social science research review of literature

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

5. The Literature Review
Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Independent and Dependent Variables
Glossary of Research Terms
Reading Research Effectively
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Applying Critical Thinking
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Research Process Video Series
Executive Summary
The C.A.R.S. Model
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tiertiary Sources
Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Qualitative Methods
Quantitative Methods
Insiderness
Using Non-Textual Elements
Limitations of the Study
Common Grammar Mistakes
Writing Concisely
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Generative AI and Writing
USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good 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 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.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

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 among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the 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.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded 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 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.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews." Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

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]?
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?
Validity -- 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 Basic Stages of Writing 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 specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1. Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to 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 in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 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 ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, 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 the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent 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 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”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into 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 would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note 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 being 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. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
History : The chronological progression of the field, the research 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 : 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 [i.e., scholarly] sources.
Standards : Description of 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. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate 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, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing 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 then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. 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 relevant 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.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

How are they organizing their ideas?
What methods have they used to study the problem?
What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research? Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

<< Previous: Theoretical Framework
Next: Citation Tracking >>
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 1:14 PM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 5: The Literature Review

5.1 The Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of everything that has been written about a particular topic, theory, or research question. The word “literature” means “sources of information”. The literature will inform you about the research that has already been conducted on your chosen subject. This is important because we do not want to repeat research that has already been done unless there is a good reason for doing so (i.e., examining a new development in this area or testing a theory with a new population, or even just seeing if the research can be reproduced). A literature review usually serves as a background for a larger work (e.g., as part of a research proposal), or it may stand on its own. Much more than a simple list of sources, an effective literature review analyzes and synthesizes information about key themes or issues.

Purpose of a Literature Review

The literature review involves an extensive study of research publications, books and other documents related to the defined problem. The study is important because it advises you, as a researcher, whether or not the problem you identified has already been solved by other researchers. It also confirms the status of the problem, techniques that have been used by other researchers to investigate the problem, and other related details.

A literature review goes beyond the search for information; it includes the identification and articulation of relationships between existing literature and your field of research. The literature review enables the researcher to discover what material exists about a topic and to understand the relationship between the various contributions. This will enable the researcher to determine the contributions of each source (books, articles, etc.) to the topic. A literature review also enables the researcher to identify and (if possible) resolve contradictions, and determine research gaps and/or unanswered questions.

Even though the nature of the literature review may vary with different types of studies, the basic purposes remain constant and could be summarized as follows:

Provide a context for your research.
Justify the research you are proposing.
Ensure that your proposed research has not been carried out by another person (and if you find it has, then your literature review should specify why replication is necessary).
Show where your proposed research fits into the existing body of knowledge.
Enable the researcher to learn from previous theories on the subject.
Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously.
Highlight flaws in previous research.
Outline gaps in previous research.
Show how your proposed research can add to the understanding and knowledge of the field.
Help refine, refocus, or even move the topic in a new direction.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

EMU Library
Research Guides

Social Research Methods

Literature Reviews
Welcome. Start Here.
Social Problem Topics
Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Reference Works for Sociology
Search for News Articles
Find Articles by tracking citations
Locating Full Text
Citing Sources in Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

Literature reviews in the social sciences take a slightly different approach than in the humanities (literature, philosophy, history, etc.) or the sciences (biology, physics, etc.). This guide focuses ONLY on the social sciences (anthropology, criminology, political science, sociology, etc.).

'literature' - commonly people use this word for creative written works like novels; but in academics the word 'literature' is also used to mean any collection or body of written work, including research articles and books.

'review' - commonly people use the word review for evaluations, like a movie review; but in academics the word is used broadly to mean a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes literature to give an overview of theory and research on a topic.

Putting it together:

In the social sciences, a literature review is a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes. To summarize is to describe the main arguments and conclusions. To synthesize is to compare, contrast, highlight relevant points, relate to ongoing trends or problems, and generally to draw out an argument or position based on the literature being reviewed.

A literature review is not a book review! Book reviews are articles that review a single book title. A literature sums up and analyzes a set of books or articles on a theme.

Literature reviews can be a section of a longer paper or book, or they can stand alone. Social scientists generally include a short review of relevant literature in their research papers to demonstrate how their own research fits into ongoing debates. Longer stand-alone review papers are published to give a picture of the current state of research. The Annual Reviews publication series are classic examples of stand-alone reviews.

Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Critical reviews of primary research literature in the sciences and social sciences. EMU access does not include the most recent 5 years.
example of lit review articles

Guides on writing literature reviews:

Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
The Literature Review - USC Libraries
Literature Reviews: An Overview - NCSU libraries

Finding related articles

Whether for a literature review or a research paper, the analysis is much easier if it is based on a cluster of related articles and not a random assortment. Finding articles that are related rarely happens just by doing a single search, but it is not hard. Here are some approaches:

Start with a textbook, reference book, dissertation or review article and collect the citations of the authors who are mentioned or cited as part of the debate. Make sure to collect works from all points of view.
Use citation tracking to see how scholars mention each others' work, whether as examples, evidence or in order to debate. See below for more on citation tracking.
<< Previous: Social Problem Topics
Next: Selecting sources >>
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024 5:03 PM
URL: https://guides.emich.edu/c.php?g=188066

Literature Reviews

Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

Types of reviews
1. Define your research question
2. Plan your search
3. Search the literature
4. Organize your results
5. Synthesize your findings
6. Write the review
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Guide Owner

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

social science research review of literature

tl;dr A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

What has been written about your topic?

What is the evidence for your topic?

What methods, key concepts, and theories relate to your topic?

Are there current gaps in knowledge or new questions to be asked?

Bring your reader up to date

Further your reader's understanding of the topic

Provide evidence of...

- your knowledge on the topic's theory

- your understanding of the research process

- your ability to critically evaluate and analyze information

- that you're up to date on the literature

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

Next: Types of reviews >>
Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 3:37 PM
URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

Faculty & Instructors
Graduate Students
Undergraduate Students
International Students
Patrons with Disabilities

Harmful Language Statement
Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
Support the Libraries

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

University Libraries

Research methods for social sciences.

Research Philosophy
Literature Review
Research Design
Data Collection
Data Analysis and Reporting
Beyond the Traditional Methods
Research Ethics

Dissertations

A comprehensive literature review often includes reviewing theses and dissertations on a topic. The UNT Libraries has two sources of electronic theses and dissertations: UNT Electronic Thesis & Dissertations (just those created by students at UNT) or ProQuest Dissertations and Theses , which includes those from other institutions. You may also request a dissertation through Interlibrary Loan if it is only available in print from the institution where the work was completed. Visit the Digital Dissertation and Theses Research Guide for search examples.

Types of Literature Review

The goal of a literature review is to explore and gather scholarly work to identify gaps in previously conducted research and justification for conducting new research. In general, there are two common ways to conduct and present literature review:

An exploratory way to discover the conceptual development of a topic or technique. The trends, patterns, or gaps identified from the review may be presented in a thematic, theoretical, or chronological way.
An analytical way to analyze interventions or outcomes from prior work to synthesize evidence (for example, a systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis). This type of literature review is often published as a complete study.

The UNT Libraries provides several library guides on literature reviews, either in general or within a discipline:

Literature Review Process A guide about how to plan and conduct a literature review. See the page, "Select a Review Type," for resources about four review types: traditional/narrative, scoping, systematic, and meta-analyses.
PSCI 3300: Introduction to Political Research by Brea Henson Last Updated Jul 1, 2024 1006 views this year
HLSV 6200: Research Methods and Design by Brea Henson Last Updated Aug 14, 2024 71 views this year
<< Previous: Research Philosophy
Next: Research Design >>
Last Updated: May 21, 2024 1:27 PM
URL: https://guides.library.unt.edu/rmss

Additional Links

UNT: Apply now UNT: Schedule a tour UNT: Get more info about the University of North Texas

Writing in the Health and Social Sciences

Journal Publishing
Style and Writing Guides
Readings about Writing
Resources for Dissertation Authors
Citation Management and Formatting Tools
What are Literature Reviews?

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Further reading: exploring different types of literature reviews.

Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
Finding Systematic Reviews
Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

"What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic. While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would
May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference?

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews.

Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
<< Previous: Literature Reviews and Synthesis Tools
Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 4:59 PM
URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/healthwriting

University Libraries

Writing a Literature Review in Social Sciences

Checklist for getting started, what to expect, 1) understand the purpose of your literature review, 2) building or polishing your research toolbox.

2. Select / Refine a Topic
2.1 Find Review Articles
3. Search Literature
3.1 Find Scholarly Journals
3.2 Find Theses or Dissertations
3.3 Track Citations
4. Evaluate Literature
5. Take Notes & Manage References
6. Keep Current
7. Prepare First Draft & Revise
7.1 Grammar & Writing
FSU Resources

1) Understand the purpose of your literature review 2) Building or polishing your research toolbox

Writing a literature review is about making connections with the related works and with your own research. See the big picture.
It is quite often impossible to search (and read) "everything" that has been written and published on a topic. Be selective.
At some point, you have to STOP searching and reading, and start to write a draft. Know when to stop.
It could be an overwhelming task. Setting up your research toolbox before you jump into the task will help you manage the process better. Get prepared.

Depending on the purpose of your literature review, you will need different ways to get prepared. The following tips will help you visualize what your final product will look like.

Length, due dates, # of sources to use, which style the paper should be formatted, etc.
If you have a specific journal in mind to publish your research article, read the literature review section of 2-3 articles published in the journal. Read the "Instructions for Authors," a set of requirements to submit a paper to the journal, to see if there is any requirement on the literature review section of the paper.
Make yourself familiar with the common format of review articles in the field
E.g., International Journal of Management Reviews Psychology of Men and Masculities's Literature Review Guideline
E.g., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Systematic Review is a type of review to identify, appraise, and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question.
For resources and strategies to conduct a systematic review project, see the Libraries' Systematic Reviews Guide .
E.g., " How to Find Theses & Dissertations "

Toolbox for Searching:

Know key databases and journals in the field
A video tutorial on Boolean Operators for Database Searching (from VCU) (3:02)
Check out "Help" page of a database (if available) to learn the techniques
Download Search Log Template (or create your own)
Sample Search Log (Topic: Adolescent Depression & Attachment ) to learn how to use the Template
Know citation chaining methods (or how to search cited references)
Know Interlibrary Loan procedures
Check out Research Guides in your field
Schedule an appointment with Liaison Librarian

Toolbox for Writing:

Make yourself familiar with the required publishing style (e.g., APA, MLA, etc.)
Learn how to use citation management tools
Understand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it
Check out Research Guide to Citations
<< Previous: Home
Next: 2. Select / Refine a Topic >>
Last Updated: Aug 11, 2023 11:32 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.fsu.edu/lit_rev

Research Guides
Vanderbilt University Libraries
Central Library

Comprehensive Literature Search: Social Sciences

What is a literature review, tertiary sources: annual reviews, subject bibliographies & more, selecting sources to search, citation tracing (backward and forward), beyond vanderbilt, librarian for sociology, environmental sociology, mhs and public policy studies.

Before you begin searching for sources for your literature review, it is helpful to know what a literature review is so that you include all the necessary sources. A literature review is a systematic examination of the scholarly literature about one's topic. It critically analyzes, evaluates, and synthesizes research findings, theories, and practices by scholars and researchers that are related to an area of focus. In reviewing the literature, the write should present a comprehensive, critical and accurate understanding tof the current state of knowledge, compare different research studies and theories, reveal gaps in current literature, and indicate what is already known about the topic of choice (p. 2 Efron, Sara Efrat, and Ruth Ravid. Writing the Literature Review : A Practical Guide, Guilford Publications, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/vand/detail.action?docID=5522670 .

There might already an existing bibliography or literature review to give you a head start.The following sources can be good places to check .

Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Critical reviews written by leading scientists in the biomedical, life, physical, and social sciences including economics. Annual Reviews are highly cited in ISI's Journal Citation Reports. more... less... Coverage: 1930 to present.
Oxford Bibliographies This link opens in a new window Literary guide to significant sources on a variety of subjects. Works as an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia.

A good literature review should be as comprehensive as necessary to identify all of the major works and debates on your research subject.

Subject-specific Databases - search in databases specific to your discipline of study to find more sources in your field. For example, Sociological Abstracts specializes in Sociology and will have more coverage of the sociology literature than an interdisciplinary, all-purpose database such as ProQuest. You should also search in more than one place (i.e. multiple databases and the library search) since no one search tool covers everything. For example, if your topic involves education, consider also searching an education database, such as Education Fulltext.

Here are ideas about finding places to search.

Databases A-Z - Once you've identified disciplines or information types, consult the Databases A-Z list by subject. A Research Guide for a specific subject may also have some suggestions.

Library Search Tool - The Library Search Tool also searches a variety of databases for books and journal articles at once. However, it does not search everything, so be sure to also look at disciplinary databases.

Google Scholar - also search for your topic in Google Scholar. If you have a relevant source, consider searching the title in Google Scholar and using the “Cited By” link and the “Related Articles” to locate more literature. See also Bibliography Mining and Cited Reference Searching

WorldCat - If your discipline publishes its scholarship in books, the WorldCat database is a place to look.

Citation Tracing Backward (Bibliography Mining) - use the list of works cited from a relevant source to learn more about a topic from the works cited or to see if important works are missing. This is a way to look for relevant sources published prior to the one in hand. A database may have a direct link to all the works cited, such as the example below; otherwise, you may need to look at each work cited manually. The database Web of Science has links to references, as do ProQuest databases.

Citation Tracing Forward (Cited Reference Searching) -This finds newer sources that cite a particular article, book chapter, etc. It also uncovers newer research on a topic.

Citation database from journals and international conference proceedings. Cross-search of the Web of Science Core Collection, BIOSIS Previews, and the SciELO Citation Index (Latin America, Spain, Portugal, the Caribbean and South Africa).

Google Scholar allows one to trace a citation forward but not backwards.

Add VU to your Google profile: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_settings

Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) This link opens in a new window Social sciences journals, and science and technical journals related to the social sciences. Complete bibliographic data, author abstracts, and references cited. more... less... Coverage: 1900-present.
Web of Science: Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) This link opens in a new window Indexes of arts and humanities journals, and selected items from scientific and social sciences journals. Complete bibliographic data and author abstracts for articles in the arts and humanities. Each citation includes a list of references cited in the source article. more... less... Coverage: 1975-present.
Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded This link opens in a new window Major journals across science disciplines. Complete bibliographic data and author abstracts. Each citation includes a list of references cited in the source article.

Beyond Vanderbilt - if you find a citation for a source Vanderbilt doesn't own, use Document Delivery/Interlibrary Loan (ILL) to get it. Articles and chapters can usually be scanned and sent electronically, but books must be mailed and typically arrive in 1-2 weeks, so plan ahead. TIP: If you see FindIt@VU, follow the links and sign in to have the form automatically filled out for you.

Last Updated: Aug 15, 2024 1:19 PM
URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/literaturesearch

University Libraries
Research Guides
Subject Guides

Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences

What is a systematic review in the social sciences?

Guides to conducting systematic reviews

Registering a systematic review, useful books.

Searching Article Databases
Covidence, Zotero, etc.

Social Sciences Librarian

Types of reviews

The form of a review generally depends on its purpose and area of interest and might focus on effectiveness of interventions, key conceptual debates, or something else. Reviews generally fall along a continuum from aggragative to interpretive.

Traditional/narrative review - flexible methods and means of analysis, aims to identify gaps in knowledge
Systematic review - very structured, aims to be comprehensive and rigorous, promotes knowledge; focus on outcomes/evidence
Rapid review - may use some of a systematic review's procedures, but more streamlined and quicker
Scoping review - quickly draws main parameters of a topic & maps key publications, doesn't usually aim to appraise quality of publications ( See Covidence's guide to conducting scoping reviews )
Systematic maps- more extensive than scoping reviews, maps out./categorizes literature on a specific topic
Meta-analysis - analyzes review findings using standard statistical analysis
Meta-synthesis - non-statistical; evaluates and analyzes findings from qualitative studies and aims to build on previous conceptualizations and interpretations

For more information see Shaw & Holland (2014). Reviewing research. In Doing Qualitative Research in Social Work . Sage.

Temple University Health Sciences Library also offers a good overview of review types related to a HEALTH SCIENCES PERSPECTIVE -- remember, this is not aimed at social scientists, but could still be a useful guide.

Below is a summary of a good overview published by Viktor, L. (2008). Systematic Reviewing.Social Research Update, 54. University of Surrey . For more information, also see the "Useful Books" box at the bottom of this page.

What is a systematic review?

"Systematic reviews are a method of identifying and synthesising all the available research evidence of sufficient quality concerning a specific subject. The aim is to review and synthesise evidence in a transparent and rigorous way to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings."

Systematic reviews came to prominence in clinical medicine focused on interventions and outcomes and prioritized studies that were randomized controlled trials. They are usually conducted in a staged process and are focused on answering a particular question or set of questions.

How is it different from a traditional literature review?

In a systematic review, the focus on the comprehensiveness of the search, the quality of the evidence, and the fact that it is conducted very systematically using transparent and rigorous processes contributes to the reliability and validity of its findings as compared to a traditional literature review. Systematic reviews, focused on answering a specific question, are "less a discussion of the literature, and more a scientific tool...to summarize, appraise, and communicate the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of research." (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 10).

In the social sciences, systematic reviews generally come out of the social policy area. Traditionally, they followed the methodology and approach taken in clinical medicine, using a highly prescribed staged methodology, statistical meta-analysis, etc. This approach has been adapted and extended in the social sciences allowing for more flexibility, less focus on comprehensiveness, the inclusion of a wider range of research and other methods of analysis (e.g. narrative), and using the method as a means to build theory.

These organizations are focused on systematic reviews and provide resources to support conducting them.

PRISMA PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provides guidance on the reporting and conducting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors conducting systematic reviews can use PRISMA requirements for best practices, registration of reviews, protocols, checklists, and work flowcharts. See the PRISMA STATEMENT, EXTENSIONS and PROTOCOLS tabs for guidance.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Cochrane Systematic Reviews are conducted to draw conclusions about the quality of healthcare interventions and Cochrane has created a manual that describes the process of preparing and maintaining their systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Campbell Collaboration A sister organization to Cochrane (see description above) focused on sytematic reviews of social interventions. See their TRAINING INFORMATION for excellent videos.
EPPI-Centre Organization focused on systematic reviews and research synthesis in many areas of social policy. See their TOOLS page for helpful resources.
What Works Clearinghouse Established by the US Dept of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to review the quality of education research and compile systematic reviews to guide practice. See their Handbooks and Other Resources tab for useful guidance.

The above resources include detailed guidelines and procedures for conducting systematic reviews. Some first steps to consider include:

1) Reviews should start with a meaningful and useful question, do you have a defined question? Is a systematic review the best way to approach this question?

2) Have you searched for other systematic reviews that have already been done on this question/topic?

3) Develop your detailed protocol.

4) Develop an effective search strategy.

Often a systematic review is registered before it is undertaken. This article details why and where one might do this (e.g. in addtion to registries at Cochrane and Campbell, which are restricted to systematic reviews conducted within their organizations, other registries are more open, such as PROSPERO, Research Registry, INPLASY, OSF Registries, and protocols.io ). See this article for more info:

Pieper, D. & Rombey, T. (2022). Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1

Software to Manage Systematic Reviews: Covidence

UNM has a subscription to COVIDENCE software. Visit the Library's research guide on using Covidence software for conducting systematic reviews -- learn why and how to use it.

Covidence: Systematic Review Tool guide by Todd Quinn Last Updated Jan 23, 2024 1914 views this year

Examples of social sciences systematic reviews

One good source for examples of systematic reviews in the social sciences is the Campbell Collaboration's journal, Campbell Systematic Review s .
Try searching in a disciplinary database using a search limiter for "systematic reviews." For example, in PsycInfo the METHODOLOGY field has a defined limiter for systematic reviews. If there is no defined limiter, add the phrase "systematic reviews" to your search.

Learn about Research Methods

Learn about research methods including systematic reviews....

UNM Library Research Guide on Qualitative Research Methods & Tools Visit our guide to learn more about qualitative research methods and tools at UNM and beyond.
Next: Searching Article Databases >>
Last Updated: Nov 8, 2023 7:26 PM
URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/socscisr

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PLoS Comput Biol
v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

be thorough,
use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

the major achievements in the reviewed field,
the main areas of debate, and
the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

WashU Libraries

Conducting research.

The Process
Step 1: Exploring an idea
Step 2: Finding background info.
Step 3: Finding Print/E-Books
Step 4: Finding Articles (Current Research)
Step 5: Evaluating your sources
Step 6: Citing your sources
FAQs This link opens in a new window
Library Vocabulary
Research in the Humanities
Research in the Social Sciences
Research in the Sciences

Researching in the Social Sciences

Social scientists interpret and analyze human behavior, generally using empirical methods of research. Though original data gathering and analysis are central to social sciences research, researchers also use library and Web sources to--

obtain raw data for model building or analysis
locate information about a particular model, theory, or methodology to be used in a research project
review the literature to place new research in context

Subjects of study in the social sciences are often interdisciplinary, so your searching will likely need to be, as well. A review of the literature for a social sciences research project not only should identify what research has been done but also compare and contrast the available information and evaluate its significance.

Each of the social sciences has a well-developed set of research tools to help you find relevant material. Some of the WashU Libraries Research Guides listed below may give you ideas for beginning your research. You should also consult your subject librarian for help getting started or refining your search.

Find a Subject Librarian This is a list of the Subject Librarians by academic subject.

Recommended Research Guides

A Guide to African and African-American Studies by Rudolph Clay Last Updated Aug 22, 2024 747 views this year
A Guide to Anthropology Resources by Ted Chaffin Last Updated Aug 15, 2024 239 views this year
A Guide to Education Resources by Cheryl Holland Last Updated Jul 18, 2024 286 views this year
A Guide to Linguistics Resources by Lino Mioni Last Updated Jun 10, 2024 324 views this year
A Guide to Political Science Resources by Cheryl Holland Last Updated Jul 26, 2024 378 views this year
A Guide to Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology (PNP) Resources by Sam Lindgren Last Updated Jun 10, 2024 656 views this year
A Guide to Psychology Resources by Ted Chaffin Last Updated Aug 22, 2024 819 views this year
A Guide to Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies by AJ Robinson Last Updated Aug 14, 2024 348 views this year
Urban Studies by Rudolph Clay Last Updated Aug 22, 2024 326 views this year

Types of Sources

Types of sources

Primary sources are original material, created at the time of the event or by the subject you are studying. They may include statistics, survey and poll data, field notes, transcripts, photographs, and many other examples. This kind of material is the closest you can get to your actual subject, raw and unfiltered by later scholars and critics.

Secondary sources are works that analyze primary sources or other secondary sources. These include journal articles, monographs about a subject or person, and critical reviews. All of these can also act as primary sources, depending upon your subject of research.

Tertiary sources index or otherwise collect primary and secondary sources. Examples are encyclopedias, bibliographies, dictionaries, and online indicies. These sources tend to be most useful as jumping off points for your research, leading you to the more in-depth secondary and primary material that you will need to conduct a thorough study.

Conducting the Literature Review

The literature review is an important part of researching in the social sciences. Research and the literature review in particular are cyclical processes.

Where do I Start?
Where Should I Look?
How Do I Know I am Done?
How Do I Organize My Literature Review?

Where do I start? The Research Question Begin with what you know: What are the parameters of your research area? Do you have any particular interests in a relevant topic? Has something you've read or talked about in a class caught your attention? Brainstorm some keywords you know are related to your topic, and start searching. Do a search in a few of the Search Resources boxes on the Libraries' Website and see what comes up. Scan titles. Do a Google Scholar search. Read an encyclopedia article. Get as much background information as you can, taking note of the most important people, places, ideas, events. As you read, take notes-- these will be the building blocks of your future searches. It's probable your question will change over the course of your reading and research. No worries! If you're unsure about your topic, check with your faculty mentor.

Some tips Throw out a wide net and read, read, read. Consider the number and kinds of sources you'll need. Which citation style should you use? What time period should it cover? Is currency important? What do you need to be aware of related to scholarly versus popular materials?

Read widely but selectively.
Follow the citation trail -- building on previous research by reviewing bibliographies of articles and books that are close to your interest.
Synthesize previous research on the topic.
Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
Look for patterns and find ways of tying the pieces together.

Where should I look?

Databases, journals, books
Review articles
Organizations

How do I know I am done? One key factor in knowing you are done is that you keep running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered you can assume you've exhausted your current search and should modify search terms, or perhaps you have reached a point of exhaustion with the available research.

How do I organize my literature review?

Identify the organizational structure you want to use: chronologically, thematically, or methodologically.
Start writing: let the literature tell the story, find the best examples, summarize instead of quote, synthesize by rephrasing (but cite!) in context of your work.

Additional information available @ The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It (University of Toronto)

<< Previous: Research in the Humanities
Next: Research in the Sciences >>
Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 7:12 AM
URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/research

Reserve a study room
Library Account
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty & Staff

SLWK 380 - Foundations of Social Work Research I

Improve Your Searches
Research Methods
Tests and Measures
Literature Reviews
Course Tutorials

Not finding what you need?

Most databases and resources used in research do not function like the search engines we're used to in our daily life. Use the following tips to create your searches, but if you're not finding what you need, don't hesitate to ask your librarian, Kelsey Cheshire .

Best Bets for Peer-Reviewed Social Work Articles

Interdisciplinary Databases for Peer-reviewed Literature

<< Previous: Home
Next: Improve Your Searches >>
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 8:24 AM
URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/slwk380

DOI: 10.32025/jbm23001
Corpus ID: 266244415

THE QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRATED REPORTING: A STRUCTURED LITERATURE REVIEW

Marcel Mock
Published in Journal of Business… 2023
Business, Environmental Science, Economics
Journal of Business Management

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Review Article
Published: 27 August 2024

A systematic review of the impact of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology on gender equality and social justice

Nitya Rao ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6318-0147 1 ,
Lee Hooper ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7904-3331 2 ,
Heather Gray ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0002-1933-6332 1 ,
Natasha Grist 3 ,
Johanna Forster 1 ,
Julie Bremner ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7231-504X 4 , 5 ,
Ghezal Sabir 6 ,
Matthew Heaton ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8087-483X 3 ,
Nisha Marwaha ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9822-4085 1 ,
Sudarshan Thakur ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-5416-4282 7 ,
Abraham Wanyama ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-9185-459X 1 &
Liangzi Zhang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6231-5783 8

Nature Food ( 2024 ) Cite this article

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Agriculture
Development studies
Social policy

Post-harvest practices and technologies are key to reducing global aquatic harvest loss. The lives of post-harvest fisheries workers, over half of them women, are deeply affected by these technologies, but their equity and equality outcomes are poorly understood. This systematic review synthesizes evidence of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology outcomes, showing that persistent inequalities in social structure and norms disadvantage women across a range of technologies, both traditional and improved, especially regarding control over resources. We found that improved technologies bring enhanced productivity and possibly income for workers, yet contracts are often precarious due to pre-existing social inequities. While power and control of resources is more unequal in factory settings, it is not necessarily equal in traditional contexts either, despite offering greater flexibility. More rigorous comparative research, including voices of diverse actors, is key to understanding the impacts of different technologies on gender equality and social justice and inform policymaking.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Harnessing the diversity of small-scale actors is key to the future of aquatic food systems

Anticipating trade-offs and promoting synergies between small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes

Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The DOIs of the studies included in the systematic review are presented in Supplementary Table 1 .

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Duke University & WorldFish Illuminating Hidden Harvests (FAO, 2023); https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4576en

WorldFish Annual Report 2021 (WorldFish, 2022); https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/5284

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) (FAO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en

Agarwal, M., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, S., Singh, R. & KM, J. Food Loss and Waste in India: The Knowns and the Unknowns (World Resources Institute, 2021); https://www.wri.org/research/food-loss-and-waste-india-knowns-and-unknowns

Stathers, T. et al. A scoping review of interventions for crop postharvest loss reduction in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 821–835 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Gopal, N., Hapke, H. M., Kusakabe, K., Rajaratnam, S. & Williams, M. J. Expanding the horizons for women in fisheries and aquaculture. Gend. Technol. Dev. 24 , 1–9 (2020).

Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative towards 2030. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security (Committee on World Food Security, 2020); https://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf

Bennet, E. Gender, fisheries and development. Mar. Policy 29 , 451–459 (2005).

Gustavsson, M. Women’s changing productive practices, gender relations and identities in fishing through a critical feminisation perspective. J. Rural Stud. 78 , 36–46 (2020).

Bryceson, D. F. & McCall, M. K. Lightening the load on rural women: how appropriate is the technology directed towards Africa? Gend. Technol. Dev. 1 , 23–45 (1997).

Basu, P. & Scholten, B. A. Technological and social dimensions of the Green Revolution: connecting pasts and futures. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 10 , 109–116 (2012).

Gopal, N., Edwin, L. & Meenakumari, B. Transformation in gender roles with changes in traditional fisheries in Kerala, India. Asian Fish. Sci. 27 , 67–78 (2014).

Google Scholar

Rola‐Rubzen, M. F., Paris, T., Hawkins, J. & Sapkota, B. Improving gender participation in agricultural technology adoption in Asia: from rhetoric to practical action. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 42 , 113–125 (2020).

Bennett, N. J. Mainstreaming equity and justice in the ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 873572 (2022).

Hicks, C. C. et al. Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nat. Food 3 , 851–861 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Issifu, I., Dahmouni, I., Deffor, E. W. & Sumaila, U. R. Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Blue Economy: why they matter and how do we achieve them? Front. Polit. Sci. 4 , 106748 (2023).

The State of Food and Agriculture 2013 (FAO, 2013); https://www.fao.org/4/i3300e/i3300e00.htm

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf

Kabeer, N. Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development Goals: Handbook for Policy Makers (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003).

Gopal, N., Williams, M. J., Porter, M. & Kusakabe, K. Gender in aquaculture and fisheries. The long journey to equality. Asian Fish. Sci. 29S , 1–246 (2016).

Training Module—How to Integrate Gender Issues in Climate-Smart Agriculture Projects (FAO, 2017); https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=45d93533-c024-%2f

Komlatsky, V. I., Podoinitsyna, T. A., Verkhoturov, V. V. & Kozub, Y. A. Automation technologies for fish processing and production of fish products. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1399 , 044050 (2019).

Turan, H. & Erkoyuncu, İ. in Progress in Food Preservation (eds Bhat, R. et al.) 297–313 (Wiley, 2012).

Tokur, B. & Korkmaz, K. in Innovative Technologies in Seafood Processing (ed. Ozogul, Y.) 303–322 (CRC Press, 2019).

Kamarulzaman, A., Hasanuzzaman, M. & Rahim, N. A. Global advancement of solar drying technologies and its future prospects: a review. Sol. Energy 221 , 559–582 (2021).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Harwood, S. & Eaves, S. Conceptualising technology, its development and future: the six genres of technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160 , 120174 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11 , 147–162 (1982).

Mamat, H. & Bhandari, B. R. Special issue on innovative food products and processing. Appl. Sci. 13 , 8542 (2023).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Kabeer, N. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought (Verso, 1994).

Kruijssen, F., McDougall, C. L. & van Asseldonk, I. J. M. Gender and aquaculture value chains: a review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493 , 328–337 (2018).

Njuki, J. et al. A Review of Evidence on Gender Equality, Women’s Empowerment, and Food Systems (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2021); https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/id/134469

Moser, C. Gender planning in the third world: meeting practical and strategic gender needs. World Dev. 17 , 1799–1825 (1989).

Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Polity, 1986).

Rao, N. et al. A qualitative comparative analysis of women’s agency and adaptive capacity in climate change hotspots in Asia and Africa. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 964–971 (2019).

McDougall, C. et al. Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries and Aquaculture Index (WEFI): Guidance Notes (WorldFish, 2022); https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/5107

What Does It Mean to Leave No One Behind? A UNDP Discussion Paper and Framework for Implementation (United Nations Development Programme, 2018); https://www.undp.org/publications/what-does-it-mean-leave-no-one-behind

Doneys, P. et al. Gender, technology and development: reflections on the past, and provocations for the future. Gend. Technol. Dev. 26 , 285–294 (2022).

Nagoli, J., Binauli, L. & Chijere, A. Inclusive ecosystems? Women’s participation in the aquatic ecosystem of Lake Malawi. Environments 6 , 3 (2019).

Ngaruiya, F. W., Ogendi, G. M. & Mokua, M. A. Occupational health risks and hazards among the fisherfolk in Kampi Samaki, Lake Baringo, Kenya. Environ. Health Insights https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302198814 (2019).

Environmental Management and Economic Development Organization (EMEDO). Women’s Role, Struggles and Strategies across the Fisheries Value Chain the Case of Lake Victoria-Tanzania (Socio Economics and Extension Services Division, National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research, 2017); www.icsf.net

Zelasney, J., Ford, A., Westlund, L., Ward, A. & Peñarubia, O. R. Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries—Showcasing Applied Practices in Value Chains, Post-harvest Operations and Trade. Case Study 3: The FAO-Thiaroye Processing Technique: Facilitating Social Organization, Empowering Women and Creating Market Access Opportunities in West Africa (FAO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8402en

Picked Apart the Hidden Struggles of Migrant Worker Women in the Maryland Crab Industry (American University Washington College of Law International Human Rights Law Clinic and Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, 2010).

Rafnsdottir, G. L. & Gudmundsdottir, M. L. New technology and its impact on well-being. Work 22 , 31–39 (2004).

PubMed Google Scholar

Aasmoe, L. et al. Skin symptoms in the seafood-processing industry in north Norway. Contact Dermatitis 52 , 102–107 (2005).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Aasmoe, L., Bang, B., Egeness, C. & Løchen, M. L. Musculoskeletal symptoms among seafood production workers in North Norway. Occup. Med. 58 , 64–70 (2008).

Jeebhay, M. F. et al. Occupational allergy and asthma among salt water fish processing workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51 , 899–910 (2008).

Tomita, S. et al. Introduction prevalence and risk factors of low back pain among Thai and Myanmar migrant seafood processing factory workers in Samut Sakorn Province, Thailand. Ind. Health 48 , 283–291 (2010).

Shobhana Warrier, M. V. Women at work: migrant women in fish processing industry. Econ. Polit. Wkly 36 , 3554–3562 (2001).

Howse, D. et al. Gender and snow crab occupational asthma in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Environ. Res. 101 , 163–174 (2006).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Howse, D., Jeebhay, M. F. & Neis, B. The changing political economy of occupational health and safety in fisheries: lessons from Eastern Canada and South Africa. J. Agrar. Change 12 , 344–363 (2012).

Yingst, A. & Skaptadóttir, U. D. Gendered labor in the Icelandic fish processing industry. Marit. Stud. 17 , 125–132 (2018).

Barclay, K. M., Satapornvanit, A. N., Syddall, V. M. & Williams, M. J. Tuna is women’s business too: applying a gender lens to four cases in the Western and Central Pacific. Fish Fish. 23 , 584–600 (2022).

Choudhury, A., McDougall, C., Rajaratnam, S. & Mi Young Park, C. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture: Two Case Studies from Bangladesh (FAO, 2017).

Ike-Obasi, J. & Ogubunka, S. O. The roles of women in fish processing activities in some local government areas of Rivers State, Nigeria. Agric. Ext. J. 3 , 73–77 (2019).

Sangaramoorthy, T. Liminal living: everyday injury, disability, and instability among migrant Mexican women in Maryland’s seafood industry. Med. Anthropol. Q. 33 , 557–578 (2019).

Gender Analysis of Post-harvest Fisheries in Cambodia (United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2021).

Kaminski, A. M. et al. Fish losses for whom? A gendered assessment of post-harvest losses in the Barotse Floodplain fishery, Zambia. Sustainability 12 , 10091 (2020).

Santos, A. N. Fisheries as a way of life: gendered livelihoods, identities and perspectives of artisanal fisheries in eastern Brazil. Mar. Policy 62 , 279–288 (2015).

Ramirez, P. J. B., Narvaez, T. A. & Santos-Ramirez, E. J. Gender-inclusive value chains: the case of seaweed farming in Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines. Gend. Technol. Dev. 24 , 110–130 (2020).

Torell, E., Manyungwa-Pasani, C., Bilecki, D., Gumulira, I. & Yiwombe, G. Assessing and advancing gender equity in Lake Malawi’s small-scale fisheries sector. Sustainability 13 , 13001 (2021).

Nwabeze, G. O. et al. Gender and Fisheries of Lake Kainji, Nigeria: A Review (Fisheries Society of Nigeria, 2012); http://hdl.handle.net/1834/38238

Omeje, J. E., Anthonia Ifeyinwa, A., Samuel Preye, J. & Queen Mercy, M. Economics of smoked farmed catfish in Kainji Lake Basin, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 26 , 1–14 (2022).

Larson, S., Stoeckl, N., Rimmer, M. A. & Paul, N. A. Understanding feedback relationships between resources, functionings and well-being: a case study of seaweed farming and artisanal processing in Indonesia. Ambio 51 , 914–925 (2022).

Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar

Salim, S. S. & Geetha, R. Empowerment of fisherwomen in Kerala-an assessment. Ind. J. Fish. 60 , 73–80 (2013).

Davies, R. M. & Davis, O. A. Traditional and improved fish processing technologies in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 26 , 539–548 (2009).

Cole, S. M. et al. Postharvest fish losses and unequal gender relations: drivers of the social-ecological trap in the Barotse Floodplain fishery, Zambia. Ecol. Soc. 23 , 1–18 (2018).

Hasniati, Yunus, R. & Hamsinah The empowerment of coastal women through capacity improvement of seaweed farmer groups. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res. 43 , 97–100 (2017).

Chiwaula, L. S., Chirwa, G. C., Binauli, L. S., Banda, J. & Nagoli, J. Gender differences in willingness to pay for capital-intensive agricultural technologies: the case of fish solar tent dryers in Malawi. Agric. Food Econ. 6 , 1 (2018).

Forkuor, D., Peprah, V. & Alhassan, A. M. Assessment of the processing and sale of marine fish and its effects on the livelihood of women in Mfantseman Municipality, Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 20 , 1329–1346 (2018).

Solano, N., Lopez-Ercilla, I., Fernandez-Rivera Melo, F. J. & Torre, J. Unveiling women’s roles and inclusion in Mexican small-scale fisheries (SSF). Front. Mar. Sci. 7 , 617965 (2021).

Galappaththi, M., Collins, A. M., Armitage, D. & Nayak, P. K. Linking social wellbeing and intersectionality to understand gender relations in dried fish value chains. Marit. Stud. 20 , 355–370 (2021).

Frink, L. The identity division of labor in Native Alaska. Am. Anthropol. 111 , 21–29 (2009).

Abeledo, L. M. Labour segmentation in the Spanish fish-canning industry: a historical perspective, 1880–1960. Contin. Change 21 , 475–501 (2006).

Hamid, M. A. & Alauddin, M. Coming out of their homesteads? Employment for rural women in shrimp aquaculture in coastal Bangladesh. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 25 , 314–337 (1998).

Griffith, D. C. Nonmarket labor processes in an advanced capitalist economy. Am. Anthropol. 89 , 838–852 (1987).

Friberg, J. H. & Midtbøen, A. H. Ethnicity as skill: immigrant employment hierarchies in Norwegian low-wage labour markets. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 44 , 1463–1478 (2018).

Akinpelu, O. M., Ayeloja, A. A., George, F. O. A., Adebisi, G. L. & Jimoh, W. A. Gender analysis of processing activities among commercial catfish processors within Ibadan metropolis, Oyo state south-western Nigeria. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 4 , 1–5 (2013).

Delaney, A. Transition in nori cultivation: evolution of household contribution and gendered division of labor. Cah. Biol. Mar. 52 , 527–533 (2011).

Mazumi, Y. Migration outside large cities: a comparison of the hiring of migrants for the food processing industry in the United States and Japan. Comp. Migr. Stud. 9 , 46 (2021).

Johnson, N. L., Kovarik, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Njuki, J. & Quisumbing, A. Gender, assets, and agricultural development: lessons from eight projects. World Dev. 83 , 296–311 (2016).

Thorpe, A. et al. ‘Fishing na everybody business’: women’s work and gender relations in Sierra Leone’s fisheries. Fem. Econ. 20 , 53–77 (2014).

Williams, M. J. & Syddall, V. Women, fisheries technology and development: toward new research approaches. Gend. Technol. Dev. 26 , 357–384 (2022).

Neis, B., Gerrard, S. & Power, N. G. Women and children first: the gendered and generational socioecology of smaller-scale fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and Northern Norway. Ecol. Soc. 18 , 64 (2013).

Szaboova, L., Gustavsson, M. & Turner, R. Recognizing women’s wellbeing and contribution to social resilience in fisheries. Soc. Nat. Resour. 35 , 59–74 (2022).

Lynch, M. & Turner, S. Rocking the boat: intersectional resistance to marine conservation policies in Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia. Gend. Place Cult. 29 , 1376–1398 (2022).

Lokuge, G. & Hilhorst, D. Outside the net: intersectionality and inequality in the fisheries of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. Asian J. Women Stud. 23 , 473–497 (2017).

Warner, L. R. A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles 59 , 454–463 (2008).

Tavenner, K., Crane, T. A., Bullock, R. & Galiè, A. Intersectionality in gender and agriculture: toward an applied research design. Gend. Technol. Dev. 26 , 385–403 (2022).

Mikulewicz, M., Caretta, M. A., Sultana, F. & Crawford, N. J. W. Intersectionality & climate justice: a call for synergy in climate change scholarship. Environ. Polit. 32 , 1275–1286 (2023).

Knott, C. The rhythm of making cheaps: a case study of rhythmanalysis and qualitative labour shortages in Canadian fisheries. Appl. Mob. 6 , 202–219 (2021).

Snider, A., Adraki, P. K., Lolig, V. & McNamara, P. E. Assessing gendered impacts of post-harvest technologies in Northern Ghana: gender equity and food security. Gend. Technol. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2023.2273153 (2023).

Wajcman, J. Feminist theories of technology. Camb. J. Econ. 34 , 143–152 (2010).

Higgins, J. P. T. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Wiley, 2022).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 18 , e1003583 (2021).

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5 , 210 (2016).

Wells, G. B. et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2000).

Yosef, S., Jones, A. D., Chakraborty, B. & Gillespie, S. Agriculture and nutrition in Bangladesh: mapping evidence to pathways. Food Nutr. Bull. 36 , 387–404 (2015).

Thomas, J. & Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8 , 45 (2008).

Noblit, G. W. & Hare, R. D. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies (Sage Publications, 1988).

De Brauw, A. et al. Food System Innovations for Healthier Diets in Low and Middle-Income Countries (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Review received partial funding from the Economic and Social Research Council grant ES/R010404/1 to the project Coastal Transformations and Fisher Wellbeing. We thank our country-level partners S. Velvizhi, M. M. Haque, F. H. Shikha, J. Walakira, A. Atter and K. Addo in India, Bangladesh, Uganda and Ghana for the ground-level insights they have shared with us over the past year and for inputs from E. Allison and S. Haraksingh-Thilsted from WorldFish, which together have motivated this Review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Nitya Rao, Heather Gray, Johanna Forster, Nisha Marwaha & Abraham Wanyama

Nutrition and Hydration, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Norwich Institute for Sustainable Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Natasha Grist & Matthew Heaton

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, UK

Julie Bremner

Collaborative Centre for Sustainable Use of the Seas, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Food System Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland

Ghezal Sabir

Professional Assistance for Development Action, Bhopal, India

Sudarshan Thakur

Food & Nutrition National Bioscience Research Infrastructure, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK

Liangzi Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This systematic review emerged from discussions between N.R., L.H., J.F., J.B. and N.G. N.R., N.G. and J.F. led the conceptualization and L.H. led the development of the research protocol and study design. Search, screening and extraction was carried out by H.G., G.S., N.M., S.T., M.H., A.W., N.G., J.B. and L.Z., under the guidance of L.H. N.R., L.H., G.S., S.T., N.M., A.W., M.H. and N.G. were responsible for writing sections of the paper based on the preliminary analysis. N.R., N.G., J.F. and J.B. reviewed and edited the paper. M.H., N.M., N.G. and L.H. created the maps, diagrams, figures and tables. H.G. supported referencing. All authors reviewed the final version of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nitya Rao .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Food thanks Jessica Decker Sparks, Nikita Gopal and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Table 1 (characteristics of included studies), Supplementary Table 2 (risk-of-bias assessment) and Supplementary Table 3 (study locations) and discussion of methodology and search strategies.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rao, N., Hooper, L., Gray, H. et al. A systematic review of the impact of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology on gender equality and social justice. Nat Food (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01034-6

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2023

Accepted : 09 July 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01034-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

IMAGES

(PDF) Writing a Literature Review in the Social Sciences
(PDF) BOOK REVIEW
Three tips for your social science dissertation literature review
(PDF) Systematic Literature Reviews in Social Sciences and Humanities
Literature Review Importance Research
Literature Review

COMMENTS

5. The 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 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 ...
Home
Many scholarly journals, dissertations, and theses also publish long and extremely detailed literature reviews. The Annual Reviews series of publications offer articles that analyze the most significant scholarly research published within the preceding year. Written by leading scholars and academics, the articles cover over 40 different subject disciplines in the social and hard sciences.
5.1 The Literature Review
The literature review involves an extensive study of research publications, books and other documents related to the defined problem. The study is important because it advises you, as a researcher, whether or not the problem you identified has already been solved by other researchers. It also confirms the status of the problem, techniques that ...
Research Guides: Social Research Methods: Literature Reviews
Stand-alone Review Articles or Literature Reviews are common in the social sciences. The authors of these articles are experts, usually scholars. The review articles will address a current topic, lay out the main theories or ideas, recent developments in research, and suggest where further research is needed.
PDF Writing a Literature Review
The literature review is an essential part of any social science research endeavor. There is likely some type of written literature review in every social science article you have ever read. A broad definition of the literature review is a narrative argument that contains information, ideas, data,
Getting started
What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...
Research Guides: Literature Reviews in the Social Sciences: Structure
Introduction: layout the general structure of your lit review & how it will be organized. Body: The body needs to be well-organized (see box below) Conclusion: Sum up the 'state of the literature'. Expose what is lacking and how your research can contribute. How will you move the conversation forward?
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Maria Watson is a PhD candidate in the Urban and Regional Science program at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include disaster recovery, public policy, and economic development. Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews.
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Systematic Literature Searching in Social Work: A Practical Guide With
While literature reviews can be selective in what research is included, a systematic review seeks to minimize bias by appraising and summarizing all available evidence in a rigorous and transparent way, in accordance with a predetermined set of inclusion/exclusion criteria (Fisher et al., 2006; McKenzie et al., 2019; Saini & Shlonsky, 2012; Soilemezi & Linceviciute, 2018).
Literature Review
In general, there are two common ways to conduct and present literature review: An exploratory way to discover the conceptual development of a topic or technique. The trends, patterns, or gaps identified from the review may be presented in a thematic, theoretical, or chronological way. An analytical way to analyze interventions or outcomes from ...
Home
Process of Literature Review . This guide was created to help FSU graduate students in Social Sciences with writing a literature review. Whether you are writing a literature review for your term paper, research article, or thesis/dissertation, you will find some helpful tips for completing the task.
Writing in the Health and Social Sciences
Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic. While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.. Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and ...
Writing a Literature Review in Social Sciences
If you have a specific journal in mind to publish your research article, read the literature review section of 2-3 articles published in the journal. Read the "Instructions for Authors," a set of requirements to submit a paper to the journal, to see if there is any requirement on the literature review section of the paper.
Home
A literature review is a systematic examination of the scholarly literature about one's topic. It critically analyzes, evaluates, and synthesizes research findings, theories, and practices by scholars and researchers that are related to an area of focus. In reviewing the literature, the write should present a comprehensive, critical and ...
Home
Written by two highly-respected social scientists, provides an overview of systematic literature review methods: Outlining the rationale and methods of systematic reviews; Giving worked examples from social science and other fields; Applying the practice to all social science disciplines; It requires no previous knowledge, but takes the reader through the process stage by stage.
Approaching the Social Impact of Research Through a Literature Review
This study conducts a systematic literature review of articles published in English until 2020 in the Web of Science database on the social impact of research. To the authors' knowledge, there are theoretical developments on the subject, but there is no systematic literature review on the social impact of research in all fields of study.
Writing Literature Reviews in Social Science
In this video, we discuss some strategies for writing a literature review in the social sciences. What role does a literature review play? What kinds of ac...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
Research in the Social Sciences
A review of the literature for a social sciences research project not only should identify what research has been done but also compare and contrast the available information and evaluate its significance. Each of the social sciences has a well-developed set of research tools to help you find relevant material.
Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences
The use of the systematic review as a research methodology in the social sciences is increasing, creating a need for social science librarians to become more familiar with the process (Riegelman & Kocher, 2018).Librarians, as information experts, can play an important role and contribute to the success of the overall project (Bullers et al., 2018; Dalton, 2019; Riegelman & Kocher, 2018).
The current phase of social sciences research: A thematic overview of
Social science research is a mechanism for socio-economic development as the process generates evidenced-based information that guild policy formulation and implementation, among others. ... A meta-analysis, as a form of the literature review, is laborious.. Although Gene Glass introduced the term meta-analysis in 1976, ...
Research Guides: Research at NJAES : Literature Reviews
Designed to help social science faculty, staff, and students navigate common types of evidence synthesis, this guide walks you through the process step by step, among others. ... Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics Research (AFRE): Literature Review. Part of a guide that provides research resources in the world of agriculture and natural ...
(PDF) Exploring Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research
Description: Qualitative research is a systematic approach used to understand and interpret phenomena in their natural settings. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and ...
SLWK 380
Indexes international literature of sociology and related disciplines in the social and behavioral sciences. Includes Social Services Abstracts, providing bibliographic coverage of current research in social work, human services, and other areas. Family Studies Abstracts. Covers marriage, divorce, family therapy, and other aspects of family ...
The Quality Assessment of Integrated Reporting: a Structured Literature
On the other hand, the paper outlines future research paths to clarify which quality-enhancing elements in Integrated Reporting are essential. Design / Methodology / Approach: The research is based on a qualitative research design. It develops a structured literature review and sheds light on the empirical state of the art.
What is the interest in research on challenging schools? A literature
Review of Educational Research 80(1): 71-107. Crossref. ... Cobo MJ, Herrera M, et al. (2015) Analyzing the scientific evolution of social work using science mapping. Research on Social Work Practice 25(2): 257 ... Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences literature. Journal of Informetrics 1(2): 161 ...
A systematic review of the impact of post-harvest aquatic food ...
This systematic review synthesizes evidence of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology outcomes, showing that persistent inequalities in social structure and norms disadvantage women ...
Transformative mixed methods research in South Africa: Contributions to
This chapter is relevant to three related gaps. First, despite the wealth of insights emerging from the mixed methods literature, mixed methods studies continue to be underrepresented in the social science literature and, when they are used, they are framed simplistically without much attention to the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Second, many social science research ...
Promise into practice: Application of computer vision in empirical
Social scientists increasingly use video data, but large-scale analysis of its content is often constrained by scarce manual coding resources. Upscaling may be possible with the application of automated coding procedures, which are being developed in the field of computer vision. Here, we introduce computer vision to social scientists, review the state-of-the-art in relevant subfields, and ...

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of a Good Literature Review

Structure and Writing Style

Writing Tip

Another Writing Tip

Yet Another Writing Tip

5.1 The Literature Review

Purpose of a Literature Review

Share This Book

Social Research Methods

What is a Literature Review?

More kinds of review articles

Finding related articles

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review?

Guide Owner

Ask a Librarian

What is a literature review NOT?

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

Services for...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

University Libraries

Dissertations

Types of Literature Review

Additional Links

Writing in the Health and Social Sciences

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Choosing a Review Type

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Integrative Review

Systematic Review

Meta-Analysis

Scoping Review

Rapid Review

Umbrella Review

Integrative Reviews

Scoping Reviews

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference?

Rapid Reviews

Writing a Literature Review in Social Sciences

Comprehensive Literature Search: Social Sciences

Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences

Guides to conducting systematic reviews

Social Sciences Librarian

Types of reviews

Software to Manage Systematic Reviews: Covidence

Examples of social sciences systematic reviews

Learn about Research Methods

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies