1

Literature Review
(5009)

Submitted by

MSC. ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES

Semester: Spring, 2020

______________________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

 2

Literature Review
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and
sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.
A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an
organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of
the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling,
of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with
old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major
debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and
advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.
The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research
paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use
the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus
of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of
others without adding new contributions.
Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited
time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping
stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current
in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the
credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background
for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is
essential to most research papers.
Clarify
If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:
 Roughly how many sources should you include?
 What types of sources (books, journal articles, and websites)?
 Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common
theme or issue?
 Should you evaluate your sources?
 Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as
definitions and/or a history?
 3

Find models
Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to
get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to
organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine
along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an
electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are
also excellent entry points into your own research.
Narrow your topic
There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The
narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in
order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to
read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit
your scope. And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in
the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the
90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine
quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.
Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the
sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to
the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are
writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the
literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have
changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other
current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline
expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in
this field and what is not.
Strategies for writing the literature review
Find a focus
A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources
themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not
just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As
you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues
connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect
of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it
 4

according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick
one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.
Convey it to your reader
A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument),
but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the
reader know what your main organizing principle is. Here are a couple of examples:
The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and
medicine.
More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject
worthy of academic consideration.
Consider organization
You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective
way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that
your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an
organization for your review at both a global and local level:
First, cover the basic categories
Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic
elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review
containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations
section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:
 Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the
central theme or organizational pattern.
 Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically,
thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
 Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing
literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?
Organizing the body
Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the
sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus
this section even further.
To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the
following scenario:
You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This
is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal
 5

is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology
journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies
performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a
book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other
forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale
hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling
methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles
published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling
scene in his novel.
Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:
 Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the
materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk
about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published
in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology
articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But
there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the
sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they
are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its
chronological focus.
 By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order
demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature
on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection
practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
 By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the
sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have
subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine
whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would
combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick
itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
 Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than
the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in
a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development
of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon
technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a
 6

“chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the

development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology. But more authentic thematic
reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of
material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural
documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their
proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in
this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point
made.
 Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the
focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it
focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one
methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of
whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the
economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence
either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are
discussed.
Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the
sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise
out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have
subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based
upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.
Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your
study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you
include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections
you might want to consider:
 Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the
literature review.
 History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is
necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is
not already a chronology.
 Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your
literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance,
you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and
journals.
 7

Begin composing
Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section.
There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a
sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the
following discussion:
However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to
produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students
to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral
antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to
describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined
3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the
unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias,
sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist
Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophile, Intended Audience, and Offense,”
Women and Language19:2).
Use evidence
In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A
literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your
interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what
you are saying is valid.
Be selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of
information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is
thematic, methodological, or chronological.
Use quotes sparingly
Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature
review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short
quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the
author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote
certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from
the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.
 8

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as
throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study,
but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.
Keep your own voice
While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain
front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own
text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their
own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.
Use caution when paraphrasing
When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s
information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk
and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or
they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own,
for example, Gastil’s.
Revise, revise, revise
Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea,
because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your
review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you
would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your
review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be
sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang.
Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review
appropriately for your discipline.
Works consulted
We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of
resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find
additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own
reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting
citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial. We revise these tips periodically and
welcome feedback.
Importance of Literature Review
A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social
sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both
 9

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.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First,
there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the
reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and
often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions,
conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the
type of analysis underpinning your study.
 10

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 make summary claims of the
sort found in systematic reviews [see below].
Integrative Review
Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative
literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on
the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or
identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the
same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is
the most common form of review in the social sciences.
Historical Review
Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus
on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an
issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution
within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical
context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely
directions for future research.
Methodological Review
A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came
about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis
provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory,
substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques],
how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual
level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and
epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling,
interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical
issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.
Systematic Review
 11

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated

research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and
critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the
studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically
evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined
research problem. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often
posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This
type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in
clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social
sciences.
Theoretical Review
The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in
regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps
to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree
the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be
tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal
that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems.
The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.
Structure & Writing Style
The structure of a literature review should include the following:
 An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the
objectives of the literature review,
 Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a
particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
 An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
 Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most
convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding
and development of their area of research.
The critical evaluation of each work should consider:
 Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments
supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives,
statistics, recent scientific findings]?
 12

 Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data
appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate?
Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
 Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data
considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
 Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least
convincing?
 Value -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work
ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?
II. Development of the Literature Review
Four Stages
1. Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its
component issues?
2. Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored.
3. Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to
the understanding of the topic.
4. Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent
literature.
Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:
Clarify
If your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should
take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:
1. Roughly how many sources should I include?
2. What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly
versus popular sources)?
3. Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme
or issue?
4. Should I evaluate the sources?
5. Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions
and/or a history?
Find Models
Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or
area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense
of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify
 13

ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources
you've already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.
Narrow the Topic
The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to
read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will
probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll
make your job easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is
to begin by searching the HOMER catalog for books about the topic and review the
table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the
indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your
research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in
the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text.
Consider Whether Your Sources are Current
Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is
particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted
becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a
review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In
other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately
examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other
current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your
discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by
scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.
III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review
Chronology of Events
If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials
according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a
clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these
trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature
review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic
power after the fall of the Soviet Union.
By Publication
Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a
more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on
 14

environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change
in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the
studies.
Thematic [“conceptual categories”]
Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the
progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a
thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American
presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the
study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it
will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media.
The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what
is emphasized the most: the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note however
that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A
review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section
according to the point made.
Methodological
A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the
Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would
be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on
American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising
impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will
influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these
documents are discussed.
Other Sections of Your Literature Review
Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the
sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise
from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have
subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based
upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add
additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational
strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you but
include only what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger
scholarship framework.
 15

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of
review you write:
 Current Situation: information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the
literature review.
 History: the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is
necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is
not already a chronology.
 Selection Methods: the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in
your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes
only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
 Standards: the way in which you present your information.
 Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review
sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?
IV. Writing Your Literature Review
Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write
each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.
Use Evidence
A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper.
Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations]
that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid.
Be Selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type
of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem,
whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.
Use Quotes Sparingly
Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated
cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology
that was coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study.
Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for your own summary and interpretation of
the literature.
Summarize and Synthesize
Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as
well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but
 16

then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own
work.
Keep Your Own Voice
While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should
remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you
are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your
own ideas and wording.
Use Caution When Paraphrasing
When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's
information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an
author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.
V. Common Mistakes to Avoid
These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research
literature.
 Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
 You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevent sources to
use in the literature review related to the research problem;
 Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant
primary research studies or data;
 Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather
than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
 Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to
review;
 Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or
meta-analytic methods; and,
 Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary
findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Components
Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:
 Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its
component issues?
 Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
 17

 Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the

understanding of the topic
 Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent
literature
Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:
 An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the
objectives of the literature review
 Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular
position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
 Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
 Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most
convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding
and development of their area of research
In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:
 Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported
by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent
scientific findings)?
 Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data
considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
 Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
 Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work
ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

References:
1. Baglione, L. (2012). Writing a Research Paper in Political Science. Thousand Oaks,
California: CQ Press.
2. ^ Adams, John; Khan, Hafiz T A; Raeside, Robert (2007). Research methods for
graduate business and social science students. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
p. 56. ISBN 9780761935896.
3. ^ Bolderston, Amanda (June 2008). "Writing an Effective Literature Review". Journal
of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 39 (2): 86–
92. doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2008.04.009. PMID 31051808.
 18

4. ^ Torraco, Richard J. (December 2016). "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews:

Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future". Human Resource Development
Review. 15 (4): 404–428. doi:10.1177/1534484316671606. ISSN 1534-
4843. S2CID 152155091.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Shields, Patricia; Rangarjan, Nandhini (2013). A Playbook for
Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management.
Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press. ISBN 978-1-58107-247-1.
6. ^ Baker, P. (2000). "Writing a Literature Review". The Marketing Review. 1 (2):
219–247. doi:10.1362/1469347002529189.
7. ^ Granello, D. H. (2001). "Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work:
Using Bloom's taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve Literature
Reviews". Counselor Education & Supervision. 40 (4): 292–307. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6978.2001.tb01261.x.
8. Cooper, Harris M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews.
Applied Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications. ISBN 978-0761913481.
9. Creswell, John W. (2013). "Review of the Literature". Research Design. Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781452226101.
10. Dellinger, Amy B. (2005). "Validity and the Review of Literature". Research in the
Schools. 12 (2): 41–54.
11. Dellinger, Amy B.; Leech, Nancy L. (2007). "Toward a Unified Validation
Framework in Mixed Methods Research". Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1 (4):
309–332. doi:10.1177/1558689807306147. S2CID 145367484.
12. Galvan, José L. (2015). Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences (6th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing. ISBN 978-1936523375.