literature review for quantitative research

Archer Library

Quantitative research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• Research Resources handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• Library eBook Collections This link opens in a new window
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Statistics
• Literature Review Resources
• Citations & Reference

Exploring the literature review 

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

Archer Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: scholarly & practitioner journals.

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases  A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A literature review is "a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Recommended Reading

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

• ★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
• Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
• Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
• Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
• Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
• Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
• Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
• << Previous: Research & Statistics
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 23, 2024 3:36 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/quantitative

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Literature Review

What exactly is a literature review.

• Critical Exploration and Synthesis: It involves a thorough and critical examination of existing research, going beyond simple summaries to synthesize information.
• Reorganizing Key Information: Involves structuring and categorizing the main ideas and findings from various sources.
• Offering Fresh Interpretations: Provides new perspectives or insights into the research topic.
• Merging New and Established Insights: Integrates both recent findings and well-established knowledge in the field.
• Analyzing Intellectual Trajectories: Examines the evolution and debates within a specific field over time.
• Contextualizing Current Research: Places recent research within the broader academic landscape, showing its relevance and relation to existing knowledge.
• Detailed Overview of Sources: Gives a comprehensive summary of relevant books, articles, and other scholarly materials.
• Highlighting Significance: Emphasizes the importance of various research works to the specific topic of study.

How do Literature Reviews Differ from Academic Research Papers?

• Focus on Existing Arguments: Literature reviews summarize and synthesize existing research, unlike research papers that present new arguments.
• Secondary vs. Primary Research: Literature reviews are based on secondary sources, while research papers often include primary research.
• Foundational Element vs. Main Content: In research papers, literature reviews are usually a part of the background, not the main focus.
• Lack of Original Contributions: Literature reviews do not introduce new theories or findings, which is a key component of research papers.

Purpose of Literature Reviews

• Drawing from Diverse Fields: Literature reviews incorporate findings from various fields like health, education, psychology, business, and more.
• Prioritizing High-Quality Studies: They emphasize original, high-quality research for accuracy and objectivity.
• Serving as Comprehensive Guides: Offer quick, in-depth insights for understanding a subject thoroughly.
• Foundational Steps in Research: Act as a crucial first step in conducting new research by summarizing existing knowledge.
• Providing Current Knowledge for Professionals: Keep professionals updated with the latest findings in their fields.
• Demonstrating Academic Expertise: In academia, they showcase the writer’s deep understanding and contribute to the background of research papers.
• Essential for Scholarly Research: A deep understanding of literature is vital for conducting and contextualizing scholarly research.

A Literature Review is Not About:

• Merely Summarizing Sources: It’s not just a compilation of summaries of various research works.
• Ignoring Contradictions: It does not overlook conflicting evidence or viewpoints in the literature.
• Being Unstructured: It’s not a random collection of information without a clear organizing principle.
• Avoiding Critical Analysis: It doesn’t merely present information without critically evaluating its relevance and credibility.
• Focusing Solely on Older Research: It’s not limited to outdated or historical literature, ignoring recent developments.
• Isolating Research: It doesn’t treat each source in isolation but integrates them into a cohesive narrative.

Steps Involved in Conducting a Research Literature Review (Fink, 2019)

1. choose a clear research question., 2. use online databases and other resources to find articles and books relevant to your question..

• Google Scholar
• OSU Library
• ERIC. Index to journal articles on educational research and practice.
• PsycINFO . Citations and abstracts for articles in 1,300 professional journals, conference proceedings, books, reports, and dissertations in psychology and related disciplines.
• PubMed . This search system provides access to the PubMed database of bibliographic information, which is drawn primarily from MEDLINE, which indexes articles from about 3,900 journals in the life sciences (e.g., health, medicine, biology).
• Social Sciences Citation Index . A multidisciplinary database covering the journal literature of the social sciences, indexing more than 1,725 journals across 50 social sciences disciplines.

3. Decide on Search Terms.

• Pick words and phrases based on your research question to find suitable materials
• You can start by finding models for your literature review, and search for existing reviews in your field, using “review” and your keywords. This helps identify themes and organizational methods.
• Narrowing your topic is crucial due to the vast amount of literature available. Focusing on a specific aspect makes it easier to manage the number of sources you need to review, as it’s unlikely you’ll need to cover everything in the field.
• Use AND to retrieve a set of citations in which each citation contains all search terms.
• Use OR to retrieve citations that contain one of the specified terms.
• Use NOT to exclude terms from your search.
• Be careful when using NOT because you may inadvertently eliminate important articles. In Example 3, articles about preschoolers and academic achievement are eliminated, but so are studies that include preschoolers as part of a discussion of academic achievement and all age groups.

4. Filter out articles that don’t meet criteria like language, type, publication date, and funding source.

• Publication language Example. Include only studies in English.
• Journal Example. Include all education journals. Exclude all medical journals.
• Author Example. Include all articles by Andrew Hayes.
• Setting Example. Include all studies that take place in family settings. Exclude all studies that take place in the school setting.
• Participants or subjects Example. Include children that are younger than 6 years old.
• Program/intervention Example. Include all programs that are teacher-led. Exclude all programs that are learner-initiated.
• Research design Example. Include only longitudinal studies. Exclude cross-sectional studies.
• Sampling Example. Include only studies that rely on randomly selected participants.
• Date of publication Example. Include only studies published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023.
• Date of data collection Example. Include only studies that collected data from 2010 through 2023. Exclude studies that do not give dates of data collection.
• Duration of data collection Example. Include only studies that collect data for 12 months or longer.

5. Evaluate the methodological quality of the articles, including research design, sampling, data collection, interventions, data analysis, results, and conclusions.

• Maturation: Changes in individuals due to natural development may impact study results, such as intellectual or emotional growth in long-term studies.
• Selection: The method of choosing and assigning participants to groups can introduce bias; random selection minimizes this.
• History: External historical events occurring simultaneously with the study can bias results, making it hard to isolate the study’s effects.
• Instrumentation: Reliable data collection tools are essential to ensure accurate findings, especially in pretest-posttest designs.
• Statistical Regression: Selection based on extreme initial measures can lead to misleading results due to regression towards the mean.
• Attrition: Loss of participants during a study can bias results if those remaining differ significantly from those who dropped out.
• Reactive Effects of Testing: Pre-intervention measures can sensitize participants to the study’s aims, affecting outcomes.
• Interactive Effects of Selection: Unique combinations of intervention programs and participants can limit the generalizability of findings.
• Reactive Effects of Innovation: Artificial experimental environments can lead to uncharacteristic behavior among participants.
• Multiple-Program Interference: Difficulty in isolating an intervention’s effects due to participants’ involvement in other activities or programs.
• Simple Random Sampling : Every individual has an equal chance of being selected, making this method relatively unbiased.
• Systematic Sampling : Selection is made at regular intervals from a list, such as every sixth name from a list of 3,000 to obtain a sample of 500.
• Stratified Sampling : The population is divided into subgroups, and random samples are then taken from each subgroup.
• Cluster Sampling : Natural groups (like schools or cities) are used as batches for random selection, both at the group and individual levels.
• Convenience Samples : Selection probability is unknown; these samples are easy to obtain but may not be representative unless statistically validated.
• Study Power: The ability of a study to detect an effect, if present, is known as its power. Power analysis helps identify a sample size large enough to detect this effect.
• Test-Retest Reliability: High correlation between scores obtained at different times, indicating consistency over time.
• Equivalence/Alternate-Form Reliability: The degree to which two different assessments measure the same concept at the same difficulty level.
• Homogeneity: The extent to which all items or questions in a measure assess the same skill, characteristic, or quality.
• Interrater Reliability: Degree of agreement among different individuals assessing the same item or concept.
• Content Validity: Measures how thoroughly and appropriately a tool assesses the skills or characteristics it’s supposed to measure. Face Validity: Assesses whether a measure appears effective at first glance in terms of language use and comprehensiveness. Criterion Validity: Includes predictive validity (forecasting future performance) and concurrent validity (agreement with already valid measures). Construct Validity: Experimentally established to show that a measure effectively differentiates between people with and without certain characteristics.
• Relies on factors like the scale (categorical, ordinal, numerical) of independent and dependent variables, the count of these variables, and whether the data’s quality and characteristics align with the chosen statistical method’s assumptions.

6. Use a standard form for data extraction, train reviewers if needed, and ensure quality.

7. interpret the results, using your experience and the literature’s quality and content. for a more detailed analysis, a meta-analysis can be conducted using statistical methods to combine study results., 8. produce a descriptive review or perform a meta-analysis..

• Example: Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in higher education, 32(6), 693-710.
• Clarify the objectives of the analysis.
• Set explicit criteria for including and excluding studies.
• Describe in detail the methods used to search the literature.
• Search the literature using a standardized protocol for including and excluding studies.
• Use a standardized protocol to collect (“abstract”) data from each study regarding study purposes, methods, and effects (outcomes).
• Describe in detail the statistical method for pooling results.
• Report results, conclusions, and limitations.

• Example: Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.
• Essential and Multifunctional Bibliographic Software: Tools like EndNote, ProCite, BibTex, Bookeeper, Zotero, and Mendeley offer more than just digital storage for references; they enable saving and sharing search strategies, directly inserting references into reports and scholarly articles, and analyzing references by thematic content.
• Comprehensive Literature Reviews: Involve supplementing electronic searches with a review of references in identified literature, manual searches of references and journals, and consulting experts for both unpublished and published studies and reports.
• One of the most famous reporting checklists is the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ). CONSORT consists of a checklist and flow diagram. The checklist includes items that need to be addressed in the report.

References:

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review.  Studies in higher education ,  32 (6), 693-710.

Fink, A. (2019).  Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper . Sage publications.

Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.

University Libraries

• Research Guides
• Blackboard Learn
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms
• University of Arkansas

Literature Reviews

• Qualitative or Quantitative?
• Getting Started
• Finding articles
• Primary sources? Peer-reviewed?
• Review Articles/ Annual Reviews...?
• Books, ebooks, dissertations, book reviews

Qualitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using qualitative methods tend to:

• t hink that social sciences cannot be well-studied with the same methods as natural or physical sciences
• feel that human behavior is context-specific; therefore, behavior must be studied holistically, in situ, rather than being manipulated
• employ an 'insider's' perspective; research tends to be personal and thereby more subjective.
• do interviews, focus groups, field research, case studies, and conversational or content analysis.

Image from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics

Qualitative Research (an operational definition)

Qualitative Research: an operational description

Purpose : explain; gain insight and understanding of phenomena through intensive collection and study of narrative data

Approach: inductive; value-laden/subjective; holistic, process-oriented

Hypotheses: tentative, evolving; based on the particular study

Lit. Review: limited; may not be exhaustive

Setting: naturalistic, when and as much as possible

Sampling : for the purpose; not necessarily representative; for in-depth understanding

Measurement: narrative; ongoing

Design and Method: flexible, specified only generally; based on non-intervention, minimal disturbance, such as historical, ethnographic, or case studies

Data Collection: document collection, participant observation, informal interviews, field notes

Data Analysis: raw data is words/ ongoing; involves synthesis

Data Interpretation: tentative, reviewed on ongoing basis, speculative

• Qualitative research with more structure and less subjectivity
• Increased application of both strategies to the same study ("mixed methods")
• Evidence-based practice emphasized in more fields (nursing, social work, education, and others).

Some Other Guidelines

• Guide for formatting Graphs and Tables
• Critical Appraisal Checklist for an Article On Qualitative Research

Quantitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using quantitative methods tend to:

• think that both natural and social sciences strive to explain phenomena with confirmable theories derived from testable assumptions
• attempt to reduce social reality to variables, in the same way as with physical reality
• try to tightly control the variable(s) in question to see how the others are influenced.
• Do experiments, have control groups, use blind or double-blind studies; use measures or instruments.

Quantitative Research (an operational definition)

Quantitative research: an operational description

Purpose: explain, predict or control phenomena through focused collection and analysis of numberical data

Approach: deductive; tries to be value-free/has objectives/ is outcome-oriented

Hypotheses : Specific, testable, and stated prior to study

Lit. Review: extensive; may significantly influence a particular study

Setting: controlled to the degree possible

Sampling: uses largest manageable random/randomized sample, to allow generalization of results to larger populations

Measurement: standardized, numberical; "at the end"

Design and Method: Strongly structured, specified in detail in advance; involves intervention, manipulation and control groups; descriptive, correlational, experimental

Data Collection: via instruments, surveys, experiments, semi-structured formal interviews, tests or questionnaires

Data Analysis: raw data is numbers; at end of study, usually statistical

Data Interpretation: formulated at end of study; stated as a degree of certainty

This page on qualitative and quantitative research has been adapted and expanded from a handout by Suzy Westenkirchner. Used with permission.

Images from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics.

• << Previous: Books, ebooks, dissertations, book reviews
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:51 PM
• URL: https://uark.libguides.com/litreview
• See us on Instagram
• Follow us on Twitter
• Phone: 479-575-4104

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: May 13, 2024 11:24 AM
• 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.

Literature Reviews

• 1. Define your research question
• Getting started
• Types of reviews

Define topic

Brainstorming, limit scope, how ai can help, helpful resources.

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

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Mission animated icons created by Freepik - Flaticon

For example, the following research question is too broad.

Does social media affect mental health in college students?

A more focused research question could be:

Does social media play a role in the number of eating disorder diagnoses in college-aged women?

Need some guidance? Contact your subject librarian for a research consultation or reach out to [email protected] .

Start the brainstorming process:

• Begin by identifying a broad topic of research interest (the more you're personally interested in it, the better!). Write it down to clarify your focus.
• Narrow down your scope  by considering specific areas within this topic that you want to explore.
• Identify key themes and elements  related to these specific areas. These will be the building blocks of your investigation.
• Finally,  integrate these key areas and elements  into a well-crafted research question.

One way to brainstorm is to use a flowchart.

The scope of a topic  encompasses the boundaries and constraints you set for your research. The more precise your research question, the smoother the research process becomes.

Feeling stuck? Here are some ways you can narrow down your topic:

• geographic location
• time period
• discipline/field of study
• age group, etc.

You:  I need to conduct a literature review about social media, mental health, and college students. What are some example research questions within this topic?

ChatGPT: 

• How does the frequency and nature of social media use impact the mental health of college students?
• What role do specific social media platforms play in influencing the mental well-being of college students?
• How do online social interactions on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter relate to the mental health outcomes of college students?
• Are there differences in the association between social media use and mental health outcomes based on demographic factors such as gender, age, or academic major among college students?
• What strategies do college students employ to cope with negative mental health effects associated with social media use?
• How does the perception of social support through online platforms affect the mental health of college students?
• To what extent does the comparison of oneself to others on social media contribute to mental health challenges among college students?
• What interventions or educational programs are effective in promoting positive mental health behaviors in the context of social media use for college students?
• How do social media literacy and awareness programs impact the mental health attitudes and behaviors of college students?
• What is the relationship between the use of social media for academic and social purposes and the mental health outcomes of college students?

Generative AI tools : ChatGPT , Google Gemini (formerly Bard) , Claude , Microsoft Copilot

For more information on how to incorporate AI tools into your research, check out the section on AI Tools .

• Developing Your Research Question
• Developing a Researchable Question
• Brainstorming tips from UNC Writing Center
• << Previous: Types of reviews
• Next: 2. Plan your search >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

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

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

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Social robots in research on social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers: A scoping review

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Computer Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

• Solveig Flatebø, 
• Vi Ngoc-Nha Tran, 
• Catharina Elisabeth Arfwedson Wang, 
• Lars Ailo Bongo

• Published: May 15, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

There is currently no systematic review of the growing body of literature on using social robots in early developmental research. Designing appropriate methods for early childhood research is crucial for broadening our understanding of young children’s social and cognitive development. This scoping review systematically examines the existing literature on using social robots to study social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers aged between 2 and 35 months. Moreover, it aims to identify the research focus, findings, and reported gaps and challenges when using robots in research. We included empirical studies published between 1990 and May 29, 2023. We searched for literature in PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and PsyArXiv. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were mapped using the scoping review method. Our findings reveal that most studies were quantitative, with experimental designs conducted in a laboratory setting where children were exposed to physically present or virtual robots in a one-to-one situation. We found that robots were used to investigate four main concepts: animacy concept, action understanding, imitation, and early conversational skills. Many studies focused on whether young children regard robots as agents or social partners. The studies demonstrated that young children could learn from and understand social robots in some situations but not always. For instance, children’s understanding of social robots was often facilitated by robots that behaved interactively and contingently. This scoping review highlights the need to design social robots that can engage in interactive and contingent social behaviors for early developmental research.

Citation: Flatebø S, Tran VN-N, Wang CEA, Bongo LA (2024) Social robots in research on social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704

Editor: Simone Varrasi, University of Catania, ITALY

Received: February 5, 2024; Accepted: April 29, 2024; Published: May 15, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Flatebø et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data are available from the OSF database doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WF48R .

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Early childhood encompasses the infant and toddler years, marked by gradual but rapid growth in both social and cognitive development [ 1 , 2 ]. Social development involves acquiring skills to interact and build social bonds with others, whereas cognitive development refers to developing skills related to thinking and reasoning processes [ 1 , 2 ]. Research in these two subdisciplines focuses on a diverse range of abilities, such as attachment [ 3 ], imitation [ 4 ], play [ 5 , 6 ], memory [ 7 ], theory of mind [ 8 ], social cognition [ 4 ], and language acquisition [ 9 , 10 ]. Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to attribute underlying mental states like beliefs, desires, and intentions to others [ 11 – 13 ], has not previously been studied in pre-verbal infants [ 14 , 15 ]. However, recent advances in methods have demonstrated that a rudimentary ToM may emerge earlier than the traditional assumption at the age of four [ 14 , 15 ]. In line with this research, an interesting question is whether infants attribute mental states to non-human agents. Similarly, animacy understanding, the ability to classify entities as animate or inanimate [ 16 – 18 ], has been demonstrated in infants as young as two months [ 19 – 22 ], and by three years of age, children are good at understanding this distinction. Research on animacy examines how young children distinguish living beings and objects based on featural and dynamic cues such as faces, contingency behavior, and goal-directed or self-generated movement, which may involve using non-human agents possessing such cues [ 16 , 23 – 27 ].

Developmental psychology uses diverse methodologies, designs, data-gathering instruments and materials, and formats for stimuli presentation, and the research can be conducted in various research settings [ 28 ]. Using social robots as part of research methods has emerged as a promising way to gain social and cognitive developmental insights [ 29 – 31 ]. Some pioneering studies have also demonstrated that social robots can contribute to cognitive assessments of elderly people and children with autism [ 32 , 33 ]. These robots are designed for social interactions with humans, and they are often physically embodied, with human or animal-like qualities, and can be autonomous or pre-programmed to perform specific actions, and they engage in social interactions [ 34 , 35 ]. Social robots often have an anthropomorphic design with human-like appearance and behavior. For example, they commonly have heads with facial features and can display various social behaviors such as facial expressions, eye contact, pointing, or postural cues [ 36 – 38 ]. Two social robots commonly used for research on social and cognitive development skills are Robovie [ 39 ] and NAO [ 40 ]. In research settings, social robots can serve various roles, such as social partners in interactions [e.g., 40 , 41 ], teaching aids delivering learning content [ 40 , 42 , 43 ], and they can be equipped with sensors and cameras to record child behaviors [ 39 ].

There are several research advantages of using social robots that are not easily achievable through other means when studying young children. Firstly, they provide a level of control and consistency that can be challenging to achieve with human experimenters [ 32 , 44 ]. Secondly, because social robots are designed for social interactions, they might have potential in research on social learning situations such as imitation studies. Third, the socialness of robots in appearance and behavior [ 45 ], in addition to their novelty, make them potentially more suited to capture a child’s attention and sustain their engagement over longer time periods for a variety of testing purposes. Lastly, social robots offer a compelling avenue for advancing our understanding of young children’s early ToM and animacy understanding related to non-human agents with rich social properties and how they represent social robots specifically.

The current review

Although social robots are increasingly used in various settings with children, little is known about their utility as a research tool investigating social and cognitive concepts in infants and toddlers. We need to determine at which stages in early childhood children are receptive to and can learn from these robots. Currently, there is no available scoping review or systematic review of the available body of literature in this field. A review of the existing literature is needed to advance our understanding of social robots’ relevance in research with younger age groups and map the current state of knowledge in this field. Given the potential diversity in methodologies, research designs, and the wide range of developmental topics and concepts in the present research field, we decided to do a scoping review. Consequently, the main objective of the current scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview and summary of the available literature on the use of social robots as research tools for studying the social and cognitive development of typically developing infants and toddlers aged 2 to 35 months.

Our focus is on research using social robots to inform child development, rather than research exclusively focusing on robot skills and application. We focus on typically developing children in the infancy and toddler years, younger than 3 years. We exclude neonates (0–2 months) and preschoolers (3–5 years) due to the notable distinctions in their developmental stages, which may necessitate different research methods compared to those used for infants and toddlers. Our definition of social robots is broad, encompassing all embodied robots exposed to children in a research context, irrespective of form and presentation format. However, we recognize the significance of eyes in early childhood communication [ 46 ] and, consequently, restrict our inclusion to only robots featuring eyes. Our definition covers both robots commonly defined as social robots as well as robots with social features in form and/or behavior. We chose this definition because both types of robots might be relevant for how non-human agents with richer social features can inform social and cognitive development.

This review will provide an overview of the research literature, covering research on concepts of social and cognitive development using robots, the research methods employed, and the types of robots used and their purposes. Also, our aim is to summarize the research trends by identifying the primary research focuses and findings. Finally, we want to summarize the reported gaps and challenges in this research field. Hopefully, the current review can be valuable for future research, helping to decide how to employ social robots in research settings with infants and toddlers and to support the development of age-appropriate robots for children.

We conducted a scoping review, which aimed to explore and map the concepts and available literature in a given field of research [ 47 ]. Like systematic reviews, scoping reviews follow rigorous and transparent methods [ 47 , 48 ]. But, differently from systematic reviews, scoping reviews ask broader rather than specific research questions to encompass the extent and breadth of the available literature of a given field [ 47 , 48 ]. We used The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( S1 Checklist ) to improve this scoping review’s methodological and reporting quality. We preregistered the protocol for this study on Open Science Framework on May 19, 2023 (see updated version of the protocol: https://osf.io/2vwpn/ ). We followed the recommendations of the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [ 49 ] and the first five stages in the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley [ 47 ] and Levac and O’Brien’s advancements of this framework [ 50 ].

Stage 1: Identifying the research questions

The review was guided by three research questions: 1) What is the extent and nature of using social robots as a research tool to study social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers? 2) What are the primary research focus and findings? 3) What are the reported research gaps and challenges when using social robots as a research tool?

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

Inclusion criteria..

We developed inclusion criteria related to the publication type, target child population, the robot type, and the research focus ( Table 1 ) to focus the scope of the review.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

In the full-text screening, we excluded studies by the first unmet inclusion criteria, i.e., we checked if the publication met the criteria for publication type first, then for the target population, robot type, and finally, the research focus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.t001

We consulted multiple databases to identify studies, as social robotics is an interdisciplinary field. We included conference proceedings and preprints because studies within robotics are often published in this format [ 51 – 53 ].

Search strategy

We searched for literature in PsychINFO (OVID), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC, EMBASE), and Web of Science. We searched for preprints using the Preprint Citation Index in Web of Science and in PsyArXiv. All searches were done on 29 May 2023. In consultation with an academic librarian, we developed a search strategy and search terms, which are presented in the S1 File . We used controlled vocabulary in addition to keywords when searching in PsychINFO and ERIC. Web of Science and PsyArXiv lack their own controlled vocabulary, so PsychINFO and ERIC keywords were used in the searches. We categorized the search terms into three categories: robot type, target child population, and social and cognitive developmental concepts. For a comprehensive search, we used the search terms “robot*”, “robotics”, “social robotics”, and “human robot interaction” related to robot type category. Moreover, for the target child population category we used terms like “infan*”, “toddler*”, “child*”, “infant development”, and “childhood development”. Lastly, for developmental concepts we used terms such as “cognitive development”, “social development”, “social cognition”, and “psychological development”.

Stage 3: Study selection

We developed a screening questionnaire a priori ( doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4BGX6 ), which all reviewers (SF, LAB, and VT) piloted initially on a random sample of studies. After revising the screening questionnaire, we started screening studies for eligibility in the web-based software Covidence [ 54 ]. We removed duplications manually and by using the Covidence duplicate check tool. All studies were screened by two reviewers independently using the screening questionnaire. The first author (SF) screened all studies, whereas LAB and VT screened half of the studies each. We resolved disagreements by team discussion. The studies were screened through a two-step process: 1) screening of titles and abstracts; 2) screening of full texts. In full-text screening, we followed the exclusion reason order in Table 1 and excluded studies by the first unmet inclusion criteria.

Stage 4: Data charting

We developed a data charting template a priori in Covidence and we used it to chart data from the studies included. The first author (SF) piloted the data charting template on five studies and iteratively modified it based on recommendations [ 50 ]. The main revisions included changes to the template layout, adding entities (i.e., final sample size and physical CRI contact), and providing more charting instructions and explanations of the entities. The details about the newest version of the charting template and charted entities are available at OSF ( doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B32R6 ). The first author (SF) charted data from each publication, and a second reviewer (LAB or VT) checked the charted data for completeness and accuracy in Covidence. Disagreements were resolved by discussion in the research team. We charted data regarding general study characteristics (e.g., authors, publication year, publication type, and country of the first author), research aims, developmental concepts, methods (e.g., research methodology and design, research setting, procedure and conditions, material, outcome measures, and type of CRI), child population characteristics (e.g., sample size, age, and socioeconomic background), robot characteristics (e.g., robotic platform, developer, exposition, physical CRI contact, purpose of use, form, appearance, autonomy, and behavior), reported gaps and limitations, research findings and conclusions. We exported the charted data from Covidence to Excel. All charted data is available at OSF ( doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WF48R ).

Stage 5: Collation, summarizing, and reporting results

The reviewed studies are summarized, reported, and discussed in line with the fifth stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework in the following sections. We classified the studies based on the type of developmental concepts they involved.

Search results

Overall, we identified 1747 studies from all database searches. After removing duplicates, and screening titles and abstracts, we screened 187 full texts for eligibility. Out of these, 158 studies were excluded. Finally, we included 29 studies in the review. Fig 1 shows the details of the search results and the study selection process in the PRISMA flowchart diagram [ 55 ].

The study selection process, including procedures of identification, and screening of studies. Studies were excluded based on a fixed order of exclusion reasons, including only the first incident of an unmet reason in this diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.g001

General characteristics

S1 Table provides an overview of all reviewed studies, including general characteristics, research methods, aims, sample characteristics, the robotic platform and other measures used, and a summary of the main findings and conclusions. There were 25 journal articles, three conference papers, and one magazine article. None of the studies were preprints. Studies were published between 1991 to 2023, and the research activity slightly grew over the past three decades ( Fig 2 ).

The cumulative number of studies per year between 1990 to 29. May 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.g002

The authors came from different countries, and most studies were conducted in Japan, followed by the United States and Canada ( Table 2 ).

Countries of the lead authors ( N = 29).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.t002

Research methods

Almost all studies ( n = 25) used quantitative methodology, while only two studies used qualitative methodology and one used a mixed approach. Twenty-five of the studies used an experimental design, while the remaining four used a descriptive, correlational, case study, or ethnomethodology design. Twenty-four studies were conducted in a laboratory or in a controlled laboratory setting. Two studies were conducted in ecological settings, such as classrooms. The remaining three studies were conducted in different locations, one study in a naturalistic setting at a science museum, and two studies used various locations (i.e., laboratory, ecological and/or naturalistic location).

Child characteristics

The final sample sizes of the studies ranged from 6 to 230 participants, with the ages of participants ranging from 2 to 35 months. While some studies [ 56 – 62 ] included participants older than the target age, this review only focuses on findings related to children in the target age group. Twenty studies included toddlers who were 12 months or older, while seven studies included infants under 12 months. Five studies reported the socioeconomic status of the families [ 63 – 67 ], all belonging to the middle-class. For more details about the samples, see S1 Table .

Robot characteristics and interaction types

We identified 16 social robots ( Table 3 and Fig 3 ), most having a humanoid appearance ( n = 24), whereas the remaining were animal-like ( n = 4) and a ball-shaped robot ( n = 1). The robots used were Robie Sr., Robovie, Robovie2, NAO, Dr. Robot Inc, HOAP-2, RUBI, RUBI-6, iRobiQ, Sphero, ReplieeQ2, MyKeepon, Bee-Bot, 210 AIBO, MiRoE, and Opie. Robovie (versions 1 and 2) was most frequently used ( n = 8). Most robots were pre-programmed to perform specific behaviors to examine children’s responses to these acts ( n = 24), such as making eye contact or gazing in the direction of an object [e.g., 68 ], or performing specific actions with objects [e.g., 62 ]. Two studies used autonomous robot dogs that acted by themselves and reacted to the children’s behavior [ 60 , 61 ]. Additionally, some [ 57 , 58 , 69 ] exposed children to robots that were autonomous or pre-programmed at different phases of the experiment.

Images b, c, e, f, h, j, k, and l are modified cropped versions of the original work. Original images are licensed under CC-BY. For the robots Dr. Robot Inc., Opie, RUBI, and RUBI-6, we could not find images with a CC-BY (or similar) license. The Android and mechanical configurations of the same robot are shown in image (h). The image sources are: a) [ 70 ]; b) [ 71 ]; c) [ 72 ]; d) [ 73 ]; e) [ 74 ]; f) [ 75 ]; g) [ 76 ]; h) [ 77 ]; i) [ 78 ]; j) [ 79 ]; k & l); [ 80 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.g003

H = humanoid; NH = non-humanoid; n = number of studies using a given robot.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.t003

In most studies, the robots were present in the same physical location as the child ( n = 18), whereas the remaining robots were presented in video ( n = 11). In most cases, the child-robot interaction did not involve any physical contact with the robot ( n = 19). A total of 34 experiments were conducted in the 29 reviewed articles in which children were exposed to robots in some way. Most commonly, the robot was exposed to the child in a one-to-one interaction or situation ( n = 20), including both live interactions and passive observations without social exchange. The remaining were bystander interactions ( n = 5), where the child observed the robot interact with someone else, children-robot interactions in groups ( n = 4), or a mixture of different interaction types ( n = 5).

Outcome measures and other instruments and material

Details of the outcome measures are presented in the S1 Table . The most frequent measure in the studies was children’s looking behavior during stimuli presentation ( n = 12). Looking behavior was measured using different instruments, such as eye tracking methods, video recordings captured by cameras, or observational notes. Various techniques were used to analyze looking behavior, such as visual habituation, preferential looking, violation of expectation, and anticipatory looking. Another common measure was children’s imitation behavior assessed in imitation tests by analyzing the performance of target actions ( n = 7).

Research focus, key findings, and conclusions

The studies focused on several social and cognitive skills that we clustered into 4 main categories ( Table 4 ). The key findings and conclusions of all studies are presented in the S1 Table .

The other category includes the concepts of computational thinking ( n = 1), reading interest and skills ( n = 1), and physical play and emotions during robot interaction ( n = 1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.t004

Animacy understanding.

Seven studies investigated children’s understanding of animacy ( Table 4 ). They examined how children classify robots as animate or inanimate based on their appearance [ 77 , 91 ], movements [ 81 ], and interactive behaviors [ 60 , 61 , 82 , 91 ], using both humanoid and animal-like robots ( Table 3 and Fig 3 ). The findings were diverse, with children sometimes perceiving robots as more like living beings when the robots had a highly human-like appearance [ 77 ] or behaved contingently [ 82 , 91 , 92 ]. For example, infants aged 6 to 14 months did not differentiate between a highly human-like android and a human, viewing both as animate, but they recognized the difference between a human and a mechanical-looking robot ( Fig 3 ) [ 77 ]. Contingency behavior influenced children’s animacy understanding, with children’s reactions to robots varying depending on the robots’ contingency [ 82 , 92 ]. Children aged 9 to 17 months who observed contingent interactions between a robot and a human were more likely to perceive the robot as a social being, suggesting the importance of responsive behavior in animacy perception [ 82 , 92 ]. Nine- and twelve-month-old infants showed different expectations for human and robot movement, demonstrating increased negative affect when robots moved autonomously, suggesting that infants might consider robots inanimate regardless of self-generated motion [ 81 ]. Studies with robot dogs showed that children differentiated between robotic dogs and toy dogs, but they did not necessarily view the robotic dog as a living animal [ 60 , 61 ]. However, they did engage with the robotic dog in a manner suggesting that they perceived it as a social partner [ 60 , 61 ]. Observations of 12- to 24-month-old toddlers’ long-term interactions with a social robot indicated that they perceived the robot as a social partner [ 91 ]. The robot’s interactivity, appearance, and inscriptions of gender and social roles influenced toddlers’ attribution of animacy [ 91 ]. One study discussed anecdotal observations suggesting that toddlers may ascribe animacy to robots based on reciprocal vocalizations and social behaviors, such as inviting the robot to dance or apologizing to it after accidental contact [ 63 ]. Two studies connected children’s concepts of animacy with their understanding of actions, particularly goal-directed and contingent actions [ 77 , 91 ], which will be discussed in the section below on action understanding.

Action understanding.

Ten studies used humanoid social robots to examine children’s understanding of various actions (Tables 3 and 4 ), including referential actions [ 66 , 67 , 72 , 84 – 86 ], goal-directed actions [ 83 , 87 , 88 ], and intentions behind failed actions [ 68 ]. Action understanding refers to the ability to recognize and respond appropriately to other’s actions, infer the goals of actions, and detect the intention underlying the actions [ 95 ].

Studies on referential actions [ 66 , 67 , 72 , 84 – 86 ] showed that children aged 10 to 18 months can follow the gaze of humanoid robots, but their understanding of the robot’s intentions varied. For example, 12-month-olds respond to robot gaze, and it is not just an attentional reflex to its head movements [ 84 ], but they do not anticipate object appearance following robot gaze as they do for humans [ 84 , 85 ]. Similarly, one study [ 72 ] found that 17-month-olds more frequently followed the human gaze than the robot gaze, suggesting that toddlers did not understand the referential intention of the robot’s gaze. Yet, toddlers may still understand the robot’s referential intentions, such as when the robots provide verbal cues during object learning [ 66 , 86 ] or when the robot has previously engaged socially with adults [ 67 ]. Studies on goal-directed actions [ 83 , 87 , 88 ] showed that infants from 6.5 months could identify the goals of a humanoid robot as it is moving towards a goal destination, and they evaluate whether the robot is performing the most efficient path to reach its goal [ 83 ]. However, they do not attribute goals to a featureless box, suggesting that the human-like appearance of an agent influences infants’ reasoning about an agent’s actions [ 83 ]. Moreover, 13-month-old toddlers did not expect cooperative actions between humans and robots, even with social cues present [ 87 ]. By 17 months, toddlers showed signs of predicting the goal-directed reaching actions towards a target of both humans and humanoid robots, indicating an understanding of goal-directed behavior irrespective of the agent [ 106 ]. Finally, toddlers aged 24 to 35 months recognized the intention behind a robot’s failed attempts to place beads inside a cup, but only when the robot made eye contact [ 68 ].

Social robots were used to study two kinds of imitation in young children, i.e., their ability to learn by observing and imitating others [ 96 ]. Half of the studies focused on infants aged 2–8 months and their imitation of the humanoid robot’s bodily movements, also known as motor imitation, and contingency learning in a face-to-face interaction [ 69 , 89 , 90 ]. Although 2- to 5-month-olds paid more attention to the robot when it moved, only 6- to 8-month-olds imitated its motor movements and demonstrated contingency learning [ 69 , 89 , 90 ]. The remaining studies investigated 1- to 3-year-old toddlers’ imitation of a robot’s actions with objects, such as assembling a rattle and shaking it to make a sound [ 58 , 62 , 93 ]. The studies found that toddlers imitate both physically present [ 58 ] and on-screen robots [ 62 ] and that their imitation of robots increased with age [ 58 , 62 ]. Toddlers who interacted more with the robot prior to the imitation test were more likely to imitate it [ 58 ], though they still imitated humans more frequently [ 58 , 62 ]. Moreover, toddlers’ imitation from on-screen demonstrations of a human experimenter performing actions is not facilitated by presenting such videos embedded in robots behaving socially [ 93 ].

Early conversational skills.

Three studies used a toy robot to investigate early conversational skills in toddlers (Tables 3 and 4 ). The robot provided constant verbal stimulation through an in-built speaker. By using a robot, the researchers aimed to eliminate potential confounding nonverbal cues (e.g., gaze, gestures) inevitably present in human conversation that could affect toddlers’ responses [ 63 – 65 ]. For 24-month-olds, when the robot reciprocated toddlers’ utterances by repeating and expanding the topic, it led to more topic-maintaining conversation and increased linguistically mediated social play [ 63 ]. Moreover, 24-month-olds recognized when the robot’s responses were semantically relevant and on-topic, and in these situations, toddlers were more likely to continue and expand the conversational topic compared to when the robot was off-topic [ 64 ]. Older toddlers, aged 27 and 33 months, demonstrated an understanding of pragmatic quantity rules in conversations by responding appropriately to specific and general queries when conversing with the robot [ 65 ].

Other concepts and related findings.

The remaining studies used various social robots ( Table 3 ) to examine: reading ability [ 56 ], computational thinking programming, coding skills [ 59 ], and physical play and emotional responses [ 57 ]. For more details about these studies, see the S1 Table .

Gaps and challenges

To address our third research question, we summarize gaps and challenges in using social robots as a research tool reported by the authors of the studies in the review. The most reported gaps by the authors were related to children’s familiarity with robots, testing the effect of specific robot appearance and/or behavior cues, the design of the robot, and testing across different settings. Many studies [ 58 , 62 , 72 , 82 , 85 , 87 , 88 ] discussed that future work should investigate whether children’s familiarity with robots might influence their understanding of and response to robots. For example, Okumura discusses [ 85 ] that infants might have stronger expectations for referential cues, such as gaze, from humans rather than robots due to their familiarity with human interaction. Moreover, future studies should investigate whether children’s increased exposure to robots can enhance their ability to understand and respond to a robot’s referential communication [ 85 ]. Several studies suggest that further research should investigate how a robot’s physical appearance and behavior impact children’s perception, comprehension, and learning from robots [ 66 , 81 – 83 , 85 , 87 ]. For instance, Okumura et al. [ 86 ] suggest that future research should examine whether verbal cues provided by robots influence infants’ object learning. Regarding gaps related to robotic design, one study [ 92 ] elucidated that robotic developers should aim to make robots that can interact autonomously without interference from a human operator. Related to the robot’s design, Peca and colleagues [ 92 ] propose that future work should try to make robots that can interact autonomously with the child without the need for an operator. Most of the studies were conducted in experimental settings, and some studies [ 69 , 72 ] suggest that future work should examine child-robot interactions in more naturalistic settings.

Most studies ( n = 24) reported some challenges or limitations related to using social robots as a research tool. Many studies ( n = 10) reported challenges related to the robot’s design, such as issues related to its appearance and functionality. For example, additional human operators are required in the experimental procedures due to the technical constraints of the robots, difficulty in making the robots’ movements resemble human movements, or challenges with using robots in live tasks because robots fail to provide the stimuli correctly or do not respond appropriately during interactions. Several studies ( n = 7) reported children having challenges understanding the robot, such as its actions, communicative cues, and underlying intentions. Relatedly, some studies discussed that children’s lack of familiarity and experience with robots may contribute to difficulty understanding them and make them more distracting ( n = 4). Several studies ( n = 5) reported children experiencing challenges with task focus, including little or too much interest in the robot, irritability during robot inactivity, or children being distracted and leaving the task activity. Some studies ( n = 3) discussed ecological validity issues, such as the generalization of findings across settings and with specific robots to other robot types or humans. Relatedly, we noticed that few studies used control groups with human or non-human agents for the robots they used, and there is limited discussion on the absence of these controls. An overview of commonly reported challenges is presented in Table 5 .

The category “no limitations reported” refers to studies that have not reported any challenges relevant to using social robots as a research tool.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.t005

This scoping review is a novel contribution to the field as it is the first to systematically cover the breadth of the literature on how social robots have been used in early development research to investigate social and cognitive development. Our review provides an overview of general characteristics, methods, research focus, findings, and the reported gaps and challenges when social robots are used in early developmental research. Previous systematic reviews and scoping reviews have focused on using social robots with older children in other settings, such as in education [ 97 ], supporting autism development [ 98 – 102 ], or various health care contexts [ 103 – 106 ]. Although we maintained the wide approach of a scoping review, we found that an overarching research focus in the reviewed literature was to determine if social robots can act as social partners for young children. According to this literature, children sometimes classify social robots as social partners and can interpret the social cues and actions of robots in certain situations. Thus, the studies demonstrate the potential of using various social robots in early developmental research, but do not suggest that social robots can replace humans in research settings.

General characteristics and methods

We found that the use of social robots in early development research is a small research field, and we found 29 studies for the review. Most studies were quantitative with experimental designs and conducted in controlled laboratory settings, in which the children were exposed to the robots in a one-to-one situation. Few studies used qualitative methodology [ 59 , 60 , 91 ], and only one study [ 91 ] observed child-robot interactions in a long-term context. Most robots were humanoid and pre-programmed to perform a specific social behavior of interest. We had a broad definition of social robots, including robots that fit typical descriptions of social robots, such as Robie Sr., Robovie, Robovie2, NAO, Dr. Robot Inc., HOAP-2, RUBI, RUBI-6, iRobiQ, ReplieeQ2, MyKeepon, 210 AIBO, MiRoE, and Opie ( Table 3 and Fig 3 ). However, we also found robots not typically considered social robots, such as the robotic ball Sphero and Bee-Bot ( Table 3 and Fig 3 ). Notably, the robots used in the studies varied in their level of advancement. Some were relatively simple and immobile, like the Robie Sr. robot, while others were capable of autonomous action, such as the NAO robot ( Table 3 and Fig 3 ). Naturally, some of the more advanced robots were unavailable when the first studies were conducted, and therefore, we found that more simplistic robots were used in the studies that were first published.

Research focus and key findings

Our review shows research trends in using social robots to study social and cognitive concepts such as animacy understanding, action understanding, imitation, and early conversational skills. Some studies also used robots to examine reading abilities, computational thinking, and emotions. We found that most studies focused on whether children classify robots as social partners to interact with and acquire information from or whether humans are a privileged source of information at these developmental stages [ 58 , 60 , 62 , 66 – 69 , 72 , 77 , 81 – 94 ]. Only a few studies [ 63 – 65 ] used robots to provide more constant stimuli instead of humans, with a main focus on the developmental concepts examined. Furthermore, some had an additional focus on the application of robots [ 56 , 59 , 60 ], such as the therapeutic potential of robot dogs [ 60 ] or as a learning tool to improve reading [ 56 ]. Lastly, one study used a robot providing socially contingent behaviors to facilitate children’s imitation learning from a human experimenter [ 93 ].

The limited number of studies means that caution is necessary when interpreting the findings. Furthermore, research findings from one age group cannot be generalized to others. However, some key findings indicate that infants are attentive to robots and can learn from them at an early stage of development in several situations. Thus, humans are not necessarily the only information source for young children. For instance, 2-month-olds tend to be more attentive to robots that move [ 90 ], while 6-month-olds imitate robots [ 69 ]. Furthermore, 6.5-month-olds can attribute goals to a robot’s moving actions toward a specific destination [ 83 ]. Another key finding was that as children grow older, they show signs of becoming better at recognizing and interpreting the social cues provided by robots, and their learning from robots is enhanced. For example, 24- to 35-month-old showed early signs of attributing intentions to robots by detecting what a robot intended to do when it failed to put beads inside a cup [ 68 ]. Additionally, 1-to-3-year-olds were able to imitate a robot’s actions with objects both on-screen and in real life, and imitation increased with age [ 58 , 62 ]. Yet, in several situations, children in the reviewed studies did not understand the robots’ social behaviors and were not able to learn from them [ 66 , 72 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 90 ]. Taken together, toddlers and infants may view robots as social partners, attributing mental states to them like older children do [ 107 – 110 ]. Moreover, this literature provides information on the ages at which young children can socially engage with social robots.

Yet another key finding was that it was not just the appearance of social robots but also how the robots behave that plays an important role in how young children perceive, understand, and respond to them [ 56 , 58 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 82 , 86 , 91 ]. Especially, contingency and interactivity behaviors facilitated how the robots were understood. For example, when young infants observed another person talking to or contingently interacting with a robot, they tended to classify the robot as animate [ 82 , 92 ], and they showed increased sensitivity to its social cues such as eye gaze [ 67 ]. Additionally, toddlers who interacted more with the robot prior to the imitation test were more likely to imitate it [ 58 ]. In conversations with robots, toddlers tended to stay more engaged in the conversation when the robot reciprocated their verbalizations and stayed on-topic [ 63 , 64 ]. Moreover, adding more social factors to the robot, such as verbal cuinging, increases 12-month-old infants’ ability to follow a robot’s gaze to an object [ 86 ]. Relatedly, Csibra [ 111 ] proposes that it is not how an agent looks that is important for children to identify it as an agent, but how it behaves. It is possible that social robots having appearances and social behaviors like living beings blur the lines between living and non-living beings and that social robots are represented as a new ontological category in children. As a result, young children might perceive and treat these robots as social partners and not just machines. Relatedly, Manzi [ 88 ] et al. discuss robots with human-like characteristics might activate social mechanisms in young infants. Yet, in some cases, appearance and contingency behaviors were not enough to elicit an understanding of the robot’s intention [ 66 ].

The authors reported several gaps and challenges related to using social robots in early developmental research. Most commonly, the authors reported that future work should investigate whether children’s familiarity with robots impacts their responses. Although social robots possess human-like qualities and behaviors already familiar to the child, their novelty may result in different responses from children when compared to interactions with human agents. Frequently reported challenges were related to robot design. For instance, in some studies, a human experimenter had to accompany the robot during an experiment because of the technical constraints of the robots [ 66 , 92 ]. Relatedly, Peca and colleagues [ 92 ] discuss that future work should aim to make robots that do not require human operators.

Limitations

This scoping review is not without limitations. Although we conducted extensive searches across multiple databases, it is possible that some relevant studies were not included. Our inclusion criteria were limited to studies published in English, and we did not manually search reference lists to identify additional studies, which may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant studies. Furthermore, as scoping reviews do not typically aim to assess the quality of evidence, we did not perform a formal quality assessment of the studies included.

Future directions

This review has allowed us to identify important directions for future research, primarily within developmental psychology but also in social robotics. Firstly, it is unclear how efficient social robots are when acting as agents in early developmental research. This is indicated by diverse findings related to how children classify them as animate or inanimate and how children interpret their social cues and behaviors. Notably, few studies used any human or non-human controls for robots. Thus, future studies should use other agent types in addition to robots to determine the efficiency of using social robots, humans, and other types of agents in early developmental research. Findings on what robot behaviors are crucial for young children may have implications for future work within social robotics when aiming to develop age-appropriate robots. Secondly, we found that multiple robots were rarely used within the same study, and thus, it is unclear if their findings generalize to other types of robots or if the findings are specific to a particular robot type. Future work could use several robots to test generalizability across different robot types. Thirdly, most studies investigated child-robot interactions in highly controlled settings that do not easily generalize to other environments. Future work should investigate naturalistic interactions between children and robots, in which the robots respond to the child’s behavior at the moment rather than being pre-programmed to do a specific task. Fourth, we noticed that the included studies rarely reported the reasons behind their choice of a specific robot type and the amount of time spent preparing the robot, such as learning to program it or having a skilled programmer do it. We suggest reporting such information to ease replication and to improve planning for future studies.

Our scoping review of 29 studies shows a small and emerging field of using social robots to study social and cognitive development in infants and toddlers. We identified four main areas of focus: animacy understanding, action understanding, imitation, and early conversational skills. An important question in the field is whether young children perceive social robots as social partners or agents. Findings vary on how children classify and understand the behaviors of social robots. According to the studies, young children can, from an early age, pay attention to social robots, learn from them, and recognize their social signals, but not always. The studies suggest that certain robot behaviors, particularly those that are interactive and contingent, are critical for enhancing children’s perception of robots as social entities. Moreover, it seems like children’s understanding of robots improves with age. Our review indicates that even in infancy, social robots can be regarded as social partners, a perception that is essential in research settings that depend on social interaction. Consequently, our review highlights the need for careful selection of social robots that exhibit interactive and contingent behaviors to be effective in early developmental research. Furthermore, this review contributes knowledge on how children socially interact with and learn from non-human agents with rich social features. These insights are important for future studies within developmental psychology involving social robots and young children and future work within social robotics on designing appropriate robot behaviors to facilitate social interaction with robots in early childhood.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr) checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.s001

S1 File. Search strategy.

Search queries and search terms used in the databases and preprint repository.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.s002

S1 Table. Overview of the included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303704.s003

Acknowledgments

We thank Torstein Låg, Senior Academic Librarian at the UiT The Arctic University of Norway, for support in developing search strategies.

• 1. Smith PK, Hart CH, Abecassis M, Barrett MD, Bellmore A, Bissaker K, et al. Blackwell handbook of childhood social development: Blackwell Publishers Oxford, UK; 2002.
• 2. Goswami U. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: 2. ed. 2,Second edition. ed. Chichester u.a: Chichester u.a: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
• 3. Workman L, Taylor S, Barkow JH. Evolutionary perspectives on social development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood social development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2022. p. 84–100.
• 4. Meltzoff AN. Social cognition and the origins of imitation, empathy, and theory of mind. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 49–75.
• 5. Lillard A, Pinkham AM, Smith E. Pretend play and cognitive development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2010. p. 285–311.
• 6. Nicolopoulou A, Smith PK. Social play and social development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood social development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2022. p. 538–54.
• 7. Bauer PJ, Larkina M, Deocampo J. Early memory development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 153–79.
• 8. Wellman HM. Developing a theory of mind. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 258–84.
• 9. Tomasello M. Language development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 239–57.
• 10. Waxman SR, Leddon EM. Early word-learning and conceptual development. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 180–208.
• 11. Gopnik A, Meltzoff AN. Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1997.
• 12. Tomasello M. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.
• 13. Wellman Henry M. The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
• 14. Gergely G. Kinds of agents: The origins of understanding instrumental and communicative agency. The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 76–105.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 16. Opfer JE, Gelman SA. Development of the animate–inanimate distinction. The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 213–38.
• 17. Carey S. Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1985.
• 18. Keil FC. Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: Bradford. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1989.
• 28. Mukherji P, Albon D. Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide: Sage; 2022.
• 29. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yano H, editors. Using robots for the study of human social development. AAAI Spring Symposium on Developmental Robotics; 2005: Citeseer. Available from: http://mainline.brynmawr.edu/DevRob05/schedule/papers/kozima.pdf .
• 32. Varrasi S, Di Nuovo S, Conti D, Di Nuovo A, editors. Social robots as psychometric tools for cognitive assessment: A pilot test. Human Friendly Robotics; 2019 2019//; Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89327-3_8 .
• 33. Conti D, Trubia G, Buono S, Di Nuovo S, Di Nuovo A, editors. Evaluation of a robot-assisted therapy for children with autism and intellectual disability. Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems; 2018 2018//; Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96728-8_34 .
• 38. Nakadai K, Hidai K-i, Mizoguchi H, Okuno H, Kitano H. Real-time auditory and visual multiple-object tracking for humanoids. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, August 4–10, 2001; Seattle, Washington, USA, Seattle2001. p. 1425–36.
• 44. Scassellati B. Investigating models of social development using a humanoid robot. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 20032003. p. 2704–9 vol.4.
• 51. Xie B, Shen Z, Wang K. Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services2021 February 01, 2021:[arXiv:2102.09066 p.]. Available from: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210209066X .
• 52. Baxter P, Kennedy J, Senft E, Lemaignan S, Belpaeme T, editors. From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. 2016 11th acm/ieee international conference on human-robot interaction (hri); 2016: IEEE.
• 54. Covidence systematic review software: Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available from: Available at www.covidence.org .
• 57. Boccanfuso L, Kim ES, Snider JC, Wang Q, Wall CA, DiNicola L, et al. Autonomously detecting interaction with an affective robot to explore connection to developmental ability. 2015 International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII); 20152015. p. 1–7.
• 73. dullhunk. Nao social humanoid robot from aldebaran robotics at animation 2012. openverse (CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/?ref=openverse ) https://openverse.org/image/965747b9-7372-4ef0-bc45-8b3f5a77a7d9?q=Nao%20social%20humanoid%20robot%20from%20aldebaran .
• 76. Loimere. Sphero! openverse (CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/?ref=openverse ) https://openverse.org/image/f8fe1444-9400-4a33-9597-dd2b8015d868?q=Sphero%21 .
• 78. gophodotcom. DSC_0096. openverse (CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/?ref=openverse ) https://openverse.org/image/68971a4a-3deb-4a52-bc0d-811863c7bf4a?q=Keepon .

About Systematic Reviews

Are Systematic Reviews Qualitative or Quantitative?

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

A systematic review is designed to be transparent and replicable. Therefore, systematic reviews are considered reliable tools in scientific research and clinical practice. They synthesize the results using multiple primary studies by using strategies that minimize bias and random errors. Depending on the research question and the objectives of the research, the reviews can either be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative reviews deal with understanding concepts, thoughts, or experiences. Quantitative reviews are employed when researchers want to test or confirm a hypothesis or theory. Let’s look at some of the differences between these two types of reviews.

To learn more about how long it takes to do a systematic review , you can check out the link to our full article on the topic.

Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Reviews

The differences lie in the scope of the research, the methodology followed, and the type of questions they attempt to answer. Some of these differences include:

Research Questions

As mentioned earlier qualitative reviews attempt to answer open-ended research questions to understand or formulate hypotheses. This type of research is used to gather in-depth insights into new topics. Quantitative reviews, on the other hand, test or confirm existing hypotheses. This type of research is used to establish generalizable facts about a topic.

Type of Sample Data

The data collected for both types of research differ significantly. For qualitative research, data is collected as words using observations, interviews, and interactions with study subjects or from literature reviews. Quantitative studies collect data as numbers, usually from a larger sample size.

Data Collection Methods

To collect data as words for a qualitative study, researchers can employ tools such as interviews, recorded observations, focused groups, videos, or by collecting literature reviews on the same subject. For quantitative studies, data from primary sources is collected as numbers using rating scales and counting frequencies. The data for these studies can also be collected as measurements of variables from a well-designed experiment carried out under pre-defined, monitored conditions.

Data Analysis Methods

Data by itself cannot prove or demonstrate anything unless it is analyzed. Qualitative data is more challenging to analyze than quantitative data. A few different approaches to analyzing qualitative data include content analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis. The goal of all of these approaches is to carefully analyze textual data to identify patterns, themes, and the meaning of words or phrases.

Quantitative data, since it is in the form of numbers, is analyzed using simple math or statistical methods. There are several software programs that can be used for mathematical and statistical analysis of numerical data.

Presentation of Results

Learn more about distillersr.

(Article continues below)

Final Takeaway – Qualitative or Quantitative?

3 reasons to connect.

• Open access
• Published: 13 May 2024

Sexual and reproductive health implementation research in humanitarian contexts: a scoping review

• Alexandra Norton 1 &
• Hannah Tappis 2  

Reproductive Health volume  21 , Article number:  64 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

202 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Meeting the health needs of crisis-affected populations is a growing challenge, with 339 million people globally in need of humanitarian assistance in 2023. Given one in four people living in humanitarian contexts are women and girls of reproductive age, sexual and reproductive health care is considered as essential health service and minimum standard for humanitarian response. Despite growing calls for increased investment in implementation research in humanitarian settings, guidance on appropriate methods and analytical frameworks is limited.

A scoping review was conducted to examine the extent to which implementation research frameworks have been used to evaluate sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings. Peer-reviewed papers published from 2013 to 2022 were identified through relevant systematic reviews and a literature search of Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Global Health databases. Papers that presented primary quantitative or qualitative data pertaining to a sexual and reproductive health intervention in a humanitarian setting were included.

Seven thousand thirty-six unique records were screened for inclusion, and 69 papers met inclusion criteria. Of these, six papers explicitly described the use of an implementation research framework, three citing use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Three additional papers referenced other types of frameworks used in their evaluation. Factors cited across all included studies as helping the intervention in their presence or hindering in their absence were synthesized into the following Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains: Characteristics of Systems, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, Intervention Characteristics, and Process.

This review found a wide range of methodologies and only six of 69 studies using an implementation research framework, highlighting an opportunity for standardization to better inform the evidence for and delivery of sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings. Increased use of implementation research frameworks such as a modified Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research could work toward both expanding the evidence base and increasing standardization.

Plain English summary

Three hundred thirty-nine million people globally were in need of humanitarian assistance in 2023, and meeting the health needs of crisis-affected populations is a growing challenge. One in four people living in humanitarian contexts are women and girls of reproductive age, and provision of sexual and reproductive health care is considered to be essential within a humanitarian response. Implementation research can help to better understand how real-world contexts affect health improvement efforts. Despite growing calls for increased investment in implementation research in humanitarian settings, guidance on how best to do so is limited. This scoping review was conducted to examine the extent to which implementation research frameworks have been used to evaluate sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings. Of 69 papers that met inclusion criteria for the review, six of them explicitly described the use of an implementation research framework. Three used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a theory-based framework that can guide implementation research. Three additional papers referenced other types of frameworks used in their evaluation. This review summarizes how factors relevant to different aspects of implementation within the included papers could have been organized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The findings from this review highlight an opportunity for standardization to better inform the evidence for and delivery of sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings. Increased use of implementation research frameworks such as a modified Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research could work toward both expanding the evidence base and increasing standardization.

Peer Review reports

Over the past few decades, the field of public health implementation research (IR) has grown as a means by which the real-world conditions affecting health improvement efforts can be better understood. Peters et al. put forward the following broad definition of IR for health: “IR is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation – the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices (collectively called interventions)” [ 1 ].

As IR emphasizes real-world circumstances, the context within which a health intervention is delivered is a core consideration. However, much IR implemented to date has focused on higher-resource settings, with many proposed frameworks developed with particular utility for a higher-income setting [ 2 ]. In recognition of IR’s potential to increase evidence across a range of settings, there have been numerous reviews of the use of IR in lower-resource settings as well as calls for broader use [ 3 , 4 ]. There have also been more focused efforts to modify various approaches and frameworks to strengthen the relevance of IR to low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs), such as the work by Means et al. to adapt a specific IR framework for increased utility in LMICs [ 2 ].

Within LMIC settings, the centrality of context to a health intervention’s impact is of particular relevance in humanitarian settings, which present a set of distinct implementation challenges [ 5 ]. Humanitarian responses to crisis situations operate with limited resources, under potential security concerns, and often under pressure to relieve acute suffering and need [ 6 ]. Given these factors, successful implementation of a particular health intervention may require different qualities than those that optimize intervention impact under more stable circumstances [ 7 ]. Despite increasing recognition of the need for expanded evidence of health interventions in humanitarian settings, the evidence base remains limited [ 8 ]. Furthermore, despite its potential utility, there is not standardized guidance on IR in humanitarian settings, nor are there widely endorsed recommendations for the frameworks best suited to analyze implementation in these settings.

Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is a core aspect of the health sector response in humanitarian settings [ 9 ]. Yet, progress in addressing SRH needs has lagged far behind other services because of challenges related to culture and ideology, financing constraints, lack of data and competing priorities [ 10 ]. The Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for SRH in Crisis Situations is the international standard for the minimum set of SRH services that should be implemented in all crisis situations [ 11 ]. However, as in other areas of health, there is need for expanded evidence for planning and implementation of SRH interventions in humanitarian settings. Recent systematic reviews of SRH in humanitarian settings have focused on the effectiveness of interventions and service delivery strategies, as well as factors affecting utilization, but have not detailed whether IR frameworks were used [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. There have also been recent reviews examining IR frameworks used in various settings and research areas, but none have explicitly focused on humanitarian settings [ 2 , 16 ].

Given the need for an expanded evidence base for SRH interventions in humanitarian settings and the potential for IR to be used to expand the available evidence, a scoping review was undertaken. This scoping review sought to identify IR approaches that have been used in the last ten years to evaluate SRH interventions in humanitarian settings.

This review also sought to shed light on whether there is a need for a common framework to guide research design, analysis, and reporting for SRH interventions in humanitarian settings and if so, if there are any established frameworks already in use that would be fit-for-purpose or could be tailored to meet this need.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews was utilized to guide the elements of this review [ 17 ]. The review protocol was retrospectively registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/b5qtz ).

Search strategy

A two-fold search strategy was undertaken for this review, which covered the last 10 years (2013–2022). First, recent systematic reviews pertaining to research or evaluation of SRH interventions in humanitarian settings were identified through keyword searches on PubMed and Google Scholar. Four relevant systematic reviews were identified [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ] Table 1 .

Second, a literature search mirroring these reviews was conducted to identify relevant papers published since the completion of searches for the most recent review (April 2017). Additional file 1 includes the search terms that were used in the literature search [see Additional file 1 ].

The literature search was conducted for papers published from April 2017 to December 2022 in the databases that were searched in one or more of the systematic reviews: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Global Health. Searches were completed in January 2023 Table 2 .

Two reviewers screened each identified study for alignment with inclusion criteria. Studies in the four systematic reviews identified were considered potentially eligible if published during the last 10 years. These papers then underwent full-text review to confirm satisfaction of all inclusion criteria, as inclusion criteria were similar but not fully aligned across the four reviews.

Literature search results were exported into a citation manager (Covidence), duplicates were removed, and a step-wise screening process for inclusion was applied. First, all papers underwent title and abstract screening. The remaining papers after abstract screening then underwent full-text review to confirm satisfaction of all inclusion criteria. Title and abstract screening as well as full-text review was conducted independently by both authors; disagreements after full-text review were resolved by consensus.

Data extraction and synthesis

The following content areas were summarized in Microsoft Excel for each paper that met inclusion criteria: publication details including author, year, country, setting [rural, urban, camp, settlement], population [refugees, internally displaced persons, general crisis-affected], crisis type [armed conflict, natural disaster], crisis stage [acute, chronic], study design, research methods, SRH intervention, and intervention target population [specific beneficiaries of the intervention within the broader population]; the use of an IR framework; details regarding the IR framework, how it was used, and any rationale given for the framework used; factors cited as impacting SRH interventions, either positively or negatively; and other key findings deemed relevant to this review.

As the focus of this review was on the approach taken for SRH intervention research and evaluation, the quality of the studies themselves was not assessed.

Twenty papers underwent full-text review due to their inclusion in one or more of the four systematic reviews and meeting publication date inclusion criteria. The literature search identified 7,016 unique papers. After full-text screening, 69 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Figure  1 illustrates the search strategy and screening process.

Flow chart of paper identification

Papers published in each of the 10 years of the review timeframe (2013–2022) were included. 29% of the papers originated from the first five years of the time frame considered for this review, with the remaining 71% papers coming from the second half. Characteristics of included publications, including geographic location, type of humanitarian crisis, and type of SRH intervention, are presented in Table  3 .

A wide range of study designs and methods were used across the papers, with both qualitative and quantitative studies well represented. Twenty-six papers were quantitative evaluations [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], 17 were qualitative [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], and 26 used mixed methods [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ]. Within the quantitative evaluations, 15 were observational, while five were quasi-experimental, five were randomized controlled trials, and one was an economic evaluation. Study designs as classified by the authors of this review are summarized in Table  4 .

Six papers (9%) explicitly cited use of an IR framework. Three of these papers utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [ 51 , 65 , 70 ]. The CFIR is a commonly used determinant framework that—in its originally proposed form in 2009—is comprised of five domains, each of which has constructs to further categorize factors that impact implementation. The CFIR domains were identified as core content areas influencing the effectiveness of implementation, and the constructs within each domain are intended to provide a range of options for researchers to select from to “guide diagnostic assessments of implementation context, evaluate implementation progress, and help explain findings.” [ 87 ] To allow for consistent terminology throughout this review, the original 2009 CFIR domains and constructs are used.

Guan et al. conducted a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a neonatal hepatitis B immunization program in a conflict-affected rural region of Myanmar. Guan et al. report mapping data onto the CFIR as a secondary analysis step. They describe that “CFIR was used as a comprehensive meta-theoretical framework to examine the implementation of the Hepatitis B Virus vaccination program,” and implementation themes from multiple study data sources (interviews, observations, examination of monitoring materials) were mapped onto CFIR constructs. They report their results in two phases – Pre-implementation training and community education, and Implementation – with both anchored in themes that they had mapped onto CFIR domains and constructs. All but six constructs were included in their analysis, with a majority summarized in a table and key themes explored further in the narrative text. They specify that most concerns were identified within the Outer Setting and Process domains, while elements identified within the Inner Setting domain provided strength to the intervention and helped mitigate against barriers [ 70 ].

Sarker et al. conducted a qualitative study to assess provision of maternal, newborn and child health services to Rohingya refugees residing in camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. They cite using CFIR as a guide for thematic analysis, applying it after a process of inductive and deductive coding to index these codes into the CFIR domains. They utilized three of the five CFIR domains (Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Process), stating that the remaining two domains (Intervention Characteristics and Characteristics of Individuals) were not relevant to their analysis. They then proposed two additional CFIR domains, Context and Security, for use in humanitarian contexts. In contrast to Guan et al., CFIR constructs are not used nor mentioned by Sarker et al., with content under each domain instead synthesized as challenges and potential solutions. Regarding the CFIR, Sarker et al. write, “The CFIR guided us for interpretative coding and creating the challenges and possible solutions into groups for further clarification of the issues related to program delivery in a humanitarian crisis setting.” [ 51 ]

Sami et al. conducted a mixed methods case study to assess the implementation of a package of neonatal interventions at health facilities within refugee and internally displaced persons camps in South Sudan. They reference use of the CFIR earlier in the study than Sarker et al., basing their guides for semi-structured focus group discussions on the CFIR framework. They similarly reference a general use of the CFIR framework as they conducted thematic analysis. Constructs are referenced once, but they do not specify whether their application of the CFIR framework included use of domains, constructs, or both. This may be in part because they then applied an additional framework, the World Health Organization (WHO) Health System Framework, to present their findings. They describe a nested approach to their use of these frameworks: “Exploring these [CFIR] constructs within the WHO Health Systems Framework can identify specific entry points to improve the implementation of newborn interventions at critical health system building blocks.” [ 65 ]

Three papers cite use of different IR frameworks. Bolan et al. utilized the Theoretical Domains Framework in their mixed methods feasibility study and pilot cluster randomized trial evaluating pilot use of the Safe Delivery App by maternal and newborn health workers providing basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in facilities in the conflict-affected Maniema province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). They used the Theroetical Domains Framework in designing interview questions, and further used it as the coding framework for their analysis. Similar to the CFIR, the Theoretical Domains Framework is a determinant framework that consists of domains, each of which then includes constructs. Bolan et al. utilized the Theoretical Domains Framework at the construct level in interview question development and at the domain level in their analysis, mapping interview responses to eight of the 14 domains [ 83 ]. Berg et al. report using an “exploratory design guided by the principles of an evaluation framework” developed by the Medical Research Council to analyze the implementation process, mechanisms of impact, and outcomes of a three-pillar training intervention to improve maternal and neonatal healthcare in the conflict-affected South Kivu province of the DRC [ 67 , 88 ]. Select components of this evaluation framework were used to guide deductive analysis of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews [ 67 ]. In their study of health workers’ knowledge and attitudes toward newborn health interventions in South Sudan, before and after training and supply provision, Sami et al. report use of the Conceptual Framework of the Role of Attitudes in Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in their analysis process. The framework was used to group codes following initial inductive coding analysis of in-depth interviews [ 72 ].

Three other papers cite use of specific frameworks in their intervention evaluation [ 19 , 44 , 76 ]. As a characteristic of IR is the use of an explicit framework to guide the research, the use of the frameworks in these three papers meets the intention of IR and serves the purpose that an IR framework would have in strengthening the analytical rigor. Castle et al. cite use of their program’s theory of change as a framework for a mixed methods evaluation of the provision of family planning services and more specifically uptake of long-acting reversible contraception use in the DRC. They describe use of the theory of change to “enhance effectiveness of [long-acting reversible contraception] access and uptake.” [ 76 ] Thommesen et al. cite use of the AAAQ (Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Quality) framework in their qualitative study assessing midwifery services provided to pregnant women in Afghanistan. This framework is focused on the “underlying elements needed for attainment of optimum standard of health care,” but the authors used it in this paper to evaluate facilitators and barriers to women accessing midwifery services [ 44 ]. Jarrett et al. cite use of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems to explore the characteristics of a population mobility, mortality and birth surveillance system in South Kivu, DRC. Use of these CDC guidelines is cited as one of four study objectives, and commentary is included in the Results section pertaining to each criteria within these guidelines, although more detail regarding use of these guidelines or the authors’ experience with their use in the study is not provided [ 19 ].

Overall, 22 of the 69 papers either explicitly or implicitly identified IR as relevant to their work. Nineteen papers include a focus on feasibility (seven of which did not otherwise identify the importance of exploring questions concerning implementation), touching on a common outcome of interest in implementation research [ 89 ].

While a majority of papers did not explicitly or implicitly use an IR framework to evaluate their SRH intervention of focus, most identified factors that facilitated implementation when they were present or served as a barrier when absent. Sixty cite factors that served as facilitators and 49 cite factors that served as barriers, with just three not citing either. Fifty-nine distinct factors were identified across the papers.

Three of the six studies that explicitly used an IR framework used the CFIR, and the CFIR is the only IR framework that was used by multiple studies. As previously mentioned, Means et al. put forth an adaptation of the CFIR to increase its relevance in LMIC settings, proposing a sixth domain (Characteristics of Systems) and 11 additional constructs [ 2 ]. Using the expanded domains and constructs as proposed by Means et al., the 59 factors cited by papers in this review were thematically grouped into the six domains: Characteristics of Systems, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, Intervention Characteristics, and Process. Within each domain, alignment with CFIR constructs was assessed for, and alignment was found with 29 constructs: eight of Means et al.’s 11 constructs, and 21 of the 39 standard CFIR constructs. Three factors did not align with any construct (all fitting within the Outer Setting domain), and 14 aligned with a construct label but not the associated definition. Table 5 synthesizes the mapping of factors affecting SRH intervention implementation to CFIR domains and constructs, with the construct appearing in italics if it is considered to align with that factor by label but not by definition.

Table 6 lists the CFIR constructs that were not found to have alignment with any factor cited by the papers in this review.

This scoping review sought to assess how IR frameworks have been used to bolster the evidence base for SRH interventions in humanitarian settings, and it revealed that IR frameworks, or an explicit IR approach, are rarely used. All four of the systematic reviews identified with a focus on SRH in humanitarian settings articulate the need for more research examining the effectiveness of SRH interventions in humanitarian settings, with two specifically citing a need for implementation research/science [ 12 , 13 ]. The distribution of papers across the timeframe included in this review does suggest that more research on SRH interventions for crisis-affected populations is taking place, as a majority of relevant papers were published in the second half of the review period. The papers included a wide range of methodologies, which reflect the differing research questions and contexts being evaluated. However, it also invites the question of whether there should be more standardization of outcomes measured or frameworks used to guide analysis and to facilitate increased comparison, synthesis and application across settings.

Three of the six papers that used an IR framework utilized the CFIR. Guan et al. used the CFIR at both a domain and construct level, Sarker et al. used the CFIR at the domain level, and Sami et al. did not specify which CFIR elements were used in informing the focus group discussion guide [ 51 , 65 , 70 ]. It is challenging to draw strong conclusions about the applicability of CFIR in humanitarian settings based on the minimal use of CFIR and IR frameworks within the papers reviewed, although Guan et al. provides a helpful model for how analysis can be structured around CFIR domains and constructs. It is worth considering that the minimal use of IR frameworks, and more specifically CFIR constructs, could be in part because that level of prescriptive categorization does not allow for enough fluidity in humanitarian settings. It also raises questions about the appropriate degree of standardization to pursue for research done in these settings.

The mapping of factors affecting SRH intervention implementation provides an example of how a modified CFIR framework could be used for IR in humanitarian contexts. This mapping exercise found factors that mapped to all five of the original CFIR domains as well as the sixth domain proposed by Means et al. All factors fit well within the definition for the selected domain, indicating an appropriate degree of fit between these existing domains and the factors identified as impacting SRH interventions in humanitarian settings. On a construct level, however, the findings were more variable, with one-quarter of factors not fully aligning with any construct. Furthermore, over 40% of the CFIR constructs (including the additional constructs from Means et al.) were not found to align with any factors cited by the papers in this review, also demonstrating some disconnect between the parameters posed by the CFIR constructs and the factors cited as relevant in a humanitarian context.

It is worth noting that while the CFIR as proposed in 2009 was used in this assessment, as well as in the included papers which used the CFIR, an update was published in 2022. Following a review of CFIR use since its publication, the authors provide updates to construct names and definitions to “make the framework more applicable across a range of innovations and settings.” New constructs and subconstructs were also added, for a total of 48 constructs and 19 subconstructs across the five domains [ 90 ]. A CFIR Outcomes Addendum was also published in 2022, based on recommendations for the CFIR to add outcomes and intended to be used as a complement to the CFIR determinants framework [ 91 ]. These expansions to the CFIR framework may improve applicability of the CFIR in humanitarian settings. Several constructs added to the Outer Setting domain could be of particular utility – critical incidents, local attitudes, and local conditions, each of which could help account for unique challenges faced in contexts of crisis. Sub-constructs added within the Inner Setting domain that seek to clarify structural characteristics and available resources would also be of high utility based on mapping of the factors identified in this review to the original CFIR constructs. As outcomes were not formally included in the CFIR until the 2022 addendum, a separate assessment of implementation outcomes was not undertaken in this review. However, analysis of the factors cited by papers in this review as affecting implementation was derived from the full text of the papers and thus captures content relevant to implementation determinants that is contained within the outcomes.

Given the demonstrated need for additional flexibility within an IR framework for humanitarian contexts, while not a focus of this review, it is worth considering whether a different framework could provide a better fit than the CFIR. Other frameworks have differing points of emphasis that would create different opportunities for flexibility but that do not seem to resolve the challenges experienced in applying the CFIR to a humanitarian context. As one example, the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) Framework considers the impact of inner and outer context on each of four implementation phases; while the constructs within this framework are broader than the CFIR, an emphasis on the intervention characteristics is missing, a domain where stronger alignment within the CFIR is also needed [ 92 ]. Alternatively, the PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) framework is a determinant and evaluation framework that adds consideration of context factors to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) outcomes framework. It has a stronger emphasis on intervention aspects, with sub-domains to account for both organization and patient perspectives within the intervention. While PRISM does include aspects of context, external environment considerations are less robust and intentionally less comprehensive in scope, which would not provide the degree of alignment possible between the Characteristics of Systems and Outer Setting CFIR domains for the considerations unique to humanitarian environments [ 93 ].

Reflecting on their experience with the CFIR, Sarker et al. indicate that it can be a “great asset” in both evaluating current work and developing future interventions. They also encourage future research of humanitarian health interventions to utilize the CFIR [ 51 ]. The other papers that used the CFIR do not specifically reflect on their experience utilizing it, referring more generally to having felt that it was a useful tool [ 65 , 70 ]. On their use of an evaluation framework, Berg et al. reflected that it lent useful structure and helped to identify aspects affecting implementation that otherwise would have gone un-noticed [ 67 ]. The remaining studies that utilized an IR framework did not specifically comment on their experience with its use [ 72 , 83 ]. While a formal IR framework was not engaged by other studies, a number cite a desire for IR to contribute further detail to their findings [ 21 , 37 ].

In their recommendations for strengthening the evidence base for humanitarian health interventions, Ager et al. speak to the need for “methodologic innovation” to develop methodologies with particular applicability in humanitarian settings [ 7 ]. As IR is not yet routinized for SRH interventions, this could be opportune timing for the use of a standardized IR framework to gauge its utility. Using an IR framework to assess factors influencing implementation of the MISP in initial stages of a humanitarian response, and interventions to support more comprehensive SRH service delivery in protracted crises, could lend further rigor and standardization to SRH evaluations, as well as inform strategies to improve MISP implementation over time. Based on categorizing factors identified by these papers as relevant for intervention evaluation, there does seem to be utility to a modified CFIR approach. Given the paucity of formal IR framework use within SRH literature, it would be worth conducting similar scoping exercises to assess for explicit use of IR frameworks within the evidence base for other health service delivery areas in humanitarian settings. In the interim, the recommended approach from this review for future IR on humanitarian health interventions would be a modified CFIR approach with domain-level standardization and flexibility for constructs that may standardize over time with more use. This would enable use of a common analytical framework and vocabulary at the domain level for stakeholders to describe interventions and the factors influencing the effectiveness of implementation, with constructs available to use and customize as most appropriate for specific contexts and interventions.

This review had a number of limitations. As this was a scoping review and a two-part search strategy was used, the papers summarized here may not be comprehensive of those written pertaining to SRH interventions over the past 10 years. Papers from 2013 to 2017 that would have met this scoping review’s inclusion criteria may have been omitted due to being excluded from the systematic reviews. The review was limited to papers available in English. Furthermore, this review did not assess the quality of the papers included or seek to assess the methodology used beyond examination of the use of an IR framework. It does, however, serve as a first step in assessing the extent to which calls for implementation research have been addressed, and identify entry points for strengthening the science and practice of SRH research in humanitarian settings.

With one in 23 people worldwide in need of humanitarian assistance, and financing required for response plans at an all-time high, the need for evidence to guide resource allocation and programming for SRH in humanitarian settings is as important as ever [ 94 ]. Recent research agenda setting initiatives and strategies to advance health in humanitarian settings call for increased investment in implementation research—with priorities ranging from research on effective strategies for expanding access to a full range of contraceptive options to integrating mental health and psychosocial support into SRH programming to capturing accurate and actionable data on maternal and perinatal mortality in a wide range of acute and protracted emergency contexts [ 95 , 96 ]. To truly advance guidance in these areas, implementation research will need to be conducted across diverse humanitarian settings, with clear and consistent documentation of both intervention characteristics and outcomes, as well as contextual and programmatic factors affecting implementation.

Conclusions

Implementation research has potential to increase impact of health interventions particularly in crisis-affected settings where flexibility, adaptability and context-responsive approaches are highlighted as cornerstones of effective programming. There remains significant opportunity for standardization of research in the humanitarian space, with one such opportunity occurring through increased utilization of IR frameworks such as a modified CFIR approach. Investing in more robust sexual and reproductive health research in humanitarian contexts can enrich insights available to guide programming and increase transferability of learning across settings.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Quality

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment

• Implementation research

Low and middle income country

Minimum Initial Service Package

Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance

• Sexual and reproductive health

World Health Organization

Peters DH, et al. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. RESEARCH METHODS. 2013;347:7.

Means AR, et al. Evaluating and optimizing the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) for use in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):17.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alonge O, et al. How is implementation research applied to advance health in low-income and middle-income countries? BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(2):e001257.

Ridde V, Pérez D, Robert E. Using implementation science theories and frameworks in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4):e002269.

Gaffey MF, et al. Delivering health and nutrition interventions for women and children in different conflict contexts: a framework for decision making on what, when, and how. Lancet (London, England). 2021;397(10273):543–54.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Singh NS, et al. Delivering health interventions to women, children, and adolescents in conflict settings: what have we learned from ten country case studies? The Lancet. 2021;397(10273):533–42.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ager A, et al. Strengthening the evidence base for health programming in humanitarian crises. Science. 2014;345(6202):1290–2.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blanchet K, et al. Evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crises. The Lancet. 2017;390(10109):2287–96.

Sphere A. The Sphere Handbook | Standards for quality humanitarian response. 2018.

Google Scholar  

Barot S. In a State of Crisis: Meeting the Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs of Women in Humanitarian Situations. Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2017;20:7.

Crisis, I.-A.W.G.f.R.H.i., Minimum Initial Service Package. 2020: https://www.unfpa.org/resources/minimum-initial-service-package-misp-srh-crisis-situations .

Casey SE. Evaluations of reproductive health programs in humanitarian settings: a systematic review. Confl Heal. 2015;9(1):S1.

Singh NS, et al. A long way to go: a systematic review to assess the utilisation of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(2):e000682.

Singh NS, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0199300.

Warren E, et al. Systematic review of the evidence on the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian crises. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008226.

Dadich A, Piper A, Coates D. Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):16.

Tricco AC, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Devine A, et al. Strategies for the prevention of perinatal hepatitis B transmission in a marginalized population on the Thailand-Myanmar border: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):552.

Jarrett P, et al. Evaluation of a population mobility, mortality, and birth surveillance system in South Kivu. Democratic Republic of the Congo Disasters. 2020;44(2):390–407.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Logie CH, et al. A Psycho-Educational HIV/STI Prevention Intervention for Internally Displaced Women in Leogane, Haiti: Results from a Non-Randomized Cohort Pilot Study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e89836.

O’Laughlin KN, et al. A cohort study to assess a communication intervention to improve linkage to HIV care in Nakivale Refugee Settlement. Uganda Glob Public Health. 2021;16(12):1848–55.

Adam I. The influence of maternal health education on the place of delivery in conflict settings of Darfur. Sudan Conflict and Health. 2015;9:31.

Adam IF, et al. Relationship between implementing interpersonal communication and mass education campaigns in emergency settings and use of reproductive healthcare services: evidence from Darfur, Sudan. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008285.

Edmond K, et al. Mobile outreach health services for mothers and children in conflict-affected and remote areas: a population-based study from Afghanistan. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105(1):18–25.

Nasir S, et al. Dissemination and implementation of the e-MCHHandbook, UNRWA’s newly released maternal and child health mobile application: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e034885.

O’Laughlin KN, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of home-based HIV testing among refugees: a pilot study in Nakivale refugee settlement in southwestern Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):332.

Adam I. Evidence from cluster surveys on the association between home-based counseling and use of family planning in conflict-affected Darfur. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;133(2):221–5.

Casey S, et al. Availability of long-acting and permanent family-planning methods leads to increase in use in conflict-affected northern Uganda: Evidence from cross-sectional baseline and endline cluster surveys. Glob Public Health. 2013;8(3):284–97.

Corna F, et al. Supporting maternal mental health of Rohingya refugee women during the perinatal period to promote child health and wellbeing: a field study in Cox’s Bazar. Intervention, the Journal of Mental Health & Psychosocial Support in Conflict Affected Areas. 2019;17(2):160–8.

Glass N, et al. Effectiveness of the Communities Care programme on change in social norms associated with gender-based violence (GBV) with residents in intervention compared with control districts in Mogadishu, Somalia. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e023819.

James LE, et al. Development and Testing of a Community-Based Intervention to Address Intimate Partner Violence among Rohingya and Syrian Refugees: A Social Norms-Based Mental Health-Integrated Approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11674.

Le Roux E, et al. Engaging with faith groups to prevent VAWG in conflict-affected communities: results from two community surveys in the DRC. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2020;20(1):27.

Morris CN, et al. When political solutions for acute conflict in Yemen seem distant, demand for reproductive health services is immediate: a programme model for resilient family planning and post-abortion care services. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27(2):1610279.

Anibueze AU, et al. Impact of counseling visual multimedia on use of family planning methods among displaced Nigerian families. Health Promot Int. 2022;37(3):daac060.

Doocy S, et al. Cash-based assistance and the nutrition status of pregnant and lactating women in the Somalia food crisis: A comparison of two transfer modalities. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0230989.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Draiko CV, et al. The effect of umbilical cord cleansing with chlorhexidine gel on neonatal mortality among the community births in South Sudan: a quasi-experimental study. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;38:78.

Edmond KM, et al. Can community health worker home visiting improve care-seeking and maternal and newborn care practices in fragile states such as Afghanistan? A population-based intervention study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):106.

Edmond KM, et al. Conditional cash transfers to improve use of health facilities by mothers and newborns in conflict affected countries, a prospective population based intervention study from Afghanistan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):193.

Bakesiima R, et al. Effect of peer counselling on acceptance of modern contraceptives among female refugee adolescents in northern Uganda: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0256479.

Greene MC, et al. Evaluation of an integrated intervention to reduce psychological distress and intimate partner violence in refugees: Results from the Nguvu cluster randomized feasibility trial. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0252982.

Gupta J, et al. Gender norms and economic empowerment intervention to reduce intimate partner violence against women in rural Côte d’Ivoire: a randomized controlled pilot study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2013;13(1):46.

Hossain M, et al. Working with men to prevent intimate partner violence in a conflict-affected setting: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Côte d’Ivoire. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):339.

Vaillant J, et al. Engaging men to transform inequitable gender attitudes and prevent intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial in North and South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(5):e002223.

Thommesen T, et al. “The midwife helped me … otherwise I could have died”: women’s experience of professional midwifery services in rural Afghanistan - a qualitative study in the provinces Kunar and Laghman. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):140.

Awasom-Fru A, et al. Doctors’ experiences providing sexual and reproductive health care at Catholic Hospitals in the conflict-affected North-West region of Cameroon: a qualitative study. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):126.

Kabakian-Khasholian T, Makhoul J, Ghusayni A. “A person who does not have money does not enter”: a qualitative study on refugee women’s experiences of respectful maternity care. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2022;22(1):748.

Lilleston P, et al. Evaluation of a mobile approach to gender-based violence service delivery among Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(7):767–76.

Mugo NS, et al. Barriers Faced by the Health Workers to Deliver Maternal Care Services and Their Perceptions of the Factors Preventing Their Clients from Receiving the Services: A Qualitative Study in South Sudan. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22(11):1598–606.

Persson M, et al. A qualitative study on health care providers’ experiences of providing comprehensive abortion care in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Conflict and Health. 2021;15(1):6.

Phanwichatkul T, et al. The perceptions and practices of Thai health professionals providing maternity care for migrant Burmese women: An ethnographic study. Women Birth. 2022;35(4):e356–68.

Sarker M, et al. Effective maternal, newborn and child health programming among Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: Implementation challenges and potential solutions. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0230732.

Tousaw E, et al. “Without this program, women can lose their lives”: migrant women’s experiences with the Safe Abortion Referral Programme in Chiang Mai. Thailand Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):58–68.

Tousaw E, et al. “It is just like having a period with back pain”: exploring women’s experiences with community-based distribution of misoprostol for early abortion on the Thailand-Burma border. Contraception. 2018;97(2):122–9.

West L, et al. Factors in use of family planning services by Syrian women in a refugee camp in Jordan. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2017;43(2):96–102.

O’Connell KA, et al. Meeting the Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs of Internally Displaced Persons in Ethiopia’s Somali Region: A Qualitative Process Evaluation. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(5):e2100818.

Orya E, et al. Strengthening close to community provision of maternal health services in fragile settings: an exploration of the changing roles of TBAs in Sierra Leone and Somaliland. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):460.

Perera SM, et al. Barriers to seeking post-abortion care in Paktika Province, Afghanistan: a qualitative study of clients and community members. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):390.

Tanabe M, et al. Piloting community-based medical care for survivors of sexual assault in conflict-affected Karen State of eastern Burma. Confl Heal. 2013;7(1):12.

Tran NT, et al. Clinical outreach refresher trainings in crisis settings (S-CORT): clinical management of sexual violence survivors and manual vacuum aspiration in Burkina Faso, Nepal, and South Sudan. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):103–13.

Yankah E, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of mobile phone platforms to deliver interventions to address gender-based violence among Syrian adolescent girls and young women in Izmir. Turkey Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies. 2020;15(2):133–43.

Muuo S, et al. Barriers and facilitators to care-seeking among survivors of gender-based violence in the Dadaab refugee complex. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1722404.

Amsalu R, et al. Essential newborn care practice at four primary health facilities in conflict affected areas of Bossaso, Somalia: a cross-sectional study. Conflict and Health. 2019;13(13):27.

Myers A, et al. Facilitators and barriers in implementing the Minimum Initial Services Package (MISP) for reproductive health in Nepal post-earthquake. Conflict and Health. 2018;12:35.

Santo L.C.d, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a video library tool to support community health worker counseling in rural Afghan districts: a cross-sectional assessment. Conflict and Health. 2020;14:56.

Sami S, et al. Understanding health systems to improve community and facility level newborn care among displaced populations in South Sudan: a mixed methods case study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):325.

Amsalu R, et al. Effectiveness of clinical training on improving essential newborn care practices in Bossaso, Somalia: a pre and postintervention study. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20(1):215.

Berg M, Mwambali SN, Bogren M. Implementation of a three-pillar training intervention to improve maternal and neonatal healthcare in the Democratic Republic Of Congo: a process evaluation study in an urban health zone. Glob Health Action. 2022;15(1):2019391.

Castillo M, et al. Turning Disaster into an Opportunity for Quality Improvement in Essential Intrapartum and Newborn Care Services in the Philippines: Pre- to Posttraining Assessments. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1–9.

Foster AM, Arnott G, Hobstetter M. Community-based distribution of misoprostol for early abortion: evaluation of a program along the Thailand-Burma border. Contraception. 2017;96(4):242–7.

Guan TH, et al. Implementation of a neonatal hepatitis B immunization program in rural Karenni State, Myanmar: A mixed-methods study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(12):e0261470.

Logie, C.H., et al., Mixed-methods findings from the Ngutulu Kagwero (agents of change) participatory comic pilot study on post-rape clinical care and sexual violence prevention with refugee youth in a humanitarian setting in Uganda. Global Public Health, 2022((Logie C.H., [email protected]) Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada(Logie C.H., [email protected]) Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada(Logie C.H., carmen.l).

Sami S, et al. “You have to take action”: changing knowledge and attitudes towards newborn care practices during crisis in South Sudan. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):124–39.

Smith JR, et al. Clinical care for sexual assault survivors multimedia training: a mixed-methods study of effect on healthcare providers’ attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and practice in humanitarian settings. Confl Heal. 2013;7(1):14.

Stevens A, et al. Folate supplementation to prevent birth abnormalities: evaluating a community-based participatory action plan for refugees and migrant workers on the Thailand-Myanmar border. Public Health. 2018;161:83–9.

Nguyen Toan T, et al. Strengthening healthcare providers’ capacity for safe abortion and postabortion care services in humanitarian settings: lessons learned from the clinical outreach refresher training model (S-CORT) in Uganda, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conflict and Health. 2021;15(1):20.

Castle S, et al. Successful programmatic approaches to facilitating IUD uptake: CARE’s experience in DRC. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):104.

Deitch J, et al. “They Love Their Patients”: Client Perceptions of Quality of Postabortion Care in North and South Kivu, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Global health, science and practice. 2019;7(Suppl 2):S285–98.

Ferreyra C, et al. Evaluation of a community-based HIV test and start program in a conflict affected rural area of Yambio County, South Sudan. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0254331.

Ho LS, Wheeler E. Using Program Data to Improve Access to Family Planning and Enhance the Method Mix in Conflict-Affected Areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018;6(1):161–77.

Klabbers RE, et al. Health Worker Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators of Assisted Partner Notification for HIV for Refugees and Ugandan Nationals: A Mixed Methods Study in West Nile Uganda. AIDS Behav. 2021;25(10):3206–22.

Turner C, et al. Neonatal Intensive Care in a Karen Refugee Camp: A 4 Year Descriptive Study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):e72721.

Vries Id, et al. Key lessons from a mixed-method evaluation of a postnatal home visit programme in the humanitarian setting of Gaza. Eastern Mediterr Health J. 2021;27(6):546–52.

Bolan NE, et al. mLearning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A Mixed-Methods Feasibility and Pilot Cluster Randomized Trial Using the Safe Delivery App. Global health, science and practice. 2018;6(4):693–710.

Khan MN, et al. Evaluating feasibility and acceptability of a local psycho-educational intervention for pregnant women with common mental problems affected by armed conflict in Swat, Pakistan: A parallel randomized controlled feasibility trial. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2017;63(8):724–35.

Hynes M, et al. Using a quality improvement approach to improve maternal and neonatal care in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):140–50.

Gibbs A, et al. The impacts of combined social and economic empowerment training on intimate partner violence, depression, gender norms and livelihoods among women: an individually randomised controlled trial and qualitative study in Afghanistan. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(3):e001946.

Damschroder L, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science: IS; 2009.

Moore GF, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.

Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Damschroder LJ, et al. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):75.

Damschroder LJ, et al. Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):7.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38(1):4–23.

Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for Integrating Research Findings into Practice. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2008;34(4):228–43.

OCHA. Global Humanitarian Overview 2023. 2022 [cited 2023 8/3/2023]; Available from: https://humanitarianaction.info/node/13073/article/glance-0 . Accessed 8 Mar 2023.

Kobeissi L, et al. Setting research priorities for sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health in humanitarian settings. Confl Heal. 2021;15(1):16.

Save the, C., et al. Roadmap to Accelerate Progress for Every Newborn in Humanitarian Settings 2020 – 2024. 2020. p. 52.

Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in, C. Inter-Agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Humanitarian Settings. 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The authors received no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

Alexandra Norton

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

Hannah Tappis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AN and HT designed the scoping review. AN conducted the literature search. AN and HT screened records for inclusion. AN extracted data from included studies. Both authors contributed to synthesis of results. AN drafted the manuscript and both authors contributed to editorial changes.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Norton .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

. Literature search terms: Exact search terms used in literature search, with additional detail on the methodology to determine search terms and definitions used for each component of the search

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Norton, A., Tappis, H. Sexual and reproductive health implementation research in humanitarian contexts: a scoping review. Reprod Health 21 , 64 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01793-2

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 13 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01793-2

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

• Humanitarian settings

Reproductive Health

ISSN: 1742-4755

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Biodiesel supply chain network design: a comprehensive review with qualitative and quantitative insights

• Review Article
• Published: 11 May 2024

Cite this article

• Sourena Rahmani 1 ,
• Alireza Goli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9535-9902 1 &
• Ali Zackery 1  

114 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The global community is actively pursuing alternative energy sources to mitigate environmental concerns and decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Biodiesel, recognized as a clean and eco-friendly fuel with advantages over petroleum-based alternatives, has been identified as a viable substitute. However, its commercialization encounters challenges due to costly production processes. Establishing a more efficient supply chain for mass production and distribution could surmount these obstacles, rendering biodiesel a cost-effective solution. Despite numerous review articles across various renewable energy supply chain domains, there remains a gap in the literature specifically addressing the biodiesel supply chain network design. This research entails a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on the design of biodiesel supply chain networks. The primary objective is to formulate an economically, environmentally, and socially optimized supply chain framework. The review also seeks to offer a holistic overview of pertinent technical terms and key activities involved in these supply chains. Through this SLR, a thorough examination and synthesis of existing literature will yield valuable insights into the design and optimization of biodiesel supply chains. Additionally, it will identify critical research gaps in the field, proposing the exploration of fourth-generation feedstocks, integration of multi-channel chains, and the incorporation of sustainability and resilience aspects into the supply chain network design. These proposed areas aim to address existing knowledge gaps and enhance the overall effectiveness of biodiesel supply chain networks.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Crippa et al. ( 2022 ); Friedlingstein et al. ( 2020 ); Grassi et al. ( 2022 ); Liu et al. ( 2022 )

Source: Chisti ( 2007 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Conversion of biomass to biofuels and life cycle assessment: a review

Methanol fuel production, utilization, and techno-economy: a review

Recent advances in green technology and Industrial Revolution 4.0 for a sustainable future

Data availability.

Not applicable.

Abbasi M, Pishvaee MS, Mohseni S (2021) Third-generation biofuel supply chain: a comprehensive review and future research directions. J Clean Prod 323:129100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129100

Article   Google Scholar  

Acharjee S, Sinha Chaudhuri S (2023) Fuzzy inference based decision making model to control the operational parameters of motion estimation algorithms. Int J Inf Technol 15:2197–2207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-023-01263-1

Ahn Y, Kim J (2021) Economic design framework of microalga-based biodiesel supply chains under uncertainties in CO2 emission and diesel demand. Comput Chem Eng 155:195–211107538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107538

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ahn YC, Lee IB, Lee KH, Han JH (2015) Strategic planning design of microalgae biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain network: multi-period deterministic model. Appl Energy 154:528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.047

Ali S, Yan Q, Irfan M et al (2023) Does biogas energy influence the sustainable development of entrepreneurial business? An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:116279–116298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30352-8

Al-Madani MHM, Fernando Y, Tseng M-L, Abideen AZ (2023) Uncovering four domains of energy management in palm oil production: a sustainable bioenergy production trend. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:38616–38633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24973-8

Ambaye TG, Vaccari M, Bonilla-Petriciolet A et al (2021) Emerging technologies for biofuel production: a critical review on recent progress, challenges and perspectives. J Environ Manage 290:112627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112627

Andersen F, Iturmendi F, Espinosa S, Diaz MS (2012) Optimal design and planning of biodiesel supply chain with land competition. Comput Chem Eng 47:170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.044

Avami A (2012) A model for biodiesel supply chain: a case study in Iran. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:4196–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.023

Azadeh A, Vafa Arani H (2016) Biodiesel supply chain optimization via a hybrid system dynamics-mathematical programming approach. Renew Energy 93:383–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.070

Babazadeh R (2017) Optimal design and planning of biodiesel supply chain considering non-edible feedstock. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.088

Babazadeh R, Pishvaee R (2017a) An integrated data envelopment analysis–mathematical programming approach to strategic biodiesel supply chain network design problem. J Clean Prod 147:694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.038

Babazadeh Razmi, Pishvaee Rabbani (2017b) A sustainable second-generation biodiesel supply chain network design problem under risk. Omega-Int J Manage Sci 66:258–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.010

Babazadeh R, Ghaderi H, Pishvaee MS (2019) A benders-local branching algorithm for second-generation biodiesel supply chain network design under epistemic uncertainty. Comput Chem Eng 124:364–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.01.013

Balat M (2011) Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production – a review of current work. Energy Conv Manag 52:1479–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.011

Bartholomew D (1981) Vegetable oil fuel. J Am Oil Chemist Soc 58:286A-288A

BNEF (2019) Energy storage investments boom as battery costs Halve in the next decade. BloombergNEF. https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-battery-costs-halve-next-decade/

Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ (2014) A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:381–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3239

Chisti Y (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 25:294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.02.001

Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Banja M et al (2022) CO2 emissions of all world countries: JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 Report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/07904

Čuček L, Martín M, Grossmann IE, Kravanja Z (2014) Multi-period synthesis of optimally integrated biomass and bioenergy supply network. Comput Chem Eng 66:57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.02.020

Deng Z, Ciais P, Tzompa-Sosa ZA et al (2022) Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions. Earth Syst Sci Data 14:1639–1675. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1639-2022

Dhakal S, Minx JC, Toth FL et al (2022) Emissions trends and drivers. In: Climate Change 2022. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004

Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al. (2011). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In. Cambridge University Press

Friedlingstein P, O’sullivan M, Jones MW et al (2020) Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst Sci Data 12:3269–3340. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020

Ganev E, Ivanov B, Vaklieva-Bancheva N et al (2021) A multi-objective approach toward optimal design of sustainable integrated biodiesel/diesel supply chain based on first-and second-generation feedstock with solid waste use. Energies 14:2261. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082261

Geng N, Sun Y (2021) Multiobjective optimization of sustainable WCO for biodiesel supply chain network design. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2021:6640358. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6640358

Geng N, Fu Q, Sun Y (2021) Stochastic programming of sustainable waste cooking oil for biodiesel supply chain under uncertainty. J Adv Transp 2021:5335625. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5335625

Ghelichi Z, Saidi-Mehrabad M, Pishvaee MS (2018) A stochastic programming approach toward optimal design and planning of an integrated green biodiesel supply chain network under uncertainty: a case study. Energy 156:661–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.103

Glavaš D, Pandžić M, Domijan D (2023) The role of working memory capacity in soccer tactical decision making at different levels of expertise. Cogn Res: Principles Implications 8:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00473-2

González-Delgado AD, García-Martínez JB, Barajas-Solano AF (2021) Evaluation of algae-based biodiesel production topologies via inherent safety index (ISI). Appl Sci 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062854

Goyal L, Kiran R, Bose SC (2023) An empirical investigation of the influence of leadership styles and strategic decision-making on business performance: a generational ownership perspective. Curr Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04705-y

Grassi G, Conchedda G, Federici S, et al. (2022) Carbon fluxes from land 2000–2020: bringing clarity on countries’ reporting. Earth System Sci Data Discussions 1-49. 10.5194/essd-14-4643-2022

Habib MS, Tayyab M, Zahoor S, Sarkar B (2020) Management of animal fat-based biodiesel supply chain under the paradigm of sustainability. Energy Conv Manag 225:113345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113345

Habib M, Asghar O, Hussain A et al (2021) A robust possibilistic programming approach toward animal fat-based biodiesel supply chain network design under uncertain environment. J Clean Prod 278:122403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122403

Habib MS, Omair M, Ramzan MB et al (2022) A robust possibilistic flexible programming approach toward a resilient and cost-efficient biodiesel supply chain network. J Clean Prod 132752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132752

Hombach LE, Büsing C, Walther G (2018) Robust and sustainable supply chains under market uncertainties and different risk attitudes – a case study of the German biodiesel market. Eur J Oper Res 269:302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.015

Hosseinalizadeh R, Arshadi Khamseh A, Akhlaghi MM (2019) A multi-objective and multi-period model to design a strategic development program for biodiesel fuels. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 36:100545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.100545

Huppmann D, Kriegler E, Krey V, et al (2018) IAMC 1.5°C Scenario Explorer and Data hosted by IIASA. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis & Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium. (2018) 10.22022:15429. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.363345

IEA (2022) Energy demand, World Energy Outlook 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022

Inganäs O, Sundström V (2016) Solar energy for electricity and fuels. Ambio 45:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0729-6

IRENA (2022) Global jobs. https://www.irena.org/Data/View-data-by-topic/Benefits/Employment-Time-Series

Ivanov B, Dimitrova B, Dobrudzhaliev D (2014) Optimal design and planning of biodiesel supply chain considering crop rotation model Part 1. Mathematical model formulation of the problem. Bulg Chem Commun 46:294–305

CAS   Google Scholar  

Ivanov B, Nikolova D, Kirilova E, Vladova R (2022) A MILP approach of optimal design of a sustainable combined dairy and biodiesel supply chain using dairy waste scum generated from dairy production. Comput Chem Eng 166:107976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107976

Jacob A, Ashok B, Lawrence J et al (2023) Exploring the potential of third-generation microalgae bio-alcohol and biodiesel in arresting particulate smoke emissions and greenhouse gases using CART. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:27650–27669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24110-5

Jeong H, Sieverding HL, Stone JJ (2019) Biodiesel supply chain optimization modeled with Geographical Information System (GIS) and Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) for the Northern Great Plains Region. BioEnergy Res 12:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-018-9943-y

Jiang Y, Zhang Y (2016) Supply chain optimization of biodiesel produced from waste cooking oil. Transp Res Proc 12:938–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.02.045

Kalhor T, Sharifi M, Mobli H (2023) A robust optimization approach for an integrated hybrid biodiesel and biomethane supply chain network design under uncertainty: case study. Int J Energy Environ Eng 14:189–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00513-5

Kalhor T, Sharifi M, Mobli H (2022) A robust optimization approach for an integrated hybrid biodiesel and biomethane supply chain network design under uncertainty: case study. Int J Energy Environ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00513-5

Kanan M, Habib MS, Shahbaz A et al (2022) A grey-fuzzy programming approach towards socio-economic optimization of second-generation biodiesel supply chains. Sustainability 14:10169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610169

Kaygusuz K (2012) Energy for sustainable development: a case of developing countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:1116–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.013

Kebede AA, Kalogiannis T, Van Mierlo J, Berecibar M (2022) A comprehensive review of stationary energy storage devices for large scale renewable energy sources grid integration. Renew Sust Energ Rev 159:112213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112213

Kelloway A, Marvin WA, Schmidt LD, Daoutidis P (2013) Process design and supply chain optimization of supercritical biodiesel synthesis from waste cooking oils. Chem Eng Res Des 91:1456–1466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.02.013

Kowalska M, Wegierek-Ciuk A, Brzoska K et al (2017) Genotoxic potential of diesel exhaust particles from the combustion of first- and second-generation biodiesel fuels—the FuelHealth project. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:24223–24234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9995-0

Koyani K, Shah M, Parikh SP, Shah D (2023) Retraction note: a systematic study on simulation and modeling of a solar biogas reactor. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:95037–95037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29441-5

Kwon O, Han J (2021) Organic-waste-derived butyric acid-to-biodiesel supply-chain network: Strategic planning design using a deterministic snapshot model. J Environ Manage 293:112848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112848

Kwon O, Kim J, Han J (2022) Organic waste derived biodiesel supply chain network: deterministic multi-period planning model. Appl Energy 305:117847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117847

Le Quéré C, Jackson RB, Jones MW et al (2020) Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat Clim Chang 10:647–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x

Leão RRDCC, Hamacher S, Oliveira F (2011) Optimization of biodiesel supply chains based on small farmers: a case study in Brazil. Bioresour Technol 102:8958–8963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.002

Lee CY, Sun WC, Li YH (2022) Biodiesel economic evaluation and biomass planting allocation optimization in global supply chain. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 69:602–615. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2900033

Lim CH, Chua WX, Pang YW et al (2020) A diverse and sustainable biodiesel supply chain optimisation model based on properties integration. Sustainability 12:8400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208400

Liu Z, Ciais P, Deng Z et al (2020) Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Commun 11:5172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7

Liu Z, Deng Z, Davis SJ et al (2022) Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2021. Nat Rev Earth Environ 3:217–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00285-w

Ma F, Hanna MA (1999) Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour Technol 70:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00025-5

Ma X, Gao M, Gao Z et al (2018) Past, current, and future research on microalga-derived biodiesel: a critical review and bibliometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:10596–10610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1453-0

Marufuzzaman M, Eksioglu S, Huang Y (2014a) Two-stage stochastic programming supply chain model for biodiesel production via wastewater treatment. Comput Oper Res 49:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.03.010

Marufuzzaman M, Ekşioʇlu S, Hernandez R (2014b) Environmentally friendly supply chain planning and design for biodiesel production via wastewater sludge. Transp Sci 48:555–574. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2013.0505

Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, et al (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-12/

Mata TM, Martins AA, Caetano NS (2010) Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.020

Mirhashemi MS, Mohseni S, Hasanzadeh M, Pishvaee MS (2018) Moringa oleifera biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain design: an opportunity to combat desertification in Iran. J Clean Prod 203:313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.257

Mohseni S, Pishvaee MS (2020) Data-driven robust optimization for wastewater sludge-to-biodiesel supply chain design. Comput Ind Eng 139:105944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.001

Mohseni S, Pishvaee MS, Sahebi H (2016) Robust design and planning of microalgae biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain: a case study in Iran. Energy 111:736–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.025

Mohtashami Z, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2021) A two-stage multi-objective second generation biodiesel supply chain design considering social sustainability: a case study. Energy 233:121020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121020

Moravvej Z, Makarem MA, Rahimpour MR (2019). The fourth generation of biofuel. In: Basile A & Dalena F (Eds.), Second and Third Generation of Feedstocks (pp. 557–597). Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815162-4.00020-3

Mulvey JM, Vanderbei RJ, Zenios SA (1995) Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Oper Res 43:264–281. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.43.2.264

Munir MA, Imran S, Farooq M, et al (2023) Development of a supply chain model for the production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil for sustainable development. Front Energy Res 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1222787

OPEC (2022) World oil outlook. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/340.htm

Orjuela-Castro JA, Aranda-Pinilla JA, Moreno-Mantilla CE (2019) Identifying trade-offs between sustainability dimensions in the supply chain of biodiesel in Colombia. Comput Electron Agric 161:162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.03.009

Owusu PA, Sarkodie AS (2016) A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Eng 3:1167990. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1167990

Pasha MK, Dai L, Liu D et al (2021) An overview to process design, simulation and sustainability evaluation of biodiesel production. Biotechnol Biofuels 14:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-021-01977-z

Pial RH, Hashan MR, Ghozy S et al (2020) Comparative study on respiratory function among rural women using biomass fuel and non-biomass fuel: evidence of a cross-sectional survey in Bangladesh. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:24039–24047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08668-6

Rafie SM, Sahebi H (2021) An integrated gas-oil and bio-diesel supply network model with strategic and tactical applications considering the environmental aspects. Oil Gas Sci Technol 76:47. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2021021

Rahman MM, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS et al (2017) Effect of small proportion of butanol additive on the performance, emission, and combustion of Australian native first- and second-generation biodiesel in a diesel engine. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:22402–22413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9920-6

Rahmani S, Goli A (2023) Robust sustainable canola oil-based biodiesel supply chain network design under supply and demand uncertainty. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:86268–86299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28044-4

Rajpoot AS, Saini G, Chelladurai HM et al (2023) Comparative combustion, emission, and performance analysis of a diesel engine using carbon nanotube (CNT) blended with three different generations of biodiesel. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28965-0

Rasekh A, Hamidzadeh F, Sahebi H, Pishvaee MS (2022) A sustainable network design of a hybrid biomass supply chain by considering the water–energy–carbon nexus. Energy Sci Eng n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1374

Ren J, Tan S, Yang L et al (2015) Optimization of emergy sustainability index for biodiesel supply network design. Energy Conv Manag 92:312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.066

Rezaei M, Chaharsooghi SK, Husseinzadeh Kashan A, Babazadeh R (2020) Optimal design and planning of biodiesel supply chain network: a scenario-based robust optimization approach. Int J Energy Environ Eng 11:111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-019-00316-1

Rincón LE, Valencia MJ, Hernández V et al (2015) Optimization of the Colombian biodiesel supply chain from oil palm crop based on techno-economical and environmental criteria. Energy Econ 47:154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.10.018

Rocha AM, Sahoo D, Ferrer T, et al (2012) Biodiesel production from microalgae: a mapping of articles and patents. In: The Science of Algal Fuels: Phycology, Geology, Biophotonics, Genomics and Nanotechnology (pp. 283–303). Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5110-1_16

Shirazaki S, Pishvaee MS, Sobati MA (2023) Integrated supply chain network design and superstructure optimization problem: a case study of microalgae biofuel supply chain. Comput Chem Eng 180:108468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108468

Singh D, Sharma D, Soni SL et al (2020) A review on feedstocks, production processes, and yield for different generations of biodiesel. Fuel 262:116553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116553

Singh SK, Chauhan A, Sarkar B (2023) Sustainable biodiesel supply chain model based on waste animal fat with subsidy and advertisement. J Clean Prod 382:134806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134806

Umar M, Tayyab M, Chaudhry HR, Su C-W (2023) Navigating epistemic uncertainty in third-generation biodiesel supply chain management through robust optimization for economic and environmental performance. Ann Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05574-1

UNEP (2022) Emissions Gap Report 2022. UN environment programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022

Wani NA, Mishra U (2023) A sustainable municipal solid waste supply chain management with biodiesel energy production using microwave technology. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04039-6

Waris A, Khan S, Hronec M, Suplata M (2023) The impact of hydro-biofuel-wind-solar energy consumption and coal consumption on carbon emission in G20 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:72503–72513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27442-y

Winning M, Price J, Ekins P et al (2019) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement and the costs of delayed action. Clim Policy 19:947–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1615858

Yadala S, Smith JD, Young D et al (2020) Optimization of the algal biomass to biodiesel supply chain: case studies of the state of Oklahoma and the United States. Processes 8:476. https://doi.org/10.3390/PR8040476

Yazdanparast R, Jolai F, Pishvaee MS, Keramati A (2021) Second-generation biofuel development in iran: current state and future directions. Energy Sources Part B: Econ Plan Policy 16:258–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2020.1868620

Yu J, Lee IB, Han J, Ahn Y (2020) Stochastic approach to optimize the supply chain network of microalga-derived biodiesel under uncertain diesel demand. J Chem Eng Jpn 53:24–35. https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.19we110

Zerafati ME, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Golmohammadi A-M, Jolai F (2022) A multi-objective mixed integer linear programming model proposed to optimize a supply chain network for microalgae-based biofuels and co-products: a case study in Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19465-8

Zhang Y, Jiang Y (2017) Robust optimization on sustainable biodiesel supply chain produced from waste cooking oil under price uncertainty. Waste Manage 60:329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.004

Zhang Y, Jiang Y, Zhong M et al (2016) Robust optimization on regional WCO-for-biodiesel supply chain under supply and demand uncertainties. Sci Program 2016:1087845. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1087845

Zhang Y, Yu Q, Li J (2021) Bioenergy research under climate change: a bibliometric analysis from a country perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:26427–26440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12448-1

Zheng T, Wang B, Rajaeifar MA et al (2020) How government policies can make waste cooking oil-to-biodiesel supply chains more efficient and sustainable. J Clean Prod 263:121494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121494

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Industrial Engineering and Futures Studies, Faculty of Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Sourena Rahmani, Alireza Goli & Ali Zackery

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Sourena Rahmani, Alireza Goli, and Ali Zackery. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sourena Rahmani. Alireza Goli and Ali Zackery commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Goli .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu

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

Rahmani, S., Goli, A. & Zackery, A. Biodiesel supply chain network design: a comprehensive review with qualitative and quantitative insights. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33392-w

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 11 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33392-w

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
• Greenhouse gas emission
• Sustainable development
• Optimization
• Supply chain management
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research