The Five Components of a Proposal Literature Review
Five components that form a complete argumentative arc - what the conversation is about, what is settled, where it divides, what is missing, and what you will add.
The five components, as the source prints them
The component lists sit in section 2 of the week's study notes, and they are the fullest specification of a research proposal anywhere in the supplied material. The introduction is given eight components, this section five, and the research design section fourteen. Nothing else in the subject is specified at this level of detail, and the material is worth working through on its own terms.
Five printed bullets. The source states no count and does not number them; the numbering used on this page is this library's count of what appears in the list, kept only so the components can be referred to individually.
The section's job in the wider proposal is stated separately and briefly. The notes' list of proposal sections says the literature review “reviews previous research and ends by highlighting what is significant about your research, or the contribution the research will make to a body of literature.” Those two clauses are the section's opening and closing duties, and the five components fill the space between them.
The order is an argument, not a filing sequence
Taken in the printed order the five components make a single case. The first says what the conversation in the field is about. The second says what that conversation has settled. The third says where it divides. The fourth says what it has not resolved. The fifth says what you will add.
- What the conversation is about
- What is settled
- Where it divides
- What is missing
- What you will add
The practical value of reading them that way is that each component pays for the next one. An argument for a gap is only credible if components two and three have been done, because you cannot show that something is missing from a conversation you have not described. And a statement of contribution is only meaningful against a gap that has been argued rather than asserted.
It also tells you what to cut when the section runs long. Material that does not advance one of the five moves is background, and background is the first thing a reviewer stops reading.
What each component has to establish
THE FIVE COMPONENTS, WHAT EACH ESTABLISHES, AND HOW EACH TYPICALLY FAILS
| # | Component (source wording, abbreviated) | What it has to establish | The common failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “an introduction to the central concerns or questions in the literature” | That there is an identifiable conversation in the field, and that you can state what it is about. | Opening on your own topic rather than on the field's question, so the reader never learns which debate the work joins. |
| 2 | “a discussion of what is known or remains uncontested” | The settled ground you are building on and are not going to re-argue. | Treating everything as contested, which leaves the proposal with no foundation and no reason to believe the design will land anywhere. |
| 3 | “a description of the similarities and differences in approaches to the problem” | That the field takes more than one approach, and that you can characterise them against each other. | A source-by-source summary that lists positions in sequence without ever comparing them. |
| 4 | “an argument for a ‘gap’, unresolved question, controversy or issue” | That something specific is missing, and why its absence matters. | Asserting a gap instead of arguing one — a sentence beginning “little research exists” with nothing behind it. |
| 5 | “a statement of what the proposed research aims to offer to the existing field” | The contribution, stated in terms the field would recognise. | Stating what you will do rather than what the field will gain once you have done it. |
The component wording is the source's, abbreviated here; the full wording is quoted above. The two right-hand columns are this library's — the source gives the components and no commentary on any of them.
Components two and three are the pair most often collapsed into one another, and they are not the same question. “What is known or remains uncontested” is about agreement on findings. “Similarities and differences in approaches” is about method and framing. Two studies can agree on a result and reach it by incompatible routes, and a reviewer assessing whether your design is the right one wants both facts. This library's page on what a literature review is not covers the descriptive habit that flattens the difference.
Component four carries the most weight for the least text. It is written as an argument, which means it needs premises — and the premises are components two and three. If you find you cannot argue the gap, the usual cause is that the two components before it were written as summary rather than as evidence. The separate treatment of identifying the gap in the literature deals with finding one; this component is about proving it in front of a reviewer.
The gap is written twice, and the source flags it once
The introduction's component list requires “a concise description of the ‘gap’ within the literature”, and adds, in the source's own parenthesis, that this “will then be repeated at the end of the literature review section of the proposal”. The repetition is deliberate and the source says so out loud.
That is worth noticing, because the introduction also carries a summary overview of previous literature in the field and a concise description of the methods and methodology — both of which the following sections then present in full. Only the gap gets an explicit instruction to repeat. The other overlaps are left for the writer to notice, and the source does not say how much detail belongs in the overview version of any of them.
What the list settles, and what it leaves to you
The week states three learning objectives, and the first — decide on the process for writing your research proposal — is the first objective in the subject that its material delivers in full. This list is a large part of why. It is concrete enough to write from without further instruction. Three things it does not settle are worth knowing before you start.
- Length. No length is given for this section. The week's only allocation guidance is that most of the proposal's length goes to the literature review and methodology sections, and no proportion, ratio or worked split is stated anywhere. See proposal word limits and section balance.
- How many sources. No number, no range and no minimum appears. The five components are satisfied by an argument, not by a count, and nothing in the material suggests otherwise.
- Internal organisation. The components say what the section must establish, not how to arrange material within it. That is covered separately in the subject and in this library's page on structuring a literature review.
How the section earns its place in the proposal
The proposal's four sections, as the notes give them, are introduction, literature review, methods and methodology, and additional information. This section sits second, and its two stated duties — review previous research, end on the contribution — make it the bridge between the problem stated in the introduction and the design that follows it.
The week also states four questions a proposal exists to answer for its reviewers. The second is “How will the research contribute to existing knowledge?” Component five is where that question is answered in full: the introduction previews the answer, and this section is what makes it believable. The source states the four questions and states the five components; the connection between them is this library's reading.
What this section does at proposal stage
- Persuades a reviewer that a gap exists
- Shows you can characterise a field, not merely cite it
- Establishes that your question has not already been answered
- Makes the contribution claim credible before any data exists
What the review in a finished thesis does
- Gives a reader what they need to interpret findings
- Supplies the concepts the analysis will use
- Carries the theoretical frame the discussion returns to
- Stands as a chapter in its own right
Checking the section before it goes to a reviewer
Five components, checked in order
- The opening states the field's central question or concern, not your topic.
- A reader can name the settled ground you are building on after the second component, without having to agree with you about anything else.
- At least two approaches to the problem are compared against each other, not listed one after the other.
- The gap is argued from the material you have just described, and does not rest on the phrase “little research exists”.
- The closing statement says what the field gains, in the field's terms, rather than what you will do.
- The gap named here matches the gap named in the introduction, on the substance and not only in wording.
- You know which specification — this week's five components, or your own institution's guideline — the section was written to.
What to carry forward
- Five components: the central concerns, what is settled, similarities and differences in approach, the gap argument, and the contribution.
- The source states no count, no length and no number of sources. Five is this library's count of the printed bullets.
- In the printed order the components make an argument in which each one pays for the next. That reading is this library's, not the source's.
- The gap is required twice — concisely in the introduction and again here — and it is the only repetition between proposal sections that the source makes explicit.
- Most of the proposal's length belongs to this section and the design section. The source never says how much, so the split is yours to set and to defend.
Frequently asked questions
How long should the literature review section of a proposal be?
The supplied material does not say. Its only statement on balance is that the majority of the proposal goes to the literature review and methodology sections, with no proportion attached, and the only length figure in the week is a page range quoted from one named institution's requirement. Get the limit from your own guideline and divide it yourself.
How many sources does the section need?
No number, range or minimum appears anywhere in the supplied material. The five components are satisfied by an argument rather than by a count: enough sources to characterise the central concerns, show the settled ground, compare at least two approaches and argue a gap. If you cannot do those four things, more citations will not help.
Is the gap really meant to appear twice?
Yes. The introduction's component list requires a concise description of the gap and states in its own parenthesis that this will be repeated at the end of the literature review section. It is the only place in the material where you are explicitly instructed to repeat content between proposal sections.
What is the difference between components two and three?
Component two is about agreement on findings — what the field takes as known or uncontested. Component three is about approach — how different researchers have gone at the problem, and where those approaches converge and diverge. Studies can agree on a result and disagree completely on method, and a reviewer assessing your design wants both.
Does the printed order have to be the writing order?
The source does not say; it prints a flat list and draws no sequence. This library reads the order as an argument because each component depends on the ones before it, which also makes it a sensible drafting order. Nothing in the material prevents you drafting in another order and arranging afterwards.
How does this differ from the literature review chapter in a finished thesis?
The proposal's version has to persuade a reviewer that a gap exists and that you are equipped to fill it. The thesis chapter has to give a reader everything needed to interpret your findings and carry the concepts the discussion returns to. Five components are sufficient for the first job and are not a specification for the second; the source does not draw this distinction, so it is this library's.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: week 13 study notes titled “Writing up your research proposal” and the accompanying slide deck, from a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year are not stated in the supplied files, and the notes exist as two textually identical documents with no indication of which is current.
- The week's set reading is given in the supplied material only as a four-page range in a textbook that is never given an author, title or year anywhere in the fourteen weeks of material.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford — among the works cited in the supplied source's weekly reference lists.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London — among the works cited in the supplied source's weekly reference lists.
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge — among the works cited in the supplied source's weekly reference lists.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Show me the five literature review components alongside the eight components the same material gives for the proposal's introduction.
- What does the supplied material actually say about how long the literature review section of a proposal should be?
- Help me test whether my gap paragraph is an argument or an assertion.
- Which parts of a proposal's introduction does this material require me to repeat later?
- What is the difference between the literature review in a proposal and the literature review chapter in a thesis?