable energy development, and provide recommendations for Malaysia's future renewable energy transition and sustainable development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determination of the optimal location for constructing solar photovoltaic farms based on multi-criteria decision system and Dempster–Shafer theory

Offshore wind power station (OWPS) site selection using a two-stage MCDM-based spherical fuzzy set approach

Selecting an optimal approach to reduce energy crises under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment

Introduction.

The utilization of fossil fuels poses detrimental effects on the environment and generates toxic pollutants. It also harms the ecosystem and releases hazardous gasses, all while its energy source remains unsustainable 1 . It is expected that the world population will reach 9 billion by 2050. In addition, economic growth, technological progress, and environmental degradation are leading to an increasing global demand for renewable energy 2 , 3 . Therefore, sustainable energy (SusE) is crucial for a country's economic and social development, environmental improvement, and improving people's quality of life 4 . Figure  1 shows the world's renewable energy consumption and generation from 2012 to 2022 5 . More and more countries are beginning to realize the role of renewable energy in their economy, environment, and energy transition 6 . Malaysia has been exploring which engine to use to strengthen its sluggish economy in recent years. Renewable energy's enormous economic benefits and sustainable development paths have provided an essential way for Malaysia's economic growth and energy transition. The Malaysian government is increasingly valuing them 7 . With the rapid economic development in recent years, Malaysia is enjoying the benefits of economic growth while also being affected by environmental changes. Figure  2 indicates the carbon dioxide emissions of Malaysia and the world.

Global renewable energy generation and consumption from 2012 to 2022 (source: British Petroleum(BP) Statistical Review of World Energy 2023 5 ).

Global and Malaysian carbon dioxide emissions from 2010 to 2019. (source: World Bank(WB) 16 ).

Comparing the world's total CO 2 emissions, we find Malaysia has not made good progress in control of carbon emissions in recent years 8 . Malaysia still faces significant challenges in achieving stable decarbonization 9 . Solar, biomass, wind, and hydropower are among the abundant renewable resources in Malaysia. Figure  3 depicts the utmost net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that produce electricity from renewable energy sources in Malaysia 10 . As of 2022, Malaysia has produced around 2% of its power from different renewable sources, which falls well short of the original goal of achieving a 20% renewable energy penetration by 2030. Meanwhile, expanding Renewable and Sustainable Energy Sources (RnESs) has become essential to meet energy demand, address climate change, and achieve clean and sustainable development. Selecting the optimal renewable energy source would have positive effects on sustainability in several areas, including social and environmental aspects 11 .

The greatest net generating capacity of power facilities and other renewable energy installations in Malaysia from 2013 to 2022. (source: The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Capacity Statistics 2023 10 ).

Malaysia has diverse endowments of renewable energy resources. The average annual rainfall in Malaysia is 3549 mm. There are approximately 189 named rivers with a total length of approximately 57,300 kilometers 12 . In recent years, Malaysia's hydropower resources have been exhausted, and the major environmental and social problems caused by hydropower plants have attracted the attention of the government 13 . Although Malaysia lacks wind energy resources, it has 29 longest coastlines in the world, totalling approximately 4,675 km. The offshore wind energy resources are abundant and suitable for developing offshore wind power projects according to their resource characteristics 14 . The average sunshine intensity in Malaysia is 4.21–5.56 kWh/m 2 . Solar energy potential is roughly four times that of fossil fuels 13 . Oil palm is the most significant source of biomass in Malaysia. As the world's second-largest producer of palm oil, the current oil palm plantation area is close to 6 million ha 12 . In this context, Although the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused great damage to all aspects of the economy of Malaysia 15 , the Malaysian government still actively seek sustainable path for renewable energy development.

This article is intended to assist Malaysian policymakers in analyzing the current state of renewable energy in Malaysia, to formulate a scientific and effective renewable energy policy. This article's structure is as follows: Section " Literature review " reviews the relevant literature, focusing primarily on MCDM techniques, cumulative prospect theory, and fuzzy set theory. The evaluation criteria system and renewable energy selection decision model are established, and the decision-making process is elaborated in Section " Research methodology ". Section " A study case in Malaysia " evaluates the types of renewable energy in Malaysia. The final section summarizes and discusses the entire article and provides suggestions for Malaysia's renewable energy policies, which will help Malaysia pursue a low-carbon and sustainable development path.

Literature review

MCDM techniques were extensively employed in selecting renewable energy sources(RPS) 17 . Büyüközkan et al. proposed a novel MCDM approach that integrates Spherical Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (SF-DEMATEL), Spherical Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (SF-ANP), and Spherical Fuzzy Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (SF-VIKOR) algorithms in a Group Decision Making (GDM) environment. By evaluating wind energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, hydropower, and biogas, it is finally determined that wind and solar energy are the most appropriate energy options for sustainable development in Turkey 18 . Giri et al. have established a criteria system based on society, environment, economy, technology, and politics, including 21 sub-criteria. The study determined that wind energy was India's most optimal energy source, followed by solar and biomass energy, with tidal energy having the lowest value 19 . Nuriyev et al.used four different MCDM methods to make optimal choices for renewable energy transition scenarios in oil and gas-producing countries. The final determination of Azerbaijan's energy planning path is to increase natural gas (NG) moderately, maintain hydro, and increase solar notably and wind moderately 20 . Akpahou et al. evaluated the alternatives using eighteen criteria categorized under the four pillars of sustainability (technical, social, economic, and environmental). Ultimately, it is concluded that solar photovoltaic power generation is the finest energy choice for Benin's government 21 .

Additionally, MCDM techniques have been implemented in other renewable energy sectors, such as efficiency assessment 22 , material supplier selection 23 , and site selection 24 . Scholars combine MCDM techniques with fuzzy set theory.This was called the fuzzy MCDM theory. This theory has been widely used in PRS selection. Sylvester et al. adopted the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order performance by similarity to the ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) to analyze the influencing factors on the development of renewable energy in Malawi 25 . Ighravwe et al. built a framework that combines the fuzzy entropy method and fuzzy-VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) to rank hybrid renewable energy systems (HRES) simulation software 26 . Nguyen et al. have already developed a fuzzy MCDM model for suitable turbine suppliers in wind power energy projects 27 . Bandira et al. studied the optimal location of solar power plants using the MCDM method 28 . It is significant to apply fuzzy MCDM techniques to RPS selection to control uncertainty.

Classic MCDM techniques typically rely on the expected utility theory, which assumes that decision-makers are entirely rational. However, in complex and diverse environments, decision-makers may face various dangers. Kahneman's prospect theory demonstrated that decision-makers' psychological behaviour exhibits a risk-averse tendency for gains and a risk-seeking tendency for losses 29 . Some individual decision-making theories, such as regret theory, cumulative prospect theory, disappointment theory, and third-generation prospect theory, have begun to develop swiftly based on prospect theory. Among these theories, the cumulative prospect theory best describes the behavioral characteristics of decision-makers. The calculation formula can give the value and weight of the likely result. Therefore, it is considered the most popular theory.

Due to the logical clarity and simplicity of the formulations, the method has been extensively used to solve numerous decision-making problems 30 . Currently, cumulative prospect theory is applied to the decision-making process regarding renewable energy. Zhang et al. evaluated five commercial photovoltaic technologies from a sustainable perspective using a cumulative prospect theory 31 . Zhao et al. used the cumulative prospect theory to select the location of a wind farm in China 32 . Due to the unpredictability and volatility of renewable energy, the decision to utilize it is fraught with significant dangers. Decision-makers frequently exhibit distinct risk preferences, including risk neutrality, risk aversion, and risk pursuing. Decision-makers' varying risk preferences will have a decisive effect on the outcome.

The above research does not consider the risk preference of decision-makers based on traditional fuzzy MCDM. At the same time, it does not consider the deep integration of sustainable development concepts and renewable energy development plans. The above model and viewpoint have not been well applied in Malaysia's renewable energy sustainable development plan. Based on previous research, we propose a fuzzy MCDM model based on cumulative prospect theory, providing scientific guidance for sustainable renewable energy development in Malaysia. The innovation of this article lies in combining fuzzy theory and cumulative prospect theory to evaluate Malaysia's renewable energy from a sustainable development perspective.

Research methodology

Evaluation criteria system.

Establishing a criteria system plays a vital role in RPS selection decision-making. In this section, four main criteria directly related to the sustainability objective were selected for analysis: technical, economic, social, and environmental aspects. These criteria align with the Eleventh Malaysia Plan developed by the Malaysian government. Moreover, sub-criteria associated with each criterion were identified from the scientific databases, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. We finalized 15 criteria after conducting an extensive literature review and consulting with 10 experts. To achieve the goal of this study, we contacted 10 experts from academic institutions, government energy departments, stakeholders, and industries. Table 1 contains the demographic data of the experts. Figure  4 depicts the RPS selection criteria evaluation system. The following are the explanations of the sub-criteria:

Evaluation criteria system for RPS evaluation. ( www.freepik.com Designed by Freepik) .

Technical criterion

Reliability C11 33 , 34 Reliability is the ability of the system to operate as required under specified conditions.

Efficiency C12 35 , 36 Efficiency refers to the level of conversion of natural resources into usable electrical energy.

Maturity C13 35 , 36 Maturity indicates the size of the application range of the technology and whether there is room for improvement.

Resource availability C14 35 The RPS's secure operation is determined by the availability of renewable energy resource (RER) for energy generation.

Economic criterion

Investment Cost (C21) 35 , 37 Investment Cost includes the overall investment from the establishment of the factory to the operation of the equipment, including installation, commissioning, labor, equipment, infrastructure, etc.

O&M cost(C22) 36 , 37 Operations and maintenance cost(O&M cost) represents the operating cost of the factory, which includes parts maintenance costs, worker wages, etc. Compared with traditional energy, renewable energy has lower operating and maintenance costs.

Electricity Cost(C23) 35 , 37 Electricity Cost is the net present value of the lifecycle unit cost of electricity for a generating asset.

Payback period(C24) 35 , 38 The payback period of a renewable energy initiative is the amount of time required for the total return on investment to equal the initial investment.

Market maturity(C25) 37 indicates the overall situation of international market investment in this field.

Social criterion

Social benefits(C31) 35 , 36 By initiating a power initiative, social benefit represents social progress in the local community and region.

Employment creation(C32) 35 , 37 The number of jobs the energy system can provide throughout its life cycle.

Public acceptance (C33) 39 : This criterion pertains to the level of public acceptance of renewable energy (RE), which is acknowledged as a significant factor influencing the adoption of RE technology and the attainment of energy policy objectives. The opinions of the population and pressure groups can significantly impact the time required to complete an energy project, making it of utmost importance.

Environmental criterion

Land requirement(C41) 35 , 37 refers to the land area occupied by renewable energy power plants, which may cause resettlement or affect the surrounding environment and increase additional costs.

Impact on the ecosystem(C42) 13 , 35 This indicator measures the environmental harm caused by the power facility.

CO 2 emission(C43) 13 , 40 The capacity of renewable resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Renewable energy selection decision model

MCDM is commonly employed in renewable energy management, particularly in energy policy analysis, technology selection, project appraisal, and environmental effect analysis 41 . Considering Malaysia's renewable energy resource endowment, scholars have selected solar, biomass, wind and hydro energy as important alternative options in their research 6 , 13 , 42 , 43 . Numerous studies by scholars have shown that MCDM models could be used to evaluate, compare and rank different renewable energy sources based on a comprehensive set of technical, environmental, economical, and social criteria 37 , 44 , 45 , 46 . The combination of MCDM techniques and fuzzy set theory,named fuzzy MCDM. Currently widely used in the field of renewable energy selection. Due to the high degree of uncertainty in the selection of renewable energy, combining MCDM with fuzzy theory can effectively solve the uncertainty. In different environments, the subjective preferences of decision-makers can affect the final decision results. Therefore, this article adopts the cumulative prospect theory method to describe decision-makers' characteristics in different situations.The decision model is a systematic framework incorporating triangular fuzzy number (TFN), AHP, and cumulative prospect theory.

The data in this study were obtained from literature review and expert evaluation. Refer to Table 4 for specific data sources. The structure comprises two major components: the first part is preparation, and the second part is decision-making. In the preparation phase, alternative, criteria and sub-criteria were obtained through a literature review. Experts select the most appropriate criteria, sub-criteria and renewable energy alternatives. Quantitative and qualitative data were then obtained through literature and report reviews as well as expert evaluations. Divide the obtained raw data into three categories: Crisp Value, Interval Value and Linguistic term, and convert the original data into TFN according to different rules. Then the converted data is normalized. In the decision-making stage, the final ranking of the renewable energy alternatives is calculated based on the formula used in steps 1–6.Fig.  5 describes the preparation and decision-making stages of the theory.

Decision framework of RPS selection.

Alternatives selection and Determining energy types and criteria and sub-criteria

Based on the research results of previous scholars,4 criteria (technical, environmental, economical, and social) and 20 sub-criteria (Reliability et al.) were selected as alternative indicators, and 4 alternative resources (solar, biomass, wind, and hydro energy) were selected. Finally, experts from various fields will select and evaluate the criteria and sub-criteria based on actual situations and work experience while determining four alternative resources. The experts affirmed four criteria and four alternative resources and selected 15 of 20 sub-criteria.

Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative standards need to be used when establishing an evaluation system. Usually, qualitative criteria are obtained from journal literature, websites, reports, etc. Acquiring qualitative criteria requires authoritative experts to evaluate them based on their experience and knowledge 47 . Experts usually use linguistic terms to process qualitative data because language is closer to human thinking 48 . We assume that the linguistic evaluation set is:

Data transformation

In the following manners, we convert crisp values, interval values, and linguistic terms to TFN:

The TFN form of crisp value is three equal values. For instance, the crisp value 5.8 can be converted to the TFN value (5.8, 5.8, 5.8) 46 .

We perform an arithmetic average on the upper and lower limits of the interval value to find the intermediate value of TFN. For instance, the interval value (6,8) can be converted to the TFN value (6,7,8).

This approach relies on linguistic variables represented by TFNs. Table 2 presents the use of the TFNs scale in this investigation. For instance, the term 'Very Low (LV)' can be converted to the TFN (0, 1, 2).

Data normalization

This section needs Eq. ( 1 ) to calculate the normalize the matrix to eradicate the impact of multiple physical variables on the decision-making process.

The decision matrix \({\left[{b}_{ij}\right]}_{m\times n}\) needs are normalized as \({\left[{r}_{ij}\right]}_{m\times n}\) where \(\left( {\tilde{r}_{ij} = r_{{i\underline {j} }} ,r_{ij} ,\overline{r}_{ij} } \right)\) and \({\overline{b} }_{maxj}\) = \(\mathit{max}\left\{{\overline{b} }_{ij}\mid i=\text{1,2}\dots ,m\right\}\) , \({\underline{b}}_{minj}\) = \(\mathit{min}\left\{{\overline{b} }_{ij}\mid i=\text{1,2}\dots ,m\right\}\)

According to the Data transformation rule, sub-criteria values are converted to corresponding TFN. Then determine the sub-criteria attributes. Finally, the data is normalized by Eq. ( 1 ).

Decision-making

Step 1 calculate the pis and nis for every sub-criteria.

First, calculate the defuzzification values of all TFNs in the normalized decision matrix using Eq. ( 2 ), the value of defuzzification S( \(\widetilde{b}\) ) is calculated as follows:

Let \(\widetilde{b}=(\underline{b} ,b,\overline{b })\) be a TFN. Then, for each sub-criteria, sort the TFNs of the alternatives by their defuzzification values. Then, the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the negative ideal solution (NIS) of all options under each sub-criterion, named \({\text{M}}_{j}\) and \({\text{N}}_{j}\) (j = 1,2…,m), can be determined 46 .

Step 2 Determine the gain and loss value

Equation ( 3 ) can be used to calculate the gain or loss values. The gains or losses values can be represented by the distance between alternative and NIS/PIS using Eq. ( 3 ), respectively.

Let \(\widetilde{b}=(\underline{b} ,b,\overline{b })\) and \(\widetilde{c}=(\underline{c} ,c,\overline{c })\) to be TFNs.

Step 3 Calculate the positive and negative prospect value matrixes

According to the obtained gain and loss values, use Eq. ( 4 ) to calculate the positive and negative prospect value matrixes( \({\text{A}}_{\text{ij}}^{+}\) and \({\text{A}}_{\text{ij}}^{-}\) ).

When x ≥ 0 indicates the gains, x < 0 indicates the losses. α and β are exponential parameters associated with gains and losses. We assume that 0 ≤ α ≤ β ≤ 1 49 . λ is the risk aversion parameter, indicating that losses have the characteristic of being steeper than gains, λ > 1 49 . This analysis uses the values α = β = 0.88 for these parameters 49 .

Step 4 Determine the relative weights of criteria and sub-criteria

Utilize the AHP to determine the weight of each indicator based on all criteria and sub-criteria.

Step 5 Calculate the cumulative prospect weights

According to the sub-criteria weight obtained, calculate the cumulative prospect weights \({U}_{{w}_{j}}^{+}\) and \({U}_{{w}_{j}}^{-}\) using Eq. ( 5 ).

where χ and δ represent the attitude coefficient for risk gains and losses, respectively, 0 < χ; δ < 1. Similarly, experiments determine the values of χ and δ to be 0.61 and 0.69, respectively 49 .

Step 6 Calculate and rank the cumulative prospects of each renewable energy system

Compute the comprehensive prospect values for each alternative. Since the prospect value and cumulative prospect weight have been determined, the comprehensive prospect value of each alternative V i can be calculated by Eq. ( 6 ).

A study case in Malaysia

Rps selection in malaysia based on the cumulative proposed approach.

Collecting renewable energy data in Malaysia combines them with relevant expert evaluations. Fill in the quantitative and qualitative criteria in Table 3 - the criteria values and their references and Table 4 - the sub-criteria values and references. Convert the crisp values, interval values, and linguistic terms to TFNs. The transformed matrix is in Table 5 - the transformed decision matrix. Normalize the transformed matrix according to Eq. ( 1 ). Fill in the calculated data in Table 6 - the normalized decision matrix.

Equation ( 2 ) calculates the defuzzification values of all TFNs based on the normalized decision matrix. The PIS and NIS of each alternative under each sub-criteria are then calculated as follows:

M(PIS) = {M1,M2,…,Mm} =  \(\underset{1\le i\le n}{\{\text{max}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{i1}\right),\underset{1\le i\le n}{\text{max}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{i2}\right),\dots ,\underset{1\le i\le n}{\text{max}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{im}\right)\}\) ={(0.80,0.90,1.00),(1.00,1.00,1.00),(0.80,0.90,1.00),(1.00,1.00,1.00),(0.35,0.52,1.00),(0.29,0.44,1.00),(1.00,1.00,1.00),(0.50,0.67,1.00),(0.75,0.88,1.00),(0.80,0.90,1.00),(1.00,1.00,1.00),(0.80,0.90,1.00),(1.00,1.00,1.00), (0.67,0.80,1.00), (0.02,0.03,1.00)}.

N(NIS) = {N1,N2,…,Nm} =  \(\{\underset{1\le i\le n}{\text{min}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{i1}\right),\underset{1\le i\le n}{\text{min}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{i2}\right),\dots ,\underset{1\le i\le n}{\text{min}}\left({\widetilde{r}}_{im}\right)\}\) ={(0.40,0.50,0.60),(0.12,0.12,0.12),(0.40,0.50,0.60),(0.09,0.09,0.09),(0.18,0.22,0.30),(0.14,0.16,0.19),(0.07,0.09,0.12),(0.31,0.34,0.38),(0.50,0.63,0.75),(0.00,0.1,0.2),(0.07,0.07,0.07),(0.40,0.50,0.60),(0.00,0.00,0.00),(0.40,0.44,0.50), (0.01,0.02,0.07)}.

Using Eq. ( 3 ), the value of the gains or losses can be depicted by the distance between the alternative and the NIS or PIS. The calculation yields the following result:

After obtaining the gain and loss values, the following positive and negative prospect value matrices \({\text{A}}_{\text{ij}}^{-}\) and \({\text{A}}_{\text{ij}}^{+}\) Are calculated using Eq. ( 4 ).

This article invites experts and scholars from various fields related to renewable energy in Malaysia to evaluate renewable energy based on actual situations. According to the AHP method, we get the weights of criteria (Fig.  6 ) and sub-criteria (Fig.  7 ). The Malaysian renewable energy assessment model shows that economy and technology are the two most important indicators, with weights of 0.41 and 0.29, respectively. The proportion of environmental indicators is higher than social indicators, with weights of 0.19 and 0.11, respectively.

The weights of criteria.

The weights of sub-criteria.

The payback period has become the most important secondary standard in Malaysia's renewable energy generation system, and it is foreseeable that more and more renewable energy investors will shift their focus to whether they can recover their renewable energy investment costs within the contract's validity period. CO 2 emissions have become the most important environmental consideration, consistent with Malaysia's development goal of limiting carbon emissions in the energy sector. From a technical perspective, efficiency is the most critical standard. Compared to other technological indicators, this preference for efficiency indicates risk-taking behavior and acceptance of new technologies. From a social perspective, employment creation is considered a crucial factor.

Calculate the cumulative prospect weights based on the sub-criteria weights and Eq. ( 5 ). The specific results are as follows:

According to the prospect value and cumulative prospect weight, calculate using Eq. ( 6 ). The integrated prospect values of each alternative are ultimately measured as follows:

V 1  = 1.86; V 2  = 0.38; V 3  = 1.49; V 4  = 1.35.

The final RPS ranking is determined as follows: V 1  > V 3  > V 4  > V 2 . Solar power is the superior option, followed by biomass, wind, and hydropower. The study's results confirm the study by Ahmad and Tahar in 2014 13 .

After further research revealed that each RPS performed differently in the four criteria: solar energy has advantages in economics, bioenergy is inclined towards social criteria, and wind power is inclined towards environmental criteria. The technical criteria of hydropower are better than the other three alternative power sources. Figure  8 shows the specific parameters.

Performance of RPS alternatives in relation to criteria.

Sensitivity analysis

Prospect parameters(λ,α,β) largely influence decision-makers' risk tolerance. Therefore, analyzing the above three parameters is necessary to prove whether parameter changes will affect the final result. For the above purpose, we have created three scenarios to analyze the impact of the three prospect parameter changes on the results.

Scenario 1. By altering the value of the parameter λ from 1 to 10.

Scenario 2. By altering the value of the parameter α from 0.1 to 1.

Scenario 3. By altering the value of the parameter β from 0.1 to 1.

The sensitivity analysis results for the three scenarios are depicted in Fig.  9 , Fig.  10 , Fig.  11 . based on the sensitivity analysis graph. We conclude that the ranking results are sensitive to the parameters of β but insensitive to parameters λ and α. The ranking results between 0.1 and 0.24 are modified to be V 4  > V 1  > V 3  > V 2 . While between 0.24 and 0.5, the ranking results are changed to V 1  > V 4  > V 3  > V 2 . When the value exceeds 0.5, the outcome is identical to the conclusion of this article. This implies that the risk parameters will influence the decisions of decision-makers. In this formula, α represents the concavity degree of the gain region of the prospect value function, while β represents the convexity degree of the loss region. Therefore, the greater the values of α and β, the more adventurous decision-makers will choose to be when making decisions. While λ indicates the sensitivity of investors to losses. So, with the decrease of the α or β value, decision-makers tend to be more conservative when faced with risks. From the perspective of decision security, Malaysian policymakers would give more attention to wind power.

Sensitivity analysis in the Scenario of the parameter λ changes.

Sensitivity analysis in the Scenario of the parameter α shifts.

Sensitivity analysis in the Scenario of the parameter β shifts.

Comparative analysis

This section introduces two comparison methods: fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy simple additive weighting (SAW). The fuzzy TOPSIS technique to resolve MCDM problems in a fuzzy setting successfully deals with assessment uncertainty. This strategy is based on choosing an alternative closest to the PIS and farthest from the NIS 53 . The Fuzzy SAW technique is commonly used to tackle problems related to fuzzy MCDM 54 . The ultimate score for each choice is determined by multiplying the assigned importance weight for each criterion by the fuzzy value of the alternative on that criterion and then summing the products across all criteria. We may obtain the optimal solution by employing fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy SAM by utilising the parameters proposed by Tversky and Kahneman. This approach is equivalent to the recommended method. Table 7 shows the ranking results of three methods.

Conclusion and discussion

This article proposes a fuzzy MCDM technique based on cumulative prospect theory to select Malaysia's best sustainable development path for renewable energy. Firstly, establish a standard system based on the literature review and expert evaluation, which includes 4 criteria and 15 sub-criteria. Secondly, convert qualitative and quantitative information into TFNs. Thirdly, derive the weights of criteria and sub-criteria using the AHP method. Fourthly, considering different risk parameters, use the cumulative prospect theory to choose alternative energy sources. Fifth, take Malaysia's renewable energy as an example to get the renewable energy ranking results. The weight results show that the economic aspect is the most critical criterion. The ranking result shows that solar power is the most suitable development and investment, followed by bioenergy, wind energy, and hydropower. Sixth, a sensitivity analysis is performed on the parameters, and the results show the ranking order is sensitive to the parameters of β. Finally, the correctness of this study was verified through comparative analysis using fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy SAW.

The model results showed that payback period and investment cost are the most critical sub-criteria from an economic aspect, while efficiency is from a technical aspect. From the environmental and social perspective, CO 2 emission and employment creation are the highest sub-criteria, respectively. The four sub-standards indicate that strengthening energy transformation to achieve sustainable development of green energy requires evaluating the effectiveness of national renewable energy-related policies, accelerating the introduction of renewable energy technologies, and strengthening financial support for renewable energy projects. At the same time, improving the effectiveness of existing measures to raise public awareness and ultimately enhance the level of knowledge and awareness within the national education system. The ranking results of the model show that solar power is the most suitable development and investment, followed by bioenergy, wind energy, and hydropower.

Malaysia's abundant solar power resources, increasingly mature technologies, and declining solar panel prices make it the most worthwhile renewable energy investment. Considering the current status of renewable energy resources in Malaysia and the international renewable energy development trend, solar power generation has entered the fast lane of rapid development. However, there are uncertainties in the supply of raw materials for biomass. At the same time, Malaysia's abundant biomass reserves and huge power generation potential can effectively solve this problem. Nevertheless, wind energy resources in Malaysia are slightly scarce compared with other resources. Actually, the long coastline and abundant offshore wind energy resources are still worthy of project decision-makers' consideration. Hydropower projects are the areas where investors have the most cooperation with the Malaysian government. In recent years, Malaysia's hydropower resources have gradually dried up, and the resource potential has been exhausted. In this case, investors and the Malaysian government must find new renewable energy alternatives for corporate and economic development, respectively. Sustainable Energy Development Authority Malaysia has offered to host a webinar on the subject of Shaping the Future of the Green Hydrogen Economy on 23 July 2020. Hydrogen has started to receive attention from the government as a new potential renewable energy (RE) in Malaysia.

Future directions and perspectives

The implementation of the Five Fuel Diversification Policy (FDP) in 2000 failed to achieve the intended objective of increasing the adoption of RE. Despite Malaysia's abundant natural and renewable resources, such as solar, hydro, and biomass, there has been no substantial progress in their development for the past twenty years. As of the end of 2022, Malaysia had not adequately diversified its energy sources in accordance with the supply strategy of the National Energy Policy and continued to rely mostly on petroleum. Malaysia should promptly undertake an evaluation of its current renewable energy development procedures to identify any deficiencies and obstacles that may hinder the implementation of these projects.

Further endeavors should be undertaken to establish a comprehensive green financial framework, encompassing provisions for green bonds, green loans, and other forms of finance. This method will be critical in alleviating the substantial financial challenges faced by authorized renewable energy producers. The Sustainable Energy Development Authority is highly qualified to assist in the establishment of such a framework due to its direct comprehension of the difficulties faced by program participants. The Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (MEGTW) should engage in discussions with local financial institutions, private equity funds, and angel investors to find practical solutions for addressing the funding shortages in renewable energy project development.

In order to improve the progress of sustainable development, legislation pertaining to RE and green technologies must effectively tackle many societal concerns. For example, more jobs should be created for the public in order to improve their living standards. Therefore, it is essential to assess and enhance the effectiveness of current public awareness initiatives, which play a vital role in promoting renewable energies and environmentally friendly policies, in order to gain increased public backing for sustainable development.

A further barrier is the lack of advanced technology for the generation of RE and a general ignorance about the benefits of RE. To tackle these difficulties, the Malaysian Centre for Education and Training in RE and Energy Efficiency should raise awareness and knowledge of the nation's educational system. Secondary school and university curricula should incorporate concepts from both RE and energy efficiency(EE). The primary impediments to renewable energy generation are a lack of knowledge of adequate equipment and process operation, inadequate energy management, and limited technology availability.

In order to better safeguard Malaysia's energy demand and security and achieve sustainable energy development as soon as possible, it is necessary to explore future energy sources actively. Malaysia has built a roadmap for a green hydrogen economy by 2025. By 2035, Malaysia should implement the Green Hydrogen initiative alongside the other RE policies and action plans outlined in the roadmap.

Renewable energy has a significant impact on the country's energy transformation and sustainable development. In terms of environmental impact, it decreases greenhouse gas(GHG) pollution, thereby reducing the effects of global change. Sustainable development reduces dependence on finite fossil fuels. In terms of energy security, RE ensures the sustainability of Malaysia’s energy supply by reducing dependence on imported fuel. Furthermore, in terms of economic development, it leverages Malaysia's enormous capacity and establishes a competitive, sustainable energy sector. In terms of society, the development of the renewable energy industry has brought a large number of employment opportunities to the country and provided benefits for residents. At present, the concept of renewable energy in Malaysia is still in its early stages, and the concept of sustainable development is not yet deeply rooted in people's minds. The continuous exploitation of non-renewable energy will have a significant impact on Malaysia's environment and climate change while threatening the global environment and sustainable development. Malaysia needs to continuously strengthen its investment in renewable energy, coordinate various interest groups, and strive to achieve its initial national renewable energy goals by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data availability

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Abdel-Basset, M. et al. Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: A case study. Renew. Energy 168 , 1073–1095 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Mahalik, M. K. et al. Impact of income inequality on renewable energy demand in south Asian economies. Energy Policy 180 , 113628 (2023).

Mohamed, M. & El-Saber, N. Toward energy transformation: Intelligent decision-making model based on uncertainty neutrosophic theory. Neutrosophic Syst. Appl. 9 , 13–23 (2023).

Rahim, N., Abdullah, L. & Yusoff, B. A border approximation area approach considering bipolar neutrosophic linguistic variable for sustainable energy selection. Sustainability 12 (10), 3971 (2020).

BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2023. 2023.

MohdChachuli, F. S. et al. Performance evaluation of renewable energy R&D activities in Malaysia. Renew. Energy 163 , 544–560 (2021).

Vaka, M. et al. A review on Malaysia’s solar energy pathway towards carbon-neutral Malaysia beyond Covid’19 pandemic. J Clean Prod 273 , 122834 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aeknarajindawat, N., Suteerachai, B. & Suksod, P. The impact of natural resources, renewable energy, economic growth on carbon dioxide emission in Malaysia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 10 (3), 211–218 (2020).

Babatunde, K. A. et al. Malaysia’s electricity decarbonisation pathways: Exploring the role of renewable energy policies using agent-based modelling. Energies 16 (4), 1720 (2023).

IRENA, IRENA Capacity Statistics 2023. 2023.

Abd Aziz, A. J. et al. Review of the policies and development programs for renewable energy in Malaysia: Progress, achievements and challenges. Energy Explor. Exploit. 42 (4), 1472–1501 (2024).

Shafie, S. M. et al. Current energy usage and sustainable energy in Malaysia: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (9), 4370–4377 (2011).

Ahmad, S. & Tahar, R. M. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia. Renew. Energy 63 , 458–466 (2014).

Islam, M. R., Saidur, R. & Rahim, N. A. Assessment of wind energy potentiality at Kudat and Labuan Malaysia using Weibull distribution function. Energy 36 (2), 985–992 (2011).

Hui, L. C. et al. Impact of Covid-19 on renewable energy sector and lessons learned: A case study on Malaysia. Future Energy 1 (3), 44–50 (2022).

Bank, W. World Development Index . 2023 [cited 2023 4 May]; Available from: https://databank.shihang.org/ .

Stojčetović, B. & Šarkoćević, Ž Selection of the Most Suitable Renewable Energy Alternative For Štrpce Municipality. In New Trends in Engineering Research: Proceedings of the International Conference of Experimental and Numerical Investigations and New Technologies, CNNTech 2023 (eds Mitrovic, N. et al. ) 148–155 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46432-4_12 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Büyüközkan, G., Karabulut, Y. & Göçer, F. Spherical fuzzy sets based integrated DEMATEL, ANP, VIKOR approach and its application for renewable energy selection in Turkey. Appl. Soft Comput. 158 , 11465 (2024).

Giri, P., Paul, S. & Debnath, B. K. A fuzzy graph theory and matrix approach (fuzzy GTMA) to select the best renewable energy alternative in India. Appl. Energy 358 , 122582 (2024).

Nuriyev, M., Nuriyev, A. & Mammadov, J. Renewable energy transition task solution for the oil countries using scenario-driven fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making models: The case of Azerbaijan. Energies 16 (24), 8068 (2023).

Akpahou, R. & Odoi-Yorke, F. A multicriteria decision-making approach for prioritizing renewable energy resources for sustainable electricity generation in Benin. Cogent Engineering 10 , 1–24 (2023).

Lijia, L. et al. Investment efficiency assessment of distribution network for the high proportion of renewable energy: A hybrid multiattribute decision-making method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022 , 1–16 (2022).

Masoomi, B. et al. Strategic supplier selection for renewable energy supply chain under green capabilities (fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS approach). Energy Strategy Rev. 40 , 100815 (2022).

Derse, O. & Yilmaz, E. Site selection optimization for 100% renewable energy sources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31 (18), 26790–26805 (2024).

Chisale, S. W. & Lee, H. S. Evaluation of barriers and solutions to renewable energy acceleration in Malawi, Africa, using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Energy Sustain. Dev. 76 , 101272 (2023).

Ighravwe, D. E. et al. A MCDM-based framework for the selection of renewable energy system simulation tool for teaching and learning at university level. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24 (11), 13035–13056 (2021).

Nguyen, V. T., Hai, N. H. & Lan, N. T. K. Spherical fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model for wind turbine supplier selection in a renewable energy project. Energies 15 (3), 713 (2022).

Bandira, P. N. A. et al. Optimal Solar Farm Site Selection in the George Town Conurbation Using GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and NASA POWER Data. Atmosphere 13 (12), 2105 (2022).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Kahneman, D. T. A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2), 263–291 (1979).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Zhou, Y. et al. Modeling dynamic travel mode choices using cumulative prospect theory. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 179 , 103938 (2024).

Zhang, D., Li, Y. & Chin, K.-S. Photovoltaic technology assessment based on cumulative prospect theory and hybrid information from sustainable perspective. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 52 , 1012116 (2022).

Google Scholar  

Zhao, H., Wang, S. & Lu, C. A study on site selection of wind power plant based on prospect theory and VIKOR: a case study in China. Kybernetes https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2024-0022 (2024).

Ren, J. & Lützen, M. Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74 , 1003–1019 (2017).

Heo, E., Kim, J. & Boo, K.-J. Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (8), 2214–2220 (2010).

Kaya, T. & Kahraman, C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 35 (6), 2517–2527 (2010).

Amer, M. & Daim, T. U. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: A case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain. Dev. 15 (4), 420–435 (2011).

Al Garni, H. et al. A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 16 , 137–150 (2016).

Şengül, Ü. et al. Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renew. Energy 75 , 617–625 (2015).

Lee, H.-C. & Chang, C.-T. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92 , 883–896 (2018).

Vaidya, O. S. & Kumar, S. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 169 (1), 1–29 (2006).

Kumar, A. et al. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 , 596–609 (2017).

Zul, I. et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis for evaluation of potential renewable energy resources in Malaysia. Progress Energy Environ. 21 (1), 8–18 (2022).

Petinrin, J. O. & Shaaban, M. Renewable energy for continuous energy sustainability in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 , 967–981 (2015).

Liu, Y. & Du, J.-L. A multi criteria decision support framework for renewable energy storage technology selection. J. Clean. Prod. 277 , 122183 (2020).

Troldborg, M., Heslop, S. & Hough, R. L. Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 , 1173–1184 (2014).

Wu, Y., Xu, C. & Zhang, T. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China. Energy 147 , 1227–1239 (2018).

Chen, S. et al. A linguistic multi-criteria decision making approach based on logical reasoning. Information Sciences 258 , 266–276 (2014).

Zadeh, L. A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf. Sci. 8 (3), 199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5 (1975).

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5 (4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574 (1992).

Chatzimouratidis, A. I. & Pilavachi, P. A. Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 37 (3), 778–787 (2009).

Chatzimouratidis, A. I. & Pilavachi, P. A. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 36 (3), 1074–1089 (2008).

Varun, Bhat, I. K. & Prakash, R. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (5), 1067–1073 (2009).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Seyedmohammadi, J. et al. Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma 310 , 178–190 (2018).

Ciardiello, F. & Genovese, A. A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Ann. Oper. Res. 325 (2), 967–994 (2023).

Download references

This research was funded by 1. Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department (grant number ZC2024126 ) . 2. Hebei Province University Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Teaching Reform Research and Practice Project (grant number 2023cxcy273) . 3. Chengde City Science and Technology Plan Self-funded Project (Second Batch)( grant number 202303A119).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Physics and Electronic Engineering, Hebei Minzu Normal University, Chengde, 067000, Hebei, China

Development Planning and Domestic Cooperation Exchange Center, Hebei Minzu Normal University, Chengde, 067000, Hebei, China

Yonghui Lin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K.; methodology, T.K. and Y.H.; software, T.K. and H.W.; investigation, H.W.; resources, Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.K.; writing—review and editing, T.K. , H.W. and Y.H.All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taikun Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, T., Wang, H. & Lin, Y. Selection of renewable energy development path for sustainable development using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: the case of Malaysia. Sci Rep 14 , 15082 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65982-6

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2023

Accepted : 26 June 2024

Published : 02 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65982-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Renewable energy
• Multi-criteria decision-making
• Fuzzy set theory
• Cumulative prospect theory

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Advanced Search

Shedding light on the dark side – A systematic literature review of the issues in agile software development methodology use

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, software process improvement in agile software development a systematic literature review.

It is recognized the relevance and importance that software process improvement (SPI) and agile development have gained in the field of software engineering. Both are approaches that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development ...

Systematic literature review on agile practices in global software development

Developing software in distributed development environments exhibits coordination, control and communication challenges. Agile practices, which demand frequent communication and self-organization between remote sites, are increasingly ...

Challenges in Combining Agile Development and CMMI: A Systematic Literature Review

Recently, Agile Development has emerged as an alternative approach in software engineering. The Agile Software Development (ASD) process provides the ability to cope with ever-changing requirements. On the other hand, the Capability Maturity Model ...

Information

Published in.

Elsevier Science Inc.

United States

Publication History

Author tags.

• Agile software development methodologies
• Issues in ASD
• Dark side of ASD
• Information systems development agility
• Systematic Literature Review
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

The Role of Fintech in Promoting Financial Inclusion to Achieve Sustainable Development: An Integrated Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review

• Published: 03 July 2024

Cite this article

• Kriti Kishor   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-2808-1633 1 ,
• Sanjeev K. Bansal   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-8585-0429 1 &
• Roshan Kumar 2  

Fintech’s ability to enhance efficiency and reduce costs in financial services can promote greater financial inclusion (FI), which in turn serves as a foundation for sustainable and equitable development. Due to the dearth of thorough summaries in the body of existing literature, this systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to present quantitative and qualitative information about the comprehensive relationship between fintech, FI, and sustainability development in an organised way. The review includes 189 publications from peer-reviewed journals of Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases up to 2023. The article was compiled based on the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR) protocol and the theory-context-characteristics-methodology (TCCM) framework. Bibliometric analysis has identified the leading journals, authors, nations, articles, and themes. A conceptual model has been designed to illustrate the entire scope, following which potential study areas have been proposed. This study aims to provide academic researchers, policymakers, and regulators with a detailed understanding of the relationship between fintech, financial inclusion, and sustainable development. The analysis demonstrates that FI is an essential requirement of our society and a vital pathway to achieve sustainable development. In the content analysis, we identify an integrative framework of four variables on this nexus. We found a very few conceptual, qualitative, and mixed method papers on this interaction, which provide potential avenues for further research. We recommend that scholars consider adopting a multi-theory perspective. We propose a comprehensive framework on this nexus. It will also pinpoint specific areas that require further investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study is available on request.

Adegbite, O. O., & Machethe, C. L. (2020). Bridging the financial inclusion gender gap in smallholder agriculture in Nigeria: An untapped potential for sustainable development. World Development, 127 , 104755.

Article   Google Scholar  

Afjal, M. (2023). Bridging the financial divide: A bibliometric analysis on the role of digital financial services within FinTech in enhancing financial inclusion and economic development. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1–27.

Ahelegbey, D., Giudici, P., & Pediroda, V. (2023). A network based fintech inclusion platform. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 87 , 101555.

Akolgo, I. A. (2023). On the contradictions of Africa’s fintech boom: evidence from Ghana. Review of International Political Economy , 30 (5), 1639–1659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2023.2225142

Alshater, M. M., Saba, I., Supriani, I., & Rabbani, M. R. (2022). Fintech in Islamic finance literature: A review. Heliyon , 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10385

Ameen, N., Sharma, G. D., Tarba, S., Rao, A., & Chopra, R. (2022). Toward advancing theory on creativity in marketing and artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 39 (9), 1802–1825.

Arner, D. W., Buckley, R. P., Zetzsche, D. A., & Veidt, R. (2020). Sustainability, FinTech and financial inclusion. European Business Organization Law Review, 21 , 7–35.

Banna, H., Mia, M. A., Nourani, M., & Yarovaya, L. (2022). Fintech-based financial inclusion and risk-taking of microfinance institutions (MFIs): Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Finance Research Letters, 45 , 102149.

Ben Slimane, S., Coeurderoy, R., & Mhenni, H. (2022). Digital transformation of small and medium enterprises: A systematic literature review and an integrative framework. International Studies of Management & Organization, 52 (2), 96–120.

Bhatt, A., Joshipura, M., & Joshipura, N. (2022). Decoding the trinity of Fintech, digitalization and financial services: An integrated bibliometric analysis and thematic literature review approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10 (1), 2114160.

Carè, R., Boitan, I. A., & Fatima, R. (2023). How do FinTech companies contribute to the achievement of SDGs? Insights from case studies. Research in International Business and Finance, 66 , 102072.

Chinoda, T., & Mashamba, T. (2021). Fintech, financial inclusion and income inequality nexus in Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 9 (1), 1986926. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1986926

Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, R. (2023). Role of financial inclusion in human development: Evidence from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01366-x

Chung, S., Kim, K., Lee, C. H., & Oh, W. (2023). Interdependence between online peer-to-peer lending and cryptocurrency markets and its effects on financial inclusion. Production and Operations Management, 32 (6), 1939–1957.

Coffie, C. P. K., & Hongjiang, Z. (2023). FinTech market development and financial inclusion in Ghana: The role of heterogeneous actors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186 , 122127.

Comerio, N., & Strozzi, F. (2019). Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools. Tourism Economics, 25 (1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618793762

Danladi, S., Prasad, M. S. V., Modibbo, U. M., Ahmadi, S. A., & Ghasemi, P. (2023). Attaining Sustainable Development Goals through financial inclusion: Exploring collaborative approaches to fintech adoption in developing economies. Sustainability, 15 (17), 13039.

David-West, O., Iheanachor, N., & Umukoro, I. (2020). Sustainable business models for the creation of mobile financial services in Nigeria. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5 (2), 105–116.

Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., & Palladino, R. (2023). Blockchain technology and gender equality: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 68 , 102517.

Dong, Y., Chung, M., Zhou, C., & Venkataraman, S. (2018). Banking on “mobile money”: The implications of mobile money services on the value chain. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management , 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2018.0717

Ellili, N. O. D. (2023). Is there any association between FinTech and sustainability? Evidence from bibliometric review and content analysis. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 28 (4), 748–762.

Fu, J., & Mishra, M. (2022). Fintech in the time of COVID− 19: Technological adoption during crises. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 50 , 100945.

Gálvez-Sánchez, F. J., Lara-Rubio, J., Verdú-Jóver, A. J., & Meseguer-Sánchez, V. (2021). Research advances on financial inclusion: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 13 (6), 3156.

GPFI. (2010). G20 Principles for innovative financial inclusion - executive brief. Accessed 18 November 2023. Available at: http://www.gpfi.org/publications/g20-principles-innovative-financial-inclusion-executive-brief

Gulati, A., & Singh, S. (2024). Financial self-efficacy of consumers: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48 (2), e13024.

Gupta, S., Yun, H., Xu, H., & Kim, H. W. (2017). An exploratory study on mobile banking adoption in Indian metropolitan and urban areas: A scenario-based experiment. Information Technology for Development, 23 (1), 127–152.

Han, H., & Gu, X. (2021). Linkage between inclusive digital finance and high-tech enterprise innovation performance: Role of debt and equity financing. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 814408.

Hasan, M., Le, T., & Hoque, A. (2021). How does financial literacy impact on inclusive finance? Financial Innovation, 7 (1), 1–23.

Hasan, M., Noor, T., Gao, J., Usman, M., & Abedin, M. Z. (2023). Rural consumers’ financial literacy and access to FinTech services. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14 (2), 780–804.

Hashemizadeh, A., Ashraf, R. U., Khan, I., & Zaidi, S. A. H. (2023). Digital financial inclusion, environmental quality, and economic development: the contributions of financial development and investments in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (54), 116336–116347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30275-4

Hulland, J., & Houston, M. B. (2020). Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: An introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 , 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00721-7

Hwa, G. (2019). Global FinTech Adoption Index 2019. Accessed on 1 October 2023. Available at https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/banking-and-capital-markets/ey-global-fintech-adoption-index.pdf

Iheanachor, N., David-West, Y., & Umukoro, I. O. (2021). Business model innovation at the bottom of the pyramid–A case of mobile money agents. Journal of Business Research, 127 , 96–107.

Karim, Z. A., Nizam, R., Law, S. H., & Hassan, M. K. (2022). Does financial inclusiveness affect economic growth? New evidence using a dynamic panel threshold regression. Finance Research Letters, 46 , 102364.

Kemal, A. A. (2019). Mobile banking in the government-to-person payment sector for financial inclusion in Pakistan. Information Technology for Development, 25 (3), 475–502.

Khando, K., Islam, M. S., & Gao, S. (2022). The emerging technologies of digital payments and associated challenges: A systematic literature review. Future Internet, 15 (1), 21.

Kim, M., Zoo, H., Lee, H., & Kang, J. (2018). Mobile financial services, financial inclusion, and development: A systematic review of academic literature. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84 (5), e12044.

Koomson, I., Martey, E., & Etwire, P. M. (2023). Mobile money and entrepreneurship in East Africa: The mediating roles of digital savings and access to digital credit. Information Technology & People, 36 (3), 996–1019.

Lagna, A., & Ravishankar, M. N. (2022). Making the world a better place with fintech research. Information Systems Journal, 32 (1), 61–102.

Latif, N., Safdar, N., Liaquat, M., Younas, K., Nazeer, N., & Rafeeq, R. (2023). The role of institutional quality in assessing the environmental externality of financial inclusion: A DCCE approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11 , 65.

Lee, C. C., Lou, R., & Wang, F. (2023). Digital financial inclusion and poverty alleviation: Evidence from the sustainable development of China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77 , 418–434.

Li, J., Wei, R., & Guo, Y. (2022). How can the financing constraints of SMEs be eased in China?-Effect analysis, heterogeneity test and mechanism identification based on digital inclusive finance. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10 , 949164.

Lim, W. M., Yap, S.-F., & Makkar, M. (2021). Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? Journal of Business Research, 122 (September 2020), 534–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.051

Liu, X., Zhan, F. B., Hong, S., Niu, B., & Liu, Y. (2012). A bibliometric study of earthquake research: 1900–2010. Scientometrics, 92 (3), 747–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0599-z

Liu, S., Gao, L., Latif, K., Dar, A. A., Zia-UR-Rehman, M., & Baig, S. A. (2021). The behavioral role of digital economy adaptation in sustainable financial literacy and financial inclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 742118.

Liu, A., Urquía-Grande, E., López-Sánchez, P., & Rodríguez-López, Á. (2023). Research into microfinance and ICTs: A bibliometric analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 97 , 102215.

Louman, B., Girolami, E. D., Shames, S., Primo, L. G., Gitz, V., Scherr, S. J., & Brady, M. (2022). Access to landscape finance for small-scale producers and local communities: A literature review. Land, 11 (9), 1444.

Mapanje, O., Karuaihe, S., Machethe, C., & Amis, M. (2023). Financing sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of the role of financial technologies. Sustainability, 15 (5), 4587.

Michael, B., Koroleska, N., Tai, A., & Wong, D. W. H. (2022). A critical look at using financial technology policy to promote the sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development, 30 (6), 1911–1920.

Mishra, V., & Bisht, S. S. (2013). Mobile banking in a developing economy: A customer-centric model for policy formulation. Telecommunications Policy, 37 (6–7), 503–514.

Morgan, P. J. (2022). Fintech and financial inclusion in Southeast Asia and India. Asian Economic Policy Review, 17 (2), 183–208.

Mpofu, F. Y. (2022). Industry 4.0 in financial services: Mobile money taxes, revenue mobilisation, financial inclusion, and the realisation of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in Africa. Sustainability, 14 (14), 8667.

N’dri, L. M., & Kakinaka, M. (2020). Financial inclusion, mobile money, and individual welfare: The case of Burkina Faso. Telecommunications Policy, 44 (3), 101926.

Niankara, I. (2023). The impact of financial inclusion on digital payment solution uptake within the Gulf Cooperation Council Economies. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 7 (1), 1–17.

Ozili, P. K. (2018). Impact of digital finance on financial inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18 (4), 329–340.

Pal, A., De’, R., & Herath, T. (2020). The role of mobile payment technology in sustainable and human-centric development: Evidence from the post-demonetization period in India. Information Systems Frontiers, 22 , 607–631.

Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? Psychology & Marketing, 39 (6), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657

Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29 (4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36 (6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280

Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021a). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45 (45), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

Paul, J., Merchant, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rose, G. (2021b). Writing an impactful review article: What do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Business Research, 133 , 337–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.005

Paul, J., Khatri, P., & Kaur Duggal, H. (2023). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, Why and How?. Journal of Decision Systems , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700

Pittaway, L., Holt, R., & Broad, J. (2014). Synthesising knowledge in entrepreneurship research-The role of systematic literature reviews. In Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 83–105). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809245.00014

Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Nair, M. S., Hall, J. H., & Bennett, S. E. (2021). Sustainable economic development in India: The dynamics between financial inclusion, ICT development, and economic growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169 , 120758.

Puschmann, T. (2017). Fintech. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59 , 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0464-6

Raksmey, U., Lin, C. Y., & Kakinaka, M. (2022). Macroprudential regulation and financial inclusion: Any difference between developed and developing countries? Research in International Business and Finance, 63 , 101759.

Rohman, P. S., Fianto, B. A., Shah, S. A. A., Kayani, U. N., Suprayogi, N., & Supriani, I. (2021). A review on literature of Islamic microfinance from 2010–2020: Lesson for practitioners and future directions. Heliyon, 7 (12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08549

Roy, P., & Patro, B. (2022). Financial inclusion of women and gender gap in access to finance: A systematic literature review. Vision, 26 (3), 282–299.

Sahabuddin, M., Sakib, M. N., Rahman, M. M., Jibir, A., Fahlevi, M., Aljuaid, M., & Grabowska, S. (2023). The evolution of FinTech in scientific research: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 15 (9), 7176.

Schilling, L., & Seuring, S. (2023). Mobile financial service-enabled micro-businesses driving sustainable value creation in emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192 , 122596.

Senyo, P. K., & Osabutey, E. L. (2020). Unearthing antecedents to financial inclusion through FinTech innovations. Technovation, 98 , 102155.

Senyo, P. K., Karanasios, S., Gozman, D., & Baba, M. (2022). FinTech ecosystem practices shaping financial inclusion: The case of mobile money in Ghana. European Journal of Information Systems, 31 (1), 112–127.

Setiawan, B., Phan, T. D., Medina, J., Wieriks, M., Nathan, R. J., & Fekete-Farkas, M. (2023). Quest for financial inclusion via digital financial services (Fintech) during COVID-19 pandemic: Case study of women in Indonesia. Journal of Financial Services Marketing , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-023-00217-9

Shaikh, A. A., Glavee-Geo, R., Karjaluoto, H., & Hinson, R. E. (2023). Mobile money as a driver of digital financial inclusion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186 , 122158.

Sharma, R., Kamble, S., Gupta, S., Belhadi, A., Rana, N. P., & Kumar, K. (2023). Interlinkages between digital-social entrepreneurship and technological capabilities for sustainable value creation. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 31 (1), 1–26.

Siddik, A. B., Rahman, M. N., & Yong, L. (2023). Do fintech adoption and financial literacy improve corporate sustainability performance? The mediating role of access to finance. Journal of Cleaner Production , 421 , 137658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137658

Soetan, T. O., Mogaji, E., & Nguyen, N. P. (2021). Financial services experience and consumption in Nigeria. Journal of Services Marketing, 35 (7), 947–961.

Sultana, N., Chowdhury, R. S., & Haque, A. (2023). Gravitating towards Fintech: A study on undergraduates using extended UTAUT model. Heliyon, 9 (10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e2073

Tay, L. Y., Tai, H. T., & Tan, G. S. (2022). Digital financial inclusion: A gateway to sustainable development. Heliyon 8 (6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09766

Tepe, G., Geyikci, U. B., & Sancak, F. M. (2021). Fintech companies: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Financial Studies, 10 (1), 2.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222.

Truby, J. (2020). Fintech and the city: Sandbox 2.0 policy and regulatory reform proposals. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology , 34 (3), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2018.1546542

Úbeda, F., Mendez, A., & Forcadell, F. J. (2023). The sustainable practices of multinational banks as drivers of financial inclusion in developing countries. Finance Research Letters, 51 , 103278.

UNSGSA. (2018) Igniting SDG progress through digital financial inclusion. Accessed on 7 October 2023. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2655&menu=1515

Vasile, V., Panait, M., & Apostu, S. A. (2021). Financial inclusion paradigm shift in the post pandemic period. Digital-divide and gender gap. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (20), 10938.

Wang, L., Wu, Y., Huang, Z., & Wang, Y. (2022). How big data drives green economic development: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10 , 1055162.

Xue, L., Dong, J., & Zha, Y. (2023). How does digital finance affect firm environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance?—Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Heliyon, 9 (10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20800

Yang, L., Chen, Z., Liu, T., Gong, Z., Yu, Y., & Wang, J. (2013). Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 96 (1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0911-6

Zerucha, T. (2023, May 05). “ The key factors driving financial inclusion”: Fintech Nexus. Accessed on May 28, 2024. https://www.fintechnexus.com/the-key-factors-driving-financial-inclusion/

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, Punjab, India

Kriti Kishor & Sanjeev K. Bansal

Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

Roshan Kumar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made contributions to the conceptualisation and design of this study. The authors collaborated as a team to carry out material preparation, SLR data collection, and analysis. The initial version of the paper had been written by the collective team of authors, who actively engaged in providing feedback. The final manuscript was read and approved by every author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kriti Kishor .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kishor, K., Bansal, S.K. & Kumar, R. The Role of Fintech in Promoting Financial Inclusion to Achieve Sustainable Development: An Integrated Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02168-5

Download citation

Received : 03 April 2024

Accepted : 14 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02168-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Financial Inclusion
• Sustainability
• Bibliometric
• Systematic Literature Review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, lean thinking and risk management in healthcare organizations: a systematic literature review and research agenda.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

ISSN : 0265-671X

Article publication date: 1 July 2024

Healthcare organizations have been facing challenges due to high costs and low efficiency in health services. The growth of costs and losses caused by avoidable mistakes lead to the search for solutions, and Health Lean Management appears as a potential solution to help in solving service quality problems, as well as reducing risks. This study aims to analyse the state of the art in the literature centred on the Lean approach in the context of risk management in healthcare organizations, and to identify new research opportunities, highlighting possible lines of future research.

Design/methodology/approach

Following a systematic literature review approach, 51 papers were considered relevant for this research, and reviewed to explore the development of literature in this area.

Based on the results, five main research streams were identified: (1) risk management oriented towards patient safety; (2) risk management oriented towards employee safety; (3) importance of attitudes and behaviours in risk reduction projects; (4) Lean tools used in healthcare risk management and (5) Integration of approaches. Moreover, several shortcomings were identified in literature.

Originality/value

Identified shortcomings represent significant opportunities for further research development.

• Lean thinking
• Risk management
• Patient safety
• Employee safety
• Systematic literature review

Acknowledgements

This paper is financed by National Funds of the FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [FCT: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia] within the project «UIDB/04007/2020».

Mendes, L. and França, G. (2024), "Lean thinking and risk management in healthcare organizations: a systematic literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2023-0210

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support