relevance of reviewing literature in research work

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

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

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 11:34 AM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

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

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

• Literature Review Process

Purpose of a Literature Review

• Choosing a Type of Review
• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

The Library's Subject Specialists are happy to help with your literature reviews!  Find your Subject Specialist here . 

If you have questions about this guide, contact Librarian  Jamie Niehof ([email protected]).

A literature review is an overview of the available research for a specific scientific topic. Literature reviews summarize existing research to answer a review question, provide context for new research, or identify important gaps in the existing body of literature.

An incredible amount of academic literature is published each year, by estimates over two million articles .

Sorting through and reviewing that literature can be complicated, so this Research Guide provides a structured approach to make the process more manageable.

THIS GUIDE IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS:

• Getting Started (asking a research question | defining scope)
• Organizing the Literature
• Writing the Literature Review (analyzing | synthesizing)

A  literature search  is a systematic search of the scholarly sources in a particular discipline. A  literature review   is the analysis, critical evaluation and synthesis of the results of that search. During this process you will move from a review  of  the literature to a review  for   your research.   Your synthesis of the literature is your unique contribution to research.

WHO IS THIS RESEARCH GUIDE FOR?

— those new to reviewing the literature

— those that need a refresher or a deeper understanding of writing literature reviews

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

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A LITERATURE REVIEW?

A literature review is typically performed for a specific reason. Even when assigned as an assignment, the goal of the literature review will be one or more of the following:

• To communicate a project's novelty by identifying a research gap

• An overview of research issues , methodologies or results relevant to field
• To explore the  volume and types of available studies
• To establish familiarity with current research before carrying out a new project
• To resolve conflicts amongst contradictory previous studies

Reviewing the literature helps you understand a research topic and develop your own perspective.

A LITERATURE REVIEW IS NOT :

• An annotated bibliography – which is a list of annotated citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each entry
• A literary review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work
• A book review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book
• Next: Choosing a Type of Review >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

PUB - Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient) for drug development

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Literature Review in Research Writing

• 4 minute read
• 426.3K views

Table of Contents

Research on research? If you find this idea rather peculiar, know that nowadays, with the huge amount of information produced daily all around the world, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep up to date with all of it. In addition to the sheer amount of research, there is also its origin. We are witnessing the economic and intellectual emergence of countries like China, Brazil, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates, for example, that are producing scholarly literature in their own languages. So, apart from the effort of gathering information, there must also be translators prepared to unify all of it in a single language to be the object of the literature survey. At Elsevier, our team of translators is ready to support researchers by delivering high-quality scientific translations , in several languages, to serve their research – no matter the topic.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a study – or, more accurately, a survey – involving scholarly material, with the aim to discuss published information about a specific topic or research question. Therefore, to write a literature review, it is compulsory that you are a real expert in the object of study. The results and findings will be published and made available to the public, namely scientists working in the same area of research.

How to Write a Literature Review

First of all, don’t forget that writing a literature review is a great responsibility. It’s a document that is expected to be highly reliable, especially concerning its sources and findings. You have to feel intellectually comfortable in the area of study and highly proficient in the target language; misconceptions and errors do not have a place in a document as important as a literature review. In fact, you might want to consider text editing services, like those offered at Elsevier, to make sure your literature is following the highest standards of text quality. You want to make sure your literature review is memorable by its novelty and quality rather than language errors.

Writing a literature review requires expertise but also organization. We cannot teach you about your topic of research, but we can provide a few steps to guide you through conducting a literature review:

• Choose your topic or research question: It should not be too comprehensive or too limited. You have to complete your task within a feasible time frame.
• Set the scope: Define boundaries concerning the number of sources, time frame to be covered, geographical area, etc.
• Decide which databases you will use for your searches: In order to search the best viable sources for your literature review, use highly regarded, comprehensive databases to get a big picture of the literature related to your topic.
• Search, search, and search: Now you’ll start to investigate the research on your topic. It’s critical that you keep track of all the sources. Start by looking at research abstracts in detail to see if their respective studies relate to or are useful for your own work. Next, search for bibliographies and references that can help you broaden your list of resources. Choose the most relevant literature and remember to keep notes of their bibliographic references to be used later on.
• Review all the literature, appraising carefully it’s content: After reading the study’s abstract, pay attention to the rest of the content of the articles you deem the “most relevant.” Identify methodologies, the most important questions they address, if they are well-designed and executed, and if they are cited enough, etc.

If it’s the first time you’ve published a literature review, note that it is important to follow a special structure. Just like in a thesis, for example, it is expected that you have an introduction – giving the general idea of the central topic and organizational pattern – a body – which contains the actual discussion of the sources – and finally the conclusion or recommendations – where you bring forward whatever you have drawn from the reviewed literature. The conclusion may even suggest there are no agreeable findings and that the discussion should be continued.

Why are literature reviews important?

Literature reviews constantly feed new research, that constantly feeds literature reviews…and we could go on and on. The fact is, one acts like a force over the other and this is what makes science, as a global discipline, constantly develop and evolve. As a scientist, writing a literature review can be very beneficial to your career, and set you apart from the expert elite in your field of interest. But it also can be an overwhelming task, so don’t hesitate in contacting Elsevier for text editing services, either for profound edition or just a last revision. We guarantee the very highest standards. You can also save time by letting us suggest and make the necessary amendments to your manuscript, so that it fits the structural pattern of a literature review. Who knows how many worldwide researchers you will impact with your next perfectly written literature review.

Know more: How to Find a Gap in Research .

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

What is a Research Gap

Types of Scientific Articles

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

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.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Conducting a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Developing a Topic
• Planning Your Literature Review
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Managing Citations
• Critical Appraisal Tools
• Writing a Literature Review

Before You Begin to Write.....

Do you have enough information? If you are not sure,

Ask yourself these questions:

• Has my search been wide enough to insure 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?

You may have enough information for your literature review when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.
• Your advisor and other trusted experts say you have enough!

You have to stop somewhere and get on with the writing process!

Writing Tips

A literature review is not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It’s usually a bad sign to see every paragraph beginning with the name of a researcher. Instead, 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

If you are writing an  annotated bibliography , you may need to summarize each item briefly, but should still follow through themes and concepts and do some critical assessment of material. Use an overall introduction and conclusion to state the scope of your coverage and to formulate the question, problem, or concept your chosen material illuminates. Usually you will have the option of grouping items into sections—this helps you indicate comparisons and relationships. You may be able to write a paragraph or so to introduce the focus of each section

Layout of Writing a Literature Review

Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

Writing the introduction:

In the introduction, you should:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
• Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).

Writing the body:

In the body, you should:

• Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
• Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.
• Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.

WRITING TIP:  As you are writing the literature review you will mention the author names and the publication years in your text, but you will still need to compile comprehensive list citations for each entry at the end of your review. Follow  APA, MLA, or Chicago style guidelines , as your course requires.

Writing the conclusion:

In the conclusion, you should:

• Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.
• Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
• Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.
• The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
• 123 Metro Boulevard
• Nutley, NJ 07110
• [email protected]
• Student Services
• Parents and Families
• Career Center
• Web Accessibility
• Visiting Campus
• Public Safety
• Disability Support Services
• Campus Security Report
• Report a Problem
• Login to LibApps

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

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

LuMarie Guth is an Associate Professor and Business Librarian at Western Michigan University, email: [email protected] .

Bradford Dennis is an Associate Professor and Education and Human Development Librarian at Western Michigan University, email: [email protected] .

C&RL News

ALA JobLIST

Advertising Information

• Research is an Activity and a Subject of Study: A Proposed Metaconcept and Its Practical Application (76674 views)
• Information Code-Switching: A Study of Language Preferences in Academic Libraries (39950 views)
• Three Perspectives on Information Literacy in Academia: Talking to Librarians, Faculty, and Students (28431 views)

Student Stress and the Research Consultation: The Effect of the Research Consultation on Project Stress and Overall Stress and Applications for Student Wellness

LuMarie Guth and Bradford Dennis *

Academic libraries have conducted studies on the importance of the library research consultation (LRC) regarding student learning and the impact on academic success. While there is a robust literature examining library anxiety, no study has been designed to measure the impact of the library research consultation on stress. Researchers at a mid-sized midwestern Carnegie Research 2 institution analyzed 108 surveys administered before and after the consultation. Findings confirm the LRC improves perceived stress levels at the project and overall level. The overall stress change and project stress levels were lower during the COVID phase of the study.

Introduction

Faculty reported that—two years into the pandemic—students continued to face heightened stress and burnout. 1 Gen Z (born 1997 and later) 2 students are present at all levels of the undergraduate curriculum. According to the American Psychological Association (APA) 2018 Stress in America survey—in its report introducing Gen Z—91 percent of Gen Z respondents claimed to have experienced physical or emotional symptoms due to stress, compared to 74 percent of adults overall. Gen Z adults were also more likely than other generations at similar life stages to report that they have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (18 percent of Gen Z) and/or depression (23 percent of Gen Z). 3 Several studies indicate that college student mental health is a contributor to student retention and academic success. 4 Therefore it is in the best interest of the student and the university to address mental wellness. Faculty knowledge of mental health disorders, 5 along with direct expressions of concern and support, 6 can have a positive impact on student mental health and academic success. Likewise, it has been the experience of this study’s researchers that students express a sense of relief upon finishing a research consultation with academic librarians. However, is this just anecdotal? Is it possible to demonstrate that librarians leading the research consultation can have a positive impact on student stress reduction? In summer 2019 early results were being filtered out from a campus-wide survey and series of listening sessions indicating that students on campus wanted additional mental wellness support. Early discussions centered around building a campus referral system to a “wellness wheel” of services, such as tutoring, recreation, and counseling. The researchers saw an opportunity to investigate their anecdotal experiences to see if the research consultation could serve as an effective option, among others, for triaging academic stress. The library—as an academic service on campus—has a mission to contribute to student success by providing the resources and services they need for their academic research. One such service is the library research consultation, which students can schedule to get individual assistance for their project(s). The consultation differs from the reference interview in that it is pre-scheduled versus conducted at a drop-in point-of-service. Since there is dedicated time allotted for the consultation, there is more flexibility to guide the patron through the research process and to impart information literacy skills. In the consultation, the librarian typically works with the student to develop their topic, determine the best research strategy, conduct initial searches to find sources, and evaluate the sources found for relevancy.

The researchers began their investigation in the fall of 2019 and paused collecting data when the university announced a move to fully remote instruction in March 2020. When it was evident that the pandemic would be long term, the researchers recognized the opportunity to include analysis of pre- and post-COVID data to measure its effect, if any. They conducted a second round of data collection from October 2020 to March 2021 while most classes were online and library research consultations were exclusively offered virtually.

Literature Review

Students and faculty believe the research consultation is helpful in learning library research skills 7 and is an important factor in academic success. 8 However, research linking the consultation with academic success metrics has been mixed. A University of Minnesota study on library use and academic success did not find any significant differences in GPA or retention between those who scheduled a peer research consultation and those who did not. 9 A similar study at University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire found that students who used reference consultations earned marginally higher grade point averages than non-library users. 10 Researchers at the University of Northern Iowa examined the effect of the research consultation on course performance and found that students who had research consultations had higher course grades than those who had not. However, they also found that students seeking consultations were more likely to live on campus and be full-time students, introducing the prospect of sampling bias in analysis of the effect of research consultations on academic success since students who are already more likely to succeed academically may be more likely to seek out a research consultation. 11

Kuhlthau’s ISP model offers an early examination of emotions experienced during the research process. In the origin study at Rutgers, Kuhlthau surveyed and interviewed high school seniors in AP English classes on their research process, and developed a new model for the information search process (ISP) which mapped each stage to a series of emotions. 12 Kuhlthau’s ISP model argues that feelings of uncertainty increase after the initial optimism of the topic selection stage as students begin searching for sources. However, as the topic becomes more focused and students gather more pertinent information—as typically happens during the research consultation—feelings of clarity and confidence emerge, followed by relief at the end of the information gathering process, and then final satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the commencement of the writing of the paper. Further testing of this model on users from a range of libraries found that academic participants showed the largest growth in confidence from the initiation to closure of the search project. 13 An advantage of the research consultation is that it expedites the information gathering process to move students more quickly to clarity and confidence.

Mellon constructed a grounded theory of “library anxiety” drawing on data collected from 6000 students over two years by 20 English professors. Three concepts emerged from these descriptions: 1. students generally feel that their own library-use skills are inadequate while the skills of other students are adequate; 2. the inadequacy is shameful and should be hidden; and 3. the inadequacy would be revealed by asking questions. 14 Bostick developed the Library Anxiety Scale 15 and researchers administered it to 493 students at two US universities; they found that library-anxious students tend to experience negative emotions such as fear, apprehension, and mental disorganization, therefore limiting their ability to use the library effectively. 16 Frustration associated with the search for information resources in libraries or information systems is one of the most prevalent forms of academic anxiety because most students are required to conduct research as a part of their academic program. 17 Researchers at Kent State found that 50 percent of respondents in first-year writing classes were, “mostly sure about how to begin a general search for information,” but 48 percent agreed or strongly agreed they were, “unsure about how to begin research;” 63 percent of respondents felt “uncomfortable searching for information,” and 67 percent did “not want to learn how to do their own research.” 18 These numbers reflect a persistent need to work with students to make them more comfortable and confident in their research. Library anxiety and research performance are inversely related, and library anxiety represents a negative experience for the student. 19 Experiencing a successful search could lead to a reduction in search anxiety. 20

Recent studies have shown that course instructors can play a role in recognizing and supporting students with mental health disorders by referring them to resources on campus. 21 As instructors, librarians can help minimize the effect of research anxiety, or “library anxiety.” 22 Kracker developed and administered a Research Process Survey based on Kuhlthau’s ISP model along with a standard anxiety test to a writing course at the University of Tennessee—Knoxville. The study found a significant decrease in anxiety about the research paper assignment in the test group after a 30-minute presentation on the ISP model, compared to the control. This finding indicates that instruction on the research process and on the expected emotions of that process, can mitigate negative emotions. 23 Students are less anxious when they know what they are experiencing is normal.

Student perceive the research consultation as a learning experience that extends beyond information literacy in the classroom. 24 Students undergoing the research consultation view the librarian as a teacher, and agree that the consultation helps improve their skills in conducting a literature search. A particular benefit of the consultation is modelling how to address the natural challenges of the research process. 25 The research consultation is an important service because it occurs at a point of need. Students often seek out the research consultation after already attempting research and meeting with challenges, 26 and frequently cite time savings as a benefit. 27 Reinsfelder 28 describes the unique advantages of the consultation: “the method of instruction can be quite effective and is used frequently by on-campus tutors and writing centers because these personal meetings allow for greater attention to detail and the ability to address unique concerns of each student in a way that is not possible in larger groups.”

Several studies have found that students report increased research confidence after the consultation 29 and this confidence can have lasting effects beyond the project at hand. 30 Fewer studies investigate the effect of the research consultation on stress and anxiety and, when they do, it is not the central focus of the study. In a small study at Colorado State University—Pueblo undergraduate participants exhibited mild decreases in library anxiety over the course of one semester. However, the study included both instruction and consultation and it was not determined which had a greater impact on anxiety, if any. 31 In a study conducted at Utah State University, 80 percent of students who expressed library anxiety prior to the consultation were comforted by the professional knowledge of the librarian. 32 Although the central focus of their research was not stress, Magi and Mardeusz 33 —in their qualitative study at the University of Vermont—found, after coding the open ended comments, that students reported increased confidence and reduced stress after the consultation. Of the 52 students in the study, more than one-third said they felt overwhelmed before the consultation and about 20 percent referenced a feeling of stress or anxiety in their comments. After the consultation all but one remarked on a positive change. Responses in the appendix show 40 percent of the students mentioned feelings of confidence/readiness/preparedness, and about 20 percent mentioned feelings of relief or relaxation after the consultation.

The observation of heightened stress for Gen Z in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is supported by the findings in the APA 2020 Stress and America report. Gen Z adults (aged 18–23 in 2020) reported high levels of stress with a 6.1 rating on a 10-point scale, compared to 5.0 for all adults. Eighty-two percent of Gen Z adults in college said that the uncertainty going into the 2020–21 school year would likely result in stress. 34 However, in the 2021 study Gen Z stress levels had lowered to 5.6, the second highest cohort after Millennials. Several studies have found that COVID-19 directly affected student stress levels. Active Minds surveyed undergraduate students in September 2020 and found that 89 percent reported that COVID-19 has had an impact on their stress/anxiety levels. When asked what the most stressful factor was, college students ranked having troubles focusing on studies and/or work as the third highest stress factor at 14 percent. 35 In interviews of undergraduates at Texas A&M in April 2020, 71 percent of respondents reported that their stress and anxiety had increased due to COVID-19, 89 percent of respondents reported difficulty concentrating, and 82 percent were concerned about their academic performance. 36 In contrast, a study comparing measurements before and after the University of Vermont moved all instruction online due to COVID-19 did not find significant changes in stress levels in their study. They hypothesized that the lack of stress changes could be attributed to moving back home, or to the additional pandemic-related accommodations instructors provided. 37

Methodology and Demographics

Students who scheduled a research consultation with four of the nine instruction liaison librarians at Western Michigan University were invited to participate in the study, which was reviewed and approved through the IRB process. These four librarians served the areas of fine arts, business, health sciences, and education and were selected because of their breadth of disciplines, as well as their history of having a high volume of research consultations. Study participants were not asked why they sought the consultation, but there are a variety of incentives at the university. In some classes it is required. In others the instructor recommends the service, particularly when a student is struggling, or offers extra credit for using the service. Students in the business college can use the research consultation as an option for obtaining a badge in a microlearning credentials program. Multiple librarians at the university have reported that students seek consultations for individual assistance after an instruction session was delivered to their class. There were 209 students eligible for participation and 108 opted into the study resulting in a response rate of 52 percent. The pre- and post- questionnaires were on the same Qualtrics web-based survey with a page in between asking students to keep the tab open and pause to resume the session. Prior to the study students were asked to self-report their feelings related to their project with the question: “How much stress do you feel about this project?” (possible responses were: None at all (1), A little (2), A moderate amount (3), A lot (4), A great deal (5)); and were asked about their overall stress via the question: “How much overall stress do you feel this semester?” (possible responses were: None at all (1), A little (2), A moderate amount (3), A lot (4), A great deal (5)). Definitions of project and overall stress were not provided, leaving interpretation to the students. Immediately after the consultation students were asked to report how their project and overall stress levels had changed with the questions: “How is your project stress after the research consultation?” (possible responses were: Much better (5), Somewhat better (4), About the same (3), Somewhat worse (2), Much worse (1)), and “How is your overall stress after the research consultation?” (possible responses were: Much better (5), Somewhat better (4), About the same (3), Somewhat worse (2), Much worse (1)). The study launched in week six of the fall 2019 semester and was suspended in week ten of the spring 2020 semester when it was announced that the following week campus would move to virtual services because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study resumed in week six of the fall 2020 semester and ended in week ten of the spring 2021 semester to measure changes in reported project and overall stress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The weeks correspond to late October and early March. During the study period prior to the pandemic, the four librarians collecting responses for the study conducted 92 percent of their consultations in-person and none via web conferencing; while during the pandemic none of their consultations were in-person and 93 percent were via web conference. Other mediums for consultations included IM/Chat and phone.

SPSS version 27 was used in analysis of the data. The researchers consulted with the Associate Director of the Office of Institutional Research on the appropriate statistical tests, following up to verify the validity of the findings. Three of the factors were condensed in order to increase within-group sample size. Class standing was reduced from five categories (first year, sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate student) to three categories (first year/sophomore, junior/senior, and graduate student). Project stress and overall stress were reduced from five categories to two categories: low (none at all/a little/a moderate amount) and high (a lot/a great deal). Additionally, project stress change and overall stress change were transformed from much worse, somewhat worse, about the same, somewhat better, and much better to –2, –1, 0, 1, and 2 respectively to quantify the magnitude and direction of change of respondents from their previous state.

Of the 108 respondents, 43 percent (n=46) took the survey before the COVID-19 closures in Michigan and 57 percent (n=62) of respondents took the survey during the COVID-19 pandemic when library services and most courses were offered virtually. Eighty-five respondents gave their age. The ages of respondents ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 50 with a mean of 22.2 and standard deviation of 4.6. The ages and dates of participation were used to sort students into generations. Seventy-nine percent (n=67) of respondents who gave their age were from Gen Z, 19 percent (n=16) were Millennials, and 2 percent (n=2) were from Gen X.

Class Standing

Twelve percent (n=13) of respondents were first years/sophomores, 76 percent (n=82) were juniors/seniors, and 12 percent (n=13) were graduate students. This indicates that the primary audience for the research consultation service, at least among librarians in the study, is juniors/seniors.

There was a significant association between COVID and class standing (x 2 (2)=10.306, p =.006), as exhibited in table 1. More respondents than expected were graduate students before COVID (late October 2019 through early March 2020), and there were more first years/sophomores than expected during the COVID phase of the study (late October 2020 through early March 2021). Examining LibAnswers consultation reporting statistics of librarians in the study, there were many more undergraduate consultations (178 versus 78) and slightly more graduate consultations (18 versus 16) during the COVID phase. While the researchers do not have an explanation for the change in graduate students, there was a first-year class that was strongly encouraged to meet with one of the librarians in the study during the COVID phase.

Stress Change

The primary interest of the study was to observe whether or not students reported an improvement in perceived stress after the research consultation. Thirty-seven percent (n=40) of respondents reported high levels of project stress and 64 percent (n=69) reported high levels of overall stress before the consultation. Respondents reported an improvement in both project stress and overall stress after the research consultation. Frequencies can be seen in figures 1 and 2. Respondents in the study experienced a mean positive change in project stress of 1.5 units and a mean positive change in overall stress of 1.2 units.

Chi-square Goodness of Fit Test Analysis

Using crosstabs, the researchers performed a chi-square goodness of fit test to explore associations between the variables and found significant associations between: 1. Project Stress and Covid; 2. Overall Stress Change and COVID; 3. Project Stress and Overall Stress; and 4. Project Stress Change and Overall Stress Change. One area of interest was whether participants in the study demonstrated higher levels of stress during the COVID phase of the study than in the pre-COVID phase.

There was a significant association between COVID and project stress before the consultation (x 2 (1)=10.297, p =.001), but the data showed there were more respondents than expected reporting high project stress before COVID (late October 2019 through early March 2020). Likewise, more respondents than expected reported low project stress during COVID (late October 2020 through early March 2021) as shown in table 2. A similar analysis on overall stress before the consultation did not show a significant association with COVID.

There was a significant association between COVID and overall stress change (x 2 (2)=6.725, p =.035). There were more respondents than expected reporting a positive overall stress change by two units before COVID, and more than expected reporting no overall stress change, or a positive stress change by one unit during COVID (see table 3). No students reported a negative overall stress change. In general, improvements in overall stress were higher before COVID. A similar analysis on project stress change did not show a significant association with COVID.

In addition to the difference between initial project stress and COVID, there was a significant association between project stress and overall stress (x 2 (1)=5.101, p =.024). There were more respondents than expected with both low project and overall stress, and likewise more than expected with both high project and overall stress (see table 4). In general, students with low project stress also had low overall stress and students with high project stress also had high overall stress.

There was also a significant association between project stress change and overall stress change (x 2 (6)=35.181, p <.001). In general, students that showed large positive changes in project stress were more likely to show large positive changes in overall stress (see table 5).

Regression Analysis of Project and Overall Stress Change

An ordinal regression model using the Cauchit link function in SPSS was used to estimate the relationships between changes in stress and possible explanatory variables including: COVID, Millennial, Gen Z, class standing, and initial project/overall stress respectively. The use of this model was affirmed by the model fitting, Pearson, and Deviance tests.

The ordinal regression model for project stress change found two explanatory variables that were statistically significant (see table 6). Students in the pre-COVID portion of the study reported stronger positive changes in project stress on average than students in the COVID portion (beta = 1.817, se = 0.885, p = 0.040). Students with low project stress prior to consultation reported stronger positive changes in project stress on average than students with high initial project stress (beta = 1.986, se = 0.876, p = 0.023).

A cross tab analysis shows the responses to these questions and illustrates the difference between the estimated and reported values (see table 7). Respondents before COVID reported a higher-than-expected project stress change of two units and a lower than expected change of one unit while those during COVID reported a lower than expected project stress change of two units and higher than expected change of one unit. In general, respondents reported lower levels of project stress change during COVID than they did before.

Table 8 shows that respondents who reported high project stress (4–5) reported lower-than-expected results for a positive project stress change factor of two and higher than expected results for zero project stress change and a positive project stress change factor of one. In general, participants reported lower levels of project stress change when they had high initial project stress than when they had low initial project stress.

Similarly, the overall stress change regression found overall stress and COVID to be the two significant explanatory variables (see table 9). Students in the pre-COVID portion of the study reported stronger positive changes in overall stress on average than students in the COVID portion (beta = 2.252, se = 0.837, p = 0.007). Students with low overall stress prior to consultation reported stronger positive changes in overall stress on average than students with high initial overall stress (beta = 1.594, se = 0.646, p = 0.014).

Respondents before COVID had a higher-than-expected overall stress change for two units and lower than expected change for zero and one units (see table 10). Respondents during COVID had a lower-than-expected overall stress change of two units and a higher-than-expected change for zero and one units. In general, respondents reported lower levels of overall stress change during COVID than they did before and when they had high initial overall stress.

Respondents who reported high overall stress (4–5) reported lower than expected results for a positive overall stress change factor of two and higher than expected results for zero overall stress change and a positive overall stress change factor of one (see table 11). In general, respondents who reported higher overall stress had lower levels of stress change than people with lower overall stress.

The most impactful finding of this study is the consistent positive change in reported student stress after the research consultation. While the researchers were expecting to see a positive change in project stress, the researchers were very encouraged to see a corresponding positive change in overall stress. The overall stress change was lower in magnitude during the COVID phase of the study. This study did not ask students to describe the factors contributing to their overall stress and stress factors may have been more persistent during COVID times than prior. In their study of 243,694 students seeking counseling support, the Center for Collegiate Mental health found that levels of distress related to academics, eating, and family were heightened in 2020. 38 The finding that project stress levels were lower during the COVID period of our study was surprising. Anderson, Fisher, and Walker 39 analyzed 3,331 reference encounters at Georgia State University from the fall 2019 and spring 2020 semesters, coding them for level of difficulty, and found that transactions during COVID were more difficult than those before COVID. However, as the Vermont study speculated, accommodations from instructors during the COVID period of change may explain reduced stress. 40 Western Michigan University faculty may have improved communication and support—many faculty went through professional development when transitioning their courses online in the spring and summer of 2020. Additionally, the registrar offered students the opportunity to change their grading structure to pass/fail during the COVID lockdown with no penalty. In Texas A&M’s study students reported increased stress due to COVID. 41 There was no significant difference in reported overall stress before and during COVID in our study or Vermont’s, 42 but it’s possible that students saw the project as a lower weighted stress factor in comparison to factors that arose from the context of the pandemic. The regression analysis found that, similarly to overall stress change, project stress change had a lower magnitude during the COVID phase of the study.

The findings in the regression analysis that respondents with lower initial project stress, or lower initial overall stress, experienced greater change is unexpected because there was less opportunity for change—if stress is already low, you wouldn’t expect it to have as much room for improvement. However, it is easier to remove a small amount of stress than a large amount, and students going from some stress to none could see this as a great improvement. Researchers at Rutgers University studied subjective factors—such as happiness and confidence—before and after six web search tasks; they found that those who were happy before the search, and who thought the search task would be easy, felt better after the search. 43 In the same study, subjects who felt unhappy before the search did feel happier, as well as more confident and satisfied with the results if the results found were complete and relevant. So, it may be that patrons going into the consultation with low project stress are likely to report improvement afterward regardless of the relevancy of the sources found, but patrons with high initial project stress are more reliant on relevancy for perceived improvement. These findings emphasize the importance of the librarian considering the research question fully and making connections between the information found in the consultation and the research question clear to the patron.

While the study gathered sufficient responses from Gen Z and Millennials to run a comparison, they were too close in age to represent the breadth of their generations. Additionally, there were only two Gen Xers in the study. Over the span of the study from October 2019 through March 2021, the mean age was 22.2 and the standard deviation was 4.6. Sixty-seven percent of respondents who gave their age were between 20 and 23 years old. Our finding of no difference in stress levels by generation is also in line with the APA Stress in America 2021 study where Gen Z and Millennials report the most similar stress levels of any generation, at 5.6 and 5.7 out of 10 respectively. The researchers theorized there would be a stress difference by class standing—that as students gained experience in their programs, they would gain research and coping skills. However, this may be offset by the increased difficulty of the assignments in the upper levels.

The research coincided with a movement toward personal wellness at the Western Michigan University campus due to groundswell support from students during a series of educational innovation town halls held in 2018 and 2019. In pursuing this goal, the campus adopted the Wellness Wheel model derived from Hettler’s Dimensions of Wellness. 44 The wheel adopted included eight dimensions: social, emotional, physical, environmental, financial, purpose/spiritual, occupational, and intellectual. Selected campus services were assigned a dimension and provided to students seeking education on campus wellness options. Through this study the researchers were able to get the research consultation service included on the menu of services for the dimension of intellectual wellness in spring 2020, joining others such as the tutoring and the writing center. Additionally, the library sought out mental health first aid professional development opportunities offered to all employees and invited the Assistant Director of Mental Health Outreach to present at a library all staff meeting.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

The study gathered a sample of 108 completed responses which may limit generalizability to the larger student population at the university. The study did not collect demographic factors beyond class standing and age. Additionally, responses were self-selected and reported on perceived stress, which increases subjectivity. The mode of delivery of the consultation (virtual meeting vs in-person) may have influenced stress levels; this was not explored because the shift in delivery due to COVID was unexpected at the initiation of the study and thus was not included on the survey instrument.

Future opportunities for research include analyzing changes and perceived stress by comparing students who sought the research consultation intervention to a control of students who did not seek a consultation. This would likely have the additional advantage of gathering a larger sample size. While the study focused on having a short survey in order to increase responses and to decrease consultation time dedicated to the survey, additional demographic questions could be included to analyze differences by gender, race, ethnicity, GPA, and first-generation status, among others. The post-test was administered immediately following the consultation. Future studies could investigate persistence of the effects further into the semester. One of the librarians in the study does collect Project Outcome data on the research consultation at the end of the semester and received 26 responses during the period of the study. Ninety-six percent reported using the resources for their assignment and 81 percent reported they applied what they learned to another research task; however, these responses do not touch on stress. Overall and Project Stress also could be further segmented. Future studies could include the incorporation of assessment metrics, such as the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) or Bostick’s Library Anxiety Scale. Another opportunity would be to conduct a study incorporating factors of confidence, happiness, stress, and library anxiety, which are frequently studied separately.

Findings of the study confirm the researchers’ hypothesis that the library research consultation improves perceived stress levels at the project and overall level in the population surveyed. While the researchers want to affirm their belief that the consultation is not in any way a replacement for professional counseling services, the results show that it is a wellness-focused student service that can help students to reduce academic stress. Therefore, they argue it could be included with other campus services promoted to students seeking wellness triage, particularly for students who seek intellectual wellness. The researchers hope this is just the beginning of librarianship interest in utilizing the research consultation to its fullest potential not only in student learning but also as one of several academic services contributing to student wellness.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Will Stutz, Data Scientist and Associate Director at the Western Michigan University Office of Institutional Research for advising the authors on appropriate statistical tests and interpretation of the data.

1. Beth McMurtrie, “A ‘Stunning’ Level of Student Disconnection,” The Chronicle of Higher Education April 5, 2022, https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-stunning-level-of-student-disconnection .

2. Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” Pew Research Center, January 17, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins .

3. Wendy Rubin, American Psychological Association, “Stress in America TM Generation Z. Stress in America Survey,” American Psychological Association , no. October (2018): 1–11, https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2018/stress-gen-z.pdf .

4. Daniel Eisenberg, Sarah Ketchen Lipson, and Julie Posselt, “Promoting Resilience, Retention, and Mental Health,” in New Directions for Student Services (2016), 87–95, https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20194 .

5. Michael T. Kalkbrenner, Amber L. Jolley, and Danica G. Hays, “Faculty Views on College Student Mental Health: Implications for Retention and Student Success,” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 23, no. 3 (November 1, 2021): 636–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119867639 .

6. Alan M. Woody Schwitzer and John A. Vaughn, “Mental Health, Well–Being, and Learning: Supporting Our Students in Times of Need,” About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience 22, no. 2 (2017): 4–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21287 .

7. Jackie Stapleton, Caitlin Carter, and Laura Bredahl, “Research Consultations in the Academic Library: A Scoping Review on Current Themes in Instruction, Assessment and Technology,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 46, no. 4 (July 1, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102156 .

8. Ying Zhong and Johanna Alexander, “Academic Success : How Library Services Make a Difference,” in Proceedings of the ACRL Thirteenth National Conference, March 29–April 1, 2007, Baltimore, Maryland 2007, 141–57.

9. Krista M. Soria, Jan Fransen, and Shane Nackerud, “Library Use and Undergraduate Student Outcomes: New Evidence for Students’ Retention and Academic Success,” Portal 13, no. 2 (2013): 147–64, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0010 .

10. Robin E. Miller, “Reference Consultations and Student Success Outcomes,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 58, no. 1 (2018): 16–21, https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.1.6836 .

11. Angie Cox, Anne Marie Gruber, and Chris Neuhaus, “Complexities of Demonstrating Library Value: An Exploratory Study of Research Consultations,” Portal 19, no. 4 (October 1, 2019): 577–90, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0036 .

12. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, “The Library Research Process: Case Studies and Interventions with High School Seniors in Advanced Placement English Classes Using Kelly’s Theory of Constructs,” (EdD diss., Rutgers University, 1983).

13. C. Carol Kuhlthau et al., “Validating a Model of the Search Process: A Comparison of Academic, Public and School Library Users,” Library and Information Science Research 12, no. 1 (1990): 5–31.

14. Constance A. Mellon, “Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development,” College & Research Libraries 47, no. 2 (1986): 160–65, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_47_02_160 .

15. Sharon Lee Bostick, “The Development and Validation of the Library Anxiety Scale” (PhD diss., Wayne State University, 1992).

16. Qun G Jiao, Anthony J Onwuegbuzie, and Art A Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety: Characteristics of ‘at-Risk’ College Students,” Library & Information Science Research 18, no. 2 (1996): 151–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90017-1 .

17. Sharon L. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., Jiao, Qun G. & Bostick, Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Applications (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004).

18. Shelley Blundell and Frank Lambert, “Information Anxiety from the Undergraduate Student Perspective: A Pilot Study of Second-Semester Freshmen,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55, no. 4 (2014): 263.

19. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Qun G. Jiao, “Information Search Performance and Research Achievement: An Empirical Test of the Anxiety-Expectation Mediation Model of Library Anxiety,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55, no. 1 (2004): 41–54.

20. Peiling Wang, William B. Hawk, and Carol Tenopir, “Users’ Interaction with World Wide Web Resources: An Exploratory Study Using a Holistic Approach,” Information Processing and Management 36, 2000, (2000): 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00059-X .

21. Kalkbrenner, Jolley, and Hays, “Faculty Views,” 636–58.

22. Ashley Eklof, “Understanding Information Anxiety and How Academic Librarians Can Minimize Its Effects,” Public Services Quarterly 9, no. 3 (2013): 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15 .

23. Jacqueline Kracker, “Research Anxiety and Students’ Perceptions of Research: An Experiment. Part I. Effect of Teaching Kuhlthau’s ISP Model,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 4 (February 15, 2002): 282–94, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10040 .

24. Gillian S. Gremmels and Karen Shostrom Lehmann, “Assessment of Student Learning from Reference Service,” College and Research Libraries 68, no. 6 (2007): 488–502, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.6.488 .

25. John Watts and Stephanie Mahfood, “Collaborating with Faculty to Assess Research Consultations for Graduate Students,” Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 34, no. 2 (January 1, 2015): 70–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.1042819 .

26. Trina J. Magi and Patricia E. Mardeusz, “Why Some Students Continue to Value Individual, Face-to- Face Research Consultations in a Technology-Rich World,” College and Research Libraries 74, no. 6 (2013): 605–18, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-363 .

27. Pamela N. Martin and Lezlie Park, “Reference Desk Consultation Assignment: An Exploratory Study of Students’ Perceptions of Reference Service,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 49, no.4 (2010): 333–340. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n4.333

28. Thomas L. Reinsfelder, “Citation Analysis as a Tool to Measure the Impact of Individual Research Consultations,” College and Research Libraries 73, no. 3 (2012): 263–77, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-261 .

29. Crystal D. Gale and Betty S. Evans, “Face-to-Face: The Implementation and Analysis of a Research Consultation Service,” College and Undergraduate Libraries 14, no. 3 (December 18, 2007): 85–101, https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v14n03_06 ; Christine Moghimi and Mary C. Rickelman, “Assessing Information Literacy Skills and Library Anxiety of First-Year Occupational Therapy Graduate Students,” Journal of Occupational Therapy Education 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2021): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2021.050104 ; Lauren Reiter and Carmen Cole, “Beyond Face Value Evaluating Research Consultations from the Student Perspective,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2019): 23–30, https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.59.1.7222 ; Lindsey Sikora, Karine Fournier, and Jamie Rebner, “Exploring the Impact of Individualized Research Consultations Using Pre and Posttesting in an Academic Library: A Mixed Methods Study,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 14, no. 1 (2019): 2–21, https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29500 .

30. Watts and Mahfood, “Collaborating with Faculty,” 70–87.

31. Sandy Hudock, “Can Research ‘Send Me High?’ Addressing Flow Theory,” Reference Services Review 43, 4 (2015): 689–705, https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-04-2015-0025 .

32. Martin and Park, “Reference Desk Consultation,” 333–340.

33. Magi and Mardeusz, “Why Some Students,” 605–18.

34. American Psychological Association, “Stress In America: A National Mental Health Crisis,” American Psychological Association 2020, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.2307/2675115 .

35. ActiveMinds, “Student Mental Health Survey,” ActiveMinds , September, 2020, accessed April 13, 2022, https://www.activeminds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Student-Mental-Health-Data-Sheet-Fall-2020-1.pdf .

36. Changwon Son et al., “Effects of COVID-19 on College Students’ Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, no. 9 (2020): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.2196/21279 .

37. William E. Copeland et al., “Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on College Student Mental Health and Wellness,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 60, no. 1 (2021): 134–141.e2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466 .

38. Center for Collegiate Mental Health, “Fall 2021: COVID-19 Impact on College Student Mental Health,” Penn State Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2022, accessed April 13, 2022, https://ccmh.psu.edu/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&year=2022&month=03&day=21&id=23:fall-2021-COVID-19-impact-on-college-student-mental-health .

39. Raeda Anderson, Katherine Fisher, and Jeremy Walker, “Library Consultations and a Global Pandemic: An Analysis of Consultation Difficulty during COVID-19 across Multiple Factors,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 47, no. 1 (January 1, 2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102273 .

40. Copeland et al., “Impact of COVID-19,” 134–141.e2.

41. Son et al., “Effects of COVID-19,” 1–14.

42. Copeland et al., “Impact of COVID-19,” 134–141.e2.

43. Jacek Gwizdka and Irene Lopatovska, “The Role of Subjective Factors in the Information Search Process,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, no. 12 (December 2009): 2452–64, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21183 .

44. Bill Hettler, “Wellness Promotion on a University Campus,” Family and Community Health 3, no. 1 (1980): 77–95, https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-198005000-00008 .

* LuMarie Guth is an Associate Professor and Business Librarian at Western Michigan University, email: [email protected] ; Bradford Dennis is an Associate Professor and Education and Human Development Librarian at Western Michigan University, email: [email protected] . ©2024 LuMarie Guth and Bradford Dennis, Attribution-NonCommercial ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) CC BY-NC.

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

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

Article Views (By Year/Month)

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

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

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6701

The good, the bad, and the ugly: how counterfeiting is addressed in operations and supply chain management literature

• Published: 28 June 2024

Cite this article

• Raul Beal Partyka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7941-2152 1 ,
• Rafael Teixeira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7643-6084 2 ,
• Roger Augusto Luna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2827-4719 1 &
• Ely Laureano Paiva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1203-0584 1  

12 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This article aims to identify counterfeiting state-of-the-art and expand the Operations and Supply chain Management (OSCM) field from the identified gaps and bottlenecks to understand the real-life phenomenon and critically evaluate the existing body of knowledge. This is a systematic literature review from 63 relevant articles identified from Scopus and Web of Science. This is a reflection exercise to identify gaps and bottlenecks to subsidy research opportunities. Clearly, the strategies for combating counterfeiting could be more reactive or proactive, for example, reactive in the purchasing/co-opting offenders and proactive by blockchain adoption and marketing communication with tips to identify fake products. Therefore, the results also identified some central aspects related to the evolution of counterfeiting studies in the OSCM field and relevant gaps. We provide theoretical evidence that an interesting and broad field exists to expand from the identified gaps and bottlenecks. We also present up-to-date, state-of-the-art literature on all the aspects and facets of counterfeiting.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

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

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda

Artificial intelligence-driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the effect of supply chain dynamism: an empirical investigation

Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature

Data availability.

The author confirms that all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the article, including the Supplementary File.

Agrawal TK, Koehl L, Campagne C (2018) A secured tag for implementation of traceability in textile and clothing supply chain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2638-x

Article   Google Scholar  

Amaral NB (2020) What can be done to address luxury counterfeiting? An integrative review of tactics and strategies. J Brand Manage Palgrave Macmillan UK 27(6):691–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00206-6

Ames J, Souza DZ (2012) Counterfeiting of drugs in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica 46(1):154–159. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102012005000005

Berman B (2008) Strategies to detect and reduce counterfeiting activity. Bus Horiz 51(3):191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.01.002

Bian X, Moutinho L (2011) Counterfeits and branded products: effects of counterfeit ownership. J Prod Brand Manage 20(5):379–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157900

Böhle C, Hellingrath B, Deuter P (2014) Towards process reference models for secure supply chains. J Transp Secur 7(3):255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-014-0142-6

Busby JS (2019) The co-evolution of competition and parasitism in the resource-based view: a risk model of product counterfeiting. Eur J Oper Res 276(1):300–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.12.039

Cataldo A, Grieco A, Prete A, Del, Cannazza G, Benedetto E, De (2016) Innovative method for traceability of hides throughout the leather manufacturing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8489-4

Cho SH, Fang X, Tayur S (2015) Combating strategic counterfeiters in licit and illicit supply chains. Manuf Service Oper Manage 17(3):273–289. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2015.0524

Choi TM, Feng L, Li R, Elsevier BV (2020) Vol. 221 No. July 2019, 107473, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.008

Cole R, Stevenson M, Aitken J (2019) Blockchain technology: implications for operations and supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage 24(4):469–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0309

Cordell VV, Wongtada N, Kieschnick RL Jr. (1996) Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. J Bus Res 35(95):41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00009-7

Crettez B, Hayek N, Zaccour G (2018) Brand imitation: A dynamic-game approach, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 205 No. November, pp. 139–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.010

Danese P, Mocellin R, Romano P (2021) Designing blockchain systems to prevent counterfeiting in wine supply chains: a multiple-case study. Int J Oper Prod Manage 41:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2019-0781

Durach CF, Kembro JH, Wieland A (2021) How to advance theory through literature reviews in logistics and supply chain management. Int J Phys Distribution Logistics Manage ahead–of–p(No ahead–of–print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2020-0381

Falasca M, Dellana S, Rowe WJ, Kros JF (2021) The impact of counterfeit risk management on healthcare supply chain performance: an empirical analysis. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0426

Gao SY, Lim WS, Tang C (2017) The impact of the potential entry of copycats: Entry conditions, Consumer Welfare, and Social Welfare. Decis Sci 48(4):594–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12235

Garg P, Gupta B, Chauhan AK, Sivarajah U, Gupta S, Modgil S (2021) Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , Elsevier Inc., Vol. 163 No. June 2020, p. 120407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120407

Ghadge A, Duck A, Er M, Caldwell N (2021) Deceptive counterfeit risk in global supply chains, Supply Chain Forum , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 87–99, https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2021.1908844

Ghamat S, Pun H, Critchley G, Hou P (2021) Using intellectual property agreements in the presence of supplier and third-party copycatting, European Journal of Operational Research , Elsevier B.V., Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 64 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C7, Canada, Vol. 291 No. 2, pp. 680–692, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.041

Gnezdova JV, Barilenko VI, Kozenkova TA, Chernyshev AV, Vasina NV (2018) evna. Food safety auditing in Russia in a climate of foreign sanctions and a policy of import substitution, Quality - Access to Success , Vol. 19 No. 167, pp. 155–158

Hoecht A, Trott P (2014) How should firms deal withcounterfeiting? A review of the success conditions of anti-counterfeiting strategies. Int J Emerg Markets 9(1):98–119

Itkis D, Daim T, Basoglu N (2009) Balancing efficiency and competitiveness in outsourcing decisions. Int J Serv Oper Manage 5(5):662–686. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2009.025120

Jaeger SR, Worch T, Phelps T, Jin D, Cardello AV (2021) Effects of ‘craft’ vs. ‘traditional’ labels to beer consumers with different flavor preferences: a comprehensive multi-response approach. Food Qual Prefer 87(No May 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104043

Jæger B, Menebo MM, Upadhyay A (2021) Identification of environmental supply chain bottlenecks: a case study of the Ethiopian healthcare supply chain. Manage Environ Quality: Int J 32(6):1233–1254. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0277

Kamenivskyy Y, Palisetti A, Hamze L, Saberi S (2022) A blockchain-based solution for COVID-19 vaccine distribution. IEEE Eng Manage Rev 50(1):43–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2022.3145656

Kasuma J, Noor NM, Abdurahman AZA, Sawangchai A, Jemari MA (2020) The influence of information susceptibility and normative susceptibility on counterfeit manufacturing products purchase intention. Int J Supply Chain Manage 9(2):234–239

Google Scholar  

Kros JF, Falasca M, Dellana S, Rowe WJ (2020) Mitigating counterfeit risk in the supply chain: an empirical study. TQM J 32(5):983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2019-0054

Kumar S, Dieveney E, Dieveney A (2009) Reverse logistic process control measures for the pharmaceutical industry supply chain. Int J Productivity Perform Manage 58(2):188–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400910928761

Kwong KK, Yau OHM, Lee JSY, Sin LYM, Tse ACB (2003) The effects of Attitudinal and demographic factors on intention to Buy Pirated CDs: the case of Chinese consumers. J Bus Ethics 47(3):223–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026269003472

Leng J, Jiang P, Xu K, Liu Q, Zhao JL, Bian Y, Shi R (2019) Makerchain: a blockchain with chemical signature for self-organizing process in social manufacturing. J Clean Prod 234:767–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.265

Li Z, Xu X, Bai Q, Guan X, Zeng K (2021) The interplay between blockchain adoption and channel selection in combating counterfeits, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , Vol. 155 No. December 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102451

Lima FRP, Da de AL, Godinho Filho M, Dias EM (2018) Systematic review: resilience enablers to combat counterfeit medicines. Supply Chain Manage 23(2):117–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-04-2017-0155

Liu K, Li JA, Lai KK (2004) Single period, single product newsvendor model with random supply shock. Eur J Oper Res 158(3):609–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00382-5

Liu K, Li JA, Wu Y, Lai KK (2005) Analysis of monitoring and limiting of commercial cheating: a newsvendor model. J Oper Res Soc 56(7):844–854. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601913

Liu F, Liu K, Xie XL (2016) Monitoring and limiting deceptive counterfeiting: a two-stage model. J Oper Res Soc China 4(3):265–308. Operations Research Society of China10.1007/s40305-016-0130-6

Lohne J, Kjesbu NE, Engebø A, Young B, Lædre O (2019) Scoping Literature Review of Crime in the AEC industry. J Constr Eng Manag 145(6):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001648

Longo F, Nicoletti L, Padovano A, d’Atri G, Forte M (2019) Blockchain-enabled supply chain: an experimental study. Computers Industrial Eng 136(No July):pp57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.026

Lu W, Jiang Y, Chen Z, Ji X (2022) Blockchain adoption in a supply chain system to combat counterfeiting, Computers and Industrial Engineering , Vol. 171 No. July, p. 108408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108408

Machado SM, Paiva EL, da Silva EM (2018) Counterfeiting: addressing mitigation and resilience in supply chains. Int J Phys Distribution Logistics Manage 48(2):139–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0004

Manchanda M, Deb M, Lomo-David E (2021) Scrutinizing the efficacy of branded apps quality to counter counterfeiting and restore trust in m-commerce, Quality Management Journal , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 156–174, https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2021.1920869

Minchin RE, Cui S, Walters RC, Issa R, Pan J (2013) Sino-american opinions and perceptions of counterfeiting in the Construction Supply Chain. J Constr Eng Manag 139(1):1–8

Naderpajouh N, Hastak M, Gokhale S, Bayraktar ME, Iyer A, Arif F (2015) Counterfeiting risk governance in the Capital projects Supply Chain. J Constr Eng Manag 141(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000943

O’Leary DE (2017) Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: the case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intell Syst Acc Finance Manage 24(4):138–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1417

OECD (2021) Global Trade in fakes: a worrying threat. OECD Publishing, Paris

Book   Google Scholar  

OECD (2022) Dangerous fakes: Trade in Counterfeit Goods that Pose Health, Safety and Environmental risks. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/117e352b-en

Pecht BM, Tiku S (2006) Bogus! IEEE Spectr 43(5):37–46

Pour PD, Nazzal MA, Darras BM (2022) The role of industry 4.0 technologies in overcoming pandemic challenges for the manufacturing sector. Concur Eng Res Appl 30(2):190–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X221082681

Pun H, Swaminathan JM, Hou P (2021) Blockchain Adoption for combating deceptive counterfeits. Prod Oper Manage 30(4):864–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13348

Qian Y (2008) Impacts of entry by counterfeiters. Quart J Econ 123(4):1577–1609. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1577

Qian Y, Gong Q, Chen Y (2015) Untangling searchable and experiential quality responses to counterfeits. Mark Sci 34(4):522–538. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0867

Rogerson M, Parry GC (2020) Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain visibility. Supply Chain Manage 25:601–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0300

Sandborn M, Olea C, White J, Williams C, Tarazaga PA, Sturm L, Albakri M et al (2021) Towards secure cyber-physical information association for parts, Journal of Manufacturing Systems , Vol. 59 No. October 2020, pp. 27–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.01.003

Scuderi A, Foti V, Timpanaro G (2019) The supply chain value of pod and pgi food products through the application of blockchain. Qual - Access Success 20(S2):580–587

Şerbancea F, Stănescu A, Lazăr V (2018) Ethics in Knowledge Management. Food Saf Manage 19(167):159–165

Shen B, Xu X, Yuan Q (2020) Selling secondhand products through an online platform with blockchain, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , Elsevier, Vol. 142 No. August, p. 102066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102066

Shen B, Cheng M, Dong C, Xiao Y (2023) Battling counterfeit masks during the COVID-19 outbreak: quality inspection vs. blockchain adoption. Int J Prod Res 61(11):3634–3650. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1961038

Shi J, Zhou J, Zhu Q (2019) Barriers of a closed-loop cartridge remanufacturing supply chain for urban waste recovery governance in China. J Clean Prod 212:1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.114

Shultz CJ, Saporito B (1996) Protecting intellectual property: strategies and recommendations to Deter Counterfeiting and Brand Piracy in Global Markets. Columbia J World Bus 31(1):18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5428(96)90003-4

Stevenson M, Busby J (2015) An exploratory analysis of counterfeiting strategies: towards counterfeit-resilient supply chains. Int J Oper Prod Manage 35(1):110–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0174

Sun Z, Xu Q, Shi B (2022) Price and product quality decisions for a two-Echelon Supply Chain in the Blockchain era. Asia-Pac J Oper Res 39(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595921400169

Thaichon P, Quach S (2016) Dark motives-counterfeit purchase framework: Internal and external motives behind counterfeit purchase via digital platforms, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Elsevier, Vol. 33, pp. 82–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.003

Ting SL, Tsang AHC (2014) Using social network analysis to combat counterfeiting. Int J Prod Res 52:4456–4468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.861947

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Urciuoli L (2010) Supply chain security-mitigation measures and a logistics multi-layered framework. J Transp Secur 3(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-009-0034-3

Urciuoli L, Paulraj A, Näslund D (2013) The role of the law enforcement agencies in transport security, a survey with Swedish operators. Logistics Res 6(4):145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-013-0102-8

Wagner L, Gürbüz M, Ҫagri, Parlar M (2019) Is it fake? Using potentially low quality suppliers as back-up when genuine suppliers are unavailable, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 213 No. August 2018, pp. 185–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.016

Wang L, Kowk SK, Ip WH (2012) A radio frequency identification-based quality evaluation system design for the wine industry. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 25(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.562542

Wang Y, Lin J, Choi TM (2020) Gray market and counterfeiting in supply chains: A review of the operations literature and implications to luxury industries, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , Vol. 133 No. November 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.101823

Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319

Whittemore R, Knafl K (2005) The integrative review: updated methodology, Journal of Advanced Nursing , John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 546–553, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Wyld DC, Jones MA (2007) RFID is no fake: the adoption of radio frequency identification technology in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Int J Integr Supply Manage 3(2):156–171. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISM.2007.011974

Xie D, Zhu W, Zhao X, Xie J (2021) An experimental study on the sale of counterfeit products under monitoring policies, Journal of the Operational Research Society , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 93–108, https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2019.1650623

Yi Z, Yu M, Cheung KL (2022) Impacts of counterfeiting on a global supply chain. Manuf Service Oper Manage 24(1):159–178. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0912

Zhang J, Zhang RQ (2015) Supply chain structure in a market with deceptive counterfeits. Eur J Oper Res 240(1):84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.041

Zhang J, Hong LJ, Zhang RQ (2012) Fighting strategies in a market with counterfeits. Ann Oper Res 192(1):49–66

Download references

This work was supported by the Coordination for the improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), foundations within The Brazilian Ministry of Education.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fundação Getulio Vargas’s Sao Paulo, School of Business Administration (FGV EAESP), 474 Itapeva St, 8th Floor, Bela Vista, São Paulo, 01332-000, SP, Brazil

Raul Beal Partyka, Roger Augusto Luna & Ely Laureano Paiva

Department of Supply Chain and Information Management, School of Business, College of Charleston, 66 George St, Beatty 334, Charleston, SC, 29424, USA

Rafael Teixeira

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raul Beal Partyka .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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

Partyka, R.B., Teixeira, R., Luna, R.A. et al. The good, the bad, and the ugly: how counterfeiting is addressed in operations and supply chain management literature. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00453-w

Download citation

Received : 18 July 2023

Accepted : 19 June 2024

Published : 28 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00453-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

• Counterfeiting
• Operations management
• Supply chain management
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of impedance spectroscopy technique: applications, modelling, and case study of relative humidity sensors development.

Share and Cite

da Silva, G.M.G.; Faia, P.M.; Mendes, S.R.; Araújo, E.S. A Review of Impedance Spectroscopy Technique: Applications, Modelling, and Case Study of Relative Humidity Sensors Development. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 5754. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135754

da Silva GMG, Faia PM, Mendes SR, Araújo ES. A Review of Impedance Spectroscopy Technique: Applications, Modelling, and Case Study of Relative Humidity Sensors Development. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(13):5754. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135754

da Silva, Georgenes M. G., Pedro M. Faia, Sofia R. Mendes, and Evando S. Araújo. 2024. "A Review of Impedance Spectroscopy Technique: Applications, Modelling, and Case Study of Relative Humidity Sensors Development" Applied Sciences 14, no. 13: 5754. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135754

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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 ]