extant literature review

Alvita Nathaniel 1 *

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 45-59

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12441

OPEN ACCESS   1084 Views   1072 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Glaser and Strauss (1967) sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not lay out a clear and structured overview of how to use the literature. The aim of this paper is to weave together the recommendations from classic grounded theory originators and to describe how, why, and when to review the literature and which literature to review. The paper includes a section debunking the no literature myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review—the introduction phase, the integration phase, and the disposition phase. The three phases work together to substantiate, confirm, and enhance an emerging grounded theory and situate it within the existing body of knowledge.

Keywords: literature review, extant literature, grounded theory, classic grounded theory.

• Andrews, T. (2003). Making credible: A grounded theory of how nurses detect and report physiological deterioration in acutely ill patients. University of Manchester.
• Andrews, T. (2006). The literature in grounded theory: A response to McCallin (2003). Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 29-32. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2006/06/30/1421/
• Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 397-393.
• Boell, S., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2010). Literature reviews and the hermaneutic circle Australian Academic & Research Libraries , 41 (2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2010.10721450
• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2016). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory . SAGE Publications.
• Burks, M., Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). SAGE Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . SAGE Publications.
• Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn . SAGE Publications.
• Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn . SAGE Publications.
• Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (Eds.). (2016). Situational analysis in practice: Mapping research with grounded theory . Routledge.
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (1997). Grounded theory in practice . SAGE Publications.
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches (5 ed.). SAGE Publications.
• de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences . Mouton.
• Dey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In K. Charmaz & A. Bryant (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 166-190). SAGE Publications.
• Didier, A. (2019). Aufgenhobenheit: Patients' perspective of interprofessional collaboration within a multidisciplinary care team. Université de Lausanne. Lausanne.
• Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 14 (2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.494930
• Ekstrom, H. (2006). Aspects of McCallin's paper "grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 45-46. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2006/06/30/1407/
• Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2007a). All is data. Grounded Theory Review , 6 (2), 1-22.
• Glaser, B. G. (2007b). Doing formal grounded theory: A proposal . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2011). Generating formal theory. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and works of Barney Glaser (pp. 257-276 ). BrownWalker.
• Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. A. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review , 4 (1-24).
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine Transaction.
• Guthrie, W., & Lowe, A. (2011). Getting through the PhD process using GT: A supervisor-researcher perspective. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and works of Barney Glaser (pp. 51-68). BrownWalker.
• Hallberg, L. R. M. (2010). Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded theory studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , 5 (3), Article 5387. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v5i3.5387
• Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data . SAGE Publications.
• Houser, N., & Kloesel, C. (Eds.). (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.
• Kaplan, A. (2011/1998). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science . Transaction Publishers. (Original work published in 1964)
• Martin, V. B. (2006). The relationship between an emerging grounded theory and the existing literature: Four phases for consideration. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 47-50.
• Martin, V. B., & Gynnild, A. (Eds.). (2012). Grounded theory: The philosoophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser . BrownWalker.
• McCallin, A. (2006). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2-3), 11-27. (Reprinted from "Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study." 2003, Contemorary Nurse, 15 (1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.15.1-2.61
• Nathaniel, A. K. (2006a). Moral reckoning in nursing. Western journal of nursing research , 28 (4), 419-438.
• Nathaniel, A. K. (2006b). Thoughts on the literature review and GT. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 35-41.
• Peirce, C. S. (1901/1992). On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents, especially from testimonies. In N. Houser & C. Kloesel (Eds.), The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2, pp. 75-114). Indiana University Press.
• Rhoades, E. A. (2011). Literature reviews. The Volta Review , 111 (3), 353-368.
• Rodale, J. I. (1978). The synonym finder . Warner.
• Simmons, O. E. (2022). Experiencing grounded theory: A comprehensive guide to learning, doing, mentoring, teaching, and applying grounded theory. BrownWalker.
• Stern, P. N., & Covan, E. K. (2001). Early grounded theory: Its processes and products. In P. N. Stern & E. K. Covan (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 17-34). Springer.
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem solving: The pragmatist roots of emprically-grounded theorizing. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 580-601). SAGE Publications.
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4), 633-642.
• Thornberg, R., & Dunne, C. (2020). Literature review in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 206-221). SAGE Publications.
• Thulesius, H. (2006). New way of using literature in GT. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 43-44.
• van de Wijngaert, L., Bouwman, H., & Contractor, N. (2014). A network approach toward literature review. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology , 48 (2), 623-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9791-3

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 ]

• Open Access
• Submissions
• Barney Glaser – In Memoriam

When and How to Use Extant Literature in Classic Grounded Theory

Alvita K. Nathaniel, PhD, APRN, BC, FAANP

Professor Emerita, West Virginia University

Glaser and Strauss (1967) sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not lay out a clear and structured overview of how to use the literature. The aim of this paper is to weave together the recommendations from classic grounded theory originators and to describe how, why, and when to review the literature and which literature to review. The paper includes a section debunking the no literature myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review—the introduction phase, the integration phase, and the disposition phase. The three phases work together to substantiate, confirm, and enhance an emerging grounded theory and situate it within the existing body of knowledge.

Keywords:  literature review, extant literature, grounded theory, classic grounded theory.

Introduction

This paper lays out a systematic approach to the literature review that is consistent with the classic grounded theory method as established by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and further by Glaser in subsequent publications. Their ideas about the pre-investigation literature review adhere to the foundational assumptions of the classic grounded theory method including discovery, emergence, and a foundation based upon participants’ perspectives. Through sentences and short paragraphs, Glaser and Strauss sprinkled suggestions about the use of the literature throughout their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967) , as did Glaser in subsequent years. They, however, did not articulate a complete and structured overview of how to use the literature. Much has been written in intervening years, mostly focusing on misunderstandings. Few have attempted to piece together Glaser and Strauss’ advice into a cohesive whole. Even the most adamant proponents of classic grounded theory have struggled to rectify Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) suggestions about the literature review with the exigencies of authoritarian social structures that have strict rules for reviewing the literature. This paper explains how a classic grounded theory literature review can be accomplished, even within strict institutional standards. The aim of this paper is to weave together the classic grounded theory originators’ advice and describe what, how, why, and when to review the literature. Recommendations in this paper derive from original sources of classic grounded theory and other proponents of the method but also interweave complementary, sometimes surprising, views expressed by authors of remodeled versions of grounded theory and also advice from general research methods literature.

The grounded theory literature review is defined for this paper as the systematic selection, interpretation, and review of published and unpublished material on a particular topic. The literature may include empirical data, research findings, ideas, theories, recordings, and other collections and may include the work of researchers, scholars, and theorists along with other historic and current grounded sources. A literature review can also include conceptual and opinion pieces that provide insight into others’ thinking about a topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As you read further, you will see that the appropriate grounded theory literature review is intended to be focused, deliberate, and useful.

The preliminary grounded theory literature review does not focus on concepts from a fixed research question, as is customary in quantitative research, because grounded theory research questions begin very broad and evolve as data are collected and analyzed. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest, this can be uncomfortable for researchers since it challenges the accepted approaches of some faculty, ethics committees, and funding sources whose background in research is often quantitative and deductive. This paper proposes strategies to avoid these conflicts and demonstrates that an institutionally required pre-investigation literature review is sometimes acceptable, even to classic grounded theory purists, as a strategy to move forward with research. The paper includes a section debunking the “no literature review” myth followed by descriptions of the three phases of the classic grounded theory literature review—the introduction phase, the integration phase, and the disposition phase.

The No Literature Review Myth

What do classic grounded theory sources have to say about the literature review? Contrary to what some critics have put forth, the originators of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998, 2001; Glaser & Holton, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) call for an extensive review of the literature, both within the area of study and in other fields. Andrews (2006), an experienced classic grounded theorist, agrees that a preliminary review of the literature is “entirely consistent” with the established principles of grounded theory. The issue of when to, rather than whether to perform the literature review sets classic grounded theory apart from other research methods. Glaser and Strauss established the ideal method of researching the extant literature, while recognizing the practical issues that can arise. They propose arguments in favor of avoiding a pre-investigation literature review but acknowledge that one might be needed.

Since qualitative studies are generally exploratory, with little written about the topic, Creswell and Creswell (2018) agree that researchers must use the literature as a complement to participant-focused inquiry, rather than as a springboard for preconceived questions. In the Discovery of Grounded Theory , Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest that delaying the empirical and theoretical literature within the area under study is one effective strategy to assure that categories in the evolving theory will not be contaminated by received ideas less suitable to the research focus. Glaser suggested that the researcher should choose areas for the initial literature review that will not pre-conceptually contaminate the emerging theory but will enhance theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1998). Dey (2007), who argues in favor of a pre-investigation literature review, nevertheless recognized that Glaser and Strauss did not advise investigators to completely abstain from reviewing the literature, but rather to engage broadly and with literature from other academic and non-academic fields.

Glaser and Strauss’s suggestion to read the literature of different disciplines at the beginning of the research process is consistent with Abraham Kaplan’s position. Kaplan, who believed that a discipline can remain autonomous even though sharing and borrowing the science of others, wrote,

For the domain of truth has no fixed boundaries within it. In the one world of ideas there are no barriers to trade or to travel. Each discipline may take from others techniques, concepts, laws, data, models, theories, or explanations—in short, whatever it finds useful in its own inquiries. (Kaplan, 2011/1998, p. 4)

As Glaser and Strauss suggested, then, reading widely from other disciplines broadens the researcher’s knowledge and sensitivity to a realm of theoretical codes that might not be present in other disciplines’ literature. Dey (2007) and Hallberg (2010) agree that working with a wide range of interdisciplinary ideas, including Glaser’s coding families, sharpens theoretical sensitivity, avoiding “the blinkered vision of an established theoretical framework” (Dey, 2007, p. 75). In addition to reading widely from the research of other disciplines, students of Glaser and Strauss were encouraged to read good theoretical studies (Stern & Covan, 2001) in order to become familiar with the structure of the theory.

Glaser (1998) initially reiterated that the researcher should avoid a phenomenon-specific pre-investigation literature review in the substantive area, but should review the literature when the grounded theory is nearly completed. Reacting to practical exigencies, however, Glaser later acknowledged that the investigator must fulfill the basic institutional requirements of the university or funding source because, without it, the research would not be possible. He wrote,

If the regulations state that any Ph.D. research proposal must be accompanied by a literature review, then do a literature [review]. If the regulations state that a literature review must become the first paper of the Ph.D., then again, give them a literature review. (Glaser, 2011, p. 56)

Guthrie and Lowe (2011) agreed with Glaser when they advised that, when faced with institutional requirements the researcher should “fully comply with the university regulations, and write a logically plausible (but quite irrelevant) literature review” (p. 61). Glaser (2011) and Guthrie and Lowe (2011) agree that novice grounded theorists should be assured that they can discover a classic grounded theory even if required to perform extensive pre-investigation literature reviews.

The reasons for avoiding an extensive pre-investigation literature review, however, are integral to the assumptions of the method—that is, a pre-investigation literature review threatens to derail emergence and diminish the focus on the participants’ perspectives. Glaser points out that the results of an early literature review are inimical to generating grounded theory. As suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1998), there are a number of interrelated reasons to avoid a pre-investigation literature review.

First, the investigator may become enthralled, or “grabbed,” by received concepts that neither fit nor or are relevant (Glaser, 1998). Although it is possible that some concepts can be borrowed from extant theory if they fit the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), other concepts in the literature may be fascinating to the investigator but wildly unrelated to the processes occurring in the study participants’ lives or simply unimportant to the participants. Dunne (2011) is correct that this is a pragmatic view because it can save time and energy by guiding the researcher away from avenues that may be of little ultimate importance.

Second, the investigator may derail a potential emergent theory through a preconceived academic or discipline-specific problem of no relevance to the substantive area of the research (Glaser, 1998). Dey (2007) labeled that “ploughing ahead along an established theoretical furrow regardless of the diversity and richness of the data” (p. 175). This often happens when the novice researcher joins a supervisor’s ongoing study. The investigator may find that merely selecting data for a received concept hinders the generation of new categories because the major effort is data selection, rather than discovery or emergence (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). For example, for a PhD thesis, Amélia Didier was asked to join an ongoing faculty study about interdisciplinary health care teams. Didier (2019) chose to use classic grounded theory to learn about hospitalized patients’ perspectives on interdisciplinary teams. She quickly learned that patients had no knowledge of nor interest in interdisciplinary teams. The patients were focused on seeking aufgehobenheit, a German term which encompasses the concepts of safety, dignity, humanity and respect (Didier, 2019, p. iv). In other words, patients main concern was to feel in safe hands, well cared for. Fortunately, Didier was allowed to proceed with the grounded theory, focus on the patients’ main concern, and develop the rich and useful theory of aufgenhobenheit.

Although Didier (2019) was successful in re-directing her research focus, Kaplan agreed with Glaser and Strauss’s concern, proposing that

officers of the professional associations, honored elders, editors of journals, reviewers, faculties, committees on grants, fellowship and prizes—all exert a steady pressure of conformity to professional standards. . . . The innate conservatism, or at least inertia, of professional standards has from time to time stood in the way of scientific progress . (Kaplan, 2011/1998, p. 4)

Guthrie and Lowe (2011) go so far as to propose that those who demand to be in control cannot let go of their pre-understanding—they are likely “experts in their fields” who think they know the answers already.

Third, the investigator may become imbued with speculative, non-scientifically related interpretations and theoretical connections, likely through a review of deductive, pre-conceived theories (Glaser, 1998). Every discipline has popular speculative theories, philosophical frameworks, or conceptual models written in the jargon of the profession. Use of these interpretations and theoretical connections can hijack inductive concept emergence if they are not relevant or do not fit the data. Suddaby (2006) suggests that this will force the researcher into testing hypotheses, rather than directly observing. Thornberg and Dunne (2020), on the other hand, warn that when researchers view an extant theory as correct or superior, they will become “data resistant, disregarding or overlooking data that do not support that particular theory, and their theory will act as a self-fulfilling prophecy” (p. 207).

Fourth, the investigator may become awed by famous or celebrated scholars, theorists, or researchers, thus detracting from the investigators’ own self-valuation. Glaser (1978) proposed that being doctrinaire or revering ‘great scholars’ interferes both with sensitivity to the data and with generating ideas that fit and work best since the investigator may configure the data to fit the doctrine. He also wrote that pre-conceived or ungrounded theory “derives from any combination of several sources; whims and wisdoms of usually deceased great men, conjecture and assumptions about the “oughts” of life, and other extant speculative theory” (Glaser, 1978, p. 143), and thus is unsuited to use in grounded theories. Strauss and Corbin (1998) agreed with this concern proposing that it is not unusual for students to become enamored with a previous study to the point that they are nearly paralyzed.

Fifth, the investigator may become what Glaser terms “rhetoricalized,” relying on rhetorical jargon that is in vogue at the time, rather than allowing theory to emerge. Rhetoricalized jargon is a discipline’s authoritarian method of control. It does not pass the test of time well and may fail to cross disciplinary boundaries, limiting the scope and power of emerging theories.

Sixth, the investigator can completely miss the focus of a (yet to emerge) theory. Since classic grounded theory relies on emergence, a purely speculative pre-investigation literature review wastes valuable time and energy and can send the researcher off on useless tangents.

The researcher must understand why a preliminary review of the literature is not recommended. Equally important are guidelines on the timing and the phases of the literature review, the types of literature to be reviewed, and the importance of the literature when situating the new theory among extant works. The following discussion focuses on these issues and offers a three-phase literature review process.

Phases of the Classic Grounded Theory Literature Review

The classic grounded theory literature review is neither performed nor presented in the traditional hypothetical-deductive manner. The discursive literature review, which is traditional with other research methods, is structured around specific concepts articulated in the research question, conducted before the investigation is initiated, and presented in writing preceding the research findings. This is an immediate problem for grounded theories in which research questions are broad, and specific concepts are unknown at the beginning of the study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) acknowledge that the literature review in qualitative studies may be conducted and presented in a manner that is congruent with the assumptions of the method. The qualitative literature review may be conducted in a serial fashion and presented in a separate section, included in the introduction, or woven into the study as is generally the case with classic grounded theory. Creswell and Creswell also acknowledge that the literature is used less often to set the stage for grounded theory studies, though the eventual breadth will be comparable.

The eventual scope of the grounded theory literature review is both broad and specific—at different points in the research process. Most classic grounded theorists perform the literature review in three phases, with one caveat: they read widely in other fields throughout the research process in order to increase theoretical sensitivity. The three phases include the introduction phase , which makes the case for the study; the integration phase , in which the extant literature is identified, synthesized, and integrated into the theory; and the disposition phase , which situates the new theory in relation to the extant theoretical and empirical literature.

Introduction Phase of the Literature Review

The introduction phase prepares the researcher and builds the case for the research study. The multi-faceted literature review during this phase sets the course for the research. For the reader, it makes the case for the study, which is especially important when institutional and funding entities require a pre-investigation literature review for the research to proceed. The introduction phase of the literature review gives a general overview of the substantive area and indicates gaps in the knowledge base if those are known. It demonstrates the investigator’s familiarity with the substantive area, describes the method of investigation, describes the study population, and often gives clues as to the investigator’s worldview or philosophic stance.

Review of Literature in the Substantive Area.

As noted previously, the ideal review of literature in the substantive area should be delayed until the integration phase, which is not to suggest that the classic grounded theorist enters a study “empty-headed” as some would suggest. McCallin (2006) reminded us that students and others tend to misunderstand that each research study is about something in the beginning, even though the specific problem is unknown in the early stages. Hallberg (2010) is right that any researcher has acquired years of academic and professional knowledge in their disciplines. Although they moved away from many of the original classic grounded theory tenets, Strauss and Corbin (1998) also made the assumption that most professionals are familiar with the literature in their field. Glaser often reminded Ph.D. candidates in his seminars that they (Ph.D. students) are the institutionally and self-selected elite. Investigators generally begin studies with a depth and breadth of knowledge and a sense of curiosity—something they are interested in. Many will have identified a gap in knowledge early in their academic program or professional career. As a supervisor to Ph.D. students, Andrews (2006) discovered that some will enter the field with a clear question in mind. Since the classic grounded theory is an inductive method of discovery, investigators will begin by asking themselves. “What is going on” with this group of people in this situation?

Ideally, then, the classic grounded theorist who already has a depth of knowledge would not need to perform an extensive pre-investigation literature review in the substantive area. However, as most classic grounded theorists acknowledge, a literature review in the substantive area may be necessary to verify the investigator’s questions, withstand public scrutiny, establish a defensible rationale for a given project, and fulfill institutional requirements (Andrews, 2006; Ekstrom, 2006; Glaser, 2011; Martin, 2006; McCallin, 2006; Nathaniel, 2006b; Thornberg & Dunne, 2020; Thulesius, 2006). McCallin (2006) wrote,

While the beginner researcher receives that [no literature review] interpretation happily, supervisors and institutional review committees are rather more nervous of such a simplistic approach. Those responsible for student researchers seek some reassurance that the student knows what they are doing, has a general focus, and is at least safe to enter the field. (p. 12).

Creswell and Creswell (2018) admitted that satisfying the reader is more important than the length of the literature review. The researcher must convince the reader that the study was or will be possible in a practical sense, necessary, and potentially significant.

Holton and Walsh (2017) and McCallin (2006) agree that a common strategy to fulfill institutional requirements and satisfy readers is for the investigator to perform a pre-investigation review of the literature that is broad in scope in the substantive area, setting the stage for an exploratory study, while avoiding specific concepts or phenomena. McCallin suggests that the “mental wrestle” for investigators is for the literature review to remain general, avoiding the main interest as much as possible, yet focused enough to meet institutional requirements.

What facets of the literature are reviewed in the introduction phase? In addition to reviewing the general literature around the substantive area, the investigator will review the literature for descriptions of the population of interest, the research method, and often the researcher’s worldview. The researcher may also need to become familiar with population-specific terminology that may be encountered during data gathering.

Review of the Literature Describing the Population. 

Descriptions of the population of interest should include enough information to give readers a glimpse of the context and to grab their interest. The investigator will review the literature for demographics of the study population and other statistics, which may also include a historical review (Rhoades, 2011) of the population. For example, to study the homeless female population in Denver, Colorado, the researcher would review the literature from established sources for the statistics and demographics of the national, state, and city homeless population. Information on weather trends that affect the homeless, crimes committed by or against homeless people, the progression of homelessness, causes of homelessness, special concerns of homeless women, and available resources might also be helpful. If the researcher wants to further limit the study to those who are addicted to methamphetamine, another search of the literature would add information about the prevalence of methamphetamine addiction in the general population versus the homeless population, the risk factors associated with addiction, and the life expectancy of this population. For an exploratory study asking, “what is going on with this population,” this type of literature review may satisfy an institution’s literature review requirement.

Review of the Grounded Theory Methodology/Method Literature

In addition to general literature surrounding the substantive area and the population of interest, the investigator should review the literature about the classic grounded theory method. Although Glaser stipulated that grounded theory is a general method that can be used with both qualitative and quantitative data, it is found to be the most frequently used qualitative method. Yet, paradoxically, many researchers, thesis/dissertation supervisors, ethics committees, and readers are poorly versed in the classic grounded theory methodology, therefore misinterpretations abound. Thulesius (2006) advised the researcher to begin a classic grounded theory study to educate readers on the method’s background, language, procedures, and the rationale for choosing grounded theory. Further, Thulesius proposes that reading the appropriate grounded theory method books repeatedly throughout the research process is the most important facet of reading the literature. The most often cited primary sources of information on the method are The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory (Glaser, 1978), and Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussion (Glaser, 1998). All of Glaser’s subsequent publications are also excellent primary sources for classic grounded theory as well as Grounded Theory: The Philosophy, Method, and Work of Barney Glaser (Martin & Gynnild, 2012), Classic Grounded Theory: Applications with Qualitative and Quantitative Data (Holton & Walsh, 2017), and Experiencing Grounded Theory: A Comprehensive Guide to Learning, Doing, Mentoring, Teaching, and Applying Grounded Theory (Simmons, 2022) Since all peer reviewers are experienced classic grounded theorists, methodological papers published in the Grounded Theory Review are also good sources for classic grounded theory methodology and original theories published there can serve as exemplars for novice researchers.

Because classic grounded theory is vastly different from other methods, a review of the methodological literature should be comprehensive, descriptive, and explanatory. A meticulous review of the method literature can forestall questions and objections from Ph.D. supervisors, ethics committees, and funding sources. The researcher should review the literature on the use of grounded theory’s inductive approach as contrasted with the hypothetical-deductive approach used in many other methods. The review of methods literature should also include the method’s dependence upon participants’ perceptions, conceptualization, category development, and theoretical relationships. Procedures, processes, and language of classic grounded theory that should be covered in the literature review include sampling; data sources; data collection methods; data recording methods (generally field notes); emergence; constant comparison; open, selective, and theoretical coding; memoing; memo sorting; identification of the core category; unique criteria for rigor in grounded theory; and standard ways of writing and presenting grounded theories. A description of the method’s procedures also serves as a primer for grounded theory language. It is always helpful when research supervisors unfamiliar with grounded theory also read the method literature.

Although Glaser and Strauss wrote the seminal work from which all grounded theory has developed, Strauss and others went on to modify the method and write about grounded theory’s perspectives and procedures in significantly remodeled ways—adding procedures, philosophic foundations, new language, and adapted understandings. So, subsequent publications by Strauss and Corbin (Corbin & Strauss, 1997, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), Charmaz (Bryant & Charmaz, 2016; Charmaz, 2000, 2006), Clarke (Clarke, 2005; Clarke et al., 2016, 2018), Birks and Mills (Burks & Mills, 2015), and others, although easy to find in the literature, cannot be used to describe the classic grounded theory.

Review of Extant Theory Literature in the Introduction Phase

Except when modifying an existing grounded theory or developing a formal grounded theory, a review of extant theories should not be performed in the introduction phase of the grounded theory literature review. The goal of classic grounded theory is to use inductive reasoning with a particular type of data from which concepts, categories, and theoretical relationships emerge. As noted previously, reviewing extant theories before gathering data puts the investigator at risk of consciously or unconsciously adopting speculative pre-conceived concepts and finding ways to configure data to conform to them. There are two main exceptions to this tenet. First, extant grounded theories must be reviewed during the introduction phase if the purpose of the research is to modify the existing theory. For example, data from front-line nurses’ experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic might easily modify Nathaniel’s (2006a) theory of Moral Reckoning in Nursing or Andrews’ (2003) theory of Making Credible: A Grounded Theory of How Nurses Detect and Report Physiological Deterioration in Acutely Ill Patients, both of which were developed in the early 21 st century prior to the pandemic. The extremely difficult context of health care during height of the pandemic vastly affected patients,’ physicians,’ and nurses’ relationships; the structure of health care delivery; and previously rigid ethical parameters, which shifted with each new crippling wave of the pandemic. New, more current studies could modify these two theories to fit real-world circumstances and therefore become more explanatory, predictive, and useful for nurses who might face similar situations during future pandemics or other catastrophic events.

Second, grounded theory researchers must review the theory literature when developing formal grounded theory. Up to this point, the discussion has focused solely on substantive theory, or theory of the middle range that focuses on real-life issues in specific contexts. Formal theory, on the other hand, raises the level of abstraction and expands the context. Glaser defined formal grounded theory as an overarching theory of a “substantive grounded theory core category’s general implications [broader than the initial context] generated from, as wide as possible, other data and studies in the same substantive and in other substantive areas” (Glaser, 2007b, p. 4). Thus, the investigator preparing to develop a formal grounded theory must review theoretical literature in the introduction phase. The literature review, in this case, is restricted to empirical research and theories, often from disparate disciplines, that apply directly to the core category and concepts of the original substantive theory. But, to reiterate, unless the investigator intends to modify an existing theory or develop a formal grounded theory, extant theories should not be reviewed during the introduction phase.

Philosophical Foundations Literature

Many universities require Ph.D. students to review the literature surrounding the philosophical foundations of the research method used in a study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) agree with Annells (1996) that the researcher should include philosophical assumptions or worldviews of qualitative research in the literature review. However, the philosophical foundations of classic grounded theory are as controversial as the literature review itself since Glaser and Strauss (1967) did not articulate a philosophical foundation for the method. In fact, Glaser stated emphatically that grounded theory is not based upon a particular philosophy (personal communication). So, what philosophical literature does the investigator review when the method has no established philosophical foundation?

If a review of the philosophical foundations of the grounded theory method is institutionally required, there are three options, each of which includes an acknowledgment that the method has no philosophical foundation. The first option is to present the researcher’s own worldview as the foundation of the research study. For example, Holton and Walsh (2017) acknowledge that they hold the critical realist perspective. Thus, their research investigations and analyses are conducted through the critical realist lens. A literature review of critical realism with its implications for the research processes would be appropriate for the introduction phase of the literature review. A second option is to adopt a formal theory of science that includes inductive logic, such as that of Charles Sanders Peirce (1901/1992), as a philosophical foundation for the method. If the investigator chooses to use a philosophy of science as the philosophical foundation, the literature review should include primary source ontology and epistemology elements that logically fit with the classic grounded theory method. The third option is to select symbolic interactionism as the philosophical foundation of the method. Even though Glaser denied a specific foundation of the method, he recognized that symbolic interactionism could serve as a sensitizing agent for grounded theory research (personal communication). That is, symbolic interactionism is not the foundation of the method but can be used as a lens through which to conduct and analyze grounded data. If a researcher chooses to propose symbolic interactionism as the foundation of a research study, the literature review should use primary sources to describe the elements that affect the research process.

Population-Specific Terminology

Sometimes, researchers seeking to closely follow the procedures of classic grounded theory worry that any review of any literature, including sources that will help them to understand the study population, will violate the method’s precepts. For example, a researcher studying problems encountered by those interested in cryptocurrency found that new terms and unfamiliar language surrounding virtual currency had developed. For example, terms such as ashraked, atomic swap, and blockchain, are not part of common language. Understanding the language or terminology is critical in collecting and analyzing data. The researchers could not pierce the language barrier without familiarizing themselves with these and other critical terms. For that reason, familiarizing oneself with population-specific language is preparatory to a study and is not considered part of the review of literature.

Integration Phase of the Literature Review

The integration phase of the literature review occurs during the data collection and analysis stages of the research process. Finally! A focused literature review of the substantive area is an essential element at this point in grounded theory development. Classic grounded theorists use extant literature in a systematic, yet entirely different manner from quantitative and most qualitative methods. The purpose and process of the literature review in classic grounded theory is unique and the type of literature to be reviewed can be vast—unrestricted by conventional rules. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967) theorizing begs for comparative analysis, creating what Creswell and Creswell (2018) labeled, a reciprocal relationship between theory and data. Once the analysis is well underway, the grounded theorist compares the literature to the emerging theory and uses the literature to support, corroborate, and illustrate the emerging theory. Glaser (1978) believed that well done grounded theories can transcend previous works while integrating them into the new theory, thus providing a theory of greater scope. Martin (2006) contends that grounded theory can help researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries and use existing literature to develop more potent theories. Strübing (2007) points out that the secret lies in how to properly use previous knowledge. Following is a discussion of the process of the literature review in the integration phase and the types of literature to be considered.

Process of Literature Integration

Since grounded theory is an inductive method and the problem is not known beforehand, the focused literature review cannot occur until data collection is underway and analysis has begun. Glaser (1998) proposed that the literature review in the substantive area should be done when the theory is nearly completed, during the sorting and writing the theory. Specifically, Holton and Walsh (2017) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that similarities and convergences with the literature can begin to be reviewed once the analytic core of categories emerges. At that time the literature can be used as additional data to be constantly compared with the emergent concepts, elaborating emerging concepts and directing further theoretical sampling (Holton & Walsh, 2017).

Grounded theory analysis occurs quickly and each new hypothesis directs the researcher to new sources of library material and exceptionally revealing comparison groups (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To be clear, as concepts emerge from the data, literature searches are conducted for those specific concepts or others that are closely related. For example, Ekstrom (2006) was led to papers about how women experienced menopause and papers about status passages, since these were the concepts emerging from her data. Stern turned to the literature on fathering and family dynamics (Stern & Covan, 2001). Once the concepts and categories emerge from the data and it is time for a literature search, the researcher must carefully choose sources of data and search terms.

Library databases serve as invaluable tools for locating existing literature in the electronic age. However, Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2010) warn that databases are limited in their coverage since single databases only cover a subset of academic journals. Further, some databases do not include all papers included in each journal. For that reason, Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic propose that researchers conduct searches of multiple databases. But what are the best search terms? Glaser and Strauss (1967) instructed their students to cultivate several functional synonyms in order to fully explore relevant literature. For example, when searching the literature for moral reckoning, literature on moral distress, moral outrage, moral agony, moral uncertainty, and other possible synonyms was searched. Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic recognize that specific topics can be described using an almost indefinite number of words. One strategy to overcome this problem is to scour books such as a thesaurus or Rodale’s (1978) Synonym Finder using a snowball technique by moving from one term to another in an attempt to gather many possible common language search terms. Glaser and Strauss focused on library literature and methods to search a brick-and-mortar library, but in the electronic age researchers have almost unlimited access to many types of literature.

Types of Literature to Integrate

In grounded theory, there is no clear distinction between data and literature since existing theoretical and empirical literature can be integrated into an emerging theory. Simmons (2022) states that one unique feature of classic grounded theory is that literature is often treated as if it were data. In fact, Glaser (2007a) proposed that “all is data,” blurring the line between data and empiric literature. Glaser and Strauss (1967) stressed that the decision about what sources of data to use is crucial to the outcome of the study. So, what types of literature-cum-data will the researcher use?

Many sources of library material are available for comparison and integration. In fact, Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed that a researcher should use any relevant material bearing on the substantive area. One of the best sources of literature is existing behavioral research, which offers data, categories, theoretical relationships, and illustrations. Most types of qualitative research are grounded in the data but should be carefully evaluated before being integrated into or compared with the emerging theory. Once the emerging theory has shape, extant themes, ideas, hypotheses, and concepts can be analyzed, compared, and integrated if they are found to be relevant and if they fit and work. The researcher must be careful, though, because words used in existing literature may not have the same meaning or relevance as the emerging theory. Other sources of library data include letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, government documents, speeches, sermons, annual reports, and company files (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). For example, Glaser and Strauss found a collection of interviews with very poor New Yorkers in the early 20 th century, which offered a vivid picture of poverty during that era (1967). These types of documents tend to be used almost exclusively for verification of the emerging theory or for illustration. In today’s age of information technology, there are many sources of data. Blogs, for instance, can offer rich information that can be useful in grounded theory studies.

Formal grounded theory, especially, makes use of empiric literature and existing theories. Glaser (2011) suggested that a major source of data for generating a formal grounded theory includes a secondary analysis of data collected for other reasons. Caches of secondary analysis include those of interviews, speeches, collections of letters, journals, and so forth. Glaser wrote, “But it amazes me how many data sources just bursting for use in a formal grounded theory such as readers, journals, documents, researched newspaper articles, or areas of much literature coverage with arrays of articles” (Glaser, 2011, p. 262). When the analysis is complete, the literature review has been fully integrated, and the theory has been written the researcher is ready to present a disposition of the newly emerged theory.

Disposition Phase

The disposition phase occurs after the theory is written. During this phase, the researcher prepares the discussion section of the research study, often chapter five of a traditional thesis or dissertation. Creswell and Creswell (2018) agree that this is appropriate for a grounded theory study. The ongoing development of knowledge is the incessant interaction between induction and deduction between empirical and theoretical realms (de Groot, 1969) in which hypotheses link the two worlds together (van de Wijngaert et al., 2014). Therefore, the literature reviewed at this point should not be an exhaustive (and exhausting) review of all literature, but rather a carefully analytic meaningful review of related extant empiric and theory literature. Stern and Covan (2001) wrote,

Without reverence to existing knowledge, even grounded theories remain sterile: a researcher is unable to add to the body of knowledge expected in a research enterprise. In other words, without this step of comparing and coordinating the work of other scholars, a researcher may not develop his or her theory completely and others may not be able to develop a theory further in the future. (p. 25)

In this section of the written research study, the researcher provides a scholarly discussion about the position and contribution of the new theory in relation to extant literature. During the disposition phase, the order and relative position of the new theory is established in terms of the discipline’s knowledge base, placing the theory among other researchers’ work on the same ideas. The discussion in this phase of the literature review can add a new dimension to existing work (Stern & Covan, 2001) or extend the theory of others. The new theory will usually, if not invariably, “transcend diverse previous works while integrating them into a new theory of greater scope than extant ones” (Glaser, 1978, p. 10). The fully emerged theory becomes a powerful instrument that can clarify, synthesize, and organize prior grounded theories and refute flawed theories, thus contributing to the knowledge base of a discipline. Thus, each work adds to or corrects those before it, moving closer to knowledge that is true and correct—what Peirce called moving humankind toward the final opinion (Houser & Kloesel, 1992) . 

The approach to the literature review during the disposition phase is important. Glaser advised his students to measure extant literature against the newly emerged theory, rather than the other way around. He warned researchers to avoid an attitude of reverence for extant works or to search for their own best ideas in previous works in order to legitimate the new theories—“as if they could not be allowed to generate on their own” (Glaser, 1978, p. 137). Nor should there be an implication that the current theory was derived from a previous work merely to legitimize the new theory. Idolization, Glaser proposed, should be replaced with the thought that “he too was working on these ideas” (p. 138). In other words, the researcher should not give older works precedence over the newly generated theory. However, Glaser (1978) also advised that the researcher should not attempt to debunk old theories since a vigorous justification of the new theory, beyond its normal justification, would not be useful, and the good aspects of the extant theory could be lost in the bargain. The secret is to compare and contrast the new theory with existing works while maintaining the power of the new theory and respecting the old.

The literature review of a classic grounded theory study is an integral piece of a newly emerged theory, which enhances both the new and old, adds to the knowledge base, and positions the new theory in relation to extant works. Consistent with the classic grounded theory method, this paper lays out a rigorous and systematic three-phase approach to the literature review. It also refutes common misunderstandings of critics that claim the timing and procedures of the grounded theory literature review are inadequate. The paper offers strategies to avoid conflicts and demonstrates that an institutionally required pre-investigation literature review is sometimes accepted as a strategy to move forward with research, even to classic theory purists. The paper gathers together Glaser and Strauss’s recommendations and establishes a clear roadmap for conducting a literature review for a classic grounded theory study.

Andrews, T. (2003). Making credible: A grounded theory of how nurses detect and report physiological deterioration in acutely ill patients. University of Manchester.

Andrews, T. (2006). The literature in grounded theory: A response to McCallin (2003). Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 29-32. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2006/06/30/1421/

Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 397-393.

Boell, S., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2010). Literature reviews and the hermaneutic circle Australian Academic & Research Libraries , 41 (2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2010.10721450

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2016). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory . SAGE Publications.

Burks, M., Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). SAGE Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . SAGE Publications.

Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn . SAGE Publications.

Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn . SAGE Publications.

Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (Eds.). (2016). Situational analysis in practice: Mapping research with grounded theory . Routledge.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (1997). Grounded theory in practice . SAGE Publications.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches (5 ed.). SAGE Publications.

de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences . Mouton.

Dey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In K. Charmaz & A. Bryant (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 166-190). SAGE Publications.

Didier, A. (2019). Aufgenhobenheit: Patients’ perspective of interprofessional collaboration within a multidisciplinary care team. Université de Lausanne. Lausanne.

Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 14 (2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.494930

Ekstrom, H. (2006). Aspects of McCallin’s paper “grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 45-46. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2006/06/30/1407/

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2007a). All is data. Grounded Theory Review , 6 (2), 1-22.

Glaser, B. G. (2007b). Doing formal grounded theory: A proposal . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2011). Generating formal theory. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and works of Barney Glaser (pp. 257-276). BrownWalker.

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. A. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review , 4 (1-24).

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine Transaction.

Guthrie, W., & Lowe, A. (2011). Getting through the PhD process using GT: A supervisor-researcher perspective. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method, and works of Barney Glaser (pp. 51-68). BrownWalker.

Hallberg, L. R. M. (2010). Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded theory studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , 5 (3), Article 5387. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v5i3.5387

Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data . SAGE Publications.

Houser, N., & Kloesel, C. (Eds.). (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.

Kaplan, A. (2011/1998). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science . Transaction Publishers. (Original work published in 1964)

Martin, V. B. (2006). The relationship between an emerging grounded theory and the existing literature: Four phases for consideration. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 47-50.

Martin, V. B., & Gynnild, A. (Eds.). (2012). Grounded theory: The philosoophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser . BrownWalker.

McCallin, A. (2006). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2-3), 11-27. (Reprinted from “Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study.” 2003,  Contemorary Nurse, 15 (1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.15.1-2.61

Nathaniel, A. K. (2006a). Moral reckoning in nursing. Western journal of nursing research , 28 (4), 419-438.

Nathaniel, A. K. (2006b). Thoughts on the literature review and GT. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 35-41.

Peirce, C. S. (1901/1992). On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents, especially from testimonies. In N. Houser & C. Kloesel (Eds.), The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2, pp. 75-114). Indiana University Press.

Rhoades, E. A. (2011). Literature reviews. The Volta Review , 111 (3), 353-368.

Rodale, J. I. (1978). The synonym finder . Warner.

Simmons, O. E. (2022). Experiencing grounded theory: A comprehensive guide to learning, doing, mentoring, teaching, and applying grounded theory. BrownWalker.

Stern, P. N., & Covan, E. K. (2001). Early grounded theory: Its processes and products. In P. N. Stern & E. K. Covan (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 17-34). Springer.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem solving: The pragmatist roots of emprically-grounded theorizing. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 580-601). SAGE Publications.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4), 633-642.

Thornberg, R., & Dunne, C. (2020). Literature review in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 206-221). SAGE Publications.

Thulesius, H. (2006). New way of using literature in GT. Grounded Theory Review , 5 (2/3), 43-44.

van de Wijngaert, L., Bouwman, H., & Contractor, N. (2014). A network approach toward literature review. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology , 48 (2), 623-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9791-3

Disclosures

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© American Journal of Qualitative Research

Subscribe to receive updates

Your email:

Call for Papers

Are you developing a classic grounded theory? Do you have data that could be resorted and further developed into a new grounded theory? Are you working on a formal theory, or are you reflecting on a methodological issue? We invite you to submit your paper for consideration for the next issue of Grounded Theory Review, which is published in late December and June each year.

The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a theoretical perspective. We would like to expand the open access database with more grounded theories that truly demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the classic grounded theory method. Following the 50th anniversary wish of GT’s co-founder Dr. Barney Glaser, we would like to see a conglomerate of new grounded theories that span a wide array of disciplines and topics and that demonstrate general applicability and conceptual strengths in diverse social contexts. The theories will be peer reviewed by experienced members of the advisory board of the Grounded Theory Review.

Please submit your paper no later than April 1 for the June edition and September 15 for the December edition.

Current Issue

• Issue 1, June 2023
• GT Institute
• GT Mentoring
• The Grounded Theory Review is published by Sociology Press ISSN: 1556-1550

Indexed by:

• EBSCO, Google Scholar, and DOAJ
• ESCI (Web of Science)
• Article Archives
• PDF Archives

Using extant literature in a grounded theory study: a personal account

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Nursing, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
• PMID: 25783148
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.22.4.18.e1316

Aim: To provide a personal account of the factors in a doctoral study that led to the adoption of classic grounded theory principles relating to the use of literature.

Background: Novice researchers considering grounded theory methodology will become aware of the contentious issue of how and when extant literature should be incorporated into a study. The three main grounded theory approaches are classic, Straussian and constructivist, and the seminal texts provide conflicting beliefs surrounding the use of literature. A classic approach avoids a pre-study literature review to minimise preconceptions and emphasises the constant comparison method, while the Straussian and constructivist approaches focus more on the beneficial aspects of an initial literature review and researcher reflexivity. The debate also extends into the wider academic community, where no consensus exists.

Review methods: This is a methodological paper detailing the authors' engagement in the debate surrounding the role of the literature in a grounded theory study.

Discussion: In the authors' experience, researchers can best understand the use of literature in grounded theory through immersion in the seminal texts, engaging with wider academic literature, and examining their preconceptions of the substantive area. The authors concluded that classic grounded theory principles were appropriate in the context of their doctoral study.

Conclusion: Novice researchers will have their own sets of circumstances when preparing their studies and should become aware of the different perspectives to make decisions that they can ultimately justify.

Implications for research/practice: This paper can be used by other novice researchers as an example of the decision-making process that led to delaying a pre-study literature review and identifies the resources used to write a research proposal when using a classic grounded theory approach.

Keywords: Qualitative research; grounded theory; grounded theory methodology; literature review; research proposal.

• Grounded Theory*
• Nursing Research*

• Help & FAQ

A systematic review of extant literature in social media in the marketing perspective

• Information Systems

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Social media applications have been extensively used and adopted by individuals and organisations in most aspects of daily life. Likewise, researchers have spent much effort in examining and exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of engaging such applications over the marketing context. This study, therefore, realizes the necessity of conducting a review of prior literature of social media over the marketing context especially in the light of the fact that only a small number of studies have been reviewed and conducted in this area. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to systematically review the current literature of social media in the marketing context. By reviewing approximately 71 articles, this study provides an overview of the main themes and trends covered by the relevant literature such as the role of social media on advertising, the electronic word of mouth, customers’ relationship management, and firms’ brands and performance.

Publication series

• Advertising
• Social media
• Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Theoretical Computer Science
• General Computer Science

Access to Document

• 10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_8

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Marketing Context Computer Science 100%
• Social Medium Application Computer Science 33%
• Electronic Word of Mouth Social Sciences 26%

T1 - A systematic review of extant literature in social media in the marketing perspective

AU - Alalwan, Ali Abdallah

AU - Rana, Nripendra P.

AU - Algharabat, Raed

AU - Tarhini, Ali

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016.

N2 - Social media applications have been extensively used and adopted by individuals and organisations in most aspects of daily life. Likewise, researchers have spent much effort in examining and exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of engaging such applications over the marketing context. This study, therefore, realizes the necessity of conducting a review of prior literature of social media over the marketing context especially in the light of the fact that only a small number of studies have been reviewed and conducted in this area. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to systematically review the current literature of social media in the marketing context. By reviewing approximately 71 articles, this study provides an overview of the main themes and trends covered by the relevant literature such as the role of social media on advertising, the electronic word of mouth, customers’ relationship management, and firms’ brands and performance.

AB - Social media applications have been extensively used and adopted by individuals and organisations in most aspects of daily life. Likewise, researchers have spent much effort in examining and exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of engaging such applications over the marketing context. This study, therefore, realizes the necessity of conducting a review of prior literature of social media over the marketing context especially in the light of the fact that only a small number of studies have been reviewed and conducted in this area. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to systematically review the current literature of social media in the marketing context. By reviewing approximately 71 articles, this study provides an overview of the main themes and trends covered by the relevant literature such as the role of social media on advertising, the electronic word of mouth, customers’ relationship management, and firms’ brands and performance.

KW - Advertising

KW - Marketing

KW - Social media

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84985003999&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84985003999&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_8

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_8

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84985003999

SN - 9783319452333

T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

BT - Social Media

A2 - Dwivedi, Yogesh K.

A2 - Clement, Marc

A2 - Slade, Emma L.

A2 - Rana, Nripendra P.

A2 - Ravishankar, M.N.

A2 - Mäntymäki, Matti

A2 - Janssen, Marijn

A2 - Al-Sharhan, Salah

A2 - Simintiras, Antonis C.

PB - Springer Verlag

T2 - 15th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2016

Y2 - 13 September 2016 through 15 September 2016

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, financial technology: a review of extant literature.

Studies in Economics and Finance

ISSN : 1086-7376

Article publication date: 7 November 2019

Issue publication date: 24 February 2020

This paper aims to undertake a thematic review of academic papers on financial technology (FinTech) to identify three broad categories for the purpose of classifying extant literature. The paper summarizes the research and findings in this emerging field. Thereafter, it identifies the gaps and provides directions for further research. Simultaneously, the paper collates technical terms related to FinTech that appear repeatedly in each category and explains them. Finally, the study highlights the lessons that growing FinTech firms and their regulators can learn from the experiences of their counterparts across the globe.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic review of literature consisting of 130 studies (social science research network [SSRN]-29 papers, Scopus-81, other sources-20) on FinTech is carried out in this thematic paper.

This thematic paper divides FinTech into three themes, i.e. financial industry, innovation/technology and law/regulation. The paper suggests that a thorough impact of FinTech on various stakeholders can be understood using three dimensions, namely, consumers, market players and regulatory front. It is noted that FinTech is in its nascent phase and is undergoing continuous development and implementation through product and process innovation, disruption and transformation.

Research limitations/implications

The paper reports that FinTech promises huge potential for further study by various stakeholders in the FinTech industry – from academia to practitioners to regulators.

Practical implications

The paper summarizes lessons that could be of significance for FinTech users, producers, entrepreneurs, investors, policy designers and regulators.

Originality/value

The paper is believed to add value to the understanding of FinTech in light of the emerging threats and opportunities for its various stakeholders.

• Crowdfunding
• Shadow banking
• P2P lending
• Entrepreneurial finance
• Regulatory sandbox
• Cryptocurrency

Sangwan, V. , , H. , Prakash, P. and Singh, S. (2020), "Financial technology: a review of extant literature", Studies in Economics and Finance , Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-07-2019-0270

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

A Systematic Review of Extant Literature in Social Media in the Marketing Perspective

• Conference paper
• First Online: 23 August 2016
• Cite this conference paper

• Ali Abdallah Alalwan 22 ,
• Nripendra P. Rana 23 ,
• Raed Algharabat 24 &
• Ali Tarhini 25  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9844))

Included in the following conference series:

• Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society

15k Accesses

10 Citations

11 Altmetric

Social media applications have been extensively used and adopted by individuals and organisations in most aspects of daily life. Likewise, researchers have spent much effort in examining and exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of engaging such applications over the marketing context. This study, therefore, realizes the necessity of conducting a review of prior literature of social media over the marketing context especially in the light of the fact that only a small number of studies have been reviewed and conducted in this area. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to systematically review the current literature of social media in the marketing context. By reviewing approximately 71 articles, this study provides an overview of the main themes and trends covered by the relevant literature such as the role of social media on advertising, the electronic word of mouth, customers’ relationship management, and firms’ brands and performance.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download conference paper PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Return on Investment in Social Media Marketing: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research

Social Media Marketing: Evolution and Change

Social Media—A Key Pathway to Marketing Analytics

• Social media
• Systematic review
• Advertising

1 Introduction

Social media platforms have become an integral part of our daily life. The most human interactions have been moving to take their place over virtual platforms (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter) and people are more likely to formulate a positive attitude and perception towards such technologies [ 12 , 57 , 67 , 75 ].

By the same token, social media innovative applications (hardware and software) have been available for firms and customers worldwide and can be utilised to effectively interact with customers, create and share a sufficient content, and enhance interoperability [ 6 , 27 , 35 , 48 ]. According to [ 6 ], there are three main aspects that could differentiate social media in comparison with traditional computer-mediated communications and are summarised by [ 6 ] as follows: (a) by using social media platforms, customers have more points (i.e. PC desktop, mobile phone, personal digital assistance, iPad) to access the targeted websites; (b) more interactivity can be attained using social media to communicate with customers, and accordingly customers are more to be value creator rather than just receiver; (c) the third aspect is related to the fact that by using social media, customers have more power to influence and to attain the best offers. Accordingly, social media has been largely realised as an effective mechanism that contributes to the firms’ marketing aims and strategy; especially in the aspects related to customers’ involvement, customer relationship management and communication [ 25 , 63 ].

Therefore, social media-related issues represent worth directions to be considered and examined as highly recommended by academics over the relevant area [ 8 , 14 , 33 , 61 ]. This could be attributed to the need to understand the feasibility of using social media over the marketing context. Such thought has been assured by [ 33 ] who highly supported the importance of examining the role of social media over different contexts to expand the existing knowledge toward such important issues of social media. As well as, in their recent review study, [ 25 ] argued that even though social media-related issues have been the focus of attention for many researchers worldwide, there is still a necessity to formulate a rigorous theoretical framework clarifying the main aspects that could hinder or contribute to such technology from either the customers’ perspective or the firms’ perspective.

In fact, social media-related issues have recently been the focus of attention of researchers worldwide and many studies have been conducted in this regard over different sectors, countries and from different perspectives as well [see 6 , 12 , 25 , 48 ]. The marketing area has received the largest part of these studies; researchers have examined the role of social media as mentioned by [ 12 ]. It is also worth noting that different aspects and factors have been examined over the prior literature regarding social media marketing as well as different research approaches that have been applied to test such issues. Accordingly, the current study realised a necessity of conducting a systematic review of the relevant literature of social media over the marketing context to synthesise and organise the main areas covered by these studies and how these studies examined such issues.

2 Literature of Social Media Over the Marketing Context

In line with the main aim of this study, it has been restricted to studies that have examined the role of social media over the marketing area. Accordingly, other studies that have considered the role of social media over different areas (i.e. education, social, politics, and management) have been excluded. In addition, this study was also restricted to articles published in impact factor journals written in the English language.

Indeed, over the period extending from September 2015 to January 2016, this study has started looking at the main database research engine (i.e. Sciencedirect, Emeraldinsight, EBSCO, and Google scholar) to collect the related articles. Researchers have used a number of terms to reach the relevant articles such as marketing along with social media, marketing and Web 0.2, customers along with social media, social media marketing, and social media and branding. The researchers also used specific names of the most well-known social media applications: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google+ along with marketing, customers, and brands terms to reach the targeted articles. Such approach to reach the most relevant articles has been adopted by [ 22 , 25 , 74 ] in their review studies.

In total, 71 articles were collected. These articles were found to be in different interests and themes and therefore they were segmented in subgroups as presented in the six subsections as follows:

2.1 Social Media and Advertising

Businesses worldwide seem to be more interested in conducting their promotional and advertising campaigns through social media vehicles [ 70 ]. This is due to the ability of social media sites enhancing the interactive communication between firms and their customers. In this regard, [ 42 ] asserted the importance of considering social media as an integral hybrid component for a promotional mix. [ 21 ] demonstrated that Facebook advertising could have different aims to influence the customers’ perception, awareness, knowledge, preferences, their willingness to purchase or even their actual buying behaviour. Accordingly, a good number of marketing researchers have paid attention to examine the related issues of advertising over the social media platforms [i.e. 14 , 19 , 42 , 48 , 54 , 66 ]. Indeed, the extent to how much advertisement activities were able to reach their aims in the term of effectiveness and efficiency has been evaluated based on the customers’ attitudes toward such activities [i.e. 21 ]. By the same token, [ 12 ] argued that so as to attain a desirable level of customer attitudes, social media advertising activities should comprise of hedonic parts to provide customers a more entertaining experience.

2.2 Social Media and Electronic Word of Mouth

Social media applications have empowered customers to share their own experiences with a large number of people than the old traditional ways. This makes the scope and impact of electronic word of mouth more crucial. Therefore, there are many studies that have focused on the electronic word of mouth (e-WOM) [i.e. 16 , 18 , 32 , 44 , 55 , 68 ]. This could be attributed to the nature of social media as a more interactive way to share any kind of content about firms and their brands to a large number of people who use these platforms [ 32 , 55 ]. For instance, [ 18 ] examined the impact of a number of factors (i.e. source, network, relationship, and message/content) on the customers’ reaction and response towards word of mouth distributed by way of social media platforms. The main findings of such a study indicated that the traditional word of mouth still has more influence on customer response than those that come from the social media platforms [ 18 ].

2.3 Social Media and Customer Relationship Management

As stated by [ 10 , 25 , 69 ], having a strong customer relationship largely depends on the ability of firms to emotionally and cognitively involve their customers with its brand. Recently, most companies are looking to take advantage of social media applications (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) so as to leverage customer experience as well as customer relationship management [ 18 ]. Indeed, communication, relationship development and promotion are fostered through the posting and sharing of content with consumers [e.g. 30, 62] as well as through exchange and interaction facilitated through social media [ 23 , 43 , 56 ]. [ 23 , 30 , 43 , 62 ] acknowledged that levers comprised in social media platforms that enable customers and firms to commonly post, share, and interact play a highly positive role in enhancing the level of communication, customer relationship management and the efficiency of promotional activities. Over the prior literature, many marketing scholars have tested how using social media could impact the customer relationship management (CRM) [i.e. 1 , 5 , 7 , 25 , 26 , 32 , 41 , 53 , 56 , 69 , 73 ].

2.4 Social Media and Brand

Several researchers [e.g. 27 , Kapla35] have supported the effective role of social media in enhancing the brand’s image due to its ability to tailor the messages sent according to the personal preferences of the users. Indeed, firms are able to engage their customers with their brands with a higher degree of customisation and interactivity as stated by [ 25 ]. Theoretically, many recent marketing studies that have tested brand issues over the social media platforms [i.e. 7 , 11 , 15 , 19 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 37 , 38 , 45 , 46 , 60 ]. For instance, in their conference paper, [ 24 ] indicated that the customers’ willingness to follow brands on social media is derived by five factors: brand affiliation, investigation, opportunity seeking, conversation, and entertainment. A qualitative study conducted by [ 59 ] who interviewed fourteen ladies in Ireland indicated that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have an important role in shaping the female’s perception and awareness of their needs toward online fashion brands.

2.5 Social Media and Customer Behavior and Perception

Indeed, as a part of their daily life, customers nowadays depend largely on the social media over the whole stages of his or her purchasing process: collecting information, conducting actual purchasing, adoption, and even in forming their attitudes and future behaviour (loyalty, commitment, retention) [ 41 ]. Therefore, social media plays an important role either in the term of helping customers to attain information required or by enabling them to create their own content and share it with others [ 20 ]. For instance, more than 20 % of customers, according to [ 54 ], have a strong thought that social media is a considerable source of information when they are in the process of finalising their purchasing decision. This makes social media platforms one of the most important factors predicting customer behaviour and decision-making [ 50 ].

The important role of social media has been largely discussed by different researchers over the relevant area of marketing and social media [i.e. 20 , 50 , 54 , 59 , 72 , 73 ]. For example, a recent study undertaken in the hotel context in the USA by [ 40 ] reported that customer experience with social media has an influence on consumer attitudes towards both Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the dimensions pertaining to the high degree of interactivity and personalisation have contributed to both customers’ experience as well as the information resources needed by customers in their purchasing decisions as stated by [ 13 , 21 , 31 , 50 , 72 ] indicated that customers’ intention to purchase is significantly predicted by the role of involvement. [ 72 ] noticed that customers’ involvement was largely enhanced by using social media. Three factors - enjoyment, internalisation and identification - were found by [ 34 ] to be key predictors contributing to travellers’ behaviour to share their experiences on the social media platforms.

2.6 Adoption of Social Media

The related issues of adoption and usage of social media have derived an interest by marketing researchers [i.e. 9 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 28 , 36 , 47 , 49 , 65 , 74 ]. Indeed, there are number of factors that have been tested to predict the adoption behaviour of social media platforms. For example, both perceived benefits and perceived risk have been proven to have a strong influence on the individuals’ intention to use social media as reported by [ 47 , 49 ]. Customers’ behaviour, intention and interactions with social media are largely influenced by website integrity, credibility and subjectivity as founded by [ 74 ]. [ 28 ] also attempted to explain the key drivers justifying why customers are willing to adopt social media applications. In this regard, three kinds of different users’ behaviours related to social media adoption were identified by [ 28 ]; they are the general use of social media platforms; joining brands’ page on social media; and opt on ads on the social media. To do so, [ 28 ] formulated their conceptual model based on the decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Their results strongly supported the role of attitudes, relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, and self-efficacy in shaping the adoption of social media platforms. Based on both the Technology Acceptance Model and the Resource Based Theory, [ 65 ] were able to prove the significant influence of perceived ease of use, image, and perceived barriers on the perceived usefulness pertaining to the social media.

3 Methods Adopted in Examining the Role of Social Media in the Marketing Context

A closer look at the main methods implemented by researchers in examining the related issues of social media over marketing context leads the researchers to observe many approaches adopted in this area. A quantitative approach using a questionnaire survey has been commonly used by different studies [i.e. 14 , 15 , 23 , 24 , 29 , 32 , 43 , 72 ]. It is also worth mentioning that most of these quantitative approaches have tested their empirical data using the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) [i.e. 14 , 24 , 28 , 32 , 34 ]. The qualitative approach has been largely used by researchers to explore the associated area of social media marketing (i.e. [ 1 ]). Importantly, content analyses of material posted over social media platforms were noticed to be extensively used by most qualitative studies [ 56 ]. Another group of qualitative studies [i.e. 7 , 59 ] were found to be using the interview approach to collect the required data. The mixed method has been noticed in a number of studies [ 28 , 53 , 54 ]. Case studies have been considered as a suitable research approach to explore the related issues of social media by a number of marketing researchers [i.e. 36 , 43 ]. [ 22 , 25 , 27 , 74 ] have used a systematic review approach of most papers and studies conducted over the related area of social media and marketing. Other parts of social media studies were found in the form of a theoretical framework and conceptual model papers [i.e. 8 , 51 , 52 , 58 , 61 , 68 , 73 ].

4 Discussion

By reviewing the main papers that have examined the role of social media over the marketing context, it was concluded that social media-related issues represent an emerging trend capturing more interest by practitioners and researchers. This was proved by the large number of papers that have been published between 2010 and 2016 in addition to the fact that most of these papers have been published after 2014 [i.e. 25 , 39 , 57 , 64 , 74 , 75 ]. Such recent interest conveys a sign about the importance of examining the related issues of social media over the marketing context.

It is also worth considering that the reviewed studies have addressed different practices for social media in the marketing context and from different perspectives. For instance, a number of studies concentrated on the effective use of social media for promotion and advertising activities [i.e. 14 , 19 ]. However, most of these studies [i.e. 42 , 48 , 66 ] recommended examining such issues of advertising by considering other factors and using different research methods as well. Further, there is still a need to see how the effectiveness of such advertising activities could be different from one platform to another (i.e. Facebook vs YouTube). In this regard, [ 25 ] did not consider the different kinds of Facebook advertising and accordingly recommended examining if different forms of Facebook advertising could reflect a variation in the customers’ attitudes.

Researchers were also able to notice that considerable attention of the reviewed studies was on how firms can successfully use social media applications either in terms of e-WOM [i.e. 16 , 18 ] or in terms of enhancing CRM [i.e. 56 , 69 , 73 ]. This means that using social media for the related issues of e-WOM and CRM is critical and requires further understanding and research as recommended by [ 1 , 5 , 7 , 44 ]. It is also important to consider how such mechanisms (personalization, interactivity, and digital community) could be accelerated using social media applications, and accordingly, contributing to both CRM and e-WOM [see 18 , 25 , 74 ].

A number of studies were found to be interested on the impacting role of social media on customers’ perception and behaviour towards firms, their brands, and products [i.e. 15 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 27 , 28 ]. Indeed, it was observed that such a role has been addressed differently; while some studies capture the customers’ point of view regarding how social media has been an important source of information to them [i.e. 20 , 54 ], other studies have looked at how customers’ attitudes and purchasing behaviour could be predicted by social media [i.e. 40 ]. In this regard, as discussed by [ 1 , 3 ] in their paper examining the adoption of mobile banking, social media tools could also be used by banks to accelerate the adoption of such emerging technologies. Therefore, another important research trend could be in testing the effective use of social media in teaching customers and enhancing their intention and adoption toward such technologies as assured by [ 2 , 4 ].

The last important theme pertained to examining the factors predicting adoption of social media platforms [i.e. 36 , 47 ]. Several factors have been examined to predict the customers’ adoption towards such technologies such as: perceived benefits and perceived risk [ 47 , 49 ]; website integrity, credibility and subjectivity [i.e. 74 ]. Further, quite a few of these studies have formulated their model according to well-established theories such as the Technology Acceptance Model and the Resource Based Theory [ 65 ]; and the theory of planned behaviour [ 28 ]. However, there is still a need to systematically select the related factors that could influence the adoption of social media by users. Furthermore, the theoretical foundation proposed should clearly explain the related issues of adoption of social media from the customers’ perspective. In this regard, the new model by [ 71 ] could be used as this model has accurately proposed to predict the adoption of system applications from the customers’ perspective as proved by [ 3 ] in their study to examine the adoption of Internet banking.

5 Conclusion

This study was conducted with the intention to systematically review the prior literature of social media over the marketing context. Indeed, such a review was important to be conducted to see how practitioners and researchers addressed the implications of social media for marketing issues. This study began by providing an introduction about social media and its importance from the marketing perspective. It also provided further discussion regarding the concept of social media and social media marketing. In section three, literature of social media over the marketing context, it was mentioned that such literature could be categorised into six main themes: social media and advertising; social media and e-WOM; social media and CRM; social media and brand issues; social media and customers’ perception and behaviour; social media from the firms’ perspective; and adoption of social media. In this study, it also looked at the main research methods and approaches adopted by studies reviewed (i.e. quantitative approach; qualitative approach; mix method questionnaire survey; content analyses; review studies). In the discussion section, it provided further explorations for the main six themes as well as what main directions were required for further examination.

5.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions

As any other reviewing studies, the current study is restricted by a number of limitations. For instance, all social media articles reviewed in the current study were over marketing context. Therefore, other kinds of social media studies over different contexts are very important to be considered as well. This study also conducted a systematic review of these studies. As mentioned in Sect.  4 , there are a good number of papers that have conducted a quantitative approach. Accordingly, future studies could easily employ a meta-analysis method to discover the most frequently and influential factors over the related studies of social media marketing. It also indicated that social media-related issues are emerging trends and there is need for further examinations and exploration, and accordingly, there is still a need to conduct more studies over different cultures and context by using different approaches.

Abreza, G., O’Reilly, N., Reid, I.: Relationship marketing and social media in sport. Int. J. Sport Commun. 6 (2), 120–142 (2013)

Article   Google Scholar  

Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y., Rana, N.P., Williams, M.D.: Consumer adoption of mobile banking in Jordan: examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and self-efficacy. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 29 (1), 118–139 (2016)

Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D.: Customers’ intention and adoption of telebanking in Jordan. Inf. Syst. Manage. 33 (2), 154–178 (2016)

Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Lal, B., Williams, M.D.: Consumer adoption of Internet banking in Jordan: examining the role of hedonic motivation, habit, self-efficacy and trust. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 20 (2), 145–157 (2015)

Ballings, M., Van den Poel, D.: CRM in social media: predicting increases in Facebook usage frequency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244 (1), 248–260 (2015)

Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K., Shapiro, D.: Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy. Bus. Horiz. 55 (3), 261–271 (2012)

Bianchi, C., Andrews, L.: Investigating marketing managers’ perspectives on social media in Chile. J. Bus. Res. 68 (12), 2552–2559 (2015)

Billings, A.: Power in the reverberation why Twitter matters, but not the way most believe. Commun. Sport 2 (2), 107–112 (2014)

Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Solnet, D.: Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda. J. Serv. Manage. 24 (3), 245–267 (2013)

Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L.: Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114 (2013)

Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., Schäfer, D.B.: Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Manage. Res. Rev. 35 (9), 770–790 (2012)

Carrillat, A.F., Astous, A., Grégoire, E.M.: Leveraging social media to enhance recruitment effectiveness: a Facebook experiment. Internet Res. 24 (4), 86–123 (2014)

Chandra, B., Goswami, S., Chouhan, V.: Investigating attitude towards online advertising on social media-an empirical study. Manage. Insight 8 (1), 1–14 (2013)

Google Scholar  

Chang, Y.T., Yu, H., Lu, H.P.: Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing. J. Bus. Res. 68 (4), 777–782 (2015)

Christou, E.: Branding social media in the travel industry. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 175 , 607–614 (2015)

Chu, S.C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30 (1), 47–75 (2011)

Clavio, G., Kian, T.M.: Uses and gratifications of a retired female athlete’s Twitter followers. Int. J. Sport Commun. 3 (4), 485–500 (2010)

Coulter, K.S., Roggeveen, A.: “Like it or not” - consumer responses to word-of-mouth communication in on-line social networks. Manage. Res. Rev. 35 (9), 878–899 (2012)

De Vries, L., Gensler, S., Leeflang, P.S.: Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an investigation of the effects of social media marketing. J. Interact. Mark. 26 (2), 83–91 (2012)

Drews, W., Schemer, C.: eTourism for all? online travel planning of disabled people. In: Gretzel, U., Law, R. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, pp. 507–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

Duffett, R.G.: Facebook advertising’s influence on intention-to-purchase and purchase amongst millennials. Internet Res. 25 (4), 498–526 (2015)

Dwivedi, Y.K., Kapoor, K.K., Chen, H.: Social media marketing and advertising. Mark. Rev. 15 (3), 289–309 (2015)

Eagleman, A.N.: Acceptance, motivations, and usage of social media as a marketing communications tool amongst employees of sport national governing bodies. Sport Manage. Rev. 16 (4), 488–497 (2013)

Enginkaya, E., Yilmaz, H.: What drives consumers to interact with brands through social media? a motivation scale development study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 148 , 219–226 (2014)

Filo, K., Lock, D., Karg, A.: Sport and social media research: a review. Sport Manage. Rev. 18 (2), 166–181 (2015)

Gamboa, A.M., Gonçalves, H.M.: Customer loyalty through social networks: lessons from Zara on Facebook. Bus. Horiz. 57 (6), 709–717 (2014)

Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., Wiertz, C.: Managing brands in the social media environment. J. Interact. Mark. 27 (4), 242–256 (2013)

Gironda, J.T., Korgaonkar, P.K.: Understanding consumers’ social networking site usage. J. Mark. Manage. 30 (5–6), 571–605 (2014)

Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., Pihlström, M.: Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Manage. Res. Rev. 35 (9), 857–877 (2012)

Hambrick, M.E.: Six degrees of information: Using social network analysis to explore the spread of information within sport social networks. Int. J. Sport Commun. 5 (1), 16–34 (2012)

He, W., Zha, S.: Insights into the adoption of social media mashups. Internet Res. 24 (2), 160–180 (2014)

Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S., Madden, T.J.: The influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand relationships: a three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. Int. J. Res. Mark. 33 , 27–41 (2016)

Hutchins, B.: Twitter follow the money and look beyond sports. Commun. Sport 2 , 122–126 (2014)

Kang, M., Schuett, M.A.: Determinants of sharing travel experiences in social media. J. Travel Tourism Mark. 30 (1/2), 93–107 (2013)

Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53 (1), 59–68 (2010)

Killian, G., McManus, K.A.: marketing communications approach for the digital era: managerial guidelines for social media integration. Bus. Horiz. 58 (5), 539–549 (2015)

Kim, A.J., Ko, E.: Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? an empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 65 (10), 1480–1486 (2012)

Kim, S., Koh, Y., Cha, J., Lee, S.: Effects of social media on firm value for US restaurant companies. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 49 , 40–46 (2015)

Leeflang, P.S., Verhoef, P.C., Dahlström, P., Freundt, T.: Challenges and solutions for marketing in a digital era. Eur. Manage. J. 32 (1), 1–12 (2014)

Leung, X.Y., Bai, B., Stahura, K.A.: The marketing effectiveness of social media in the hotel industry a comparison of Facebook and Twitter. J. Hosp. Tourism Res. 39 (2), 147–169 (2015)

Malthouse, E.C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., Zhang, M.: Managing customer relationships in the social media era: introducing the social CRM house. J. Interact. Mark. 27 (4), 270–280 (2013)

Mangold, W.G., Faulds, D.J.: Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Bus. Horiz. 52 (4), 357–365 (2009)

McCarthy, J., Rowley, J., Ashworth, J.C., Pioch, E.: Managing brand presence through social media: the case of UK football clubs. Internet Res. 24 (2), 181–204 (2014)

Munar, A.M., Jacobsen, J.K.S.: Trust and involvement in tourism social media and web-based travel information sources. Scand. J. Hosp. Tourism 13 (1), 1–19 (2013)

Naylor, R.W., Lamberton, C.P., West, P.M.: Beyond the “like” button: The impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings. J. Mark. 76 (6), 105–120 (2012)

Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T.C., Chen, J.: Brand innovation and social media: Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating role of social media strategic capability. Ind. Mark. Manage. 51 , 11–25 (2015)

Nusair, K.K., Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F., Cobanoglu, C.: Generation Y travelers’ commitment to online social network websites. Tourism Manage. 35 , 13–22 (2013)

Okazaki, S., Taylor, C.R.: Social media and international advertising: theoretical challenges and future directions. Int. Mark. Rev. 30 (1), 56–71 (2013)

Parra-López, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., Díaz-Armas, R.: Intentions to use social media in organizing and taking vacation trips. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (2), 640–654 (2011)

Patino, A., Pitta, D.A., Quinones, R.: Social media’s emerging importance in market research. J. Consum. Mark. 29 (3), 233–237 (2012)

Pedersen, P.M.: A commentary on social media research from the perspective of a sport communication journal editor. Commun. Sport 2 , 138–142 (2014)

Pegoraro, A.: Twitter as disruptive innovation in sport communication. Commun. Sport 2 , 132–137 (2014)

Pereira, H.G., de Salgueiro, M.F., Mateus, I.: Say yes to Facebook and get your customers involved! relationships in a world of social networks. Bus. Horiz. 57 (6), 695–702 (2014)

Powers, T., Advincula, D., Austin, M.S., Graiko, S., Snyder, J.: Digital and social media in the purchase decision process. J. Advert. Res. 52 (4), 479–489 (2012)

Priyanka, S.: A study of online advertising on consumer behaviour. Int. J. Eng. Manage. Sci. 3 (4), 461–465 (2013)

Pronschinske, M., Groza, M.D., Walker, M.: Attracting Facebook ‘fans’: the importance of authenticity and engagement as a social networking strategy for professional sport teams. Sport Mark. Q. 21 (4), 221–231 (2012)

Rathore, A.K., Ilavarasan, P.V., Dwivedi, Y.: Social media content and product co-creation: an emerging paradigm. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 29 (1), 7–18 (2016)

Rowe, D.: Following the followers sport researchers’ labour lost in the twittersphere? Commun. Sport 2 , 117–121 (2014)

Ruane, L., Wallace, E.: Generation Y females online: insights from brand narratives. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 16 (3), 315–335 (2013)

Saboo, A. R., Kumar, V., Ramani, G.: Evaluating the impact of social media activities on human brand sales. Int. J. Res. Mark. (2015) (In press)

Sanderson, J.: What do we do with Twitter? Sage J. (2014). Communication & Sport

Sanderson, J., Hambrick, M.E.: Covering the scandal in 140 characters: a case study of Twitter’s role in coverage of the Penn State saga. Int. J. Sport Commun. 5 (3), 384–402 (2012)

Saxena, A., Khanna, U.: Advertising on social network sites: a structural equation modelling approach. Vis. J. Bus. Perspect. 17 (1), 17–25 (2013)

Shilbury, D., Westerbeek, H., Quick, S., Funk, D., Karg, A.: Strategic Sport Marketing, 4th edn. Allen & Unwin, Sydney (2014)

Siamagka, N.T., Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., Valvi, A.: Determinants of social media adoption by B2B organizations. Ind. Mark. Manage. 51 , 89–99 (2015)

Steyn, P., Ewing, M.T., Van Heerden, G., Pitt, L.F., Windisch, L.: From whence it came: Understanding source effects in consumer-generated advertising. Int. J. Advert. 30 (1), 133–160 (2011)

Taylor, D.G., Lewin, J.E., Strutton, D.: Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social networks? how gender and age shape receptivity. J. Advert. Res. 51 (1), 258–276 (2011)

Tham, A., Croy, G., Mair, J.: Social media in destination choice: distinctive electronic word-of-mouth dimensions. J. Travel Tourism Mark. 30 (1–2), 144–155 (2013)

Trainor, K.J., Andzulis, J.M., Rapp, A., Agnihotri, R.: Social media technology usage and customer relationship performance: a capabilities-based examination of social CRM. J. Bus. Res. 67 (6), 1201–1208 (2014)

Tuten, T.L., Solomon, M.R.: Social Media Marketing, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2015)

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36 (1), 157–178 (2012)

Wang, X., Yu, C., Wei, Y.: Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: a consumer socialization framework. J. Interact. Mark. 26 (4), 198–208 (2012)

Williams, J., Chinn, S.: Meeting relationship–marketing goals through social media: a conceptual model for sport marketers. Int. J. Sport Commun. 3 (4), 422–437 (2010)

Zeng, B., Gerritsen, R.: What do we know about social media in tourism? Rev. Tourism Manage. Perspect. 10 , 27–36 (2014)

Zhu, Y.Q., Chen, H.G.: Social media and human need satisfaction: implications for social media marketing. Bus. Horiz. 58 (3), 335–345 (2015)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Amman College of Banking and Financial Sciences, Al-Balqa’ Applied University, Amman, Jordan

Ali Abdallah Alalwan

School of Management, Swansea University Bay Campus, Swansea, SA1 8EN, UK

Nripendra P. Rana

The School of Business Department of Marketing, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Raed Algharabat

Department of Information Systems, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

Ali Tarhini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nripendra P. Rana .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom

Yogesh K. Dwivedi

University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Matti Mäntymäki

Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom

M.N. Ravishankar

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Marijn Janssen

Marc Clement

Emma L. Slade

Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally , Kuwait

Salah Al-Sharhan

Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait

Antonis C. Simintiras

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Algharabat, R., Tarhini, A. (2016). A Systematic Review of Extant Literature in Social Media in the Marketing Perspective. In: Dwivedi, Y., et al. Social Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I3E 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9844. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_8

Published : 23 August 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-45233-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-45234-0

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Limitations of the literature – A guide to a sticky problem

One of the more difficult tasks set for a Masters and especially PhD student is to identify limitations in the literature under review. Postgraduate students are required not only to “tell” (repeat what an author/s say) but to critically engage the literature being reviewed. This work typically appears in a separate chapter in the thesis or dissertation under the title Literature Review. To help you, here are 10 typical examples often used to identify limitations in a particular body of literature—with a caveat—using education examples.

1. The sample size is too small and therefore not representative of the phenomenon being studied This is fine but be aware of the fact that a single case study (e.g. the leadership practices of a non-traditional principal) is completely acceptable in a qualitative study. Here depth makes up for spread (representivity) for the purpose of the study is different e.g. an ethnographic case study of one principal.

2. The context is limiting and therefore not representative of all  This too is acceptable e.g. a study of subject competency levels of 10 science teachers in rural Limpopo province. However, always specific WHAT it is about the context that is limiting e.g. nothing about science teachers in urban areas. A common mistake is to say ‘that study was done in America’ but that is not helpful in itself. What is it about the American context that might not be applicable in the Southern African context?

3. The study is dated as in out-of-date e.g. 1985 This is important as a criticism except in the case of historical studies or in reference to a classical piece of work that set the standard for understanding a particular problem. For example, Michael Apple’s 1979 Ideology and Curriculum might be dated but it is the landmark criticism in the politics of curriculum and often deserves referencing as a launching pad for more recent studies.

4. The period of observation was too short This is valuable especially in the qualitative study of classrooms where the researcher visits a history class of 10 teachers once and then jumps to make major findings and conclusions from a 40-minute lesson per teacher. This is a common problem with qualitative research in education in South Africa—the lack of extended engagement in the field.

5. The theoretical framework or theory is limiting A researcher might be using a particular theory to explain events e.g. a behaviorist account of learner discipline where you believe that a constructivist account offers more insight into why learners misbehave in classrooms. The onus is still on you to explain why the rival theory is ‘better’ than the one used.

6. The methodological approach is inappropriate for the question posed A study uses a self-reporting questionnaire completed by teachers to determine their competency levels in mathematics teaching. You could argue that direct observation of actual teaching is a much more direct measure of teaching competency in mathematics since teachers might overestimate their own levels of competency in the subject (by the way, there is research to back you up with such a claim)

7. The research question or instrument(s) is biased A study that asks ‘why teachers are incompetent’ or ‘the students are lazy’ already assumes the fact ahead of the inquiry itself. The research question can and should be posed in an open-ended manner to allow for more than one outcome. In the controversial SU study on Coloured women’s cognitive abilities and health styles it was found that the measuring instrument used was found in other studies to be flawed. And the study of code-switching in a Grade 6 language classroom would clearly show bias if the researcher was competent in English alone—unless, of course, this deficiency is remedied in the study design.

8. The study does not differentiate between subjects or contexts A report might give the results of a study for academic performance in Grade 12 economics in the National Senior Certificate, which is fine, but does not differentiate between the results of the former white schools and those of black schools thereby concealing variable performance and, for the sake of reform, where exactly added support might be needed.

9. The literature reviewed does not cover the subject at all or from a particular perspective The conclusion that ‘there is no research on topic X’ is a common one among students and often wrong. The fact that you have not yet found literature on topic X does not mean that such references do not exist. However, there are instances in which the case can and should be made that topic X appears to be understudied given the literature reviewed. Hint: always check with your supervisor and other experts whether the ‘not yet researched’ claim is justified. More plausible are studies which critique a dominant perspective on a subject and offer a new lens on the same issue (see point #5) above.

10. The study is based largely on opinion and uses primarily secondary sources This is a very valid criticism of many articles posing as research studies where the evidence is often anecdotal (not ‘thick descriptions’ as anthropologists like to point out) and drawing on other opinion pieces rather than solid research on the topic.

REMEMBER: THESE NOTES ARE NOT ABOUT HOW TO IDENTIFY LIMITATIONS IN LITERATURE REVIEWED FOR YOUR STUDY. IT IS NOT ABOUT LISTING THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR STUDY IN THE COURSE OF WRITING UP A RESEARCH PROPOSAL OR THE THESIS ITSELF, EVEN THOUGH THIS COULD HELP YOU DEFEND SELF-IDENTIFIED LIMITATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH.

The upsides to a pandemic: from jobs to teaching, it’s not all bad news

Let’s face facts, the 2020 school year is lost. so what to do, you may also like, corrupted: a study of chronic dysfunction in south..., learning under lockdown – 100 student voices, ten elements of a good literature review, ten rules for turning a dissertation into a....

This was very helpful to me.

Truly helpful. So much valuable information on this site that’s worth spreading across all social media platforms.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

NSTF: Lifetime Award

Power to truth with jj tabane, corrupted: a study of chronic dysfunction in south…, honorary doctorate – uct faculty of humanities graduation…, limitations of the literature – a guide to…, ten rules for turning a dissertation into a…, what happens to your rights in a pandemic, trading places, a different take, my south africa, q&a-plus: let’s clear up some confusion about matric…, relocating some universities to places of relative safety…, there’s always room for more students, better planning,…, bela, my dear, where did we go wrong.

• Books published in 2022 & 2023
• Recent Research
• Presentations
• Speaking Requests