research literature and conceptual

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

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

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 18, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

19 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

I’m well inform about these two concepts in research. Thanks

I found this really helpful. It is well explained. Thank you.

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

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 17, 2024 2:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

• Licensing Information
• Contributing Authors
• 1. Let's Get Writing
• 1.1. The 5 C Guidelines
• 1.2. How to Write Articles Quickly and Expertly
• 2. Critical Thinking
• 2.1. Critical Thinking in the Classroom
• 2.2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
• 2.3. Good Logic
• 3. APA for Novices
• 3.1. Hoops and Barriers
• 3.2. Crafts and Puzzles
• 3.3. The Papers Trail
• 3.4. The Fine Art of Sentencing
• 3.5. Hurdles
• 3.6. Small Stressors
• 4. Literature Reviews
• 4.1. Introduction to Literature Reviews
• 4.2. What is a Literature Review?
• 4.3. How to Get Started
• 4.4. Where to Find the Literature
• 4.5. Evaluating Sources
• 4.6. Documenting Sources
• 4.7. Synthesizing Sources
• 4.8. Writing the Literature Review
• 4.9. Concluding Thoughts on Literature Reviews
• Technical Tutorials
• Constructing an Annotated Bibliography with Zotero
• Extracting Resource Metadata from a Citation List with AnyStyle.io
• Exporting Zotero to a Spreadsheet
• APA 7 Job Aid
• Index of Topics
• Translations

Introduction to Literature Reviews

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process;
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews.

What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews do the following:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] )

In the context of a research study, the purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features that all share.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology, the writer of a conceptual literature review is looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to the study or topic and outline a relationship between them, including relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review ( Dohn, 2010 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Exploratory

The purpose of an exploratory review is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a more comprehensive one (e.g., synoptic).

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• University research management: An exploratory literature review ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This type of literature review is limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature ( Stainton, 1992 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Integrative

An integrative review critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. As such, it reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews may require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005) [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] .

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Meta-analysis

A subset of a systematic review, a meta-analysis takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. As such, it integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. By gathering data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures, data can be combined and re-analyzed, providing greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991 ( Weinburgh, 1995 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Narrative/Traditional

A narrative or traditional review provides an overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus, these reviews select and synthesize relevant past research into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. This requires a sufficiently focused research question, and the process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This specific type of literature review is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This type of review tends to be a non-systematic approach that focuses on breadth of coverage rather than depth. It utilizes a wide range of materials and may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. Thus, it aims to identify the nature and extent of research in an area by providing a preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research and may also include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

In contrast to an exploratory review, the purpose of a synoptic review is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative as it summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review ( Ghaicha, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future ( Cuttance, 1981 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed, systematic reviews are undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature, these reviews seek to produce transparent and reproducible results that report details of time frame and methods to minimize bias.  Generally, these reviews must include teams of at least 2-3 to allow for the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review [https://edtechbooks.org/-oF] “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

An umbrella review compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. It therefore focuses on broad conditions or problems for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects, thereby allowing for recommendations for practice. For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same [https://edtechbooks.org/-xZ] ” (Thomson, 2013).

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review ( Fragknos, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

First – It’s part of the whole.

Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of a critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

Third – It’s good for your reader.

Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

So, why should you do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! [https://edtechbooks.org/-GUc] ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepting another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Ignoring contrary findings and alternative interpretations
• Providing findings that are not clearly related to one’s own study or that are too general
• Allowing insufficient time to defining best search strategies and writing
• Reporting rather than synthesizing isolated statistical results
• Choosing problematic or irrelevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relying too heavily on secondary sources
• Failing to transparently report search methods
• Summarizing rather than synthesizing articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
• to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
• to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Test Yourself

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Linda Frederiksen is the Head of Access Services at Washington State University Vancouver.  She has a Master of Library Science degree from Emporia State University in Kansas. Linda is active in local, regional and national organizations, projects and initiatives advancing open educational resources and equitable access to information.

Sue F. Phelps is the Health Sciences and Outreach Services Librarian at Washington State University Vancouver. Her research interests include information literacy, accessibility of learning materials for students who use adaptive technology, diversity and equity in higher education, and evidence based practice in the health sciences

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/rapidwriting/lit_rev_intro .

Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges

• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 09 August 2022
• Volume 52 , pages 30–44, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Nicole M. Ardoin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-8211 1 ,
• Alison W. Bowers 2 &
• Mele Wheaton 3  

8233 Accesses

18 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Developing and enhancing societal capacity to understand, debate elements of, and take actionable steps toward a sustainable future at a scale beyond the individual are critical when addressing sustainability challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, and zoonotic disease. Although mounting evidence exists for how to facilitate individual action to address sustainability challenges, there is less understanding of how to foster collective action in this realm. To support research and practice promoting collective action to address sustainability issues, we define the term “collective environmental literacy” by delineating four key potent aspects: scale, dynamic processes, shared resources, and synergy. Building on existing collective constructs and thought, we highlight areas where researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can support individuals and communities as they come together to identify, develop, and implement solutions to wicked problems. We close by discussing limitations of this work and future directions in studying collective environmental literacy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bridge over troubled water: managing compatibility and conflict among thought collectives in sustainability science

“Salomone Sostenibile”: An Award to ‘Communicate’ the University’s Leading Role in Sustainable Development

Engaging with Ethnically Diverse Community Groups

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

For socio-ecologically intertwined issues—such as climate change, land conversion, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity, and zoonotic diseases—and their associated multi-decadal timeframes, individual action is necessary, yet not sufficient, for systemic, sustained change (Amel et al. 2017 ; Bodin 2017 ; Niemiec et al. 2020 ; Spitzer and Fraser 2020 ). Instead, collective action, or individuals working together toward a common good, is essential for achieving the scope and scale of solutions to current sustainability challenges. To support communities as they engage in policy and action for socio-environmental change, communicators, land managers, policymakers, and other practitioners need an understanding of how communities coalesce and leverage their shared knowledge, skills, connections, and experiences.

Engagement efforts, such as those grounded in behavior-change approaches or community-based social marketing initiatives, that address socio-environmental issues have often emphasized individuals as the pathway to change. Such efforts address a range of domains including, but not limited to, residential energy use, personal transportation choices, and workplace recycling efforts, often doing so in a stepwise fashion, envisioning each setting or suite of behaviors as discrete spheres of action and influence (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008 ; McKenzie-Mohr 2011 ). In this way, specific actions are treated incrementally and linearly, considering first the individual barriers to be removed and then the motivations to be activated (and, sometimes, sustained; Monroe 2003 ; Gifford et al. 2011 ). Once each behavior is successfully instantiated, the next barrier is then addressed. Proceeding methodically from one action to the next, such initiatives often quite successfully alter a series of actions or group of related behaviors (at least initially) by addressing them incrementally, one at a time (Byerly et al. 2018 ). Following this aspirational logic chain, many resources have been channeled into such programs under the assumption that, by raising awareness and knowledge, such information, communication, and educational outreach efforts will shift attitudes and behaviors to an extent that, ultimately, mass-scale change will follow. (See discussion in Wals et al. 2014 .)

Numerous studies have demonstrated, however, that challenges arise with these stepwise approaches, particularly with regard to their ability to address complex issues and persist over time (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008 ; Wals et al. 2014 ). Such approaches place a tremendous—and unrealistic—burden on individuals, ignoring key aspects not only of behavioral science but also of social science more broadly, including the view that humans exist nested within socio-ecological systems and, thus, are most successful at achieving lasting change when it is meaningful, relevant, and undertaken within a supportive context (Swim et al. 2011 ; Feola 2015 ). Individualized approaches often require multiple steps or nudges (Byerly et al. 2018 ), or ongoing reminders to retain their salience (Stern et al. 2008 ). Because of the emphasis on decontextualized action, such approaches can miss, ignore, obfuscate, or minimize the importance of the bigger picture, which includes the sociocultural, biophysical, and political economic contexts (Ardoin 2006 ; Amel et al. 2017 ). Although the tightly trained focus on small, actionable steps and reliance on individual willpower may help in initially achieving success with initial habit formation (Carden and Wood 2018 ), it becomes questionable in terms of bringing about a wave of transformation on larger scales in the longer term. For those decontextualized actions to persist, they require continued prompting, constancy, and support in the social and biophysical context (Schultz 2014 ; Manfredo et al. 2016 ; Wood and Rünger 2016 ).

Less common in practice are theoretically based initiatives that embrace the holistic nature of the human experience, which occurs within complex systems spanning time and space in a multidimensional, weblike fashion (Bronfenbrenner 1979 ; Rogoff 2003 ; Barron 2006 ; DeCaro and Stokes 2008 ; Gould et al. 2019 ; Hovardas 2020 ). These systems-thinking approaches, while varying across disciplines and epistemological perspectives, envision human experiences, including learning and behavior, as occurring within a milieu that include the social, political, cultural, and historical contexts (Rogoff 2003 ; Roth and Lee 2007 ; Swim et al. 2011 ; Gordon 2019 ). In such a view, people’s everyday practices continuously reflect and grow out of past learning and experiences, not only at the individual, but also at the collective level (Lave 1991 ; Gutiérrez and Rogoff 2003 ; Nasir et al. 2020 ; Ardoin and Heimlich 2021 ). The multidimensional context in which we exist—including the broader temporal and spatial ecosystem—both facilitates and constrains our actions.

Scholars across diverse areas of study discuss the need for and power of collective thought and action, using various conceptual frames, models, and terms, such as collective action, behavior, impact, and intelligence; collaborative governance; communities of practice; crowdsourcing; and social movement theory; among many others (Table 1 ). These scholars acknowledge and explore the influence of our multidimensional context on collective thought and action. In this paper, we explore the elements and processes that constitute collective environmental literacy . We draw on the vast, relevant literature and, in so doing, we attempt to invoke the power of the collective: by reviewing and synthesizing ideas from a variety of fields, we strive to leverage existing constructs and perspectives that explore notions of the “collective” (see Table 1 for a summary of constructs and theories reviewed to develop our working definition of collective environmental literacy). A primary goal of this paper is to dialogue with other researchers and practitioners working in this arena who are eager to uncover and further explore related avenues.

First, we present a formal definition of collective environmental literacy. Next, we briefly review the dominant view of environmental literacy at the individual level and, in support of a collective take on environmental literacy, we examine various collective constructs. We then delve more deeply into the definition of collective environmental literacy by outlining four key aspects: scale, dynamic processes, shared resources, and synergy. We conclude by providing suggestions for future directions in studying collective environmental literacy.

Defining collective environmental literacy

Decades of research in political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and the learning sciences, among other fields (Chawla and Cushing 2007 ; Ostrom 2009 ; Sawyer 2014 ; Bamberg et al. 2015 ; Chan 2016 ; Jost et al. 2017 ) repeatedly demonstrates the effectiveness, and indeed necessity of, collective action when addressing problems that are inherently social in nature. Yet theoretical frameworks and empirical documentation emphasize that such collective activities rarely arise spontaneously and, when they do, are a result of preconditions that have sown fertile ground (van Zomeren et al. 2008 ; Duncan 2018 ). Persistent and effective collective action then requires scaffolding in the form of institutional, sociocultural, and political economic structure that provides ongoing support. To facilitate discussions of how to effectively support collective action around sustainability issues, we suggest the concept of “collective environmental literacy.” We conceptualize collective environmental literacy as more than collective action; rather, we suggest that the term encapsulates action along with its various supporting structures and resources. Additionally, we employ the word “literacy” as it connotes learning, intention, and the idea that knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors can be enhanced iteratively over time. By using “literacy,” we strive to highlight the efforts, often unseen, that lead to effective collective action in communities. We draw on scholarship in science and health education, areas that have begun over the past two decades to theorize about related areas of collective science literacy (Roth and Lee 2002 , 2004 ; Lee and Roth 2003 ; Feinstein 2018 ) and health literacy (Freedman et al. 2009 ; Papen 2009 ; Chinn 2011 ; Guzys et al. 2015 ). Although these evolving constructs lack consensus definitions, they illuminate affordances and constraints that exist when conceptualizing collective environmental literacy (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] 2016 ).

Some of the key necessary—but not sufficient—conditions that facilitate aligned, collective actions include a common body of decision-making information; shared attitudes, values, and beliefs toward a motivating issue or concern; and efficacy skills that facilitate change-making (Sturmer and Simon 2004 ; van Zomeren et al. 2008 ; Jagers et al. 2020 ). In addition, other contextual factors are essential, such as trust, reciprocity, collective efficacy, and communication among group members and societal-level facilitators, such as social norms, institutions, and technology (Bandura 2000 ; Ostrom 2010 ; McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; Jagers et al. 2020 ). Taken together, we term this body of knowledge, dispositions, skills, and the context in which they flourish collective environmental literacy . More formally, we define collective environmental literacy as: a dynamic, synergistic process that occurs as group members develop and leverage shared resources to undertake individual and aggregate actions over time to address sustainability issues within the multi-scalar context of a socio-environmental system (Fig.  1 ).

Key elements of collective environmental literacy

Environmental literacy: Historically individual, increasingly collective

Over the past five decades, the term “environmental literacy” has come into increasingly frequent use. Breaking from the traditional association of “literacy” with reading and writing in formal school contexts, environmental literacy emphasizes associations with character and behavior, often in the form of responsible environmental stewardship (Roth 1992 ). Footnote 1 Such perspectives define the concept as including affective (attitudinal), cognitive (knowledge-based), and behavioral domains, emphasizing that environmental literacy is both a process and outcome that develops, builds, and morphs over time (Hollweg et al. 2011 ; Wheaton et al. 2018 ; Clark et al. 2020 ).

The emphasis on defining, measuring, and developing interventions to bring about environmental literacy has primarily remained at the individual scale, as evidenced by frequent descriptions of an environmentally literate person (Roth 1992 ; Hollweg et al. 2011 among others) rather than community or community member. In most understandings, discussions, and manifestations of environmental literacy, the implicit assumption remains that the unit of action, intervention, and therefore analysis occurs at the individual level. Yet instinctively and perhaps by nature, community members often seek information and, as a result, take action collectively, sharing what some scholars call “the hive mind” or “group mind,” relying on each other for distributed knowledge, expertise, motivation, and support (Surowiecki 2005 ; Sunstein 2008 ; Sloman and Fernbach 2017 ; Paul 2021 ).

As with the proverbial elephant (Saxe, n.d.), each person, household, or neighborhood group may understand or “see” a different part of an issue or challenge, bring a novel understanding to the table, and have a certain perspective or skill to contribute. Although some environmental literacy discussions allude to a collective lens (e.g., Hollweg et al. 2011 ; Ardoin et al. 2013 ; Wheaton et al. 2018 ; Bey et al. 2020 ), defining, developing frameworks, and creating measures to assess the efficacy of such collective-scale sustainability-related endeavors has remained elusive. Footnote 2 Looking to related fields and disciplines—such as ecosystem theory, epidemiology and public health, sociology, network theory, and urban planning, among others—can provide insight, theoretical frames, and empirical examples to assist in such conceptualizations (McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; National Research Council 2015 ) (See Table 1 for an overview of some of the many areas of study that informed our conceptualization of collective environmental literacy).

Seeking the essence of the collective: Looking to and learning from others

The social sciences have long focused on “the kinds of activities engaged in by sizable but loosely organized groups of people” (Turner et al. 2020 , para. 1) and addressed various collective constructs, such as collective behavior, action, intelligence, and memory (Table 1 ). Although related constructs in both the social and natural sciences—such as communities of practice (Wenger and Snyder 2000 ), collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008 ; Emerson et al. 2012 ), and the collaboration–coordination continuum (Sadoff and Grey 2005 ; Prager 2015 ), as well as those from social movement theory and related areas (McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; de Moor and Wahlström 2019 )—lack the word “collective” in name, they too leverage the benefits of collectivity. A central tenet connects all of these areas: powerful processes, actions, and outcomes can arise when individuals coalesce around a common purpose or cause. This notion of a dynamic, potent force transcending the individual to enhance the efficacy of outcomes motivates the application of a collective lens to the environmental literacy concept.

Dating to the 1800s, discussions of collective behavior have explored connections to social order, structures, and norms (Park 1927 ; Smelser 2011 /1962; Turner and Killian 1987 ). Initially, the focus emphasized spontaneous, often violent crowd behaviors, such as riots, mobs, and rebellions. More contemporarily, sociologists, political scientists, and others who study social movements and collective behaviors acknowledge that such phenomena may take many forms, including those occurring in natural ecosystems, such as ant colonies, bird flocks, and even the human brain (Gordon 2019 ). In sociology, collective action represents a paradigm shift highlighting coordinated, purposeful pro-social movements, while de-emphasizing aroused emotions and crowd behavior (Miller 2014 ). In political science, Ostrom’s ( 1990 , 2000 , 2010 ) theory of collective action in the context of the management of shared resources extends the concept’s reach to economics and other fields. In education and the learning sciences, social learning and sociocultural theories tap into the idea of learning as a social-cognitive-cultural endeavor (Vygotsky 1980 ; Lave and Wenger 1991 ; Tudge and Winterhoff 1993 ; Rogoff 2003 ; Reed et al. 2010 ).

Collective action, specifically, and collective constructs, generally, have found their way into the research and practice in the fields of conservation, natural resources, and environmental management. Collective action theory has been applied in a range of settings and scenarios, including agriculture (Mills et al. 2011 ), invasive species management (Marshall et al. 2016 ; Sullivan et al. 2017 ; Lubeck et al. 2019 ; Clarke et al. 2021 ), fire management (Canadas et al. 2016 ; Charnley et al. 2020 ), habitat conservation (Raymond 2006 ; Niemiec et al. 2020 ), and water governance (Lopez-Gunn 2003 ; Baldwin et al. 2018 ), among others. Frameworks and methods that emphasize other collective-related ideas—like collaboration, co-production, and group learning—are also ubiquitous in natural resource and environmental management. These constructs include community-based conservation (DeCaro and Stokes 2008 ; Niemiec et al. 2016 ), community natural resource management (Kellert et al. 2000 ; Dale et al. 2020 ), collaboration/coordination (Sadoff and Grey 2005 ; Prager 2015 ), polycentricity (Galaz et al. 2012 ; Heikkila et al. 2018 ), knowledge co-production (Armitage et al. 2011 ; Singh et al. 2021 ), and social learning (Reed et al. 2010 ; Hovardas 2020 ). Many writings on collective efforts in the social sciences broadly, and applied in the area of environment specifically, provide insights into collective action’s necessary preconditions, which prove invaluable to further defining and later operationalizing collective environmental literacy.

Unpacking the definition of collective environmental literacy: Anchoring principles

As described, we propose the following working definition of collective environmental literacy drawing on our analysis of related literatures and informed by scholarly and professional experience in the sustainability and conservation fields: a dynamic, synergistic process that occurs as group members develop and leverage shared resources to undertake individual and aggregate actions over time to address sustainability issues within the multi-scalar context of a socio-environmental system (Fig.  1 ). This definition centers on four core, intertwined ideas: the scale of the group involved; the dynamic nature of the process; shared resources brought by, available to, and needed by the group; and the synergy that arises from group interaction.

Multi-scalar

When transitioning from the focus on individual to collective actions—and, herein, principles of environmental literacy—the most obvious and primary requisite shift is one of scale. Yet, moving to a collective scale does not mean abandoning action at the individual scale; rather, success at the collective level is intrinsically tied to what occurs at an individual level. Such collective-scale impacts leverage the power of the hive, harnessing people’s willingness, ability, and motivation to take action alongside others, share their ideas and resources to build collective ideas and resources, contribute to making a difference in an impactful way, and participate communally in pro-social activities.

Collective environmental literacy is likely dynamic in its orientation to scale, incorporating place-based notions, such as ecoregional or community-level environmental literacy (with an emphasis on geographic boundaries). On the other hand, it may encapsulate environmental literacy of a group or organization united by a common identity (e.g., organizational membership) or cause (e.g., old-growth forests, coastal protection), rather than solely or even primarily by geography. Although shifting scales can make measuring collective environmental literacy more difficult, dynamic levels may be a benefit when addressing planetary boundary issues such as climate change, biodiversity, and ocean acidification (Galaz et al. 2012 ). Some scholars have called for a polycentric approach to these large-scale issues in response to a perceived failure of global-wide, top-down solutions (Ostrom 2010 , 2012 ; Jordan et al. 2018 ). Conceptualizing and consequently supporting collective environmental literacy at multiple scales can facilitate such desired polycentricity.

Rather than representing a static outcome, environmental literacy is a dynamic process that is fluctuating and complex, reflective of iterative interactions among community members, whose discussions and negotiations reflect the changing context of sustainability issues. Footnote 3 Such open-minded processes allow for, and indeed welcome, adaptation in a way that builds social-ecological resilience (Berkes and Jolly 2002 ; Adger et al. 2005 ; Berkes 2007 ). Additionally, this dynamism allows for collective development and maturation, supporting community growth in collective knowledge, attitudes, skills, and actions via new experiences, interactions, and efforts (Berkman et al. 2010 ). With this mindset, and within a sociocultural perspective, collective environmental literacy evolves through drawing on and contributing to the community’s funds of knowledge (González et al. 2006 ). Movement and actions within and among groups impact collective literacy, as members share knowledge and other resources, shifting individuals and the group in the course of their shared practices (Samerski 2019 ).

In a collective mode, effectiveness is heightened as shared resources are streamlined, waste is minimized, and innovation maximized. Rather than each group member developing individual expertise in every matter of concern, the shared knowledge, skills, and behaviors can be distributed, pursued, and amplified among group members efficiently and effectively, with collective literacy emerging from the process of pooling diverse forms of capital and aggregating resources. This perspective builds on ideas of social capital as a collective good (Ostrom 1990 ; Putnam 2020 ), wherein relationships of trust and reciprocity are both inputs and outcomes (Pretty and Ward 2001 ). The shared resources then catalyze and sustain action as they are reassembled and coalesced at the group level for collective impact.

The pooled resources—likely vast—may include, but are not limited to, physical and human resources, funding, time, energy, and space and place (physical or digital). Shared resources may also include forms of theorized capital, such as intellectual and social (Putnam 2020 ). Also of note is the recognition that these resources extend far beyond information and knowledge. Of particular interest when building collective environmental literacy are resources previously ignored or overlooked by those in power in prior sustainability efforts. For example, collective environmental literacy can draw strength from shared resources unique to the community or even subgroups within the larger community. Discussions of Indigenous knowledge (Gadgil et al. 1993 ) and funds of knowledge (González et al. 2006 ; Cruz et al. 2018 ) suggest critical, shared resources that highlight strengths of an individual community and its members. Another dimension of shared resources relates to the strength of institutional connections, such as the benefits that accrue from leveraging the collective knowledge, expertise, and resources of organizational collaborators working in adjacent areas to further and amplify each other’s impact (Wojcik et al. 2021 ).

Synergistic

Finally, given the inherent complexities related to defining, deploying, implementing, and measuring these dynamic, at-times ephemeral processes, resources, and outcomes at a collective scale, working in such a manner must be clearly advantageous to pressing sustainability issues at hand. Numerous related constructs and approaches from a range of fields emphasize the benefits of diverse collaboration to collective thought and action, including improved solutions, more effective and fair processes, and more socioculturally just outcomes (Klein 1990 ; Jörg 2011 ; Wenger and Snyder 2000 ; Djenontin and Meadow 2018 ). These benefits go beyond efficient aggregation and distribution of resources, invoking an almost magical quality that defines synergy, resulting in robust processes and outcomes that are more than the sum of the parts.

This synergy relies on the diversity of a group across various dimensions, bringing power, strength, and insight to a decision-making process (Bear and Woolley 2011 ; Curşeu and Pluut 2013 ; Freeman and Huang 2015 ; Lu et al. 2017 ; Bendor and Page 2019 ). Individuals are limited not only to singular knowledge-perspectives and skillsets, but also to their own experiences, which influence their self-affirming viewpoints and tendencies to seek out confirmatory information for existing beliefs (Kahan et al. 2011 ). Although the coming together of those from different racial, cultural, social, and economic backgrounds facilitates a collective literacy process that draws on a wider range of resources and equips a gestalt, it also sets up the need to consider issues of power, privilege, voice, and representation (Bäckstrand 2006 ) and the role of social capital, leading to questions related to trust and reciprocity in effective collectives (Pretty and Ward 2001 ; Folke et al. 2005 ).

Leveraging the ‘Hive’: Proceeding with collective environmental literacy

This paper presents one conceptualization of collective environmental literacy, with the understanding that numerous ways exist to envision its definition, formation, deployment, and measurement. Characterized by a collective effort, such literacies at scale offer a way to imagine, measure, and support the synergy that occurs when the emphasis moves from an individual to a larger whole. By expanding the scale and focusing on shared responsibility among actors at the systems level, opportunities arise for inspiring and enabling a broader contribution to a sustainable future. These evolving notions serve to invite ongoing conversation, both in research and practice, about how to enact our collective responsibility toward, as well as vision of, a thriving future.

Emerging from the many discussions of shared and collaborative efforts to address socio-environmental issues, our conceptualization of collective environmental literacy is a first step toward supporting communities as they work to identify, address, and solve sustainability problems. We urge continued discussions on this topic, with the goal of understanding the concept of collective environmental literacy, how to measure it, and the implications of this work for practitioners. The conceptual roots of collective environmental literacy reach into countless fields of study and, as such, a transdisciplinary approach, which includes an eye toward practice, is necessary to fully capture and maximize the tremendous amount of knowledge, wisdom, and experience around this topic. Specifically, next steps to evolve the concept include engaging sustainability researchers and practitioners in discussions of the saliency of the presented definition of collective environmental literacy. These discussions include verifying the completeness of the definition and ensuring a thorough review of relevant research: Are parts of the definition missing or unclear? What are the “blank, blind, bald, and bright spots” in the literature (Reid 2019 p. 158)? Additionally, recognizing and leveraging literacy at a collective scale most certainly is not unique to environmental work, nor is adopting literacy-related language to conceptualize and measure process outcomes, although the former has consistently proven more challenging. Moreover, although we (the authors) appreciate the connotations and structures gained by using a literacy framework, we struggle with whether “environmental literacy” is the most appropriate and useful term for the conceptualizations as described herein; we, thus, welcome lively discussions about the need for new terminology.

Even at this early stage of conceptualization, this work has implications for practitioners. For scientists, communicators, policymakers, land managers, and other professionals desiring to work with communities to address sustainability issues, a primary take-away message concerns the holistic nature of what is needed for effective collective action in the environmental realm. Many previous efforts have focused on conveying information and, while a lack of knowledge and awareness may be a barrier to action in some cases, the need for a more holistic lens is increasingly clear. This move beyond an individually focused, information-deficit model is essential for effective impact (Bolderdijk et al. 2013 ; van der Linden 2014 ; Geiger et al. 2019 ). The concept of collective environmental literacy suggests a role for developing shared resources that can foster effective collective action. When working with communities, a critical early step includes some form of needs assessment—a systematic, in-depth process that allows for meaningfully gauging gaps in shared resources required to tackle sustainability issues (Braus 2011). Following this initial, evaluative step, an understanding of the components of collective environmental literacy, as outlined in this paper, can be used to guide the development of interventions to support communities in their efforts to address those issues.

Growing discussion of collective literacy constructs, and related areas, suggests researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working in pro-social areas recognize and value collective efforts, despite the need for clearer definitions and effective measures. This definitional and measurement work, in both research and practice, is not easy. The ever-changing, dynamic contexts in which collective environmental literacy exists make defining the concept a moving target, compounded by a need to draw upon work in countless, often distinct academic fields of study. Furthermore, the hard-to-see, inner workings of collective constructs make measurement difficult. Yet, the “power of the hive” is intriguing, as the synergism that arises from communities working in an aligned manner toward a unified vision suggests a potency and wave of motivated action essential to coalescing and leveraging individual goodwill, harnessing its power and potential toward effective sustainability solutions.

See Stables and Bishop’s ( 2001 ) idea of defining environmental literacy by viewing the environment as “text.”

The climate change education literature also includes a nascent, but growing, discussion of collective-lens thinking and literacy. See, for example, Waldron et al. ( 2019 ), Mochizuki and Bryan ( 2015 ), and Kopnina ( 2016 ).

This conceptualization is similar to how some scholars describe collective health literacy (Berkman et al., 2010 ; Mårtensson and Hensing, 2012 ).

Adger, W.N. 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography 79: 387–404.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adler, P.S., and S.-W. Kwon. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27: 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314 .

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26: 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x .

Aguilar, O.M. 2018. Examining the literature to reveal the nature of community EE/ESD programs and research. Environmental Education Research 24: 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1244658 .

Aguilar, O., A. Price, and M. Krasny. 2015. Perspectives on community environmental education. In M.C. Monroe & M.E. Krasny (Eds.), Across the spectrum: Resources for environmental educators (3rd edn., pp. 235–249). North American Association for Environmental Education.

Aldrich, D.P., and M.A. Meyer. 2015. Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 59: 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 .

Amel, E., C. Manning, B. Scott, and S. Koger. 2017. Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 356: 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1931 .

Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 .

Ardoin, N.M. 2006. Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of place: Lessons for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 11: 112–126.

Google Scholar  

Ardoin, N.M., and J.E. Heimlich. 2021. Environmental learning in everyday life: Foundations of meaning and a context for change. Environmental Education Research 27: 1681–1699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1992354 .

Ardoin, N.M., C. Clark, and E. Kelsey. 2013. An exploration of future trends in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research 19: 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.709823 .

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21: 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 .

Assis Neto, F.R., and C.A.S. Santos. 2018. Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A systematic review of tendencies, workflow, and quality management. Information Processing & Management 54: 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.03.006 .

Bäckstrand, K. 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment 16: 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425 .

Baldwin, E., P. McCord, J. Dell’Angelo, and T. Evans. 2018. Collective action in a polycentric water governance system. Environmental Policy and Governance 28: 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1810 .

Bamberg, S., J. Rees, and S. Seebauer. 2015. Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43: 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006 .

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064 .

Barron, B. 2006. Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development 49: 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368 .

Barry, M.M., M. D’Eath, and J. Sixsmith. 2013. Interventions for improving population health literacy: Insights from a rapid review of the evidence. Journal of Health Communication 18: 1507–1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.840699 .

Barton, A.C., and E. Tan. 2009. Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46: 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269 .

Bear, J.B., and A.W. Woolley. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36: 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473 .

Bendor, J., and S.E. Page. 2019. Optimal team composition for tool-based problem solving. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 28: 734–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12295 .

Berkes, F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41: 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7 .

Berkes, F., and D. Jolly. 2002. Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5: 45.

Berkes, F., and H. Ross. 2013. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources 26: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 .

Berkes, F., M.K. Berkes, and H. Fast. 2007. Collaborative integrated management in Canada’s north: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal Management 35: 143–162.

Berkman, N.D., T.C. Davis, and L. McCormack. 2010. Health literacy: What is it? Journal of Health Communication 15: 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499985 .

Bey, G., C. McDougall, and S. Schoedinger. 2020. Report on the NOAA office of education environmental literacy program community resilience education theory of change. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . https://doi.org/10.25923/mh0g-5q69 .

Blumer, H. 1971. Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems 18: 298–306.

Bodin, Ö. 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114 .

Bolderdijk, J.W., M. Gorsira, K. Keizer, and L. Steg. 2013. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 8: e83911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083911 .

Brabham, D.C. 2013. Crowdsourcing . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Braus, J. (Ed.). 2011. Tools of engagement: A toolkit for engaging people in conservation. NAAEE/Audubon. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/eepro/resource/files/toolsofengagement.pdf .

Brieger, S.A. 2019. Social identity and environmental concern: The importance of contextual effects. Environment and Behavior 51: 828–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518756988 .

Briggs, J. 2005. The use of Indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and challenges. Progress in Development Studies 5: 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993405ps105oa .

Briggs, J., and J. Sharp. 2004. Indigenous knowledges and development: A postcolonial caution. Third World Quarterly 25: 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590410001678915 .

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bruce, C., and P. Chesterton. 2002. Constituting collective consciousness: Information literacy in university curricula. International Journal for Academic Development 7: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156457 .

Byerly, H., A. Balmford, P.J. Ferraro, C.H. Wagner, E. Palchak, S. Polasky, T.H. Ricketts, A.J. Schwartz, et al. 2018. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: Evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1777 .

Canadas, M.J., A. Novais, and M. Marques. 2016. Wildfires, forest management and landowners’ collective action: A comparative approach at the local level. Land Use Policy 56: 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.035 .

Carden, L., and W. Wood. 2018. Habit formation and change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 20: 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.009 .

Chan, M. 2016. Psychological antecedents and motivational models of collective action: Examining the role of perceived effectiveness in political protest participation. Social Movement Studies 15: 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1096192 .

Charnley, S., E.C. Kelly, and A.P. Fischer. 2020. Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West. Environmental Research Letters 15: 025007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab639a .

Chawla, L., and D.F. Cushing. 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research 13: 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539 .

Chinn, D. 2011. Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis. Social Science & Medicine 73: 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.004 .

Clark, C.R., J.E. Heimlich, N.M. Ardoin, and J. Braus. 2020. Using a Delphi study to clarify the landscape and core outcomes in environmental education. Environmental Education Research 26: 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1727859 .

Clarke, M., Z. Ma, S.A. Snyder, and K. Floress. 2021. Factors influencing family forest owners’ interest in community-led collective invasive plant management. Environmental Management 67: 1088–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01454-1 .

Cruz, A.R., S.T. Selby, and W.H. Durham. 2018. Place-based education for environmental behavior: A ‘funds of knowledge’ and social capital approach. Environmental Education Research 24: 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1311842 .

Curşeu, P.L., and H. Pluut. 2013. Student groups as learning entities: The effect of group diversity and teamwork quality on groups’ cognitive complexity. Studies in Higher Education 38: 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.565122 .

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18: 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013 .

Dale, A., K. Vella, S. Ryan, K. Broderick, R. Hill, R. Potts, and T. Brewer. 2020. Governing community-based natural resource management in Australia: International implications. Land 9: 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070234 .

de Moor, J., and M. Wahlström. 2019. Narrating political opportunities: Explaining strategic adaptation in the climate movement. Theory and Society 48: 419–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09347-3 .

DeCaro, D., and M. Stokes. 2008. Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: Attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conservation Biology 22: 1443–1451.

Djenontin, I.N.S., and A.M. Meadow. 2018. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice. Environmental Management 61: 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3 .

Duncan, L.E. 2018. The psychology of collective action. In The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology , ed. K. Deaux and M. Snyder. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, M., F. Wood, M. Davies, and A. Edwards. 2015. ‘Distributed health literacy’: Longitudinal qualitative analysis of the roles of health literacy mediators and social networks of people living with a long-term health condition. Health Expectations 18: 1180–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12093 .

Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 1–29.

Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14: 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 .

Ensor, J., and B. Harvey. 2015. Social learning and climate change adaptation: Evidence for international development practice. Wires Climate Change 6: 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.348 .

Fanta, V., M. Šálek, and P. Sklenicka. 2019. How long do floods throughout the millennium remain in the collective memory? Nature Communications 10: 1105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09102-3 .

Feinstein, N.W. 2018. Collective science literacy: A key to community science capacity [Conference session]. American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, USA https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/files/earthconnections/collective_science_literacy_key.pdf .

Feola, G. 2015. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44: 376–390. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2689741 .

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., H.L. Ballard, and V.E. Sturtevant. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society 13: 15.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 .

Freedman, D.A., K.D. Bess, H.A. Tucker, D.L. Boyd, A.M. Tuchman, and K.A. Wallston. 2009. Public health literacy defined. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36: 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.001 .

Freeman, R.B., and W. Huang. 2015. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. Journal of Labor Economics 33: S289–S318.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.

Galaz, V., B. Crona, H. Österblom, P. Olsson, and C. Folke. 2012. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics 81: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012 .

Geiger, S.M., M. Geiger, and O. Wilhelm. 2019. Environment-specific vs general knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00718 .

Gifford, R., C. Kormos, and A. McIntyre. 2011. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wires Climate Change 2: 801–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143 .

González, N., L.C. Moll, and C. Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms . New York: Routledge.

Gordon, D.M. 2019. Measuring collective behavior: An ecological approach. Theory in Biosciences . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-019-00302-5 .

Gould, R.K., N.M. Ardoin, J.M. Thomsen, and N. Wyman Roth. 2019. Exploring connections between environmental learning and behavior through four everyday-life case studies. Environmental Education Research 25: 314–340.

Graham, S., A.L. Metcalf, N. Gill, R. Niemiec, C. Moreno, T. Bach, V. Ikutegbe, L. Hallstrom, et al. 2019. Opportunities for better use of collective action theory in research and governance for invasive species management. Conservation Biology 33: 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13266 .

Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83: 1420–1443.

Groulx, M., M.C. Brisbois, C.J. Lemieux, A. Winegardner, and L. Fishback. 2017. A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? A systematic review of learning outcomes. Science Communication 39: 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016688324 .

Gutiérrez, K.D., and B. Rogoff. 2003. Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher 32: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019 .

Guzys, D., A. Kenny, V. Dickson-Swift, and G. Threlkeld. 2015. A critical review of population health literacy assessment. BMC Public Health 15: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1551-6 .

Halbwachs, M. 1992. On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original works published 1941 and 1952).

Heikkila, T., S. Villamayor-Tomas, and D. Garrick. 2018. Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance. Environmental Policy and Governance 28: 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1809 .

Heimlich, J.E., and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research 14: 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802148881 .

Hill, R., F.J. Walsh, J. Davies, A. Sparrow, M. Mooney, R.M. Wise, and M. Tengö. 2020. Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation pathways: Transform post-colonial articulation complexes to empower local decision-making. Global Environmental Change 65: 102161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102161 .

Hollweg, K.S., J. Taylor, R.W. Bybee, T.J. Marcinkowski, W.C. McBeth, and P. Zoido. 2011. Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy: Executive summary . North American Association for Environmental Education. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/envliteracyexesummary.pdf .

Hovardas, T. 2020. A social learning approach for stakeholder engagement in large carnivore conservation and management. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8: 436. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.525278 .

Jagers, S.C., N. Harring, Å. Löfgren, M. Sjöstedt, F. Alpizar, B. Brülde, D. Langlet, A. Nilsson, et al. 2020. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 49: 1282–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01284-w .

Jordan, A., D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, and J. Forster. 2018. Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jörg, T. 2011. New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: A generative, transdisciplinary approach . New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Jost, J.T., J. Becker, D. Osborne, and V. Badaan. 2017. Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417690633 .

Jull, J., A. Giles, and I.D. Graham. 2017. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: Advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation Science 12: 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3 .

Kahan, D.M., H. Jenkins-Smith, and D. Braman. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14: 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 .

Kania, J., and M. Kramer. 2011. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review 9: 36–41.

Karachiwalla, R., and F. Pinkow. 2021. Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A review on the key design elements of a crowdsourcing initiative. Creativity and Innovation Management 30: 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12454 .

Kellert, S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13: 705–715.

Klein, J.T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice . Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Knapp, C.N., R.S. Reid, M.E. Fernández-Giménez, J.A. Klein, and K.A. Galvin. 2019. Placing transdisciplinarity in context: A review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability 11: 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184899 .

Koliou, M., J.W. van de Lindt, T.P. McAllister, B.R. Ellingwood, M. Dillard, and H. Cutler. 2020. State of the research in community resilience: Progress and challenges. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 5: 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547 .

Kopnina, H. 2016. Of big hegemonies and little tigers: Ecocentrism and environmental justice. The Journal of Environmental Education 47: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1048502 .

Krasny, M.E., M. Mukute, O. Aguilar, M.P. Masilela, and L. Olvitt. 2017. Community environmental education. In Urban environmental education review , ed. A. Russ and M.E. Krasny, 124–132. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lave, J. 1991. Situating learning in communities of practice.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2003. Science and the “good citizen”: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28: 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903028003003 .

Lévy, P., and R. Bononno. 1997. Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace . New York: Perseus Books.

Lloyd, A. 2005. No man (or woman) is an island: Information literacy, affordances and communities of practice. The Australian Library Journal 54: 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.10721760 .

Lopez-Gunn, E. 2003. The role of collective action in water governance: A comparative study of groundwater user associations in La Mancha aquifers in Spain. Water International 28: 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060308691711 .

Lu, J.G., A.C. Hafenbrack, P.W. Eastwick, D.J. Wang, W.W. Maddux, and A.D. Galinsky. 2017. “Going out” of the box: Close intercultural friendships and romantic relationships spark creativity, workplace innovation, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000212 .

Lubeck, A., A. Metcalf, C. Beckman, L. Yung, and J. Angle. 2019. Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: Evidence from private lands in Montana, USA. Ecology and Society . https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10897-240232 .

Mackay, C.M.L., M.T. Schmitt, A.E. Lutz, and J. Mendel. 2021. Recent developments in the social identity approach to the psychology of climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology 42: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.009 .

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society & Natural Resources 23: 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674 .

Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and A.M. Dietsch. 2016. Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 30: 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12619 .

Marshall, G.R., M.J. Coleman, B.M. Sindel, I.J. Reeve, and P.J. Berney. 2016. Collective action in invasive species control, and prospects for community-based governance: The case of serrated tussock ( Nassella trichotoma ) in New South Wales, Australia. Land Use Policy 56: 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.028 .

Mårtensson, L., and G. Hensing. 2012. Health literacy: A heterogeneous phenomenon: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 26: 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00900.x .

Martin, C., and C. Steinkuehler. 2010. Collective information literacy in massively multiplayer online games. E-Learning and Digital Media 7: 355–365. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.4.355 .

Masson, T., and I. Fritsche. 2021. We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘We’: A state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.006 .

Massung, E., D. Coyle, K.F. Cater, M. Jay, and C. Preist. 2013. Using crowdsourcing to support pro-environmental community activism. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470708 .

McAdam, D. 2017. Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 20: 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801 .

McAdam, D., and H. Boudet. 2012. Putting social movements in their place: Explaining opposition to energy projects in the United States, 2000–2005 . Cambridge University Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing (3rd edn.). New Society Publishers.

McKinley, D.C., A.J. Miller-Rushing, H.L. Ballard, R. Bonney, H. Brown, S.C. Cook-Patton, D.M. Evans, R.A. French, et al. 2017. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation 208: 15–28.

Miller, D.L. 2014. Introduction to collective behavior and collective action (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

Mills, J., D. Gibbon, J. Ingram, M. Reed, C. Short, and J. Dwyer. 2011. Organising collective action for effective environmental management and social learning in Wales. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17: 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536356 .

Mistry, J., and A. Berardi. 2016. Bridging Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352: 1274–1275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1160 .

Mochizuki, Y., and A. Bryan. 2015. Climate change education in the context of education for sustainable development: Rationale and principles. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9: 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215569109 .

Monroe, M.C. 2003. Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology Review 10: 113–125.

Nasir, N.S., M.M. de Royston, B. Barron, P. Bell, R. Pea, R. Stevens, and S. Goldman. 2020. Learning pathways: How learning is culturally organized. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning , ed. N.S. Nasir, C.D. Lee, R. Pea, and M.M. de Royston, 195–211. Routledge.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences . https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

National Research Council. 2015. Collective behavior: From cells to societies: Interdisciplinary research team summaries . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21737

Niemiec, R.M., N.M. Ardoin, C.B. Wharton, and G.P. Asner G.P. 2016. Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: Social norms and community reciprocity. Ecology and Society , 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08362-210230

Niemiec, R.M., S. McCaffrey, and M.S. Jones. 2020. Clarifying the degree and type of public good collective action problem posed by natural resource management challenges. Ecology and Society 25: 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11483-250130 .

Norström, A.V., C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 .

Olick, J.K. 1999. Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory 17: 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00083 .

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137 .

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 .

Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20: 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 .

Ostrom, E. 2012. Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory 49: 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6 .

Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2009. The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics , ed. G.T. Svendsen and G.L.H. Svendsen, 17–35. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Papen, U. 2009. Literacy, learning and health: A social practices view of health literacy. Literacy and Numeracy Studies . https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v0i0.1275 .

Park, R.E. 1927. Human nature and collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology 32: 733–741.

Paul, A.M. 2021. The extended mind: The power of thinking outside the brain . Boston: Mariner Books.

Pawilen, G.T. 2021. Integrating Indigenous knowledge in the Philippine elementary science curriculum: Integrating Indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 13: 1148–1160.

Prager, K. 2015. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009 .

Pretty, J., and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29: 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X .

Putnam, R.D. 2020. Bowling alone: Revised and updated: The collapse and revival of American community . Anniversary. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Raymond, L. 2006. Cooperation without trust: Overcoming collective action barriers to endangered species protection. Policy Studies Journal 34: 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00144.x .

Reed, M.S., A.C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, et al. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15: 12.

Reicher, S., R. Spears, and S.A. Haslam. 2010. The social identity approach in social psychology. In The SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 45–62). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200889

Reid, A. 2019. Blank, blind, bald and bright spots in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research 25: 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1615735 .

Rogoff, B. 2003. The cultural nature of human development (Reprint edition) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roth, C.E. 1992. Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s . http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348235

Roth, W.-M. 2003. Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective human praxis. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35: 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210134600 .

Roth, W.-M., and A.C. Barton. 2004. Rethinking scientific literacy . London: Psychology Press.

Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2002. Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/302 .

Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2004. Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education 88: 263–291.

Roth, W.-M., and Y.-J. Lee. 2007. “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research 77: 186–232.

Sadoff, C.W., and D. Grey. 2005. Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Water International 30: 420–427.

Samerski, S. 2019. Health literacy as a social practice: Social and empirical dimensions of knowledge on health and healthcare. Social Science & Medicine 226: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.024 .

Sawyer, R.K. 2014. The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences , ed. R.K. Sawyer, 726–746. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saxe, J.G. n.d.. The blind man and the elephant . All Poetry. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant .

Scheepers, D., and N. Ellemers. 2019. Social identity theory. In Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice , ed. K. Sassenberg and M.L.W. Vliek, 129–143. New York: Springer International Publishing.

Schipper, E.L.F., N.K. Dubash, and Y. Mulugetta. 2021. Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change 168: 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3 .

Schoerning, E. 2018. A no-conflict approach to informal science education increases community science literacy and engagement. Journal of Science Communication, Doi 10: 17030205.

Schultz, P.W. 2014. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist 19: 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163 .

Sharifi, A. 2016. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators 69: 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023 .

Sherrieb, K., F.H. Norris, and S. Galea. 2010. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research 99: 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9576-9 .

Singh, R.K., A. Singh, K.K. Zander, S. Mathew, and A. Kumar. 2021. Measuring successful processes of knowledge co-production for managing climate change and associated environmental stressors: Adaptation policies and practices to support Indian farmers. Journal of Environmental Management 282: 111679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111679 .

Sloman, S., and P. Fernbach. 2017. The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone . New York: Riverhead Books.

Smelser, N.J. 2011. Theory of collective behavior . Quid Pro Books. (Original work published 1962).

Sørensen, K., S. Van den Broucke, J. Fullam, G. Doyle, J. Pelikan, Z. Slonska, H. Brand, and (HLS-EU) Consortium Health Literacy Project European. 2012. Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 12: 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 .

Spitzer, W., and J. Fraser. 2020. Advancing community science literacy. Journal of Museum Education 45: 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2020.1720403 .

Stables, A., and K. Bishop. 2001. Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research 7: 89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620125643 .

Stern, M.J., R.B. Powell, and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. The Journal of Environmental Education 39: 31–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.4.31-43 .

Stets, J.E., and P.J. Burke. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870 .

Sturmer, S., and B. Simon. 2004. Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology 15: 59–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000117 .

Sullivan, A., A. York, D. White, S. Hall, and S. Yabiku. 2017. De jure versus de facto institutions: Trust, information, and collective efforts to manage the invasive mile-a-minute weed (Mikania micrantha). International Journal of the Commons 11: 171–199. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.676 .

Sunstein, C.R. 2008. Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Surowiecki, J. 2005. The wisdom of crowds . New York: Anchor.

Swim, J.K., S. Clayton, and G.S. Howard. 2011. Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist 66: 251–264.

Thaker, J., P. Howe, A. Leiserowitz, and E. Maibach. 2019. Perceived collective efficacy and trust in government influence public engagement with climate change-related water conservation policies. Environmental Communication 13: 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1438302 .

Tudge, J.R.H., and P.A. Winterhoff. 1993. Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development 36: 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277297 .

Turner, R.H., and L.M. Killian. 1987. Collective behavior , 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Turner, R.H., N.J. Smelser, and L.M. Killian. 2020. Collective behaviour. In Encyclopedia Britannica . Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-behaviour .

van der Linden, S. 2014. Towards a new model for communicating climate change. In Understanding and governing sustainable tourism mobility , ed. S. Cohen, J. Higham, P. Peeters, and S. Gössling, 263–295. Milton Park: Routledge.

van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2008. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 134: 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 .

Vygotsky, L.S. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Waldron, F., B. Ruane, R. Oberman, and S. Morris. 2019. Geographical process or global injustice? Contrasting educational perspectives on climate change. Environmental Education Research 25: 895–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1255876 .

Wals, A.E.J., M. Brody, J. Dillon, and R.B. Stevenson. 2014. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science 344: 583–584.

Wenger, E.C., and W.M. Snyder. 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78: 139–146.

Weschsler, D. 1971. Concept of collective intelligence. American Psychologist 26: 904–907. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032223 .

Wheaton, M., A. Kannan, and N.M. Ardoin. 2018. Environmental literacy: Setting the stage (Environmental Literacy Brief, Vol. 1). Social Ecology Lab, Stanford University. https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/news/images/stanfordsocialecologylab-brief-1.pdf .

Wojcik, D.J., N.M. Ardoin, and R.K. Gould. 2021. Using social network analysis to explore and expand our understanding of a robust environmental learning landscape. Environmental Education Research 27: 1263–1283.

Wood, W., and D. Rünger. 2016. Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417 .

Woolley, A.W., C.F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, and T.W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330: 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Maria DiGiano, Anna Lee, and Becca Shareff for their feedback and contributions to early drafts of this paper. We appreciate the research and writing assistance supporting this paper provided by various members of the Stanford Social Ecology Lab, especially: Brennecke Gale, Pari Ghorbani, Regina Kong, Naomi Ray, and Austin Stack.

This work was supported by a grant from the Pisces Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Graduate School of Education, and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 233 Littlefield Hall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Nicole M. Ardoin

Social Ecology Lab, Graduate School of Education and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 233 Littlefield Hall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Alison W. Bowers

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Mele Wheaton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole M. Ardoin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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

Ardoin, N.M., Bowers, A.W. & Wheaton, M. Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges. Ambio 52 , 30–44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2021

Revised : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 22 June 2022

Published : 09 August 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Collective action
• Environmental literacy
• Social movements
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research