WRITING A LITERATURE
REVIEW
What is a literature review?
A critical assessment of the current state of
knowledge on a topic;
Or
A critical assessment of the current state of
knowledge on a topic – with a view to
researching one of the ‘gaps’ in that body of
knowledge.
As a critical assessment, an effective review
analyses and synthesises the published work on a
topic
What do these key words mean?
•
•
•
•
Critical
Assessment
Analyse
Synthesise
Critical thinking embodies a questioning attitude
towards published work on a topic (eg a set of
research articles, policy documents, published
standards, case studies) which incorporates:
Analysing: “select, differentiate, dissect, break
up, … unpacking” (Hart, 1998, p.111). It includes
consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of
each article, and a comparison of the articles
with each other.
Assessing: evaluate, make a judgement. What
is the value of the article?
Synthesising: “integrate, combine, recast,
formulate, reorganize … a new or different
arrangement” (Hart, 1998, p.111). In other
words the articles are presented in a new way
which offers new insights into the topic.
Therefore, an effective review should:
• Summarise and evaluate findings
• Compare and contrast different authors’ views
to
o Group authors who draw similar conclusions, and
o Note areas where authors are in
disagreement
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Note gaps in knowledge
A review preparatory to a research project should
also:
• Highlight the gap(s) in knowledge the
researcher will address
• Define and limit the problem the researcher is
working on
• Ensure the researcher avoids duplication (unless
that is the purpose)
• Evaluate potential research methodologies and
procedures
Defining the Topic
• be clear about the focus of the review
• be clear about boundaries: the issues to be
included, and the issues to be excluded (and
why)
• may be useful to engage in some preliminary
reading to help in defining the topic
Reading critically
• Organise the sequence of readings to gain an
overview (broad texts/chapters) before
plunging into in-depth reading (research
articles) on particular points
• Reading research articles in chronological
order can help you see how later studies build
on/critique earlier ones (Garrard, 2011).
• Ask yourself what you expect to learn from
each book/chapter/paper: do you need this
reading?
Be an active reader: take notes, interact with the text as
much as possible.
Try to recreate an empirical study in your mind – how did
the authors go about this study? How does it work?
Handy tools:
• Highlighter/Post-it notes (real or electronic) to note key
points, record your comments, ideas as they arise
• Critiquing tool to guide your questioning
• Calculator to check calculations where you can
(Garrard, 2011)
Critiquing tools
• A critiquing tool is a toolbox of probing questions
designed to assess the quality of a research paper
• Widely used in health research to support evidence
based practice, but the principle can be extended
across the disciplines
• Many instruments have been extensively validated
and tested for reliability
• Different tools exist for different types of studies
(for example, RCTs, case studies, qualitative
research, etc)
• You can tailor your own list of critical questions
Rudestam and Newton’s (2001) critiquing tool
looks at:
1. Conceptualisation
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
3. Research design
4. Results and discussion
5. Summary considerations
Extended version in the SLC’s An introduction to
literature reviews
Structuring your review
Question: Which arrangement of the material is preferable?
or
Article-by-article
Article 1 – theme A, theme B
Article 2 – theme C
Article 3 – theme A, theme D
Article 4 – theme A, theme B
Thematic arrangement
theme A – article 1, article 3, article 4
theme B – article 1, article 4
theme C – article 2
theme D – article 3
Article-by-article
“some authors take an author-centric approach
and essentially present a summary of the
relevant articles. This method fails to synthesize
the literature.”
Thematic arrangement
“A literature review is concept-centric. Thus,
concepts determine the organizing framework of
a review.”
(Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xvi)
Identifying the key concepts or themes
requires a systematic approach to the
readings, looking at them collectively as a
‘body’ of work in order to identify the key
themes which cut across the readings.
Developing a thematic analysis of your readings
Webster and Watson (2002) and Garrard
(2011) suggest creating a grid or matrix,
recording all the important information from
your readings.
The critical response to each reading should
be added in as well.
Article-centric matrix
Key features
Articles
Research
question
1
2
3
4
5
Theoretical
perspective
Methodology
& Procedure
Findings
Critical
evaluation
Garrard (2011) suggests that the selection of
column topics is central to developing an
effective and thorough review.
The first three column topics should be
1. Authors, title, journal
2. Year of publication
3. Purpose of the article
Further column topics should be considered
carefully under two broad categories:
• methodological characteristics
• content-specific characteristics
You might be aware of some of these from the
start of your reading; you might become aware of
others as you read and abstract the information.
Examples in Garrard (2011)
Why go to these lengths?
Recording the readings in this systematic fashion
should allow a thematically based structure for the
review to emerge.
Determining the structural arrangement you will
employ is the essential step you must make in creating
an effective and thorough critical review of the
literature.
“Your only guide to determining thoroughness is your
own sense of knowing the literature well enough to
own it” (Garrard, 2011, p.113, emphasis added).
• Key themes/concepts form sections and
subsections (headings)
o Bonus feature: also breaks down the writing task
into smaller chunks
• Logical sequencing of sections
o Embodies the author’s synthesis of the topic – a
significant factor in the quality of the review
o Usually need to explain structure in the
introduction
• Be wary of chronological organisation
Example review article structure
Buchman, C., DiPriete, T.A., & MacDaniel, A. (2008).
Gender inequalities in education. Annual Reviews of
Sociology, 34, 319-337.
Abstract
Introduction
From kindergarten through high school
Explaining gender gaps from
kindergarten to high school
From high school to college
Explaining gender gaps in higher education
Directions for future research
References
319
320
320
323
324
326
331
332
Abstract
319
description
Introduction
320
From kindergarten through high school
320
Explaining gender gaps from
kindergarten to high school
323
From high school to college
324
Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326
Directions for future research
331
References
332
Abstract
Introduction
From kindergarten through high school
Explaining gender gaps from
kindergarten to high school
From high school to college
Explaining gender gaps in higher education
Directions for future research
References
319
320
320
323
324
326
331
332
discussion &
synthesis
Abstract
Introduction
From kindergarten through high school
Explaining gender gaps from
kindergarten to high school
From high school to college
Explaining gender gaps in higher education
Directions for future research
References
Gaps in the
literature
319
320
320
323
324
326
331
332
Explaining gender gaps in higher education
Individual-level factors
Family resources
Academic performance
Incentives and returns to college
Institutional factors
Gender-role attitudes
Labor markets
Educational institutions
Military service
326
326
327
328
328
329
329
329
329
330
Explaining gender gaps in higher education 326
Individual-level factors
326
synthesis – organising
literature
Family resources
327 around
theoretical perspectives
Academic performance
328
Incentives and returns to college
328
Institutional factors
329
Gender-role attitudes
329
Labor markets
329
Educational institutions
329
Military service
330
Explaining gender gaps in higher education
Individual-level factors
Family resources
Academic performance
Incentives and returns to college
Institutional factors
Gender-role attitudes
Labor markets
Educational institutions
Military service
326
326
327
328
328
329
329
Individual studies
grouped
329 thematically
and critically
evaluated
329
330
Writing the review
Analysis
For each section
• summarise the relevant readings (long shots and
close-ups)
• discuss strengths and weaknesses of the material,
as uncovered by critical reading
• compare the relevant ideas, theories, views, and
findings expressed in the literature (comparative
analysis)
• articulate and discuss similarities in and differences
between the readings
Critical analysis example
Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher
instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social
studies, and English in middle school raises the
achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys,
producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard
deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these
effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they
demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a
matter of fit and that students learn more on average from
teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the
students in Dee’s sample were not randomly assigned to
teachers, male students with low performance may have
been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving
their performance (Sokal et al. 2007).
(Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)
Critical analysis example
Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher
instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social
studies, and English in middle school raises the
achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys,
producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard
deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these
effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they
demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a
matter of fit and that students learn more on average from
teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the
students in Dee’s sample were not randomly assigned to
teachers, male students with low performance may have
been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving
their performance (Sokal et al. 2007).
(Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)
Critical analysis example
Dee (2005, 2006) finds that having a female teacher
instead of a male teacher in the subjects of science, social
studies, and English in middle school raises the
achievement of girls and lowers the achievement of boys,
producing an overall gender gap of 8% of a standard
deviation (Dee 2006, p. 70). It is unclear whether these
effects arise from gender bias in teaching or whether they
demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction is partly a
matter of fit and that students learn more on average from
teachers of the same gender. Moreover, because the
students in Dee’s sample were not randomly assigned to
teachers, male students with low performance may have
been assigned to male teachers as a strategy for improving
their performance (Sokal et al. 2007).
(Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)
Comparative analysis example
Stevenson & Baker (1987) found that parents are more
involved in school activities with sons and more involved
in home activities with daughters; as children grow older,
parental involvement with boys declines, but their
involvement with girls remains constant. On the one
hand, Muller (1998) finds that parental involvement in
children’s schooling is not gender specific and further
speculates that parental involvement may serve to
counteract gender stereotypes about math and science
as male domains. On the other hand, Entwisle et al.
(2007) maintain that the large growth in the gender
reading score gap between first and fifth grade among
low-income students is due in part to parents’ lower
reading expectations of boys.
(Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)
Comparative analysis example
Stevenson & Baker (1987) found that parents are more
involved in school activities with sons and more involved
in home activities with daughters; as children grow older,
parental involvement with boys declines, but their
involvement with girls remains constant. On the one
hand, Muller (1998) finds that parental involvement in
children’s schooling is not gender specific and further
speculates that parental involvement may serve to
counteract gender stereotypes about math and science
as male domains. On the other hand, Entwisle et al.
(2007) maintain that the large growth in the gender
reading score gap between first and fifth grade among
low-income students is due in part to parents’ lower
reading expectations of boys.
(Buchman et al., 2008, p. 324)
Comparative analysis
There is a range of possible outcomes, with questions that
follow:
1. Widespread agreement: Is this agreement reasonable?
Has anything gone unconsidered?
2. Broad agreement with a dissenting voice: Is this
unconventional view worthy of my attention? If so, how
does it change my thinking?
3. Widespread disagreement: How have such differences
arisen? How might I make sense of the chaos?
A common mistake in literature reviews:
The assembly of lots of research and analysis
without any obvious explanation of how it all links
together
In other words, a lack of synthesis of the literature
How is the synthesis achieved in the paper by
Buchman et al. that we have examined?
Synthesis can often be achieved in a ‘discussion’
section at the end of the review.
This discussion will allow you to develop an
explanation of how your various themes connect
together and connect to the central topic of the
review.
Secondly, you will be able to develop your own
position or argument. You will be able to explain
what the literature (as a whole) means, in your
view.
“A review succeeds when it helps other scholars
to make sense of the accumulated knowledge on
a topic” (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xviii).
At the end of your review your reader should
know:
• what is clear and well understood,
• what is unclear and requires further research,
and
• what the implications for practice are.
A literature review checklist
Selection of the material
• Is the purpose of the review clear?
• Are the parameters of the review reasonable?
Why are some papers included but others
omitted?
• Are recent developments emphasised?
• Is the focus on the primary literature, with
only selective use of secondary sources?
• Is the selected literature relevant?
Critical evaluation
• Is the review organised thematically?
• Is the review organised logically?
• Is there greater emphasis on the more
important issues, and less emphasis on
peripheral matters?
• Are research methods and designs critiqued?
• In situations where results conflict or are
inconclusive, is there a discussion of the
possible reasons why?
Interpretation of a topic or research problem
• Does the review contribute to the reader’s
understanding of the topic or research
problem?
• Are the research methodology and design
congruent with the conclusions drawn from
the literature review?
(Language & Learning Skills Unit, University of
Melbourne., n.d.)
References
Buchman, C., DiPriete, T.A., & MacDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual
Reviews of Sociology, 34, 319-337. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc. 34.040507.134719
Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (3rd ed.).
Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination.
London, UK: Sage.
Language & Learning Skills Unit, University of Melbourne. (n.d.). Reviewing the literature.
Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
http://www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/pdf/flyers/postgrad/pg006.pdf
Rudestam, K., & Newton, R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to
content and process (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
University of Melbourne Library. (2012). What is a literature review? Retrieved February 20,
2012, from http://www.unimelb.libguides.com/lit_reviews
Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Retrieved from
http://www.misq.org/