Literature Review Quick Reference
One page to keep open while you work. Every list the supplied teaching source sets out on reviewing the literature, reproduced in its own wording and its own order, with the tensions marked rather than tidied away.
What a literature review is, and the two processes it splits into
THE FOUR STATED AIMS
| # | The literature review aims to | What that produces |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Define the particular field of research | Boundaries — what counts as inside your topic and what does not |
| 2 | Introduce and explain findings that support the research questions | The evidence base your question rests on |
| 3 | Summarise the findings of the relevant readings | A consolidated account of what is currently held to be true |
| 4 | Identify gaps in the literature that point to the significance of the research to follow | The justification for doing the study at all |
Aims are the source's. The third column is a reading made on this page.
The five things a review gives an overview of
- What has already been said on the topic
- Who are the key writers
- What the prevailing theories and hypotheses are
- What questions are being asked
- What methodologies and methods are appropriate and useful
The fifth item is the one most often overlooked. Your review is meant to tell you which methods are appropriate, which means the review is doing design work as well as justification work. The full treatment is on what is a literature review.
- Process 1: search for materials and resources
- Process 2: write your literature review
The source divides the whole exercise into exactly those two processes. Everything on this page below the search rules belongs to one or the other, and the division is worth respecting in your own working method — searching and writing fail in different ways and are best not interleaved hour by hour.
What it is not, and how it differs from an annotated bibliography
Literature review — organised by theme
- One paragraph per aspect of the literature
- Classifies and evaluates themes across texts
- Narrows from accepted findings to unresolved issues
- Ends with a statement of the research questions and their significance
- Sources appear more than once, wherever they bear on a theme
Annotated bibliography — organised by text
- One paragraph per text
- Describes and evaluates each text in turn
- Does not synthesise across works
- Ends when the sources run out
- Each source appears exactly once
Searching: six rules and nine database steps
The material names five kinds of place to search: a library catalogue, a discovery service, a research archive, a national database, and a dissertations and theses database. Its framing instruction is that "there are lots of research engines, but they work in different ways", and that adopting effective strategies saves time and produces better quality articles.
THE SIX SEARCH STRATEGY RULES
| # | Rule | The reason the source gives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Type your words in lower case | Most search engines ignore capitals, or may only pick up the capitalised word |
| 2 | Think of similar words or phrases; use a thesaurus | To help access the information |
| 3 | Put the most important word first | No reason stated |
| 4 | Combine words or phrases with quote marks | No reason stated |
| 5 | Use wild cards to truncate words | The source's examples: globali*ation picks up American and English spelling; cook* brings up cook, cooks, cooking, cookery |
| 6 | Use advanced searches and categories of searches | The source's examples: 'no' books, 'no' newspaper articles, 'yes' to research paper |
Rules 3 and 4 are stated as bare instructions. Where the source gives no reason, none is supplied here. Worked through on the literature search strategies page.
The nine database steps, in the source's numbering
Select the concepts, then identify keywords
Keywords describe the concepts. The concepts come first, which links this step back to the conceptual framework rather than to the search box.
Select your database
The most relevant one, chosen using your concepts and keywords.
Perform the search
Using those concepts and keywords.
Evaluate the results
Look at the search results, the citation abstracts and the subject headings. Are they relevant? Mark useful citations.
No results?
Searches work best with keywords only. Check for errors.
Too many results?
Check your use of OR and AND. Use the database refinement options — do you need a particular publication type? Select to search only in the abstracts field.
Too few results?
Add other search terms and combinations. Look for synonyms. Use truncations or wildcards. Try other databases in your subject area.
Save the search results
Use the email, print, save or export options.
Locate the full text
If the citation is not available in full text, use the find-it link. If it is not available that way, check the discovery service or the catalogue.
Judging what you find: eight credibility questions and ten reading questions
Two separate question sets do two separate jobs. The first is a filter applied before you commit reading time. The second is applied while reading, and produces the notes your review is built from.
The eight credibility questions
- Is the article peer reviewed or refereed — have other scholars in the field recommended that it be published? Journals and conference proceedings will usually state whether their articles are peer reviewed
- Is there a reference list or bibliography, with matching in-text references?
- Who is the author? Are they linked to a university, a research institute, or possibly a government department such as a national statistics agency?
- Does the text look academic? An academic website will usually only carry advertisements for academic products such as books or dictionaries, rather than for, say, holiday websites
- Is the text written in formal language?
- Does the text use paragraphs and headings?
- Who is the publisher? Are they academic, such as a university press?
- If you are using a website, is there an author and a copyright date, often at the bottom of the page?
The source attributes that list to a university learning guide. Note that four of the eight are about surface features — formal language, paragraphs and headings, the look of the page, the presence of a copyright date. They are quick and weak. The first, third and seventh carry most of the weight. See assessing the academic value of sources.
THE TEN READING QUESTIONS
| # | Question | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is it a general textbook or article, or does it analyse a specific issue? | Genre and depth |
| 2 | Is the article relevant to your industry? | Transferability to your setting |
| 3 | Is it an empirical report, a dissertation, a theoretical study, a sociological or political account, a historical overview — all or some of these? | What kind of claim it can support |
| 4 | Who is the author; do they have an academic or industry background implying knowledge and subject integrity? | Authority |
| 5 | Does it follow a particular school of thought? | Where it sits in the field's arguments |
| 6 | What is its theoretical basis? Is it well researched? | Foundations |
| 7 | What definitions does it use? | Whether it is talking about what you are talking about |
| 8 | What is its general methodological approach? What methods are used? | How the evidence was produced |
| 9 | What kinds of data does it use to back up its argument? | What the conclusion actually rests on |
| 10 | What conclusions does it come to? | The finding itself |
The source's instruction around this list: read quickly, skim read, and make short notes on relevance and quality as you go. Third column is a reading made on this page.
Question ten sits last for a reason. Six of the preceding nine ask what kind of study this is and how it was built — so by the time you reach the conclusion, you already know how much of it to believe. Worked through on evaluating an article before you cite it.
Why early, and what to look for while you are there
The material reproduces a passage arguing that the review is one of the most important early steps and one of the most humbling. Its diagnosis of the student who can find nothing: they looked only for articles that were exactly the same as their own topic.
Two tips about conducting the review
- Concentrate on the scientific literature — determine the most credible research journals in your area and start with those, putting greatest emphasis on journals that use a blind review system
- Do the review early, because you will learn things that help you make the trade-offs you face; previous researchers faced trade-off decisions too
Four things to look for
- A study quite similar to yours — all credible studies review the literature themselves, so their review gives you a quick start on your own
- The major relevant constructs, so you do not omit an outcome that similar studies routinely include
- Appropriate measurement instruments — you can see what researchers use in contexts similar to yours
- Common problems in your research context, so you can use others' experience to avoid traps and pitfalls
Blind review is the one process the material describes mechanically: authors submit to an editor who solicits several reviewers, the paper goes out with no author identification so there is no personal bias either way, and the editor accepts, rejects or asks for revision on the reviewers' recommendations. Articles in journals with blind review can be expected to have fairly high credibility. See why review the literature early and peer review and blind review.
The five-step development process
THE FIVE-STEP PROCESS AND ITS STATED TASK
| Process | Task, as stated |
|---|---|
| 1) Find a topic and narrow it down | Begin with a research question. |
| 2) Choose a controversial area | Identify a topic that has a great deal of difference of opinion. This will ensure that you have a great deal of published material. |
| 3) Design a research question | Write a good research question that provides scope for discussion. |
| 4) Find resources | Be discriminating in your selection of resources. It is best to use refereed journals. Do not choose articles that are too difficult for you to understand. Only use secondary sources if you are not able to access the primary source. |
| 5) Write a summary and critique of what you read | Write a critical review for each article you read. Combine similar and related ideas. Reflect the authors' emphasis. Identify main ideas. Paraphrase accurately. Exclude personal opinions. Combine similar or related details into categories and provide a label or heading for ideas. Select the main idea or key points provided by authors when they are explicitly stated. Determine the main ideas when the author is not being explicit. |
Step 5 alone contains nine separate instructions. It is the largest single instruction set in the material and is treated on the critical summary page.
The full five steps are worked through on the five-step literature review development process, and step 5's nine instructions on critical summary and paraphrasing.
Writing: eight steps and a three-part structure
The material gives two writing frameworks that operate at different levels. The eight steps are an argument sequence. The three-part structure is a document skeleton. They are compatible but not the same thing.
THE EIGHT-STEP EXAMPLE SEQUENCE
| # | Step | Move being made |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | State the problem or questions the research is to address | Open with the problem |
| 2 | Describe the literature readings and disciplines that have addressed the problem to date | Establish the field |
| 3 | Highlight the gap in the literatures and point out comparisons and dissonances in various readings | Open the gap |
| 4 | Acknowledge prior research and state accepted conclusions | Concede what is settled |
| 5 | Summarise the contribution of the research to the field of enquiry | State the contribution |
| 6 | Restate the problem and the gap that your study will address | Narrow to your gap |
| 7 | Identify the relevance of your chosen methods to address the identified gap | Justify the method |
| 8 | Explain how your study will contribute to the field | Close on contribution |
The source labels this "an example of literature review steps". It is an example, not a mandated sequence, and the framing is preserved here deliberately.
Steps 3 and 6 both address the gap, and steps 5 and 8 both address the contribution. That doubling is the sequence's structure rather than a defect — the first pass opens the territory, the second narrows it to your study. Detail on writing the literature review and identifying the gap in the literature.
THE THREE-PART STRUCTURE AND WHAT EACH PART CONTAINS
| Part | Components the source lists |
|---|---|
| Introduction | The nature of the topic under discussion — the topic of your research · The parameters of the topic: what does it include and exclude? · The basis for your selection of the literature |
| Body | Historical background, including classic texts · Current mainstream versus alternative viewpoints, including differing theoretical assumptions, differing political outlooks and other conflicts · Possible approaches to the subject: empirical, philosophical, historical, postmodernist and so on · Definitions in use · Current research studies · Current discoveries about the topic · Principal questions that are being asked · Overall conclusions that are being drawn · If relevant, methodologies and methods in use |
| Conclusion | A summary of major agreements and disagreements in the literature · A summary of your general conclusions that are being drawn |
The source's framing: "Like all academic writing, a literature review must have an introduction, body, and conclusion." Nine components in the body, three in the introduction, two in the conclusion.
The critical version of this structure is described separately: "a structured presentation that gradually narrows down from the accepted findings to the unresolved issues ending with a statement of the research questions and their significance to the knowledge base". That narrowing is the shape to hold in mind while you order the nine body components — see structuring a literature review.
The annotated bibliography and the two Harvard patterns
The five things an annotated literature review provides
- A review of the literature of a particular topic or question
- A demonstration of the quality and depth of the research and reading you have done
- Examples of the range and scope of sources available — journals, books, websites and magazine articles
- An overview of the topic for the reader
- A basis for identifying more specific questions on which to base your research proposal
THE EIGHT ANNOTATION ELEMENTS
| # | Element | What the key says |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Citation | The full reference, placed first |
| 2 | Introduction | Label only |
| 3 | Aims & Research methods | Label only |
| 4 | Scope | Label only |
| 5 | Usefulness | To your research, or to a particular topic |
| 6 | Limitations | Label only |
| 7 | Conclusions | Label only |
| 8 | Reflection | Explain how this work illuminates your topic or how it will fit in with your research |
Only elements 5 and 8 carry a gloss in the key. The demonstration figure that shows all eight is labelled by the source as entirely fictitious — see the annotation page for what does and does not transfer from it.
THE TWO HARVARD PATTERNS SUPPLIED
| Source type | Element order | Rendered |
|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Author · Year · Article Title in single quotes · Journal Title in italics · Volume · Issue · page(s) | Author, Year, 'Article title', Journal Title, vol. NN, no. N, pp. NNN-NNN. |
| Book | Author · Year · Title in italics · Edition where relevant · Publisher · Place of Publication | Author, Year, Title, Edition, Publisher, Place of Publication. |
These two source types are the complete set the material covers. Both patterns are laid out element by element on the Harvard reference anatomy page.
The record-keeping instruction that goes with them: write down the full bibliographical details of each book or article as soon as you find a reference to it, use the Harvard system, and consider a reference-management program. See harvard reference anatomy, the annotated bibliography and writing an annotation.
Where the supplied material stops
Four documented gaps. They are listed together because a reader working from this page needs to know which questions it cannot answer, and where the answer has to come from instead.
DOCUMENTED GAPS AND WHERE THE ANSWER HAS TO COME FROM
| Gap | What the material provides | Where to get the rest |
|---|---|---|
| Boolean operators | OR and AND are named in database step 6 and defined nowhere | Your library's database guidance, or the help page of the database itself |
| Reference patterns | Journal article and book only — no thesis, conference paper, web page, government report, chapter or standard, though the same week names several of those as literature | Your faculty's preferred citation style, which the material tells you to follow |
| Referencing style specification | "Use the Harvard referencing system" with no manual and no edition named | Your faculty's style guide |
| Articles versus books | "Select academic articles rather than books", stated flatly, against a definition of literature that includes books | Unresolved in the material. Treat as a preference, not a rule |
"Nothing" in this table means nothing in the supplied material. It is not a claim about the wider field.
What to carry forward
- The review is a critical and evaluative summary organised by theme, not by text. That single rule generates most of the others.
- Two processes: search, then write. They fail in different ways and are best kept separate in your working method.
- Six search rules, then nine numbered database steps of which three are diagnostic branches rather than steps.
- Eight credibility questions filter before you read; ten reading questions structure what you extract while reading.
- The eight-step writing sequence is labelled an example by the source. The three-part structure with its fourteen components is stated as a requirement.
- An annotated bibliography is a different deliverable, not a failed review. Both are legitimate and the same week asks for both.
- Four documented gaps: Boolean operators, missing reference patterns, unspecified Harvard variant, and the articles-versus-books instruction. Take those questions elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Which of these lists are requirements and which are examples?
The source labels the eight-step writing sequence "an example of literature review steps", and the five-step development process is presented as a process table rather than a rule. The definition, the four aims, the three-part structure and the eight annotation elements are stated flatly as what a review or an annotation is. Everything else sits between, and the framing is preserved on this page rather than levelled.
What is the difference between the six search rules and the nine database steps?
The six rules are about how you phrase a query in any search engine — lower case, synonyms, most important word first, quote marks, wildcards, advanced filters. The nine steps are a procedure for running and refining a search in a library database, from selecting concepts through to locating full text. Rules apply inside step 3.
Do I need to do both a literature review and an annotated bibliography?
The supplied material asks for both, in the same week, while warning three times against confusing them. They are different deliverables: the review is organised by theme and synthesises across works, the bibliography is organised by text and does not. Check what your own assessment requires.
Why does the source tell me to pick a controversial topic?
Its stated reason is volume of published material — a topic with a great deal of difference of opinion guarantees you have something to review. That is a pragmatic instruction, and it can pull against the earlier advice to pick a topic you are genuinely interested in and that is doable in your timeframe. The material does not reconcile the two.
How do I search with OR and AND?
Not from this material. The operators are named in the sixth database step, in the context of having too many results, and are defined nowhere in the supplied source. No Boolean tutorial is invented in this library. Take the question to your library's database guidance or the database's own help.
How do I reference a thesis or a government report?
The supplied figures cover a journal article and a book only, even though the same week names theses, government reports and newspaper articles as literature. Get the missing patterns from your faculty's preferred citation style, which the material explicitly tells you to follow.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: week 4 teaching notes and slide material on reviewing the literature — the definition, the four aims, the five overview items, the two processes, the six search rules, the nine database steps, the eight credibility questions, the ten reading questions, the five-step development table, the eight-step writing example, the three-part structure, the five things an annotated review provides, the eight-element annotation figure and the two reference-anatomy figures.
- Trochim, W. M. K. 2006, Research Methods Knowledge Base (http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/probform.php) — the passage on conducting the review early, blind review and the four things to look for is reproduced in the supplied source.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge.
- The supplied teaching source: a student's submitted annotated bibliography, used here only as evidence about the form.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Run the eight credibility questions over an article I am considering citing.
- Turn the three-part structure into an outline for my review, with my topic in it.
- My database search returned four hundred results — which of the nine steps applies?
- Which of these lists are requirements in the source and which are labelled examples?
- Help me write the gap statement so it satisfies steps 3 and 6 of the writing sequence.
- Convert the ten reading questions into a note-taking template I can reuse per article.