Literature Review
- What is a literature review?
- What is its purpose?
- 1. Selecting your topic
- 2. Setting the topic in context
- 3. Looking at information sources
- 4. Using information sources
- 5. Getting the information
- 6. Organizing information (information management)
- 7. Positioning the literature review
- 8. Writing the literature review
About this guide
This research guide was developed for students at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania.
If you are a student from another school, you are welcome to peruse the guide, using the links above, but please know that our librarians can only provide general help to non-BU students. Contact the librarians at your own institution for help in using the resources available to you.
-Andruss Library
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research. The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research. It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research. The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived. It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.
A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field. This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research.
"In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )
Recommended Reading
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Kate Houston and Libbie Blanchard of CQ University Libraries, (Queensland, Australia) whose LibGuide on the Literature Review served as a framework for this guide.
Designed and updated by Michael Coffta
- Next: What is its purpose? >>
- Last Updated: Feb 24, 2023 1:50 PM
- URL: https://guides.library.bloomu.edu/litreview
Andruss Library | 570-389-4205 | [email protected] ©Copyright Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania • 400 East Second Street, Bloomsburg PA 17815-1301 • 570.389.4000
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 .
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.
Table of contents
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, 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.
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
Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.
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.
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
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, January 02). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 17, 2023, 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, what is your plagiarism score.
How to Write a Literature Review
What is a literature review.
- What Is the Literature
- Writing the Review
A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.
This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .
The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts.
Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.
Types of Literature Reviews
There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:
- Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
- Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
- Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.
A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly.
Examples of Literature Reviews
See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences.
Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:
- Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
- Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
- Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
- Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
- Results - What was found in the course of the study
- Discussion - What do the results mean
- Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area
Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.
The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.
This article has a standard breakdown of sections:
- Introduction
- Literature Review
- Some discussion sections
First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.
This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.
- Next: What Is the Literature >>
- Last Updated: Mar 2, 2023 9:33 AM
- URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview
Literature Review Research
Literature review, what is not a literature review, purpose of the literature review, types of literature review.
- Systematic Review
- Literature vs Systematic Review
- Systematic vs Meta-Analysis
- Planning your Literature Review
- Finding information
- Helpful Tips
- Research Tips
- Other Resources
- Citing your Sources
Chat with us!
Education Librarian
- What is a Literature Review?
- Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
- Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
- Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper
- Help gather ideas or information
- Keep up to date in current trends and findings
- Help develop new questions
A literature review is important because it:
- Explains the background of research on a topic.
- Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
- Helps focus your own research questions or problems
- Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
- Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
- Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
- Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
- Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
- Indicates potential directions for future research.
Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:
Not an essay
Not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize each article you reviewed. A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to critically analyze the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.
Not a research paper where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another. A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.
A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it
- provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
- helps focus one’s own research topic.
- identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
- suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, and quantitative and qualitative strategies.
- identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
- helps the researcher avoid the repetition of earlier research.
- suggests unexplored populations.
- determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
- tests assumptions may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.
Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:
Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.
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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.
Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"
Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.
* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.
All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC
- Next: Systematic Review >>
- Last Updated: Dec 22, 2022 1:47 PM
- URL: https://guides.lib.odu.edu/literaturereview
- 384.6k views
- Literature Search
Q: How do I do a review of related literature (RRL)?
How do I do the synthesis? Also, where can I get samples of RRLs?
Asked on 04 Jan, 2020
A review of related literature (RRL) is a detailed review of existing literature related to the topic of a thesis or dissertation. In an RRL, you talk about knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your topic. If you find gaps or conflicts in existing literature, you can also discuss these in your review, and if applicable, how you plan to address these gaps or resolve these conflicts through your study.
To undertake an RRL, therefore, you first need to identify relevant literature. You can do this through various sources, online and offline. Ensure you are saving all applicable resources because you will need to mention them in your paper. When going through the resources, make notes and identify key concepts of each resource to describe in the review.
Before starting the review, determine how you want to organize the review, that is, whether you wish to discuss the resources by themes, dates, extent of relevance, and so on.
When writing the review, begin by providing the background and purpose of the review. Then, begin discussing each of the identified resources according to the way you decided to organize them. For each, you can mention the title, author, publication, and date before describing the key concept and points. You may decide to list sections and sub-sections as in this sample or keep it more free-flowing as in this sample . [Note: In case any of these links don’t open, you may need to register yourself on the respective site(s).]
Finally, in the synthesis, you explain how the various concepts of each resource link with each other. You may decide to do this through a table or matrix, as illustrated here .
Related reading :
- How to write the literature review of your research paper
- Tips for effective literature searching and keeping up with new publications
- Make your Google searches more precise: A few tips for researchers
Answered by Editage Insights on 21 Jan, 2020
- Upvote this Answer
This content belongs to the Conducting Research Stage
Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.
Trending Searches
- Statement of the problem
- Background of study
- Scope of the study
- Types of qualitative research
- Rationale of the study
- Concept paper
- Literature review
- Introduction in research
- Under "Editor Evaluation"
- Ethics in research
Recent Searches
- Review paper
- Responding to reviewer comments
- Predatory publishers
- Scope and delimitations
- Open access
- Plagiarism in research
- Journal selection tips
- Editor assigned
- Types of articles
- "Reject and Resubmit" status
- Decision in process
- Conflict of interest
- Schools & departments
Literature review
A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.
Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff , including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.
What is a literature review?
A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context. A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.
To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles. These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation. Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content.
Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay. However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.
What is the purpose of a literature review?
…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.
In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic. Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions. Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.
When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:
- summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
- identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
- highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.
Conducting a literature review
Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it. You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review. These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.
Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)
Developing and refining your literature review (Word)
Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)
Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks. There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing. Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.
Literature review top tips (pdf)
Literature review top tips (Word rtf)
Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.
Reading at university
The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.
Academic writing
The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.
Critical thinking
As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.
Good academic practice
As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review. The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.
Editing and proofreading
Guidance on literature searching from the University Library
The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.
Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd
Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides
The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.
1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews
Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google
Managing and curating your references
A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list.
Referencing and reference management
Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).
Cite them right
Published study guides
There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review. Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.
Study skills guides
Related Literature – What Is Review Of Related Literature (RRL)?
Here are top 5 things to know about your review of related literature (rrl).
FACTS ABOUT RELATED LITERATURE – When conducting research, especially one academic in nature, you would most likely need to include an RRL.
Related literature is defined as a composition of facts, studies, principles, which are related to your research topic. Furthermore, you can find RRL materials in books, professional journals, articles, and other forms of publication.
However, before we continue to discuss more facts about the RRL, we need to know the difference between related studies and related literature.
RELATED STUDIES VS RELATED LITERATURE
Official and public offices along with University thesis’ are examples of related studies . These are publicized source materials that have been peer-reviewed or sourced through facts and intensive research.
Meanwhile, related literature can stem from journalists, officials, or any influential figure. As such, the opinions, facts, and other details introduced can greatly affect the public’s opinion and thinking.
What is RRL?
Quick Answer: The RRL ( review of related literature ) is an overview of pre-existing literature which holds a relation to the topic of an individual’s research, thesis, or dissertation topic.
Moreover, through an RRL, researchers can identify potentially better topics through an excess of already available studies. With this, individuals can then identify the strengths and weaknesses of a given study.
Best Sources For Related Studies
Having access to primary sources of information are key when creating an RRL. Thus, researchers should include the following for their RRL:
- Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, records, eyewitness reports, and memoirs
- Research articles, clinical reports, case studies, and dissertations
- Poetry, music, video, and photography
Importance of RRL and research studies:
The goal of literature or research studies is to get a better grasp of the existing research and discussions on a certain topic or field of study. Additionally, it can provide information in the form of a written report as well as conducting aiding the development of your field expertise.
Thanks for reading. We aim to provide our readers with the freshest and most in-demand content. Come back next time for the latest news here on Philnews.
READ ALSO: Grade 10 Science Module DepEd – Learner’s Module PDF Free
Leave a Comment Cancel reply
What (Exactly) Is A Literature Review?
A plain-language explanation (with examples).
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020
If you’re faced with writing a dissertation, thesis or any of type of formal academic research, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. Well, the good news is that you’ve come to the right place – s o grab a cup of coffee and let’s dive in.
Literature Review 101
- What (exactly) is a literature review
- What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
- How to find high-quality resources
- How to structure your literature review chapter
What is a literature review?
The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:
Reviewing the literature
The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then summarise and catalogue these for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter.
The literature review chapter
The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an overview of the key literature that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an integrated review of the state of knowledge around your research topic.
This is quite an oversimplification , but it’s a useful starting point. We’ll discuss the full purpose of the literature review chapter next.
What is the purpose of a literature review?
The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:
Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge
The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be more than just a summary of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next).
Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill
The second function of the literature review chapter is to show what’s currently missing from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.
Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your theoretical framework
The third function of the literature review is to form the basis for a theoretical framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a theoretical framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review.
For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a theoretical framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut!
So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework.
Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology
The fourth function of the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.
So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales.
How do I find articles for my literature review?
Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is built on credible research .
We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the most popular pieces of research are in your field.
One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites.
Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research.
Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer.
One last tip – it’s important that you read recent sources . Things change quickly in the world of research and you want up to date information to support your literature. That’s not to say that the classics are irrelevant – but you need to make sure they’re up to date. It’s no use citing a piece of research that was very popular, but was subsequently found to have flawed results. Thankfully, within Google Scholar, you can filter results to a specific date range, so make use of this to ensure you keep your reading up to date .
Need a helping hand?
How should I structure my literature review?
Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.
You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.
In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions. However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research, not summarise it .
Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.
Wrapping Up
In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review .
Psst… there’s more (for free)
This post is part of our research writing mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project.
You Might Also Like:
14 Comments
Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.
Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂
This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.
This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.
Timothy T. Chol [email protected]
Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends
This was so useful. Thank you so much.
Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.
The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff
Great Brief Explanation, thanks
So helpful to me as a student
GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!
This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
- Print Friendly
- TEACHER TRAINING
- GENERAL EDUCATION
What is a Review of Related Literature (RRL)?
Research in everyday usage is different from its strict sense. We often say that we are conducting research in the library or in the Internet. Although grammatically correct, these phrases denote a misconception of what research is. The correct term is that we are conducting a literature review.
What is the value of related literature?
A good research is designed to build on and use existing knowledge. Once a research topic is already determined and well-thought of, the researcher must look for academic and research journals, books, and other similar documents that contain reports of previous research studies about a topic related to the present research. This is called literature review or review of related literature . It involves a process of identifying, locating, organizing, and analyzing information about a research topic. Conducting a literature review is essential because it prevents duplication of studies and helps avoid problems that others have encountered. It would be wasteful for a researcher to begin working on a study without knowing what others have already done. Literature review also provides valuable information about how to measure the research variables involved and what research designs will be most useful. A thorough literature review before the implementation of the study reflects the depth of discussion, analysis, and interpretation of findings.
Literature serves the following functions in the research process:
- It provides information about past research studies related to the intended investigation, preventing the duplication of research undertakings.
- It presents gaps in the field of study. Gaps may either be areas in the body of knowledge that are not explored yet or parts where research studies yielded inconclusive results.
- It affords confidence and authority to the researchers since reviewing the literature can provide them all possible constructs and perspectives of the present study.
- It gives information about the methods used in similar studies, including the characteristics of the samples, the sampling techniques or the process of selecting the research participants, the variables considered, the kinds of data gathered, and the type of analysis and interpretation done on the collected data.
- It enumerates findings from previous studies that may support those of the present study.
- It provides ideas on how implications may be drawn out of the analysis and interpretation of data.
RELATED ARTICLES
Selection Criteria for a Research Design
Evaluating the Quality of Research
Writing a Written Report for a Research
- Privacy Policy
Literature Review Definition: Why Is It Done?
A literature review is done in order to clarify the areas of prior research of the matter you’ve currently undertaken. If you have coursework to write, research, term paper or whatever another sort of writing, have no time to do the search yourself – then literature reviews will be your saviors. It gives you all the background you need in any discipline, which comes very in handy when doing any research. Now let’s clarify on literature review definition.
What Is a Literature Review: Closer Look
In a nutshell, literature reviews have the following definition: It’s a list of all the sources you have used while writing something. It can be everything: books, website links, journals – literally any source of information. It’s mostly done in coursework and research papers by students in universities. That helps to clarify the research data, as well as to ensure that the researcher uses checked and accurate data.
But the true literature review meaning is much more profound. It’s not just a mere list of all used sources. It is a collection of reports to professionals, who need to stay always updated. And to scholars, it is a mark that signifies a writer’s credibility and shows how experienced he is in his particular field. You don’t only show that you used information from those sources, but it also indicates that you stay up to date with the discipline and that you’re interested in it.
What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review and Its Feature
The first major purpose of a literature review is, of course, to mention all the sources which have been used.
But it’s much more than that. A research paper’s focus is to introduce some new argument to think about, and the purpose of a literature review in a research study is to provide you with excessive data you may use to support your new insight.
There are the three main purposes of a literature review:
- To survey the literature on an area of study;
- To present information in literature as an organized sum up;
- To critically analyze data (To find gaps in modern theories and points of view, show where further research may be done and to review all the controversial moments).
So the main purpose of a literature review is basically to be a sum up of all the ideas and insights in a nice, short and easy to read way. It also will demonstrate that you're familiar with a body of knowledge and are thus credible. Without this everything you’ve written won’t be taken seriously into account.
Literature Review Outline: Write with a Roadmap
So, before doing an outline for a literature review, let’s take some steps to make it a much easier task for you. It will also help you to avoid mistakes so that you didn’t have to do it over again.
- Finding a decent topic is essential. So think what you find the most interesting and what has a lot of research potential. Talking to professor and brainstorming after reading lecture notes and recent writes in this field will definitely help. What is interesting to you and others, choose some study area that’s worth reviewing.
- Working with literature. It is called a literature review for a reason. Remember to look through reference lists to recent articles in your field – they may lead to some valuable data. Also, don’t forget to include some other points of view in your study and not only yours. Think of exact time span you may need for research.
- While reviewing your sources. Analyze what the assumptions of writers are and the methods they use. Evaluate all the findings and conclusions that have been drawn. Write down experts of the field and their names, especially those that are often mentioned. Look up all the conflicting theories, methods and conclusions as well as their popularity that has or hasn’t changed with time.
- Look for examples. Check out literature reviews of your discipline and examine them. It is how you’ll know what is expected and you will also have your little model.
- How your literature review should be composed. There are the three main parts of any piece of writing: the introduction, body, and conclusion.
- In the introduction, you aim to explain what your focus is and how important the subject is. Tell what work was done on the topic and tell background history. You could also write why you decide to choose this specific topic.
- In the body, which is divided by headings and subheadings, give all the major information. That is literally the biggest part of your literature review. Discuss all the research that leads to your project.
- In conclusion, sum up all your evidence and present it. Give your final verdict on the matter and tell what further research may be undertaken.
Remember our professional advice and be ready to prepare top-notch writing easily. Good Luck!
What Is a Literature Review?
Hero Images / Getty Images
- An Introduction to Punctuation
Olivia Valdes was the Associate Editorial Director for ThoughtCo. She worked with Dotdash Meredith from 2017 to 2021.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Olivia-Valdes_WEB1-1e405fc799d9474e9212215c4f21b141.jpg "what is the meaning of review related literature")
- B.A., American Studies, Yale University
A literature review summarizes and synthesizes the existing scholarly research on a particular topic. Literature reviews are a form of academic writing commonly used in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, unlike research papers, which establish new arguments and make original contributions, literature reviews organize and present existing research. As a student or academic, you might produce a literature review as a standalone paper or as a portion of a larger research project.
What Literature Reviews Are Not
In order to understand literature reviews, it's best to first understand what they are not . First, literature reviews are not bibliographies. A bibliography is a list of resources consulted when researching a particular topic. Literature reviews do more than list the sources you’ve consulted: they summarize and critically evaluate those sources.
Second, literature reviews are not subjective. Unlike some of the other well-known "reviews" (e.g. theater or book reviews), literature reviews steer clear of opinion statements. Instead, they summarize and critically assess a body of scholarly literature from a relatively objective perspective. Writing a literature review is a rigorous process, requiring a thorough evaluation of the quality and findings of each source discussed.
Why Write a Literature Review?
Writing a literature review is a time-consuming process that requires extensive research and critical analysis . So, why should you spend so much time reviewing and writing about research that’s already been published?
- Justifying your own research . If you’re writing a literature review as part of a larger research project , the literature review allows you to demonstrate what makes your own research valuable. By summarizing the existing research on your research question, a literature review reveals points of consensus and points of disagreement, as well as the gaps and open questions that remain. Presumably, your original research has emerged from one of those open questions, so the literature review serves as a jumping-off point for the rest of your paper.
- Demonstrating your expertise. Before you can write a literature review, you must immerse yourself in a significant body of research. By the time you’ve written the review, you’ve read widely on your topic and are able to synthesize and logically present the information. This final product establishes you as a trustworthy authority on your topic.
- Joining the conversation . All academic writing is part of one never-ending conversation: an ongoing dialogue among scholars and researchers across continents, centuries, and subject areas. By producing a literature review, you’re engaging with all of the prior scholars who examined your topic and continuing a cycle that moves the field forward.
Tips for Writing a Literature Review
While specific style guidelines vary among disciplines, all literature reviews are well-researched and organized. Use the following strategies as a guide as you embark on the writing process.
- Choose a topic with a limited scope. The world of scholarly research is vast, and if you choose too broad a topic, the research process will seem never-ending. Choose a topic with a narrow focus, and be open to adjusting it as the research process unfolds. If you find yourself sorting through thousands of results every time you conduct a database search, you may need to further refine your topic .
- Take organized notes. Organizational systems such as the literature grid are essential for keeping track of your readings. Use the grid strategy, or a similar system, to record key information and main findings/arguments for each source. Once you begin the writing process, you’ll be able to refer back to your literature grid each time you want to add information about a particular source.
- Pay attention to patterns and trends . As you read, be on the lookout for any patterns or trends that emerge among your sources. You might discover that there are two clear existing schools of thought related to your research question. Or, you might discover that the prevailing ideas about your research question have shifted dramatically several times over the last hundred years. The structure of your literature review will be based on the patterns you discover. If no obvious trends stand out, choose the organizational structure that best suits your topic, such as theme, issue, or research methodology.
Writing a literature review takes time, patience, and a whole lot of intellectual energy. As you pore over countless academic articles, consider all the researchers who preceded you and those who will follow. Your literature review is much more than a routine assignment: it's a contribution to the future of your field.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/136864372-grad-student-Tim-Robberts-56a44ab15f9b58b7d0d62d27.jpg "what is the meaning of review related literature")
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
Purdue Online Writing Lab College of Liberal Arts
Writing a Literature Review
Welcome to the Purdue OWL
This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.
Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.
Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?
There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.
Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.
What are the parts of a lit review?
Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.
Introduction:
- An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
- A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
- Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
- 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Conclusion:
- Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
- Connect it back to your primary research question
How should I organize my lit review?
Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:
- Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
- Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
- Qualitative versus quantitative research
- Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
- Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
- Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.
What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?
Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .
As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.
Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:
- It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
- Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
- Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
- Read more about synthesis here.
The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.
WashU Libraries
Library services for undergraduate research.
- Creating an Abstract
- What is a Literature Review?
- Creating a Poster
- Presenting Your Research
- Share Your Undergraduate Research
- Contact a Subject Librarian
- Conducting Research
- College Writing: Citizen Scientist
Literature Review: A Definition
What is a literature review, then.
A literature review discusses and analyses published information in a particular subject area. Sometimes the information covers a certain time period.
A literature review is more than a summary of the sources, it has an organizational pattern that combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.
But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?
While the main focus of an academic research paper is to support your own argument, the focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others. The academic research paper also covers a range of sources, but it is usually a select number of sources, because the emphasis is on the argument. Likewise, a literature review can also have an "argument," but it is not as important as covering a number of sources. In short, an academic research paper and a literature review contain some of the same elements. In fact, many academic research papers will contain a literature review section. What aspect of the study (either the argument or the sources) that is emphasized determines what type of document it is.
( "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )
Why do we write literature reviews?
Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.
For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field.
For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation.
Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.
Journal Articles on Writing Literature Reviews
- Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews Author: Brown,Barry N. Journal: Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship Date: Spring2009 Issue: 57 Page: 1 more... less... Finding some information on most topics is easy. There are abundant sources of information readily available. However, completing a comprehensive literature review on a particular topic is often difficult, laborious, and time intensive; the project requires organization, persistence, and an understanding of the scholarly communication and publishing process. This paper briefly outlines methods of conducting a comprehensive literature review for science topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR];
- Research: Considerations in Writing a Literature Review Authors: Black,K. Journal: The New Social Worker Date: 01/01; 2007 Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Page: 12 more... less... Literature reviews are ubiquitous in academic journals, scholarly reports, and social work education. Conducting and writing a good literature review is both personally and professionally satisfying. (Journal abstract).
- How to do (or not to do) A Critical Literature Review Authors: Jesson,Jill; Lacey,Fiona Journal: Pharmacy Education Pub Date: 2006 Volume: 6 Issue: 2 Pages:139 - 148 more... less... More and more students are required to perform a critical literature review as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Whilst most of the latest research methods textbooks advise how to do a literature search, very few cover the literature review. This paper covers two types of review: a critical literature review and a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Conducting a Literature Review Authors: Rowley,Jennifer; Slack,Frances Journal: Management Research News Pub Date: 2004 Volume: 27 Issue: 6 Pages:31-39 more... less... Abstract: This article offers support and guidance for students undertaking a literature review as part of their dissertation during an undergraduate or Masters course. A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources. The literature search helps in the identification and location of relevant documents and other sources. Search engines can be used to search web resources and bibliographic databases. Conceptual frameworks can be a useful tool in developing an understanding of a subject area. Creating the literature review involves the stages of: scanning, making notes, structuring the literature review, writing the literature review, and building a bibliography.
Some Books from the WU Catalog
- The SAGE handbook of visual research methods [electronic resource] by Edited by Luc Pauwels and Dawn Mannay. ISBN: 9781526417015 Publication Date: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2020.
Helpful Websites
- "How to do a Literature Review" from Ferdinand D. Bluford Library
- "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It." from the University of Toronto
- << Previous: Creating an Abstract
- Next: Creating a Poster >>
- Last Updated: Mar 7, 2023 9:14 PM
- URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our
- Student Politics
- City Council
- Investigations
- Featurettes
- Submit a Letter to the Editor
- Cross Country
- Club Sports
- Pop Culture
- Student Life
- Frosh in Focus
Search form
You are here, book review: ‘none of this is serious’, catherine prasifka writes what we all know.
- March 17, 2023
- Rida Chaudhry
None of This Is Serious by Catherine Prasifka explores the existential reality of living amid looming catastrophe in a 277-page novel following Sophie, a recent university graduate, as she navigates friendship, anxiety, and the meaning of life.
Sophie is a depressed, anxious twenty-something year old getting ready to say goodbye to a close friend before he moves to London. The book provides an accurate portrayal of the uncertainty associated with the end of one’s undergraduate career, when you’re trying to figure out your next steps while everyone else seems to have it figured out.
In the middle of this already anxiety-inducing point of Sophie’s life, an unforeseen climate phenomenon occurs that leaves her with even more questions. Sophie’s relationship with technology is explored by her spending hours exploring the depths of the internet in hopes of finding out what she should be feeling.
Prasifka articulates the rumination of an anxious person with precision. Though some readers may find this process slow, it’s incredibly comforting to read a cognitive process so similar to what so many young people today are dealing with.
At its core, None of This Is Serious is a story of friendships that can withstand anything and the importance of putting effort in for the people who love you rather than desperately grasping at superficial affection.
A past of trauma and a toxic relationship with her twin sister leave Sophie feeding into her insecurities. Sophie’s best friend Grace is a little overbearing, and these insecurities cause Sophie to take Grace’s words less as a concerned friend and more as controlling.
Her other best friend Dan has moved to London to start his new life, leaving Sophie—in her own perception—alone and afraid to confront the realities of her struggles.
Meanwhile, as Sophie navigates complicated personal relationships, she finds herself at a crossroads with someone who describes themselves as respecting women while their actions weave a very different tale. This is the unfortunate reality of living in an age of woke culture, something that is easily feigned and manipulated by those benefitting from systems of oppression.
As Sophie reckons with how to move forward in a world that seems to be falling apart, Prasifka accurately depicts what it’s like to be living in a time of economic decline, looming climate catastrophe, and digital consciousness impeding physical reality.
Despite being a book with difficult topics, readers will likely find immense comfort in Prasifka’s words because they’re a reminder they’re not alone.
None of This Is Serious should seriously be on your reading list this year.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected] .
Related Stories
When commenting, be considerate and respectful of writers and fellow commenters. Try to stay on topic. Spam and comments that are hateful or discriminatory will be deleted. Our full commenting policy can be read here .
View the discussion thread.
Help support independent student journalism with a donation
The print edition.
190 University Ave., Kingston, ON, K7L 3P4
- Editorial Office: 613.533.2800
- Fax: 613.533.6728
- Writer's Handbook
- Editorial Board
- Production Schedule
- Advertising Information
- Journal Policy
- Corrections
- Journal Board Minutes
- Join the Journal Team
- Op-Ed Guide
- Site by Purely Interactive
- Hosting by Jumphost
© 2023 The Queen's Journal. All Rights Reserved.
- Privacy Policy
- Terms & Conditions
Sandralamorgese.com
Fresh ideas for every day
- Useful tips
- Common questions
What is related literature in research?
A review of related literature (RRL) is a detailed review of existing literature related to the topic of a thesis or dissertation. When going through the resources, make notes and identify key concepts of each resource to describe in the review.
What is the role of your related literature in your research?
Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic. In your literature review you will: provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research.
How is literature defined?
Literature, in its broadest sense, is any written work. Etymologically, the term derives from Latin litaritura/litteratura “writing formed with letters,” although some definitions include spoken or sung texts. More restrictively, it is writing that possesses literary merit.
What are the 3 features of world literature?
Common Features Literature can be divided into three major types: prose (“ordinary language”), poetry (aesthetically structured language), and drama (literature intended for performance; drama may be composed in either prose or poetry).
What is the scope of literature?
The scope of literature. Literature is a form of human expression. Most theories of literary criticism base themselves on an analysis of poetry, because the aesthetic problems of literature are there presented in their simplest and purest form. Poetry that fails as literature is not called poetry at all but verse.
What is world literature examples?
Examples include the Bible, and the plays of William Shakespeare, both of which have been translated into more than 100 languages and are read or performed on every continent. Another example of this is the Lotus Sutra from 1st c. In addition to having legs, “World Literature” is literature that gains in translation.
What have you learned in literature?
When students study Literature, they learn to appreciate words and their power. They travel to other realms and times through the texts they read. They understand about their own culture and others’. Importantly, they learn to consider multiple perspectives and understand the complexity of human nature.
Which is the best literature in world?
Here is a list of 12 novels that, for various reasons, have been considered some of the greatest works of literature ever written.Anna Karenina. Greta Garbo in Anna Karenina. To Kill a Mockingbird. To Kill a Mockingbird. The Great Gatsby. F. One Hundred Years of Solitude. A Passage to India. Invisible Man. Don Quixote. Beloved.
What are the pieces of literature?
Examples of literary works:fiction.nonfiction.manuscripts.poetry.contributions to collective works.compilations of data or other literary subject matter.dissertations.theses.
- 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
- 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
- Bibliography
A literature review surveys 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 explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.
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”] Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note however that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made. Note that this is the most common approach in the social and behavioral sciences. 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 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 articles and journals.
- 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: Mar 10, 2023 10:42 AM
- URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide
Learn how to write a review of literature
What is a review of literature.
The format of a review of literature may vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment.
A review may be a self-contained unit — an end in itself — or a preface to and rationale for engaging in primary research. A review is a required part of grant and research proposals and often a chapter in theses and dissertations.
Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.
Writing the introduction
In the introduction, you should:
Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).
Writing the body
In the body, you should:
Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.
Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.
Writing the conclusion
In the conclusion, you should:
Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.
Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.
For further information see our handouts on Writing a Critical Review of a Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It .
To learn more about literature reviews, take a look at our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published Research.
Sample Literature Reviews
An important strategy for learning how to compose literature reviews in your field or within a specific genre is to locate and analyze representative examples. The following collection of annotated sample literature reviews written and co-written by colleagues associated with UW-Madison showcases how these reviews can do different kind of work for different purposes. Use these successful examples as a starting point for understanding how other writers have approached the challenging and important task of situating their idea in the context of established research.
- Sample 1 (PDF) A brief literature review within a political scientists’ National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship grant
- Sample 2 (PDF) A several-page literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about philosophy
- Sample 3 (PDF) A brief literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about photochemistry
Academic and Professional Writing
This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
Analysis Papers
Reading Poetry
A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis
Using Literary Quotations
Play Reviews
Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts
Incorporating Interview Data
Grant Proposals
Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing
Job Materials and Application Essays
Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs
- Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
- Guided brainstorming exercises
- Get more help with your essay
- Frequently Asked Questions
Resume Writing Tips
CV Writing Tips
Cover Letters
Business Letters
Proposals and Dissertations
Resources for Proposal Writers
Resources for Dissertators
Research Papers
Planning and Writing Research Papers
Quoting and Paraphrasing
Writing Annotated Bibliographies
Creating Poster Presentations
Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper
Thank-You Notes
Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors
Reading for a Review
Critical Reviews
Writing a Review of Literature
Scientific Reports
Scientific Report Format
Sample Lab Assignment
Writing for the Web
Writing an Effective Blog Post
Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics
Ohio State nav bar
The Ohio State University
- BuckeyeLink
- Find People
- Search Ohio State
Literature Review, Theoretical Review or Conceptual Review?
I was researching and refreshing what I learned about literature reviews and research methodology in the 6625 ESLTECH class and came across this post in ResearchGate:
While I was interested in finding out how to conduct a lit review, and what methodologies fit with my “Begin With the End in mind” framework, I remembered that I was actually conducting a conceptual analysis of the Hackathon through two instruments: the opportunistic interviews and my observations. Applying Backward Design as research methodology has been used in the biological sciences. It is called Backward Design for Education Research (BDER) and basically it instructs how to apply teaching-as-research (based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning(SoTL) model) to see what works in “providing evidence-based pedagogy and a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms for the broader education community.” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My approach was more like “Backward Market Research,” which consists of eight steps that ultimately resemble Wiggins and McTighe’s Backward Design for curriculum development. The key to backward market research lies in identifying the desired outcome (i.e., what data would answer the question you are asking) before embarking on the project …” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My question is broad – what insights come out of the Hackathon – and the results are formative – data reports generate more questions and identify the need to code certain responses, or to add a new question next year (as with the multitude of comments about Judging from 2017) – but a body or knowledge is being formed.
Higher Education Research & Development
Open access
The higher degree research student experience in Australian universities: a systematic literature review
- Download citation
- https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2183939
Introduction
- Supplemental material
Acknowledgements
Disclosure statement.
- Full Article
- Figures & data
- Supplemental
- Reprints & Permissions
- View PDF PDF View EPUB EPUB
Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students are an important part of Australian university research culture. They contribute significantly to the generation of new knowledge, research outputs, industry engagement and the continual development of higher education. This article is the first to systematically review existing research to synthesise the key areas of HDR student experience within the Australian context. A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA protocols, and 7 themes were identified across the 68 papers included in the review. Themes reflected supervisory relationships, challenges for international students, engagement with research communities, balancing life contexts, administrative challenges, thesis by publication, and industry-based research. The overall findings suggest a need for universities to be more proactive in supporting the unique needs of HDR students in a changing educational context.
- Higher degree by research
- research student
- student experiences
- doctoral education
- researcher education
Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students play a key role in Australian universities, with important contributions to both the economy and society (McGagh et al., Citation 2016 ). They generate new knowledge, understanding, and technologies allowing for global challenges to be addressed across diverse areas including climate change, food security, technological innovation, and pandemics such as COVID-19. Ensuring that HDR programmes address such priorities and result in positive student experiences is complex. This is due to a dynamic and changing academic landscape and the many difficulties HDR students can experience as part of their research journey.
According to the Department of Education, Skills, and Employment (DESE), Australia has a diverse cohort of HDR learners. This is evident across the areas of programme, mode of study, and study area; cultural background; geographical location; socio-economic background; and disability (DESE, Citation 2019 ). In 2019, 70% of HDR students were enrolled full-time and 30% part-time. According to percentages of commencing HDRs, students were studying across a diverse range of fields, including natural and physical sciences (22.8%), society and culture (18.4%), health (16.7%), engineering and related technologies (15.3%), management and commerce (8.3%), education (5.5%), information technology (4.8%), creative arts (4%), agriculture and environment (2.7%), and architecture and building (1.5%). Recent changes placing additional weightings on government funding for those programmes actively engaged with industry via internships further broadens the types of students within these research areas.
Based on the 2019 DESE statistics, culture and geographical location add to the diversity of the HDR academic landscape. For example, international students accounted for 36% of the HDR student population. Of the 64% domestic students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students accounted for 1% of enrolments and students from a regional or rural area accounted for 8.9%. The diversity in geographical location is linked to changes in modes of delivery and offering the possibility of researching online and remotely. However, this potentially limits some of the associated benefits of face-to-face contact with peers and supervisors, School and Faculty and being part of a research community.
Socioeconomic background and disability are additional elements that add to the complexity and richness of student experience within HDR programmes. In 2019, 8.9% of all domestic HDR students identified as being from a low socio-economic background (DESE, Citation 2019 ) and between 1996 and 2020 postgraduate research students with a disability has increased from 483 to 2700 (DESE, Citation 2020 ). Varied cohorts across programme, mode of study and study area, cultural background, geographical location, socio-economic background, and disability represent a diverse and dynamic academic landscape containing students with differing needs and experiences relative to their circumstances. Providing for these needs and ensuring HDR students experience positive research journeys is a complex endeavour.
Higher Degree by Research study can also be a turbulent journey, in which students experience complex challenges. For example, as the time required across the research journey becomes more demanding, balancing work, study, and family commitments can become more difficult (Beasy et al., Citation 2021 ). This can affect the time candidates have to effectively maintain personal relationships and can contribute to feelings of isolation, a common issue for doctoral candidates (Lee et al., Citation 2013 ; McAlpine & Amundsen, Citation 2011 ). Isolation can be especially acute for those students studying off campus and online (Owens et al., Citation 2020 ).
Given current educational circumstances and the diverse range of research students, both domestic, international, on-campus, distance, and first-generation students and the challenges they undergo, it is important to examine HDR student experience. This can assist in the facilitation of research student success and wellbeing, approaches to research training, as well as address HDR completion and attrition rates. This is useful given that a recent review of Australia’s Research Training System concluded that while Australia’s research system is ‘world class in many respects’, there is scope to improve HDR training practices (Department of Education and Training, Citation 2018 ). Although completion rates in Australia vary according to idiosyncratic, demographic, and cohort characteristics, as well as differing institutional policies and practices (DESE, Citation 2020 ; Torka, Citation 2020 ), information on student experience can be used to improve completion rates and consequent government funding. There is a large body of research that examines HDR students within the Australian context, but to date none have systematically reviewed and synthesised understandings of student experience into key themes. This synthesis will assist university research leaders, policy makers, and research supervisors to understand the HDR student experience and inform decisions that impact the student journey and university research outcomes. This article seeks to address this gap and systematically bring together the existing research to address the research question: What are the experiences of HDR students studying higher degrees by research in Australia?
A systematic literature review was undertaken that brought together research around the HDR student experience within the Australian context. A systematic literature review should follow an established protocol that is both rigorous and transparent in terms of review methods, research questions, search processes, manuscript screening, and quality checks where applicable (Lasen et al., Citation 2018 ). For the present research, the methodology was adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris & Munn, Citation 2020 ) including using relevant JBI critical appraisal tools. The step-by-step protocol: (a) established eligibility criteria to include or exclude literature; (b) articulated search terms to discover relevant literature; (c) selected and searched relevant databases using precise Boolean strings and export abstracts; (d) screened data (abstracts then full papers) and then extracted data; and (e) synthesised the data.
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria included: (a) Research participants were HDR students studying at an Australian university; (b) Only HDR student perspectives were considered (as opposed to supervisors or non-research students); (c) English language content only; (d) Any methodology excluding literature reviews or meta-analyses; and (e) Peer reviewed journal articles only (i.e., excluding book chapters and other literature).
Development of search terms and selection of library databases
Published online:
Table 1. definition of research terms using pico..
(experience? OR success? OR performance? OR complet*) AND (student? OR graduate? OR candidate?) AND (HDR OR ‘higher degree by research’ OR ‘higher degree research’ OR ‘higher degree’ OR PhD OR doctora*) AND Australia?
Search strategy and selection of literature
Figure 1. Study selection flow diagram.
Summary data from the final papers selected for inclusion were extracted, focusing on the number of HDR student participants in each study, the methodological approach adopted, and key findings. Please see table in supplementary materials. Data were then organised thematically to illustrate the themes shared across the body of research literature (Braun & Clarke, Citation 2019 ).
Methodological summary and study characteristics
In total, 68 papers were included in the final synthesis. Most of the papers utilised more than one research method. Of the included papers, the main methods adopted were interviews (30), surveys (29), and focus groups (14). The other methodological approaches comprised diary analysis (6), autoethnography (4), case studies (6), and other approaches, e.g., action-based research, randomised control trials, document analysis, etc. (14). The total number of participants across all studies was 8502, with participant numbers in individual studies ranging from 1 to 1531. All papers were retained for thematic synthesis irrespective of quality assessment.
Thematic synthesis
Seven key themes were identified across the 68 papers, with some papers reflecting more than one theme. The main themes are summarised below and are recorded against each paper in the data extraction table (see supplementary Table 1).
Supervisory relationships
The majority of the papers ( n = 35) reported on the importance of positive supervisory relationships in supporting successful progression through HDR studies. For example, Barry et al. ( Citation 2018 ) reported that most of the challenges experienced by participants during their HDR journey were related to supervisory relationships. The relationship with the principal supervisor was considered particularly crucial and one that needed to be based on mutual trust and respect (Berridge, Citation 2008 ). Power differences in the relationships between students and supervisors were found to negatively impact student progression (Jones & Blass, Citation 2019 ). Students were, however, reluctant to challenge these differences and find their own voice due to the acknowledgement that supervisors were frequently placed under institutional pressure to perform and the need for positive references from supervisors post-PhD (Jones & Blass, Citation 2019 ).
Davis ( Citation 2019 ) explored students’ perceptions of an ideal HDR supervisor and found that students valued cognitive and affective personal qualities ahead of discipline and research expertise, highlighting the need for a mutual respectful and trusting relationship to support success. This was echoed by Halbert ( Citation 2015 ), who found that quality supervision from a student perspective was a balance between academic and emotional support (see also Yim & Waters, Citation 2013 ). However, Satariyan et al. ( Citation 2015 ) highlighted the importance of disciplinary expertise in addition to these qualities. Ives and Rowley ( Citation 2005 ) further highlighted the importance of continuity of supervision, with changes in supervision leading to problems and delays. Owens et al. ( Citation 2020 ) also considered the impacts of supervisory changes with participants emphasising not only difficulties in finding a supervisor but also being subject to changes in team that are beyond their control.
Cotterall ( Citation 2011 ) identified structural elements associated with positive supervisor practices, which included providing guidance throughout candidature milestones, being a mentor, and a champion for their student (see also Fung et al., Citation 2017 ; Robertson, Citation 2017 ). For the participants in Roach et al. ( Citation 2019 ), attributes of supervisors that reflected open communication and constructive feedback were considered key. This was further extended on through a call for the development of interpersonal qualities in supervisor training programmes. Further, supervisory teams were most effective when they operated as a unified voice for candidates rather than one that was fractured and diverse. Such diversity was found to have negative impacts for students (Guerin & Green, Citation 2015 ).
Differences in experiences of supervision were highlighted by Harman ( Citation 2003b ), who found that in their large survey of students, female PhD students were more dissatisfied than their male counterparts in terms of both course experience and supervision. Important factors related to this included lack of access to supervisory support due to the high workloads of supervisors. This, however, should be considered in conjunction with the different supervisory role expectations of HDR students and their supervisors; Ross et al. ( Citation 2011 ) highlighted sometimes differing perspectives as to the role of supervisors. For example, students reported their perception of the role of a supervisor was to develop writing skills to a larger extent than was considered by supervisors.
Reflecting on the experiences of Indigenous HDR students specifically, Trudgett ( Citation 2011 ) found some evidence that Indigenous students with Indigenous-focused topics would benefit from having an Indigenous supervisor, or supervisors with appropriate cultural knowledge. Of the 55 students contributing to the study, 70.9% were supported by non-Indigenous supervisors and approximately 50% believed that supervisors should undertake mandatory cultural awareness training. Further, the paper called for community members to have more involvement with the process of research. Building on these findings, Trudgett ( Citation 2014 ) outlined a best practice framework for supporting the unique needs of Indigenous HDR students.
The importance of positive supervisory relationships was magnified for international students. Supervisors were identified as a conduit to embedding international students within the university research community, as well as providing sensitive feedback and guidance (e.g., Ai, Citation 2017 ; Wang & Li, Citation 2011 ). Indeed Yarlagadda et al. ( Citation 2018 ) reported that supervisors’ maintenance of student motivation was the single largest factor in HDR completion. Further, Dai and Hardy ( Citation 2021 ) highlighted the power differences between international students and supervisors and corresponding challenges. Similarly, Shen ( Citation 2008 ) noted the hierarchic expectations that students from China held, and the belief that they should not challenge the supervisor in any way (see also Winchester-Seeto et al., Citation 2014 ).
Unique challenges of being an international student
Twenty-one papers focused on unique challenges associated with being an international student. In addition to language and writing challenges, a need for positive engagement in communities to overcome cultural barriers and the central role that supervisors play in supporting international students were identified. Harman ( Citation 2003a ) found that overall international students reported higher satisfaction, but concerns were expressed around supervision, frequently compounded by language challenges, and the spaces provided on campus within which to complete research (see also Ma, Citation 2021 ; Son & Park, Citation 2014 ; Winchester-Seeto et al., Citation 2014 ; Yeoh & Thao, Citation 2012 ).
Fotovatian and Miller ( Citation 2014 ) found that participants called for a critique of the stereotype of what is an ‘international student’. Participants in this study posited that a lack of attention is paid to the heterogeneity of this group, with the administrative label of ‘international student’ being imposed on them, and it being difficult to move beyond this. This singling out as ‘different’ further served to distance them from other students (see also Nguyen & Pennycook, Citation 2018 ).
Chapman and Pyvis ( Citation 2005 ) focused on the experiences of being an offshore HDR student and the impacts of this on student identity. Chapman and Pyvis reported that students faced difficulties in interacting with their supervisor and rather than risk being considered a ‘bother’ they would sometimes wait several weeks before asking what they considered trivial questions. The role of a timely and supporting supervision arrangement was therefore lost. Additionally, given the geographical distance due to being offshore, some participants reflected that they felt very little attachment to the university.
Nguyen and Pennycook ( Citation 2018 ) found that in addition to the more anticipated challenges with language, the identity development of Vietnamese students in the sample was of concern. HDR students in this study reported challenges in adjusting to the Australian higher education system, and felt they were considered by others as ‘outsiders’. This was compounded by supervisor expectations of independence which at times was at odds with the interdependence expectations of the student. Zeivots ( Citation 2021 ) also reported on frustrations by international students which included feelings of being outsiders, a lack of engagement with the community, and dissatisfaction with the rules governing working opportunities. These participants suggested that universities should facilitate more events to promote opportunities for connection for international students. Similarly, Nomnian ( Citation 2017 ) highlighted the need for careful consideration of the expectations of students and supervisors in terms of student agency.
Engagement with the research community and developing an academic identity
Twenty papers reported on the importance of being engaged with a research community within the university and the facilitation of the development of an academic identity, especially as the role transitions from student to academic colleague in the latter parts of HDR study. Barry et al. ( Citation 2018 ) highlighted a lack of social interaction with an academic community as a key concern for HDR students. Further, Devenish et al. ( Citation 2009 ) found that collaborative peer support was considered by HDR students to be crucial to individual success, but again this was at times lacking. Work by Klenowski et al. ( Citation 2011 ) found that one approach to this was through communities of practice that could support and facilitate the development of academic and researcher identities. The opportunities afforded by peer learning and the development of a community of belonging were also highlighted in the work of Maher et al. ( Citation 2008 ), Mantai ( Citation 2019 ), Parker ( Citation 2009 ), and Macoun and Miller ( Citation 2014 ). Cotterall ( Citation 2015 ) reported that none of the participants in their study reported feeling supported by their school/research department and were lacking in peer networks. The researcher called for more action from universities in supporting the development of an academic identity. The need for integration with the academic community and peer networks was found to be amplified for international students (Yu & Wright, Citation 2016 ).
However, Naylor et al. ( Citation 2016 ) caution against generalised approaches to address such issues and urge a reflection on the need to consider the specific academic disciplines of students and the potentially differing needs in terms of support that may be required, e.g., for lab-based students. In short, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the solution for engagement with academic community and fostering positive identity development for HDR students.
Balancing life contexts and health and wellbeing of HDR students
The management of tensions outside of study, including family relationships, financial strains, and the management of individual health and wellbeing was reflected in 16 articles. Beasy et al. ( Citation 2021 ) reported that the competing demands experienced by some HDR students led to ill-health and anxiety. These findings were supported by Stylianou et al. ( Citation 2017 ), whose participants expressed concerns with unstable employment and perceived employment challenges post-PhD that were further compounded by the challenge of neoliberal university contexts. This resulted in highly competitive environments characterised by a pressure to publish yet supports to foster these skills were not always being provided. Crossman ( Citation 2005 ) found that for employed HDR students, balancing demands of the workplace was a core influencing component on student progression and success.
Barry et al. ( Citation 2018 ) found that HDR students reported higher levels of perceived stress and higher scores on the 42-item Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) when compared with the general population. This was however still within the ‘normal’ range. Hutchings et al. ( Citation 2018 ) identified a major theme of isolation among the participants in their research. Peer support was considered central, with supervisors reporting feeling unequipped to support students’ mental health. The prime directive from this research was that HDR students need to feel supported by their supervisors but also connected to their peers. Finally, Usher and McCormack ( Citation 2021 ) found that relationships between HDR study and wellbeing represent a complex interaction, which is impacted by age and international versus domestic student status.
Administrative challenges
Thirteen papers focused on challenges posed by university structures. These included positive supports for development of skills such as writing, and more challenging elements ranging from the provision of adequate working spaces to the impacts of broader thinking around HDR completions. HDR students participating in Bendix Petersen’s ( Citation 2012 ) study reported that universities were slow and bureaucratic, with the implication being that it is time-consuming for students to navigate through administrative systems. Hierarchy amongst academics was considered to add to this tension.
Beasy et al. ( Citation 2021 ) found in their online survey that the lack of institutional support for HDR students coupled with the ‘dehumanising process of candidature’ (p. 608) added to the stressors of being an HDR student. This was echoed in the findings of Dickie ( Citation 2011 ), where a positive environment in which the university provided appropriate structures to support training and skill development was considered important facilitators for student success. Taylor et al. ( Citation 2004 ) found that access to support sites was often challenging, contributing to a stressful environment for students. Participants in Kefford and Morgenbesser ( Citation 2013 ) highlighted the need for more opportunities and support to be provided to potential and existing students in supporting their research choices. It was evident however that there was some confusion as to the role of Faculty, and whether this was purely academic or social as well (Due et al., Citation 2015 ).
Trudgett ( Citation 2009 ) examined university supports specifically for Indigenous students and found that support officers did not sufficiently understand the needs of Indigenous students, and Indigenous students were not familiar with the support services that are available. This may mean that students miss out on key opportunities for support and scholarship application.
Challenges of a thesis by publication
Seven papers considered the nuances associated with completing a PhD by publication. Issues reported included the additional stress associated with pursuing a thesis by publication and the perception by students that this approach was favoured in part to progress the career of the supervisory team. Clear guidelines and experienced supervisors who were active researchers in their field were reported to support success for a thesis by publication.
Cumming ( Citation 2009 ) reflected on several challenges faced by HDR students, with a key one being the perceived pressure to publish to enhance their own career prospects and achieving balance in terms of supervisor contributions to this (see also Mason et al., Citation 2021 ). Despite challenges in negotiating authorship and the risks of not getting articles published, Jowsey et al. ( Citation 2020 ) report that overall, the benefits of having publications were acknowledged as an important element of the CVs for post-PhD plans (see also Merga et al., Citation 2019 ; Citation 2020 ).
However, Mason ( Citation 2018 ) reported that for success to be achieved in PhD by publication, clear institutional support guidelines need to be established. Mason highlights, for example, that the time required for publication processes can create stress for students and therefore policies that are flexible in the requirements for theses by publication that do not require all papers to be published can help to relieve student stress (see also Merga, Citation 2015 ). Established processes also need to be supported by adequate training for students and mentoring by supervisors in publication achievement (Mason et al., Citation 2021 ).
Challenges specific to industry-based research
Four papers specifically reflected on links with industry in the completion of PhDs. The papers indicated differing experiences for students who were based in industry, with those embedded in collaborative Cooperative Research Centre (CRC)-based projects generally having enhanced development of skills in areas such as IP, commercialisation, and leadership. However, there was a challenge in meeting the needs of both the university and industry partner.
Harman ( Citation 2002 ) focused on understanding the experiences of HDR students who were part of CRCs. Harman found that overall reported satisfaction of CRC students was comparable with those students based solely in universities. These CRC students did, however, report wider opportunities for skill development and were more likely to consider a career in industry rather than academia. Manathunga et al. ( Citation 2009 ) also reported on perceived benefits of CRC-based research students, particularly in work-readiness.
Morris et al. ( Citation 2012 ) found that industry-based students had more frequent contact with their supervisors and reported being more engaged and embedded within a research culture. Stewart and Chen ( Citation 2009 ) found that in addition to real-world applications becoming more apparent, industry-based research also brought financial benefits through causal work opportunities. However, with this came tensions in balancing time management and meeting the needs of both the university and industry partner. Role confusion was also highlighted, with some HDR students reporting engaging with menial tasks due to lack of role clarity or alternatively engaging with industry roles that led to the PhD research becoming secondary to the industry work. Overall, however, participants in Stewart and Chen’s study reflected on the competitive edge that industry engagement provided for them post-PhD.
In this systematic literature review, we have highlighted some key challenges that HDR students encounter. A prescient finding is that the quality of the relationship between the student and their supervisor, their university, and their peers are strongly associated with a positive student experience. Drawing on motivational theories such as self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, Citation 2017 ) that emphasise individual autonomy may offer opportunities to provide a framework of support for students. For example, a study by Litalien and Guay ( Citation 2015 ) using measures derived from SDT research and a sample of 1482 PhD students found evidence that perceptions of reduced competence (e.g., lack of confidence, limited progress, not presenting their research to peers) predicted attrition from PhD studies. Such student perceptions were derived from a controlling or impersonal motivational climate (e.g., quality of supervisory relationship). In contrast, the provision of an autonomy-supportive environment (e.g., demonstrating care and kindness, providing relevant structure and training, offering choice rather than control) predicted the completion of studies due to enhanced autonomous motivation and self-regulation of doctoral research. Based on the key findings from this review, we suggest that training could be provided to supervisors around the importance of providing support for autonomous motivation and would likely enhance the student experience and in turn student success. We note that good supervisory practice frameworks do currently exist (e.g., The UK Council for Graduate Education and the Australian Council for Graduate Research). These frameworks could be further adapted to include an SDT theoretical lens that frames relationships more specifically. Such training would involve promoting the importance of student autonomy (as opposed to supervisor control), awareness of kindness and the need to belong, and providing structure and constructive feedback to help with progression.
The importance of peer support should not be underestimated. A number of scholars have highlighted the positive role that writing groups and community of practices have in the peer support for HDR students (e.g., Beasy et al., Citation 2020 ). We would suggest that again an SDT informed approach to designing writing groups would be helpful. For example, framing the group around mutual autonomy where the students’ guide the content and direction of the group writing as opposed to setting pressured targets would likely lead to success.
Future work, implications, and limitations
This review has brought together a body of existing work and has explored the key themes in findings shared across the 68 academic journal articles. Its strength is therefore in reconciling a disparate body of work adopting divergent methodologies and providing a summative account of HDR students’ experiences in Australia, although the themes identified would be beneficial beyond Australian contexts. Limitations of the work include the focus on academic peer reviewed journals, which was adopted due to the voluminous proportions of search returns. The inclusion of only peer reviewed articles provided a focus on rigorous research and the best possible summary of contemporary understandings. Similarly, the decision to include only those articles written in English may have excluded some reports, especially about the experiences of international students. One aspect worthy of explicit future exploration that did not emerge as a key focus in the present review is the role of scholarships and how they might differentially impact student experience. We suggest that the themes identified from this review can inform research leadership and supervisors in developing interventions to support richer HDR experiences within their institutions.
Supplemental Material
The authors would like to thank the Research Librarian, Dr Tricia Kelly for their assistance in formulating the search parameters.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
- * Abdullah, M. N. L. Y. , & Evans, T. ( 2012 ). The relationships between postgraduate research students’ psychological attributes and their supervisors’ supervision training . Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 788 – 793 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.142 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Ai, B. ( 2017 ). Constructing an academic identity in Australia: An autoethnographic narrative . Higher Education Research & Development , 36 (6), 1095 – 1107 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303459 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Aitchison, C. , & Mowbray, S. ( 2013 ). Doctoral women: Managing emotions, managing doctoral studies . Teaching in Higher Education , 18 (8), 859 – 870 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827642 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Aromataris, E. M. Z. E. , & Munn, Z. ( 2020 ). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL [Google Scholar]
- * Bamgboje-Ayodele, A. , Ye, M. , Almond, H. , & Sakulwichitsintu, S. ( 2016 ). Inside the minds of doctoral students: Investigating challenges in theory and practice . International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 11 , 243 – 267 . https://doi.org/10.28945/3542 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Barry, K. M. , Woods, M. , Warnecke, E. , Stirling, C. , & Martin, A. ( 2018 ). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance . Higher Education Research & Development , 37 (3), 468 – 483 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1425979 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Beasy, K. , Emery, S. , & Crawford, J. ( 2021 ). Drowning in the shallows: An Australian study of the PhD experience of wellbeing . Teaching in Higher Education , 26 (4), 602 – 618 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1669014 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Beasy, K. , Emery, S. , Dyer, L. , Coleman, B. , Bywaters, D. , Garrad, T. , Crawford, J. , Swarts, K. , & Jahangiri, S. ( 2020 ). Writing together to foster wellbeing: Doctoral writing groups as spaces of wellbeing . Higher Education Research & Development , 39 (6), 109 – 1105 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1713732 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- Bendix Petersen, E. ( 2012 ). Re-signifying subjectivity? A narrative exploration of ‘non-traditional’ doctoral students' lived experience of subject formation through two Australian cases . Studies in Higher Education , 39 ( 5 ), 823 – 834 . http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.745337 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- * Berridge, S. ( 2008 ). What does It take? Auto/biography as performative PhD thesis . Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 9(2), 1 - 20 . https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.2.379 [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V. , & Clarke, V. ( 2019 ). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis . Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 11 (4), 589 – 597 . https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Chapman, A. , & Pyvis, D. ( 2005 ). Identity and social practice in higher education: Student experiences of postgraduate courses delivered ‘offshore’ in Singapore and Hong Kong by an Australian university . International Journal of Educational Development , 25 (1), 39 – 52 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.05.003 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Cotterall, S. ( 2011 ). Doctoral pedagogy: What do international PhD students in Australia think about it? Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities , 19 (2), 521 – 534 . http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/resources/files/Pertanika%20PAPERS/JSSH%20Vol.%2019%20(2)%20Sep.%202011%20(View%20Full%20Journal).pdf [Google Scholar]
- * Cotterall, S. ( 2015 ). The rich get richer: International doctoral candidates and scholarly identity . Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 52 (4), 360 - 370 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839124 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Crossman, J. ( 2005 ). Work and learning: The implications for Thai transnational distance learners . International Education Journal , 6 (1), 18 - 29 . https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854952.pdf [Google Scholar]
- * Cumming, J. ( 2009 ). The doctoral experience in science: Challenging the current orthodoxy . British Educational Research Journal , 35 (6), 877 – 890 . https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902834191 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Dai, K., & Hardy, I. ( 2021 ). The micro-politics of cultural change: a Chinese doctoral student’s learning journey in Australia . Oxford Review of Education , 47 , 243 – 259 . [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- * Davis, D. ( 2019 ). Students’ perceptions of supervisory qualities: What do students want? What do they believe they receive? International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 14 , 431 - 464 . https://doi.org/10.28945/4361 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- Department of Education and Training. ( 2018 ). Research Training Implementation Plan Progress Report. July 2018. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-reviews-and-consultations/resources/rtip-progress-report-july-2018 [Google Scholar]
- DESE. ( 2019 ). 2019 Higher degree by research student population of Australian universities . https://www.dese.gov.au/download/4100/2019-higher-degree-research-student-population/6075/document/pdf [Google Scholar]
- DESE. ( 2020 ). Enrolments time series, student enrolments by equity groups . https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/student-data/selected-higher-education-statistics-2020-student-data-0 [Google Scholar]
- * Devenish, R. , Dyer, S. , Jefferson, T. , Lord, L. , van Leeuwen, S. , & Fazakerley, V. ( 2009 ). Peer to peer support: The disappearing work in the doctoral student experience . Higher Education Research & Development , 28 (1), 59 – 70 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360802444362 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Dickie, C. ( 2011 ). Winning the PhD game: Evocative playing of snakes and ladders . Qualitative Report , 16 (5), 1230 – 1244 . http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ941701.pdf [Google Scholar]
- * Due, C. , Zambrano, S. C. , Chur-Hansen, A. , Turnbull, D. , & Niess, C. ( 2015 ). Higher degree by research in a foreign country: A thematic analysis of the experiences of international students and academic supervisors . Quality in Higher Education , 21 (1), 52 – 65 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1032002 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Fotovatian, S. , & Miller, J. ( 2014 ). Constructing an institutional identity in university tea rooms: The international PhD student experience . Higher Education Research & Development , 33 (2), 286 – 297 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.832154 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Fung, A. S. K. , Southcott, J. , & Siu, F. ( 2017 ). Exploring mature-aged students’ motives for doctoral study and their challenges: A cross border research collaboration . International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 12 , 175 – 195 . https://doi.org/10.28945/3790 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Guerin, C. , & Green, I. ( 2015 ). ‘They’re the bosses’: Feedback in team supervision . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 39 (3), 320 – 335 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.831039 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Halbert, K. ( 2015 ). Students’ perceptions of a ‘quality’ advisory relationship . Quality in Higher Education , 21 (1), 26 – 37 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1049439 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Harman, G. ( 2003a ). International PhD students in Australian universities: Financial support, course experience and career plans . International Journal of Educational Development , 23 (3), 339 – 351 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(02)00054-8 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Harman, G. ( 2003b ). Phd student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in two Australian research-intensive universities . Prometheus , 21 (3), 317 – 334 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0810902032000113460 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- * Harman, K. ( 2002 ). The research training experiences of doctoral students linked to Australian cooperative research centres . Higher Education , 44 (3/4), 469 – 492 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019894323421 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Hutchings, K. , Bodle, K. , & Miller, A. ( 2018 ). Opportunities and resilience: Enablers to address barriers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to commence and complete higher degree research programs . Australian Aboriginal Studies , 2 , 29 – 49 . https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316informit.106269539902101 [Google Scholar]
- * Ives, G. , & Rowley, G. ( 2005 ). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. Students’ progress and outcomes . Studies in Higher Education , 30 (5), 535 – 555 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Jones, A. , & Blass, E. ( 2019 ). The impact of institutional power on higher degree research supervision: Implications for the quality of doctoral outcomes . Universal Journal of Educational Research , 7 (7), 1485 – 1494 . https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070702 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Jowsey, T. , Corter, A. , & Thompson, A. ( 2020 ). Are doctoral theses with articles more popular than monographs? Supervisors and students in biological and health sciences weigh up risks and benefits . Higher Education Research & Development , 39 (4), 719 – 732 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1693517 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Kefford, G. , & Morgenbesser, L. ( 2013 ). Bridging the information gap: A survey of politics and international relations PhD students in Australia . Australian Journal of Political Science , 48 (4), 507 – 518 . https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2013.840431 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Klenowski, V. , Ehrich, L. , Kapitzke, C. , & Trigger, K. ( 2011 ). Building support for learning within a doctor of education programme . Teaching in Higher Education , 16 (6), 681 – 693 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.570431 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Lasen, M. , Evans, S. , Tsey, K. , Campbell, C. , & Kinchin, I. ( 2018 ). Quality of WIL assessment design in higher education: A systematic literature review . Higher Education Research & Development , 37 (4), 788 – 804 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1450359 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Lee, E. , Blackmore, C. , & Seal, E. ( 2013 ). Research journeys: A collection of narratives of the doctoral experience . Cambridge Scholars . [Google Scholar]
- Litalien, D. , & Guay, F. ( 2015 ). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 41 , 218 – 231 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Ma, L. P. F. ( 2021 ). Writing in English as an additional language: Challenges encountered by doctoral students . Higher Education Research & Development , 40 (6), 1176 – 1190 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1809354 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Macoun, A. , & Miller, D. ( 2014 ). Surviving (thriving) in academia: Feminist support networks and women ECRs . Journal of Gender Studies , 23 (3), 287 – 301 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2014.909718 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Maher, D. , Seaton, L. , McMullen, C. , Fitzgerald, T. , Otsuji, E. , & Lee, A. ( 2008 ). ‘Becoming and being writers': The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups . Studies in Continuing Education , 30 (3), 263 – 275 . https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370802439870 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Manathunga, C. , Pitt, R. , & Critchley, C. ( 2009 ). Graduate attribute development and employment outcomes: Tracking PhD graduates . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 34 (1), 91 – 103 . https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955945 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Mantai, L. ( 2019 ). ‘A source of sanity': The role of social support for doctoral candidates’ belonging and becoming . International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 14 , 367 – 382 . https://doi.org/10.28945/4275 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Mason, S. ( 2018 ). Publications in the doctoral thesis: Challenges for doctoral candidates, supervisors, examiners and administrators . Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1231 – 1244 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1462307 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Mason, S. , Morris, J. E. , & Merga, M. K. ( 2021 ). Institutional and supervisory support for the thesis by publication . Australian Journal of Education , 65(1), 55 – 72 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944120929065 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- McAlpine, L. , & Amundsen, C. ( 2011 ). To be or not to be? The challenges of learning academic work . In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 1 – 13 ). Springer . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0507-4 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- McGagh, J. , Marsh, H. , Western, M. , Thomas, P. , Hastings, A. , Mihailova, M. , … Wenham, M. ( 2016 ). Review of Australia’s Research Training System . Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA). [Google Scholar]
- * Merga, M. K. ( 2015 ). Thesis by publication in education: An autoethnographic perspective for educational researchers . Issues in Educational Research , 25 (3), 291 – 308 . http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/merga.pdf [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- Merga, M. K. , Mason, S. , & Morris, J. E. ( 2019 ). ‘The constant rejections hurt’: Skills and personal attributes needed to successfully complete a thesis by publication . Learned Publishing , 32 (3), 271 – 281 . https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1245 [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Merga, M. K. , Mason, S. , & Morris, J. E. ( 2020 ). ‘What do I even call this?’ challenges and possibilities of undertaking a thesis by publication . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 44(9), 1245 – 1261 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1671964 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Morris, S. , Pitt, R. , & Manathunga, C. ( 2012 ). Students’ experiences of supervision in academic and industry settings: Results of an Australian study . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 37 (5), 619 – 636 . https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.557715 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Naylor, R. , Chakravarti, S. , & Baik, C. ( 2016 ). Differing motivations and requirements in PhD student cohorts: A case study . Issues in Educational Research , 26 (2), 351 – 367 . http://www.iier.org.au/iier26/naylor.pdf [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Nguyen, B. T. T. , & Pennycook, A. ( 2018 ). Dancing, google and fish sauce: Vietnamese students coping with Australian universities . Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 38 (4), 457 – 472 . https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1493981 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Nomnian, S. ( 2017 ). Thai PhD students and their supervisors at an Australian university: Working relationship, communication, and agency . PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand , 53 , 26 – 58 . http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153678.pdf [Google Scholar]
- * Owens, A. , Brien, D. L. , Ellison, E. , & Batty, C. ( 2020 ). Student reflections on doctoral learning: Challenges and breakthroughs . Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education , 11 (1), 107 – 122 . https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0048 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Parker, R. ( 2009 ). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences . Teaching in Higher Education , 14 (1), 43 – 54 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802602533 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Roach, A. , Christensen, B. K. , & Rieger, E. ( 2019 ). The essential ingredients of research supervision: A discrete-choice experiment . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 (7), 1243 – 1260 . https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000322 [Crossref] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Robertson, M. ( 2017 ). Aspects of mentorship in team supervision of doctoral students in Australia . Australian Educational Researcher , 44 (4-5), 409 – 424 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0241-z [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Ross, P. M. , Burgin, S. , Aitchison, C. , & Catterall, J. ( 2011 ). Research writing in the sciences: Liminal territory and high emotion . Journal of Learning Design , 4 (3), 14 – 27 . http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ940645.pdf [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. ( 2017 ). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . The Guilford Press . [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Satariyan, A. , Getenet, S. , Gube, J. , & Muhammad, Y. ( 2015 ). Exploring supervisory support in an Australian university: Perspectives of doctoral students in an education faculty . Journal of the Australia and New Zealand Student Services Association , 46 , 1 – 12 . https://www.anzssa.com/public/94/files/JANZSSA%20editions/JANZSSA%20October%202015_Number%2046.pdf [Google Scholar]
- * Shen, C. ( 2008 ). Chinese research students’ adjustment to the Australian learning environment . International Journal of Learning , 15 (1), 43 – 50 . https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v15i01/45381 [Google Scholar]
- * Son, J.-B. , & Park, S.-S. ( 2014 ). Academic experiences of international PhD students in Australian higher education: From an EAP program to a PhD program . International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning , 9 (1), 26 – 37 . https://doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082017 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- * Stewart, R. A. , & Chen, L. ( 2009 ). Developing a framework for work integrated research higher degree studies in an Australian engineering context . European Journal of Engineering Education , 34 (2), 155 – 169 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902833325 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
- * Stylianou, M. , Enright, E. , & Hogan, A. ( 2017 ). Learning to be researchers in physical education and sport pedagogy: The perspectives of doctoral students and early career researchers . Sport, Education and Society , 22 (1), 122 – 139 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1244665 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Taylor, A. , Millei, Z. , Partridge, L. , & Rodriguez, L. ( 2004 ). The getting of access: The trials and tribulations of the novice researcher . Issues In Educational Research , 14(1), 85 – 102 . http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/taylor.html [Google Scholar]
- Torka, M. ( 2020 ). Change and continuity in Australian doctoral education: PhD completion rates and times (2005-2018) . Australian Universities’ Review , 62 (2), 69 – 82 . https://aur.nteu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AUR-62-02.pdf [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Trudgett, M. ( 2009 ). Build it and they will come: Building the capacity of Indigenous units in universities to provide better support for Indigenous Australian postgraduate students . Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , 38 (1), 9 – 18 . https://doi.org/10.1375/S1326011100000545 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Trudgett, M. ( 2011 ). Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: Supervising Indigenous Australian postgraduate students . Teaching in Higher Education , 16 (4), 389 – 399 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560376 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Trudgett, M. ( 2014 ). Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: A black and white issue . Higher Education Research & Development , 33 (5), 1035 – 1048 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890576 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Usher, W. , & McCormack, B. A. ( 2021 ). Doctoral capital and well-being amongst Australian PhD students: Exploring capital and habitus of doctoral students . Health Education , 121 (3), 322 – 336 . https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-11-2020-0112 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T. , & Li, L. Y. ( 2011 ). “Tell me what to do” vs. “Guide me through it ". Feedback Experiences of International Doctoral Students. Active Learning in Higher Education , 12 (2), 101 – 112 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402438 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]
- * Winchester-Seeto, T. , Homewood, J. , Thogersen, J. , Jacenyik-Trawoger, C. , Manathunga, C. , Reid, A. , … Holbrook, A. ( 2014 ). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: Issues affecting supervisors and candidates . Higher Education Research & Development , 33 (3), 610 – 626 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Yarlagadda, P. K. D. V. , Sharma, J. , Silva, P. , Woodman, K. , Pitchforth, J. , & Mengersen, K. ( 2018 ). Factors influencing the success of culturally and linguistically diverse students in engineering and information technology . International Journal of Engineering Education , 34 (4), 1384 – 1399 . https://eprints.qut.edu.au/223993/ [Google Scholar]
- * Yeoh, J. S. W. , D. Thao . ( 2012 ). International research students’ perceptions of quality supervision . International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research , 1 (3), 10 – 18 . https://www.auamii.com/jiir/Vol-01/issue-03/2Yeoh.pdf . [Google Scholar]
- Yim, L. , & Waters, L. ( 2013 ). The role of interpersonal comfort, attributional confidence, and communication quality in academic mentoring relationships . Education Research and Perspectives , 40 , 58 – 85 . https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/aeipt.203881 [Google Scholar]
- * Yu, B. , & Wright, E. ( 2016 ). Socio-cultural adaptation, academic adaptation and satisfaction of international higher degree research students in Australia . Tertiary Education & Management , 22 (1), 49 – 64 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1127405 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]
- * Zeivots, S. ( 2021 ). Outsiderness and socialisation bump: First year perspectives of international university research students . Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 41 (2), 385 – 398 . https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1779028 [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]
Reprints and Permissions
Permission is granted subject to the terms of the License under which the work was published. Permission will be required if your reuse is not covered by the terms of the License.
To request a reprint or commercial or derivative permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below.
For more information please visit our Permissions help page .
- More Share Options
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.
- People also read
- Recommended articles
Your download is now in progress and you may close this window
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research
Login or register to access this feature
Register now or learn more
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
- Open Access
- Published: 17 March 2023
An integrative survival analysis and a systematic review of the cerebellopontine angle glioblastomas
- Nebojsa Lasica 1 , 2 ,
- Kenan Arnautovic 3 , 4 ,
- Tomita Tadanori 5 ,
- Petar Vulekovic 1 , 2 &
- Dusko Kozic 2 , 6
Scientific Reports volume 13 , Article number: 4442 ( 2023 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
- Cancer imaging
- Surgical oncology
Glioblastomas presenting topographically at the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) are exceedingly rare. Given the specific anatomical considerations and their rarity, overall survival (OS) and management are not discussed in detail. The authors performed an integrative survival analysis of CPA glioblastomas. A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed per PRISMA guidelines. Patient data including demographics, clinical features, neuroimaging, management, follow-up, and OS were extracted. The mean age was 39 ± 26.2 years. The mean OS was 8.9 months. Kaplan–Meier log-rank test and univariate Cox proportional-hazards model identified hydrocephalus (log-rank, p = 0.034; HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12–0.94; p = 0.038), chemotherapy (log-rank, p < 0.005; HR 5.66; 95% CI 1.53–20.88; p = 0.009), and radiotherapy (log-rank, p < 0.0001; HR 12.01; 95% CI 3.44–41.89; p < 0.001) as factors influencing OS. Hydrocephalus (HR 3.57; 95% CI 1.07–11.1; p = 0.038) and no adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02–0.59; p < 0.01) remained prognostic on multivariable analysis with fourfold and twofold higher risk for the time-related onset of death, respectively. This should be considered when assessing the risk-to-benefit ratio for patients undergoing surgery for CPA glioblastoma.
Introduction
Glioblastomas represent around 15% of all intracranial tumors and account for more than 50% of primary and other central nervous system (CNS) gliomas 1 . They are usually located in the supratentorial region, although they may develop at any location within the CNS 2 . Nevertheless, they rarely develop in the posterior fossa, particularly in the adult population group, where they make up approximately 1% of all glioblastomas 3 .
Brainstem gliomas have a stereotypical growth pattern due to anatomical barriers, greatly influenced by pia, decussations zones, and brainstem projections, which usually make them protrude dorsally 4 . Proportionately, glioblastomas can develop as exophytic extensions to the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) from the adjacent brainstem or the cerebellum, and may also develop from the root entry zone (REZ) of the cranial nerves 5 . CPA is one of the most complex anatomical regions of the CNS, with a plethora of lesions that may arise from various tissues of CPA, embryological remnants, and extensions from adjacent structures, including petrous bone, brainstem, and ventricles 6 . Imaging-wise these tumors may exert similar characteristics, and topographically appear within the CPA. Diagnostic confidence interval for CPA glioblastomas may be enhanced through the identification of abnormal imaging characteristics and growth pattern on sequential imaging, unexpected for the common CPA lesions.
Maximal surgical cytoreduction with adjuvant treatment remain standard in the treatment of glioblastoma 7 . Considering specific anatomical relationships, neurosurgeons must determine best treatment strategy that can be applied for CPA glioblastomas based on previous experience and predictors that influence survival.
In this communication, we present our illustrative case of CPA glioblastoma and review pertinent literature to carry out an integrative survival analysis of reported cases and the relationship between the various factors and overall survival (OS).
Integrated cohort
The search strategy revealed a total of 124 articles for evaluation. After removing duplicate articles, inclusion criteria were applied to 101 titles and abstracts of articles. Twenty-seven articles underwent full-text analysis. One article was included from the manual search of references. Overall, 26 articles describing CPA glioblastoma satisfied the inclusion criteria. Pooled cases and a case from our institution were included in the final integrated cohort, consisting of 30 patients for analysis. A PRISMA flow diagram shown (Supplementary Fig. 1 ) depicts the search strategy.
Patients and tumor characteristics
The mean age at presentation was 39 years. Eleven (36.7%) patients belonged to the pediatric and 19 (63.3%) to the adult group. Slight male (60%) predominance was observed. The mean tumor size was 37.7 ± 15.7 mm. Presenting symptoms included disequilibrium (50.3%), hearing loss (16.7%), and signs of increased intracranial pressure included headache, nausea or vomiting, facial weakness, facial numbness, and visual changes (each 13.3%). The mean duration of symptoms was 3 months. Signs of hydrocephalus on admission were noted in 11 patients (36.7%).
CPA glioblastomas were most commonly reached through the retrosigmoid approach (76%). Other approaches included: combined subtemporal and retrosigmoid, subtemporal, translabyrinthine, far lateral, and suboccipital. Tumors originated from the cranial nerve REZ (30.0%), most commonly from the cranial nerve VIII (Supplementary Table 1 ); the remainder were secondary exophytic and originated from the pons (26.7%) and the cerebellum (36.7%). Twenty-nine (96.7%) patients underwent surgery, with GTR achieved in 4 (13.3%), STR in 20 (66.7%), and biopsy in 5 (16.7%) patients. Thirteen (43.3%) patients received postoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and 7 (23.3%) received radiotherapy alone. The mean follow-up was 12 months (range 3–24 months). No cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dissemination within the neuroaxis or through a shunt was observed in this cohort. A detailed overview of baseline patient and tumor characteristics are shown in Table 1 .
Survival analysis
Results from univariable and multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional-hazards model are shown in Table 2 . Using univariable analysis, the presence of hydrocephalus on admission appeared to be a significant factor associated with mortality (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12–0.94; p = 0.038). Figure 1 reveals the Kaplan–Meier curve that illustrates a statistically significant separation of curves according to the presence of hydrocephalus (log-rank test, p = 0.024). Figure 2 a demonstrates the combination of treatment modalities on OS. Other factors associated with survival found on univariable analysis were adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 5.66; 95% CI 1.53–20.88; p = 0.009) and radiotherapy (HR 12.01; 95% CI 3.44–41.89; p < 0.001) as demonstrated by Fig. 2 b,c.
Kaplan–Meier plot of OS based on presence (n = 11) or absence (n = 19) of hydrocephalus in patients with CPA glioblastoma (log-rank test alpha level was 0.05). Patients with no hydrocephalus on admission had a mean OS 18.4 months compared with 5.6 months in patients with hydrocephalus on admission.
Comparison of OS based on treatment modalities ( a ) with patient subgroups receiving surgery and complete adjuvant treatment (n = 13), surgery and adjuvant radiation treatment (n = 7), surgery alone (n = 9), and no treatment (n = 1). Kaplan–Meier plot of chemotherapy (n = 13), and no adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 17) subgroups ( b ), and patients with CPA glioblastoma receiving radiation treatment (n = 20), and with no adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 10) ( c ). OS based on surgery type ( d ) with subgroup of patients that underwent GTR (n = 4), STR (n = 20), biopsy (n = 5), and no surgery (n = 1). Log-rank test alpha level was set to 0.05. Statistically longer survival was observed in patients receiving surgery with complete postoperative adjuvant treatment, postoperative chemotherapy, and radiation treatment.
The type of surgery did not influence the OS on Kaplan–Meier analysis (Fig. 2 d); however, GTR showed longer mean OS (17.3 months) compared to STR (10.9 months) and biopsy only (9 months). No significant association was found between age group, sex, tumor origin, and size. Even so, it is interesting to note that the pontine origin was associated with the shortest mean OS (7.3 months) compared with the cranial nerve REZ (12.1 months) and cerebellum (18.4 months), and the influence of tumor size on mean OS (< 3 cm, 14.3 months vs > 3 cm 9.9 months). Furthermore, pediatric age group displayed shorter mean OS (5.9 months) compared with adults (17.9 months) (Supplementary Fig. 2 ).
The multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model confirmed the influence of hydrocephalus on OS (HR 3.57; 95% CI 1.07–11.1; p = 0.038) after adjusting for other variables; patients with hydrocephalus had an almost fourfold higher risk for the time-related onset of death. Similarly, patients not receiving adjuvant radiotherapy were prone and had an almost twofold higher risk of death (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02–0.59; p < 0.01) compared with patients with adjuvant radiotherapy. On the other hand, when adjusting to other factors, chemotherapy was no longer a significant risk factor for time-related onset of death (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.07–2.86; p = 0.393). The Kaplan–Meier curve was created for OS (Fig. 3 ). For patients with CPA glioblastomas, cumulative survival estimated at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months was 67.8%, 60.7%, 39.3%, 10.7%, and 10.7%, respectively; the overall death rate was highest in the first 3 months at 32.2%.
Kaplan–Meier curve showing OS survival in patients with CPA glioblastoma in our cohort.
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemistry information was available in 21 (70.0%) patient. While there were some apparent differences in the percentage of positivity of some immunomarkers, the used markers were not uniform in each report (Supplementary Table 2 ). Most consistently reported were GFAP (50.0%), p53 (20.0%), and S100 (20.0%). No clear differences were observed between secondary exophytic and nerve REZ in immunomarkers positivity.
Neuroimaging
Two (6.6%) CPA glioblastomas were located bilaterally. The remainder were located on the left (33.3%) and the right side (56.7%). Tumors most commonly showed a low-intensity signal on T1-weighted (91.7%), and a high-intensity signal on T2-weighted images (76.5%). On administration of contrast, they showed heterogeneous (60.0%), homogenous (16.0%), and peripheral (8.0%) enhancement. Four (16.0%) tumors appeared as ring lesions. Extension to the internal acoustic canal (IAC) was noted in 7 (23.3%) patients.
Proton magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy findings were available in 7 patients. Single and multivoxel spectroscopic data showed the most usual pattern of increased choline levels relative to N -acetyl aspartate. In addition, a relative decrease of creatine compared with choline levels was also reported. One study reported increased lactate on MR spectroscopy.
According to the available neuroimaging characteristics from reported cases, preoperative differential diagnoses included peripheral nerve sheath tumor (PNST) in 58.8% of cases (out of which 17.6% were suspected to be malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST]), meningioma (35.3%), both low-grade and high-grade glioma (35.3%), and metastases (17.6%). The remaining cases (41.2%) belonged to the group of less frequent differential diagnoses, including atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT), brain abscess, lymphoma, meningitis, neurosarcoidosis, primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET), and tuberculoma.
Illustrative case
A male patient in his 50 s presented with a 6-month history of progressive right-sided facial weakness and numbness, and gradual hearing loss in the right ear before admission. The patient’s past medical and family history was unremarkable. Neurological examination revealed hearing loss and peripheral facial nerve palsy, and anesthesia on the right side. Imaging revealed a well-defined extraaxial heterogeneous solid mass in the right CPA. Radiological findings and neurometabolic profile on MR spectroscopy were most likely consistent with vestibular schwannoma (VS) (Fig. 4 a–c). After discussing treatment options, including observation, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and microsurgical resection the patient opted for observation. Interval follow-up MRI acquired at 5 months demonstrated marked enlargement of the tumor (Fig. 4 d–f). Due to the progression in a short time interval and aggressive imaging characteristics of the tumor, a malignant tumor was suspected and microsurgical resection was arranged.
T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo MRI sequence of the brain in the axial plane ( a ) demonstrates a well-defined extraaxial solid mass of approximately 26 × 23 × 21 mm in the right CPA. T2-weighted MRI turbo spin-echo sequence of the brain in the axial plane ( b ) revealed peritumoral edema involving the right cerebellar peduncle and compressive effect on the brainstem, the fourth ventricle, and the right foramen of Luschka. Single-voxel MR spectroscopy of the CPA lesion ( c ) reveals elevated choline concentration, with no other metabolites. Follow-up T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MRI in the axial ( d ) and coronal planes ( e ) reveal marked enlargement of the tumor with extension to the IAC (arrow). Axial T2-weighted MRI ( f ) shows further expansion of the tumor mass to 35 × 34 × 33 mm and more pronounced compression on the lateral aspect of the brainstem and the fourth ventricle.
A right retrosigmoid approach was selected for tumor resection. After identifying the lower cranial nerve group, a lesion within the CPA was identified, light brown in color, with a soft consistency. Tumor was debulked in a piecemeal fashion. Due to multiple infiltrative regions to the adjacent pons, GTR could not be safely performed and STR was completed instead.
Histopathology revealed features consistent with the glioblastoma. Staining was immunopositive for Olig2, with CD56, Synaptophysin, NSE, and S100 positive stroma (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). Staining for Vimentin, EMA, and CKAE1/AE3 were negative. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient received institutional protocol-based adjuvant therapy that included chemotherapy with temozolomide and external beam fractionated irradiation to a total dose of 74 Gy.
Glioblastomas, with an incidence rate of 3.23 per 100,000 population, are the most common malignant tumors of the CNS 1 . Distinctive group of CPA glioblastomas are considered very rare. Given their rarity and peculiar anatomical localization, the prognosis of CPA glioblastomas and factors influencing survival are unclear. A management protocol and clear guidelines for CPA glioblastomas are yet to be defined. Knowledge about the factors associated with survival is essential in guiding neurosurgeons and oncologists in treatment. We, therefore, performed a first comprehensive analysis to identify and determine factors influencing survival in patients with CPA glioblastomas (to the best of our knowledge).
Several theories may explain how these tumors develop. They may arise as secondary extensions of tumors that develop in the superficial part of the brainstem (Fig. 5 ) 8 . Occasional islands of heterotopic glioneural tissue across the CNS, including the leptomeninges, nerve REZ, and the peripheral segment may also be the origin of these tumors (Fig. 6 ) 5 , 9 , 10 . Molecular profiling of the CPA glioblastoma has revealed underlying genetic mutations in the TP53, TERT, NF1, and RB1 genes 11 . Taraszewska et al . 12 reported bilateral CPA glioblastoma in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1, suggesting a possible genetic link.
Artist’s illustration of exophytic and nerve REZ (inset) CPA glioblastoma ©Elyssa Siegel 2022.
A cross-section of the funnel-shaped transitional zone within the nerve REZ depicts distinct islands of neuroglial tissue, likely the origin of nerve REZ gliomas. In the transitional zone, both Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes are present ©Elyssa Siegel 2022.
The mean age in our cohort was lower when compared with the reported age in the literature, with a slight male predominance, usually observed in glioblastomas 1 , 7 . Posterior fossa glioblastomas may prove to be a completely different entity. Their histology shows similarities to secondary glioblastomas that occur at an earlier age, considering readily observed absence of EGFR positivity, which may also account for the younger age observed in CPA glioblastomas 13 , 14 . Previous studies have repeatedly shown that young age is a well-established predictor of long-term survival in patients with glioblastoma 15 , 16 , 17 . Despite minor differences, subgroup analysis stratified by sex and age failed to show any significant influence on the OS.
Our findings suggest that tumor origin do not seem to be influencing OS. However, due to the small cohort, this finding should be interpreted cautiously. Raw data suggest that a difference in mean OS may exist between groups in which pontine origins have the worst mean OS. The proximity of vital structures within the brainstem and a lower tolerance of the posterior fossa to the mass effect are two factors contributing to the markedly different prognosis of the tumors in this region, with the pons showing higher malignant potential in comparison to other structures 18 , 19 , 20 .
The advancement of microsurgical techniques and other technological developments allowed the neurosurgeon to perform an aggressive, albeit safe, resection to achieve maximal cytoreduction, a cornerstone of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma 21 . The causal association between the extent of resection and the prolonged overall and progression-free survival were demonstrated repeatedly in studies, favoring GTR over STR or biopsy when feasible 21 , 22 , 23 . In clinical practice, concerns about injury to the eloquent brain regions, vascular and nerve structures, and subsequent impairment of quality of life make a goal of GTR hard to achieve. Our findings suggest that GTR was possible in only a fraction of patients with CPA glioblastoma, owing to the fact that preservation of cranial nerves and brainstem integrity hinders the radicality of resection in this region. Although no statistical difference was observed, patients with GTR had a longer mean OS compared to patients with STR or biopsy only.
Surgical resection is an important first step in the treatment of glioblastoma. Even with modern advances, multimodal approach with concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain a standard of care in these patients 7 . Our analysis points out a clear association between adjuvant therapy and OS (log-rank test, p < 0.001), with radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy proven to be superior to radiotherapy alone, as demonstrated earlier 24 . It is, however, reasonable to point out that patients who did not undergo treatment may have had too poor functional status. About one-half of patients who did not receive chemotherapy lived 4 months or shorter. This interval may be too short a survival to be eligible for chemotherapy unless given concurrent with radiation, which was not standard before about year 2000. In general, however, the observed mean survival in the CPA angle cohort was 8.9 months, shorter than the 12–14 months reported by Stupp et al . 7 .
Posterior fossa tumors are associated with the risk of development of both obstructive and communicating hydrocephalus from as low as 10% up to 50% 25 , 26 , 27 . A nationwide French study of adult patients with cerebellar glioblastoma by Picart et al . 28 reported that 41.5% of patients presented with hydrocephalus, similar to our cohort (36.7% of patients). Unlike cerebellar glioblastoma, hydrocephalus on admission was a negative predictor of OS in patients with CPA glioblastoma. It is difficult to link hydrocephalus directly to OS due to the observed difference in tumor size between groups based on the presence or absence of hydrocephalus.
Despite the fact that no characteristic features on MRI imaging were identified, MR spectroscopy may provide necessary information for suspecting a tumor with glial origins. Avidly enhanced CPA lesions associated with the extension to the IAC and the “choline-only” spectrum most likely suggest VS as the first diagnostic option. Glioblastomas, however, do not present with such a neurobiochemical profile. In glioblastomas, MR spectroscopy typically shows high choline-to-creatine ratio (increased cell membrane turnover), and markedly decreased N -acetyl aspartate, a marker of neuronal integrity and function (due to destroyed neuronal tissue, neuronal dysfunction, or rarefaction). The elevated lactate and lipid peaks in glioblastoma are most probably a consequence of anaerobic glycolysis and tumor necrosis, respectively. On the other hand, elevated choline and lipid peaks—with peaks attributable to N -acetyl aspartate and creatine being absent—are typical for metastases, while a choline-only spectrum is characteristic of either extraaxial or non-glial intraaxial neoplasms 29 , 30 . To the best of our knowledge, the illustrative case reported in our study presented with the biochemical profile consistent with that of an extraaxial tumor is also a novelty in the literature.
This particular anatomical region usually harbors benign tumors, including the diagnosis of meningioma and VS. However, rapid neurological and radiological progression with peculiar findings on MR spectroscopy should be considered a red flag and raise suspicion of a potential malignant nature, with CPA glioblastoma as one of the potential diagnoses.
CPA glioblastomas may arise as exophytic extensions from the adjacent pons or cerebellum, or within the REZ of the cranial nerves. Hydrocephalus on admission in our study was associated with worse OS. Surgical resection followed by adjuvant treatment, provided survival benefit in patients with CPA glioblastoma irrespective of the extent of resection. Retrospective design and small number of available CPA glioblastoma cases included in analysis are inherent limitations of this study. Despite these limitations further studies may provide more data for analysis in the future to determine distinct molecular profiles of the tumors and identify additional factors influencing the survival and management of CPA glioblastomas.
Literature review
Literature search.
The literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 31 . The search was conducted using the strings of search terms, including “glioblastoma”, “glioblastoma multiforme”, and “cerebellopontine angle”. Duplicate results were eliminated and articles were surveyed according to the inclusion criteria described below.
Selection criteria
We considered articles published in English and fitting the description of CPA glioblastoma from 1979—when the first reported case was published—to December 2021—when the search was concluded. Two separate reviewers surveyed article titles and abstracts. Full-text articles deemed relevant were examined, and any disagreements were resolved in group discussion. A manual survey of the references within selected articles was performed to reveal references not covered in the original search. Corresponding authors from studies with no individual patient data were contacted by email addresses supplied in each manuscript to provide the missing information.
Data abstraction
The variables of each patient were extracted and included the following: age, gender, presenting symptoms and duration, presence of hydrocephalus, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics, tumor origins, treatment modality, immunohistochemistry, follow-up, and OS.
The extent of surgical resection was classified into gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), or biopsy. Adjuvant treatment consisted of radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone, or complete adjuvant therapy with both treatment modalities. OS was measured in months as the time interval from tumor diagnosis until the patient’s death due to any cause. All relevant data are provided within the manuscript and its Supplementary Digital Content files.
Statistical analysis
The variables were analyzed and charts made using the statistical software package SPSS 21.0 for Windows (IBM Corp. in Armonk, NY). Data were presented using means, ranges, and standard deviations for continuous variables and numbers and proportions for categorical variables. The impact of variables on survival was assessed using the univariate Cox proportional-hazards model to evaluate the association between risk factors and the OS. For significant risk factors, Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to display survival, and the log-rank test used to compare survival times in each group. Variables that showed statistical significance and trend towards significance (p < 0.1) were included in the final multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model. Hazard ratios (HR) were reported along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A P-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant.
Ethical approval
The studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the institutional ethical review board (Ethical Review Board of the Clinical center of Vojvodina).
Data availability
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Ostrom, Q. T. et al. CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2013–2017. Neuro Oncol. 22 , 1–96 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Pietsch, T. & Wiestler, O. D. Molecular neuropathology of astrocytic brain tumors. J. Neurooncol. 35 , 211–222 (1997).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stark, A. M., Maslehaty, H., Hugo, H. H., Mahvash, M. & Mehdorn, H. M. Glioblastoma of the cerebellum and brainstem. J. Clin. Neurosci. 17 , 1248–1251 (2010).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Epstein, F. J. & Farmer, J.-P. Brain-stem glioma growth patterns. J. Neurosurg. 78 , 408–412 (1993).
Arnautovic, K. I., Husain, M. M. & Linskey, M. E. Cranial nerve root entry zone primary cerebellopontine angle gliomas: A rare and poorly recognized subset of extraparenchymal tumors. J. Neurooncol. 49 , 205–212 (2000).
Bonneville, F. et al. Unusual lesions of the cerebellopontine angle: A segmental approach. Radiographics 21 , 419–438 (2001).
Stupp, R. et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 352 , 987–996 (2005).
Reifenberger, G. et al. Primary glioblastoma multiforme of the oculomotor nerve. J. Neurosurg. 84 , 1062–1066 (1996).
Cooper, I. S. & Kernohan, J. W. Heterotopic glial nests in the subarachnoid space: Histopathologic characteristics, mode of origin and relation to meningeal gliomas. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 10 , 16–29 (1951).
Mirone, G., Schiabello, L., Chibbaro, S., Bouazza, S. & George, B. Pediatric primary pilocytic astrocytoma of the cerebellopontine angle: A case report. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 25 , 247–251 (2008).
Takami, H. et al. Glioblastoma of the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal mimicking a peripheral nerve sheath tumor: Case report. J. Neurosurg. 131 , 1835–1839 (2018).
Taraszewska, A., Bogucki, J., Powala, A. & Matyja, E. Giant cell glioblastoma with unique bilateral cerebellopontine angle localization considered as extraaxial tumor growth in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1. Clin. Neuropathol. 32 , 58–65 (2013).
PubMed Google Scholar
Saito, T. et al. Prognosis of cerebellar glioblastomas: Correlation between prognosis and immunoreactivity for epidermal growth factor receptor compared with supratentorial glioblastomas. Anticancer Res. 26 , 1351–1357 (2006).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Utsuki, S. et al. Adult cerebellar glioblastoma cases have different characteristics from supratentorial glioblastoma. Brain Tumor Pathol. 29 , 87–95 (2012).
Darefsky, A. S., King, J. T. & Dubrow, R. Adult glioblastoma multiforme survival in the temozolomide era: A population-based analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registries. Cancer 118 , 2163–2172 (2012).
Siker, M. L. et al. Age as an independent prognostic factor in patients with glioblastoma: A radiation therapy oncology group and American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base comparison. J. Neurooncol. 104 , 351–356 (2011).
Thumma, S. R. et al. Effect of pretreatment clinical factors on overall survival in glioblastoma multiforme: A surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) population analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 10 , 75 (2012).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jeswani, S. et al. Comparison of survival between cerebellar and supratentorial glioblastoma patients: Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) analysis. Neurosurgery 73 , 240–246 (2013).
Kesari, S. et al. Prognostic factors in adult brainstem gliomas: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of 101 cases. J. Neurooncol. 88 , 175–183 (2008).
Theeler, B. J. et al. Adult brainstem gliomas: Correlation of clinical and molecular features. J. Neurol. Sci. 353 , 92–97 (2015).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Brown, T. J. et al. Association of the extent of resection with survival in glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2 , 1460–1469 (2016).
Lacroix, M. et al. A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J. Neurosurg. 95 , 190–198 (2001).
Sanai, N., Polley, M.-Y., McDermott, M. W., Parsa, A. T. & Berger, M. S. An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. J. Neurosurg. 115 , 3–8 (2011).
Stupp, R. et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 10 , 459–466 (2009).
Atlas, M. D., de Tagle, J. R. V. P., Cook, J. A., Sheehy, J. P. & Fagan, P. A. Evolution of the management of hydrocephalus associated with acoustic neuroma. Laryngoscope 106 , 204–206 (1996).
Lee, S. H., Kong, D. S., Seol, H. J., Nam, D.-H. & Lee, J.-I. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus caused by central nervous system metastasis. J. Neurooncol. 104 , 545–551 (2011).
Roux, A. et al. Posterior fossa metastasis-associated obstructive hydrocephalus in adult patients: Literature review and practical considerations from the neuro-oncology club of the French Society of Neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 117 , 271–279 (2018).
Picart, T. et al. Characteristics and management of hydrocephalus in adult patients with cerebellar glioblastoma: Lessons from a French nationwide series of 118 cases. Neurosurg. Rev. 45 , 683–699 (2022).
Kozić, D. et al. A prominent lactate peak as a potential key magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) feature of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML): Spectrum pattern observed in three patients. Bosn. J. Basic Med. Sci. 17 , 349–354 (2017).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kozic, D. et al. Intrapontine malignant nerve sheath tumor: MRI and MRS features. Acta Neurol. Belg. 108 , 67–71 (2008).
Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4 , 1 (2015).
Download references
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Bojan Jelaca and Igor Horvat (Clinic of Neurosurgery, University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, Serbia and Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia) for critically revising this article and Andrew J. Gienapp (Neuroscience Institute, Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, TN and Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN) for copy editing the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Clinic of Neurosurgery, University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Hajduk Veljkova 1-9, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia
Nebojsa Lasica & Petar Vulekovic
Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
Nebojsa Lasica, Petar Vulekovic & Dusko Kozic
Semmes Murphey Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA
Kenan Arnautovic
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA
Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
Tomita Tadanori
Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
Dusko Kozic
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by N.L. The first draft of the manuscript was written by N.L. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Nebojsa Lasica .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary figure 1., supplementary figure 2., supplementary figure 3., supplementary table 1., supplementary table 2., rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Lasica, N., Arnautovic, K., Tadanori, T. et al. An integrative survival analysis and a systematic review of the cerebellopontine angle glioblastomas. Sci Rep 13 , 4442 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30677-x
Download citation
Received : 10 November 2022
Accepted : 28 February 2023
Published : 17 March 2023
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30677-x
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
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.
- Knox College Library
- Research Guides
Literature Reviews
- What Is It?
- Finding Literature Reviews
A literature review is both a process and a product. As a process, it involves searching for information related to your topic, to familiarize yourself with the relevant research and to identify issues and gaps in the research. In most cases you're seeking to identify the key authors and key arguments that are relevant to your topic, not to exhaustively read everything written on the subject.
Types of Literature Reviews
A stand alone literature review can be a single work in its own right. Examples include:
- A class assignment
- A review article
Literature reviews can also be component parts of larger bodies of work. Examples include:
- A thesis / dissertation
- An academic journal article introduction
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is the writing process of summarizing, synthesizing and/or critiquing the literature found as a result of a literature search. It may be used as background or context for a primary research project.
There are several reasons to review the literature :
- Identify the developments in the field of study
- Learn about the information sources and the research methodologies
- Find gaps in the literature that can become research questions
- Validate the originality of a research project
- Evaluate the methods
- Identify errors to avoid
- Highlight the strengths, weaknesses and controversies in the field of study
- Identify the subject experts
When writing your review, there are objectives you should keep in mind :
- Inform the audience of the developments in the field
- Establish your credibility
- Discuss the relevance and significance of your question(s)
- Provide the context for your methodological approach
- Discuss the relevance and appropriateness of your approach.
The level of detail or comprehensiveness of your literature review may depend on many things, but especially the purpose and audience of your review. For example, if you're writing a literature review that will aid you in writing a thesis or dissertation, you may want to have a very comprehensive lit review that reviews all relevant literature on a topic, as well as relevant sources beyond what is immediately and freely available (e.g. foundational scholarly articles not available through library collections).
Purpose of a Literature Review
Watch this YouTube video to understand the purpose of a literature review.
- Next: Finding Literature Reviews >>
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research. The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.
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.
A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually.
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.
A review of related literature (RRL) is a detailed review of existing literature related to the topic of a thesis or dissertation. In an RRL, you talk about knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your topic.
A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context. A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report.
Quick Answer: The RRL ( review of related literature) is an overview of pre-existing literature which holds a relation to the topic of an individual's research, thesis, or dissertation topic. Moreover, through an RRL, researchers can identify potentially better topics through an excess of already available studies.
What is a literature review? The word "literature review" can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature - i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic.
This is called literature review or review of related literature. It involves a process of identifying, locating, organizing, and analyzing information about a research topic. Conducting a literature review is essential because it prevents duplication of studies and helps avoid problems that others have encountered.
A literature review is done in order to clarify the areas of prior research of the matter you've currently undertaken. If you have coursework to write, research, term paper or whatever another sort of writing, have no time to do the search yourself - then literature reviews will be your saviors.
Literature reviews are a form of academic writing commonly used in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, unlike research papers, which establish new arguments and make original contributions, literature reviews organize and present existing research.
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays).
Abstract Introduction "Review of related Literature" is mostly known as the second chapter in almost every empirical thesis. But it is the very first step to know, to explore and to understand...
A literature review discusses and analyses published information in a particular subject area. Sometimes the information covers a certain time period. A literature review is more than a summary of the sources, it has an organizational pattern that combines both summary and synthesis.
Rudy: A literature review is an evaluative report of studies found in the literature related to your selected area. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify this...
A literature review is a search and evaluation of the available literature in your given subject or chosen topic area [22]. At the end of the study, it was emphasized that the prepared...
None of This Is Serious by Catherine Prasifka explores the existential reality of living amid looming catastrophe in a 277-page novel following Sophie, a recent university graduate, as she navigates friendship, anxiety, and the meaning of life. Sophie is a depressed, anxious twenty-something year old getting ready to say goodbye to a close ...
A review of related literature (RRL) is a detailed review of existing literature related to the topic of a thesis or dissertation. When going through the resources, make notes and identify key concepts of each resource to describe in the review. What is the role of your related literature in your research?
In this sense, a literature review is a scholarly paper that presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources and do not report new or original experimental work.
A literature review surveys 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.
A review is a required part of grant and research proposals and often a chapter in theses and dissertations. Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.
1) those that are part of the research process (i.e., after deciding on a research question one looks at previous related research to see not only what the current state of research is but also what methods, experimental designs, etc., were used) 2) those that assess a question in some field (a meta-analysis)
A systematic literature review was undertaken that brought together research around the HDR student experience within the Australian context. A systematic literature review should follow an established protocol that is both rigorous and transparent in terms of review methods, research questions, search processes, manuscript screening, and ...
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.
Literature review Literature search The literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta ...
A literature review is the writing process of summarizing, synthesizing and/or critiquing the literature found as a result of a literature search. It may be used as background or context for a primary research project. There are several reasons to review the literature: Identify the developments in the field of study.
FIEND LITERATURE REVIEW. How are the meaning of words derived? Every word has different meanings and a history attached to it. The word I will be elaborating on is the word 'fiend'. It was used in the epic poem Beowulf, a poem that was written in the Anglo-Saxon period that incorporated the use of the Old English words.