what to include in empirical literature review

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

Module 2 Chapter 3: What is Empirical Literature & Where can it be Found?

In Module 1, you read about the problem of pseudoscience. Here, we revisit the issue in addressing how to locate and assess scientific or empirical literature . In this chapter you will read about:

• distinguishing between what IS and IS NOT empirical literature
• how and where to locate empirical literature for understanding diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Probably the most important take-home lesson from this chapter is that one source is not sufficient to being well-informed on a topic. It is important to locate multiple sources of information and to critically appraise the points of convergence and divergence in the information acquired from different sources. This is especially true in emerging and poorly understood topics, as well as in answering complex questions.

What Is Empirical Literature

Social workers often need to locate valid, reliable information concerning the dimensions of a population group or subgroup, a social work problem, or social phenomenon. They might also seek information about the way specific problems or resources are distributed among the populations encountered in professional practice. Or, social workers might be interested in finding out about the way that certain people experience an event or phenomenon. Empirical literature resources may provide answers to many of these types of social work questions. In addition, resources containing data regarding social indicators may also prove helpful. Social indicators are the “facts and figures” statistics that describe the social, economic, and psychological factors that have an impact on the well-being of a community or other population group.The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are examples of organizations that monitor social indicators at a global level: dimensions of population trends (size, composition, growth/loss), health status (physical, mental, behavioral, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality, fertility/child-bearing, and diseases like HIV/AIDS), housing and quality of sanitation (water supply, waste disposal), education and literacy, and work/income/unemployment/economics, for example.

Three characteristics stand out in empirical literature compared to other types of information available on a topic of interest: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/replicability/reproducibility. Let’s look a little more closely at these three features.

Systematic Observation and Methodology. The hallmark of empiricism is “repeated or reinforced observation of the facts or phenomena” (Holosko, 2006, p. 6). In empirical literature, established research methodologies and procedures are systematically applied to answer the questions of interest.

Objectivity. Gathering “facts,” whatever they may be, drives the search for empirical evidence (Holosko, 2006). Authors of empirical literature are expected to report the facts as observed, whether or not these facts support the investigators’ original hypotheses. Research integrity demands that the information be provided in an objective manner, reducing sources of investigator bias to the greatest possible extent.

Transparency and Replicability/Reproducibility.   Empirical literature is reported in such a manner that other investigators understand precisely what was done and what was found in a particular research study—to the extent that they could replicate the study to determine whether the findings are reproduced when repeated. The outcomes of an original and replication study may differ, but a reader could easily interpret the methods and procedures leading to each study’s findings.

What is NOT Empirical Literature

By now, it is probably obvious to you that literature based on “evidence” that is not developed in a systematic, objective, transparent manner is not empirical literature. On one hand, non-empirical types of professional literature may have great significance to social workers. For example, social work scholars may produce articles that are clearly identified as describing a new intervention or program without evaluative evidence, critiquing a policy or practice, or offering a tentative, untested theory about a phenomenon. These resources are useful in educating ourselves about possible issues or concerns. But, even if they are informed by evidence, they are not empirical literature. Here is a list of several sources of information that do not meet the standard of being called empirical literature:

• your course instructor’s lectures
• political statements
• advertisements
• newspapers & magazines (journalism)
• television news reports & analyses (journalism)
• many websites, Facebook postings, Twitter tweets, and blog postings
• the introductory literature review in an empirical article

You may be surprised to see the last two included in this list. Like the other sources of information listed, these sources also might lead you to look for evidence. But, they are not themselves sources of evidence. They may summarize existing evidence, but in the process of summarizing (like your instructor’s lectures), information is transformed, modified, reduced, condensed, and otherwise manipulated in such a manner that you may not see the entire, objective story. These are called secondary sources, as opposed to the original, primary source of evidence. In relying solely on secondary sources, you sacrifice your own critical appraisal and thinking about the original work—you are “buying” someone else’s interpretation and opinion about the original work, rather than developing your own interpretation and opinion. What if they got it wrong? How would you know if you did not examine the primary source for yourself? Consider the following as an example of “getting it wrong” being perpetuated.

Example: Bullying and School Shootings . One result of the heavily publicized April 1999 school shooting incident at Columbine High School (Colorado), was a heavy emphasis placed on bullying as a causal factor in these incidents (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017), “creating a powerful master narrative about school shootings” (Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017, p. 3). Naturally, with an identified cause, a great deal of effort was devoted to anti-bullying campaigns and interventions for enhancing resilience among youth who experience bullying.  However important these strategies might be for promoting positive mental health, preventing poor mental health, and possibly preventing suicide among school-aged children and youth, it is a mistaken belief that this can prevent school shootings (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017). Many times the accounts of the perpetrators having been bullied come from potentially inaccurate third-party accounts, rather than the perpetrators themselves; bullying was not involved in all instances of school shooting; a perpetrator’s perception of being bullied/persecuted are not necessarily accurate; many who experience severe bullying do not perpetrate these incidents; bullies are the least targeted shooting victims; perpetrators of the shooting incidents were often bullying others; and, bullying is only one of many important factors associated with perpetrating such an incident (Ioannou, Hammond, & Simpson, 2015; Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017; Newman &Fox, 2009; Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017). While mass media reports deliver bullying as a means of explaining the inexplicable, the reality is not so simple: “The connection between bullying and school shootings is elusive” (Langman, 2014), and “the relationship between bullying and school shooting is, at best, tenuous” (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017, p. 940). The point is, when a narrative becomes this publicly accepted, it is difficult to sort out truth and reality without going back to original sources of information and evidence.

What May or May Not Be Empirical Literature: Literature Reviews

Investigators typically engage in a review of existing literature as they develop their own research studies. The review informs them about where knowledge gaps exist, methods previously employed by other scholars, limitations of prior work, and previous scholars’ recommendations for directing future research. These reviews may appear as a published article, without new study data being reported (see Fields, Anderson, & Dabelko-Schoeny, 2014 for example). Or, the literature review may appear in the introduction to their own empirical study report. These literature reviews are not considered to be empirical evidence sources themselves, although they may be based on empirical evidence sources. One reason is that the authors of a literature review may or may not have engaged in a systematic search process, identifying a full, rich, multi-sided pool of evidence reports.

There is, however, a type of review that applies systematic methods and is, therefore, considered to be more strongly rooted in evidence: the systematic review .

Systematic review of literature. A systematic reviewis a type of literature report where established methods have been systematically applied, objectively, in locating and synthesizing a body of literature. The systematic review report is characterized by a great deal of transparency about the methods used and the decisions made in the review process, and are replicable. Thus, it meets the criteria for empirical literature: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/reproducibility. We will work a great deal more with systematic reviews in the second course, SWK 3402, since they are important tools for understanding interventions. They are somewhat less common, but not unheard of, in helping us understand diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Locating Empirical Evidence

Social workers have available a wide array of tools and resources for locating empirical evidence in the literature. These can be organized into four general categories.

Journal Articles. A number of professional journals publish articles where investigators report on the results of their empirical studies. However, it is important to know how to distinguish between empirical and non-empirical manuscripts in these journals. A key indicator, though not the only one, involves a peer review process . Many professional journals require that manuscripts undergo a process of peer review before they are accepted for publication. This means that the authors’ work is shared with scholars who provide feedback to the journal editor as to the quality of the submitted manuscript. The editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ feedback:

• Accept as is
• Accept with minor revisions
• Request that a revision be resubmitted (no assurance of acceptance)

When a “revise and resubmit” decision is made, the piece will go back through the review process to determine if it is now acceptable for publication and that all of the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. Editors may also reject a manuscript because it is a poor fit for the journal, based on its mission and audience, rather than sending it for review consideration.

Indicators of journal relevance. Various journals are not equally relevant to every type of question being asked of the literature. Journals may overlap to a great extent in terms of the topics they might cover; in other words, a topic might appear in multiple different journals, depending on how the topic was being addressed. For example, articles that might help answer a question about the relationship between community poverty and violence exposure might appear in several different journals, some with a focus on poverty, others with a focus on violence, and still others on community development or public health. Journal titles are sometimes a good starting point but may not give a broad enough picture of what they cover in their contents.

In focusing a literature search, it also helps to review a journal’s mission and target audience. For example, at least four different journals focus specifically on poverty:

• Journal of Children & Poverty
• Journal of Poverty
• Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
• Poverty & Public Policy

Let’s look at an example using the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice . Information about this journal is located on the journal’s webpage: http://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/journal-of-poverty-and-social-justice . In the section headed “About the Journal” you can see that it is an internationally focused research journal, and that it addresses social justice issues in addition to poverty alone. The research articles are peer-reviewed (there appear to be non-empirical discussions published, as well). These descriptions about a journal are almost always available, sometimes listed as “scope” or “mission.” These descriptions also indicate the sponsorship of the journal—sponsorship may be institutional (a particular university or agency, such as Smith College Studies in Social Work ), a professional organization, such as the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) or the National Association of Social Work (NASW), or a publishing company (e.g., Taylor & Frances, Wiley, or Sage).

Indicators of journal caliber.  Despite engaging in a peer review process, not all journals are equally rigorous. Some journals have very high rejection rates, meaning that many submitted manuscripts are rejected; others have fairly high acceptance rates, meaning that relatively few manuscripts are rejected. This is not necessarily the best indicator of quality, however, since newer journals may not be sufficiently familiar to authors with high quality manuscripts and some journals are very specific in terms of what they publish. Another index that is sometimes used is the journal’s impact factor . Impact factor is a quantitative number indicative of how often articles published in the journal are cited in the reference list of other journal articles—the statistic is calculated as the number of times on average each article published in a particular year were cited divided by the number of articles published (the number that could be cited). For example, the impact factor for the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice in our list above was 0.70 in 2017, and for the Journal of Poverty was 0.30. These are relatively low figures compared to a journal like the New England Journal of Medicine with an impact factor of 59.56! This means that articles published in that journal were, on average, cited more than 59 times in the next year or two.

Impact factors are not necessarily the best indicator of caliber, however, since many strong journals are geared toward practitioners rather than scholars, so they are less likely to be cited by other scholars but may have a large impact on a large readership. This may be the case for a journal like the one titled Social Work, the official journal of the National Association of Social Workers. It is distributed free to all members: over 120,000 practitioners, educators, and students of social work world-wide. The journal has a recent impact factor of.790. The journals with social work relevant content have impact factors in the range of 1.0 to 3.0 according to Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), particularly when they are interdisciplinary journals (for example, Child Development , Journal of Marriage and Family , Child Abuse and Neglect , Child Maltreatmen t, Social Service Review , and British Journal of Social Work ). Once upon a time, a reader could locate different indexes comparing the “quality” of social work-related journals. However, the concept of “quality” is difficult to systematically define. These indexes have mostly been replaced by impact ratings, which are not necessarily the best, most robust indicators on which to rely in assessing journal quality. For example, new journals addressing cutting edge topics have not been around long enough to have been evaluated using this particular tool, and it takes a few years for articles to begin to be cited in other, later publications.

Beware of pseudo-, illegitimate, misleading, deceptive, and suspicious journals . Another side effect of living in the Age of Information is that almost anyone can circulate almost anything and call it whatever they wish. This goes for “journal” publications, as well. With the advent of open-access publishing in recent years (electronic resources available without subscription), we have seen an explosion of what are called predatory or junk journals . These are publications calling themselves journals, often with titles very similar to legitimate publications and often with fake editorial boards. These “publications” lack the integrity of legitimate journals. This caution is reminiscent of the discussions earlier in the course about pseudoscience and “snake oil” sales. The predatory nature of many apparent information dissemination outlets has to do with how scientists and scholars may be fooled into submitting their work, often paying to have their work peer-reviewed and published. There exists a “thriving black-market economy of publishing scams,” and at least two “journal blacklists” exist to help identify and avoid these scam journals (Anderson, 2017).

This issue is important to information consumers, because it creates a challenge in terms of identifying legitimate sources and publications. The challenge is particularly important to address when information from on-line, open-access journals is being considered. Open-access is not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate scientists may pay sizeable fees to legitimate publishers to make their work freely available and accessible as open-access resources. On-line access is also not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate publishers often make articles available on-line to provide timely access to the content, especially when publishing the article in hard copy will be delayed by months or even a year or more. On the other hand, stating that a journal engages in a peer-review process is no guarantee of quality—this claim may or may not be truthful. Pseudo- and junk journals may engage in some quality control practices, but may lack attention to important quality control processes, such as managing conflict of interest, reviewing content for objectivity or quality of the research conducted, or otherwise failing to adhere to industry standards (Laine & Winker, 2017).

One resource designed to assist with the process of deciphering legitimacy is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ is not a comprehensive listing of all possible legitimate open-access journals, and does not guarantee quality, but it does help identify legitimate sources of information that are openly accessible and meet basic legitimacy criteria. It also is about open-access journals, not the many journals published in hard copy.

An additional caution: Search for article corrections. Despite all of the careful manuscript review and editing, sometimes an error appears in a published article. Most journals have a practice of publishing corrections in future issues. When you locate an article, it is helpful to also search for updates. Here is an example where data presented in an article’s original tables were erroneous, and a correction appeared in a later issue.

• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2017). A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 12(8): e0181722. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558917/
• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2018).Correction—A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 13(3): e0193937.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193937

Search Tools. In this age of information, it is all too easy to find items—the problem lies in sifting, sorting, and managing the vast numbers of items that can be found. For example, a simple Google® search for the topic “community poverty and violence” resulted in about 15,600,000 results! As a means of simplifying the process of searching for journal articles on a specific topic, a variety of helpful tools have emerged. One type of search tool has previously applied a filtering process for you: abstracting and indexing databases . These resources provide the user with the results of a search to which records have already passed through one or more filters. For example, PsycINFO is managed by the American Psychological Association and is devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science. It contains almost 4.5 million records and is growing every month. However, it may not be available to users who are not affiliated with a university library. Conducting a basic search for our topic of “community poverty and violence” in PsychINFO returned 1,119 articles. Still a large number, but far more manageable. Additional filters can be applied, such as limiting the range in publication dates, selecting only peer reviewed items, limiting the language of the published piece (English only, for example), and specified types of documents (either chapters, dissertations, or journal articles only, for example). Adding the filters for English, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2010 and 2017 resulted in 346 documents being identified.

Just as was the case with journals, not all abstracting and indexing databases are equivalent. There may be overlap between them, but none is guaranteed to identify all relevant pieces of literature. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the questions asked of the literature:

• Academic Search Complete—multidisciplinary index of 9,300 peer-reviewed journals
• AgeLine—multidisciplinary index of aging-related content for over 600 journals
• Campbell Collaboration—systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, social welfare, international development
• Google Scholar—broad search tool for scholarly literature across many disciplines
• MEDLINE/ PubMed—National Library of medicine, access to over 15 million citations
• Oxford Bibliographies—annotated bibliographies, each is discipline specific (e.g., psychology, childhood studies, criminology, social work, sociology)
• PsycINFO/PsycLIT—international literature on material relevant to psychology and related disciplines
• SocINDEX—publications in sociology
• Social Sciences Abstracts—multiple disciplines
• Social Work Abstracts—many areas of social work are covered
• Web of Science—a “meta” search tool that searches other search tools, multiple disciplines

Placing our search for information about “community violence and poverty” into the Social Work Abstracts tool with no additional filters resulted in a manageable 54-item list. Finally, abstracting and indexing databases are another way to determine journal legitimacy: if a journal is indexed in a one of these systems, it is likely a legitimate journal. However, the converse is not necessarily true: if a journal is not indexed does not mean it is an illegitimate or pseudo-journal.

Government Sources. A great deal of information is gathered, analyzed, and disseminated by various governmental branches at the international, national, state, regional, county, and city level. Searching websites that end in.gov is one way to identify this type of information, often presented in articles, news briefs, and statistical reports. These government sources gather information in two ways: they fund external investigations through grants and contracts and they conduct research internally, through their own investigators. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the topic for which information is sought:

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at https://www.ahrq.gov/
• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) at https://www.bjs.gov/
• Census Bureau at https://www.census.gov
• Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC (MMWR-CDC) at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
• Child Welfare Information Gateway at https://www.childwelfare.gov
• Children’s Bureau/Administration for Children & Families at https://www.acf.hhs.gov
• Forum on Child and Family Statistics at https://www.childstats.gov
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) at https://www.nih.gov , including (not limited to):
• National Institute on Aging (NIA at https://www.nia.nih.gov
• National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at https://www.niaaa.nih.gov
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at https://www.nichd.nih.gov
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at https://www.nida.nih.gov
• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at https://www.niehs.nih.gov
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at https://www.nimh.nih.gov
• National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities at https://www.nimhd.nih.gov
• National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at https://www.nij.gov
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at https://www.samhsa.gov/
• United States Agency for International Development at https://usaid.gov

Each state and many counties or cities have similar data sources and analysis reports available, such as Ohio Department of Health at https://www.odh.ohio.gov/healthstats/dataandstats.aspx and Franklin County at https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Ohio/Franklin-County/Overview . Data are available from international/global resources (e.g., United Nations and World Health Organization), as well.

Other Sources. The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the National Academies—previously the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—is a nonprofit institution that aims to provide government and private sector policy and other decision makers with objective analysis and advice for making informed health decisions. For example, in 2018 they produced reports on topics in substance use and mental health concerning the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease,  the legal implications of emerging neurotechnologies, and a global agenda concerning the identification and prevention of violence (see http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/Topics/Substance-Abuse-Mental-Health.aspx ). The exciting aspect of this resource is that it addresses many topics that are current concerns because they are hoping to help inform emerging policy. The caution to consider with this resource is the evidence is often still emerging, as well.

Numerous “think tank” organizations exist, each with a specific mission. For example, the Rand Corporation is a nonprofit organization offering research and analysis to address global issues since 1948. The institution’s mission is to help improve policy and decision making “to help individuals, families, and communities throughout the world be safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous,” addressing issues of energy, education, health care, justice, the environment, international affairs, and national security (https://www.rand.org/about/history.html). And, for example, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is a philanthropic organization supporting research and research dissemination concerning health issues facing the United States. The foundation works to build a culture of health across systems of care (not only medical care) and communities (https://www.rwjf.org).

While many of these have a great deal of helpful evidence to share, they also may have a strong political bias. Objectivity is often lacking in what information these organizations provide: they provide evidence to support certain points of view. That is their purpose—to provide ideas on specific problems, many of which have a political component. Think tanks “are constantly researching solutions to a variety of the world’s problems, and arguing, advocating, and lobbying for policy changes at local, state, and federal levels” (quoted from https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-tanks/ ). Helpful information about what this one source identified as the 50 most influential U.S. think tanks includes identifying each think tank’s political orientation. For example, The Heritage Foundation is identified as conservative, whereas Human Rights Watch is identified as liberal.

While not the same as think tanks, many mission-driven organizations also sponsor or report on research, as well. For example, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics (NACOA) in the United States is a registered nonprofit organization. Its mission, along with other partnering organizations, private-sector groups, and federal agencies, is to promote policy and program development in research, prevention and treatment to provide information to, for, and about children of alcoholics (of all ages). Based on this mission, the organization supports knowledge development and information gathering on the topic and disseminates information that serves the needs of this population. While this is a worthwhile mission, there is no guarantee that the information meets the criteria for evidence with which we have been working. Evidence reported by think tank and mission-driven sources must be utilized with a great deal of caution and critical analysis!

In many instances an empirical report has not appeared in the published literature, but in the form of a technical or final report to the agency or program providing the funding for the research that was conducted. One such example is presented by a team of investigators funded by the National Institute of Justice to evaluate a program for training professionals to collect strong forensic evidence in instances of sexual assault (Patterson, Resko, Pierce-Weeks, & Campbell, 2014): https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247081.pdf . Investigators may serve in the capacity of consultant to agencies, programs, or institutions, and provide empirical evidence to inform activities and planning. One such example is presented by Maguire-Jack (2014) as a report to a state’s child maltreatment prevention board: https://preventionboard.wi.gov/Documents/InvestmentInPreventionPrograming_Final.pdf .

When Direct Answers to Questions Cannot Be Found. Sometimes social workers are interested in finding answers to complex questions or questions related to an emerging, not-yet-understood topic. This does not mean giving up on empirical literature. Instead, it requires a bit of creativity in approaching the literature. A Venn diagram might help explain this process. Consider a scenario where a social worker wishes to locate literature to answer a question concerning issues of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a social justice term applied to situations where multiple categorizations or classifications come together to create overlapping, interconnected, or multiplied disadvantage. For example, women with a substance use disorder and who have been incarcerated face a triple threat in terms of successful treatment for a substance use disorder: intersectionality exists between being a woman, having a substance use disorder, and having been in jail or prison. After searching the literature, little or no empirical evidence might have been located on this specific triple-threat topic. Instead, the social worker will need to seek literature on each of the threats individually, and possibly will find literature on pairs of topics (see Figure 3-1). There exists some literature about women’s outcomes for treatment of a substance use disorder (a), some literature about women during and following incarceration (b), and some literature about substance use disorders and incarceration (c). Despite not having a direct line on the center of the intersecting spheres of literature (d), the social worker can develop at least a partial picture based on the overlapping literatures.

Figure 3-1. Venn diagram of intersecting literature sets.

Take a moment to complete the following activity. For each statement about empirical literature, decide if it is true or false.

Social Work 3401 Coursebook Copyright © by Dr. Audrey Begun is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift....

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• Meriam Library

SWRK 330 - Social Work Research Methods

• Literature Reviews and Empirical Research
• Databases and Search Tips
• Article Citations
• Scholarly Journal Evaulation
• Statistical Sources
• Books and eBooks

What is a Literature Review?

Empirical research.

• Annotated Bibliographies

A literature review  summarizes and discusses previous publications  on a topic.

It should also:

explore past research and its strengths and weaknesses.

be used to validate the target and methods you have chosen for your proposed research.

consist of books and scholarly journals that provide research examples of populations or settings similar to your own, as well as community resources to document the need for your proposed research.

The literature review does not present new  primary  scholarship. 

be completed in the correct citation format requested by your professor  (see the  C itations Tab)

Access Purdue  OWL's Social Work Literature Review Guidelines here .  

Empirical Research  is  research  that is based on experimentation or observation, i.e. Evidence. Such  research  is often conducted to answer a specific question or to test a hypothesis (educated guess).

How do you know if a study is empirical? Read the subheadings within the article, book, or report and look for a description of the research "methodology."  Ask yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

These are some key features to look for when identifying empirical research.

NOTE:  Not all of these features will be in every empirical research article, some may be excluded, use this only as a guide.

• Statement of methodology
• Research questions are clear and measurable
• Individuals, group, subjects which are being studied are identified/defined
• Data is presented regarding the findings
• Controls or instruments such as surveys or tests were conducted
• There is a literature review
• There is discussion of the results included
• Citations/references are included

See also Empirical Research Guide

• << Previous: Citations
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 8:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.csuchico.edu/SWRK330

Meriam Library | CSU, Chico

• Ask a Librarian

Research: Overview & Approaches

• Getting Started with Undergraduate Research
• Planning & Getting Started
• Building Your Knowledge Base
• Locating Sources
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Creating a Literature Review
• Productivity & Organizing Research
• Scholarly and Professional Relationships

Introduction to Empirical Research

Databases for finding empirical research, guided search, google scholar, examples of empirical research, sources and further reading.

• Interpretive Research
• Action-Based Research
• Creative & Experimental Approaches

Your Librarian

• Introductory Video This video covers what empirical research is, what kinds of questions and methods empirical researchers use, and some tips for finding empirical research articles in your discipline.

• Guided Search: Finding Empirical Research Articles This is a hands-on tutorial that will allow you to use your own search terms to find resources.

• Study on radiation transfer in human skin for cosmetics
• Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Vestibular Schwannoma: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
• Emissions Impacts and Benefits of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Grid Services
• Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
• Endocrine disrupters and human health: could oestrogenic chemicals in body care cosmetics adversely affect breast cancer incidence in women?

• << Previous: Scholarly and Professional Relationships
• Next: Interpretive Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/research_approaches

• Advertise with us
• Friday, May 03, 2024

Most Widely Read Newspaper

PunchNG Menu:

• Special Features
• Sex & Relationship

ID) . '?utm_source=news-flash&utm_medium=web"> Download Punch Lite App

Project Chapter Two: Literature Review and Steps to Writing Empirical Review

Kindly share this story:

• Conceptual review
• Theoretical review,
• Empirical review or review of empirical works of literature/studies, and lastly
• Conclusion or Summary of the literature reviewed.
• Decide on a topic
• Highlight the studies/literature that you will review in the empirical review
• Analyze the works of literature separately.
• Summarize the literature in table or concept map format.
• Synthesize the literature and then proceed to write your empirical review.

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.

Contact: [email protected]

Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The Punch Newspaper on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline – join now!

ONLINE FOREX, BITCOIN AND BINARY MANAGER. Do you require the service of a tested and trusted experienced trader who can help you trade your online Forex, Bitcoin and Binary accounts for minimum 10-20% weekly profit?. Click here for details WhatsApp: +2348030797998

VERIFIED: Nigerians can now earn US Dollars with premium domains just like Americans, acquire for as low as $1200 and you profit $19000 (₦23million). Click here to start.

Want ₦100,000 in Free Bets? Sign up on Livescore to get it now! Register here .

Latest News

Two policemen arrested for kidnapping minors in sokoto, 2024 utme: 10 rivers school students score above 310, 2024 utme: excitement as candidates, relatives display results online, why i wrote utme again, unizik's best-graduating student reveals, costal highway: landmark beach refunds customers after demolition.

Rano: Ice block seller who became billionaire, owns 120 filling stations, 600 trucks, 60m litre tank farm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conse adipiscing elit.

• University of Memphis Libraries
• Research Guides

Empirical Research: Defining, Identifying, & Finding

Searching for empirical research.

• Defining Empirical Research
• Introduction

Where Do I Find Empirical Research?

How do i find more empirical research in my search.

• Database Tools
• Search Terms
• Image Descriptions

Because empirical research refers to the method of investigation rather than a method of publication, it can be published in a number of places. In many disciplines empirical research is most commonly published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals . Putting empirical research through the peer review process helps ensure that the research is high quality. 

Finding Peer-Reviewed Articles

You can find peer-reviewed articles in a general web search along with a lot of other types of sources. However, these specialized tools are more likely to find peer-reviewed articles:

• Library databases
• Academic search engines such as Google Scholar

Common Types of Articles That Are Not Empirical

However, just finding an article in a peer-reviewed journal is not enough to say it is empirical, since not all the articles in a peer-reviewed journal will be empirical research or even peer reviewed. Knowing how to quickly identify some types non-empirical research articles in peer-reviewed journals can help speed up your search. 

• Peer-reviewed articles that systematically discuss and propose abstract concepts and methods for a field without primary data collection.
• Example: Grosser, K. & Moon, J. (2019). CSR and feminist organization studies: Towards an integrated theorization for the analysis of gender issues .
• Peer-reviewed articles that systematically describe, summarize, and often categorize and evaluate previous research on a topic without collecting new data.
• Example: Heuer, S. & Willer, R. (2020). How is quality of life assessed in people with dementia? A systematic literature review and a primer for speech-language pathologists .
• Note: empirical research articles will have a literature review section as part of the Introduction , but in an empirical research article the literature review exists to give context to the empirical research, which is the primary focus of the article. In a literature review article, the literature review is the focus. 
• While these articles are not empirical, they are often a great source of information on previous empirical research on a topic with citations to find that research.
• Non-peer-reviewed articles where the authors discuss their thoughts on a particular topic without data collection and a systematic method. There are a few differences between these types of articles.
• Written by the editors or guest editors of the journal. 
• Example:  Naples, N. A., Mauldin, L., & Dillaway, H. (2018). From the guest editors: Gender, disability, and intersectionality .
• Written by guest authors. The journal may have a non-peer-reviewed process for authors to submit these articles, and the editors of the journal may invite authors to write opinion articles.
• Example: García, J. J.-L., & Sharif, M. Z. (2015). Black lives matter: A commentary on racism and public health . 
• Written by the readers of a journal, often in response to an article previously-published in the journal.
• Example: Nathan, M. (2013). Letters: Perceived discrimination and racial/ethnic disparities in youth problem behaviors . 
• Non-peer-reviewed articles that describe and evaluate books, products, services, and other things the audience of the journal would be interested in. 
• Example: Robinson, R. & Green, J. M. (2020). Book review: Microaggressions and traumatic stress: Theory, research, and clinical treatment .

Even once you know how to recognize empirical research and where it is published, it would be nice to improve your search results so that more empirical research shows up for your topic.

There are two major ways to find the empirical research in a database search:

• Use built-in database tools to limit results to empirical research.
• Include search terms that help identify empirical research.
• << Previous: Discussion
• Next: Database Tools >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:25 AM
• URL: https://libguides.memphis.edu/empirical-research

Physical Therapy

• Critical Appraisal
• Getting Started with Research
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials and Search Guidance
• Crafting a Search
• Narrowing/Filtering the Search
• Expanding the Search
• Find Grey Literature
• Save Your Searches
• Cite Sources
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

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

Integrative Review

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

Systematic Review

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

Meta-Analysis

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

Scoping Review

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

Rapid Review

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

Umbrella Review

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

1. Adapted from:

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

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

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

• << Previous: Doing a Literature Review
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/pt

How to empirically review the literature?

Empirical research according to Penn State University is based on “observed and measured phenomenon. It derives the knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief”. The empirical review is structured to answer specific research questions within a research paper. Therefore, it enables the researcher to find answers to questions like; What is the problem? The methodology used to study the problem? What was found? What do the findings mean?

Components of empirical review

The key components of empirical review are defined in the figure below. Each of these components will be explained with the help of examples.

When we need to conduct an empirical review on more than 10-15 studies, it is important to be crisp in the presentation of information in a minimum number of words. The following example reflects this point precisely.

Nearly two decades ago, Kalleberg and Leicht (1991) (Authors) conducted a comparative study using longitudinal data (Methodology) in the United States to identify the factors affecting survival and success of small businesses started by men and women (Objective) . That time concept of women entrepreneurship was at a very nascent stage in India. The research findings revealed that the likelihood of success for women’s businesses was the same as the likelihood of success for men’s   (Findings) . This is contrary to the general belief that women are inferior when it comes to entrepreneurship. Also, the factors affecting the survival and success of entrepreneurship behaved in similar ways for both men and women (Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991). Therefore, we can conclude that there is no difference with respect to success when it comes to comparing entrepreneurship among the two genders   (Implications) .

When each study has to be presented individually and more elaboration is needed, then the following approach of the presentation can be adopted.

“Impact of FDI on Indian Economy” (Title) by Devajit (2012) (Author)

This study tries to find out how FDI is seen as an important economic catalyst of Indian economic growth by stimulating domestic investment, increasing human capital formation and by facilitating the technology transfers. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of FDI on economic growth in India.

Methodology

An empirical review of previous studies in the period of 2008-2011.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as a strategic component of investment is needed by India for its sustained economic growth and development through the creation of jobs, expansion of existing manufacturing industries, short and long term projects in the field of healthcare, education, research, and development (R & D), etc. The government should design the FDI policy in such a way that FDI inflow can be utilized as a means of enhancing domestic production, savings, and exports through the equitable distribution among states by providing much freedom to states. In this way, they can attract FDI inflows at their own level. FDI can help to raise the output, productivity, and export at the sectoral level of the Indian economy. However, it can observe the result of sectoral level output, productivity and export are minimal. This is due to the low flow of FDI into India both at the macro level as well as at the sectoral level.

Implications

Therefore for further opening up of the Indian economy, it is advisable to open up the export-oriented sectors and higher growth of the economy could be achieved through the growth of these sectors.

Key points to keep in mind when writing an empirical review

• The studies should be discussed in chronological order in order to determine the progress in research over a specific period of time
• There should be a link between the two studies which are discussed simultaneously and henceforth. Unless you form a link between studies, there won’t be any flow in your writing. The link can be formed in the form of arguments or agreements.

Example 1: In agreement

Furthermore, a study by Lall & Sahai (2008) was conducted to study of the issues & challenges faced by women entrepreneurs, using the data collected from women entrepreneurs in Lucknow, India. Various psychographic variables were identified including the degree of commitment, challenges in entrepreneurship & future expansion plans. The characteristics of entrepreneurship were identified as self-esteem, self-image, entrepreneurial passion and the ability to handle future operational and expansion problems.

According to the study, an increasing number of women have been found to work in family-owned businesses. However, they work with low statuses and more challenges. Another similar study (in agreement) conducted by Gupta (2008), on women entrepreneurs across the country, highlighted the constraints. This includes lack of finance, support from family, and male dominance in the society, which were constricting the entry of women entrepreneurship in India.

Example 2: In an argument

Nearly three years later, Surthi and Sarupriya (2003) conducted research on women entrepreneurs in India to study the psychological factors which affect women entrepreneurs. As per the findings of the research, demographic factors like; marital status, type of family, and the way they cope with stress affected women entrepreneurs. In addition, women who were living in a joint family experienced less stress in comparison to the ones living in a nuclear family. This is because the ones living in joint families were able to share their problems with their family members. (In argument) while this study identified the factors which were affecting women’s entrepreneurship, a study conducted by Mohiuddin (2006) was to determine the reasons which contribute to women opting for entrepreneurship in India. The reasons which came forward after the end of the study were; 1) economic needs; 2) personality needs, 3) utilization of knowledge gained through education; 4) family occupation and 5) to pass the leisure time.

• In addition, the variables identified in each empirical study have to be used to form the conceptual framework  at the end Literature Review chapter.
• Similarly, in order to refine your empirical review further, a meta-analysis is conducted. In meta-analysis statistical tools are applied to combine the results of different studies. This is done in cases when the number of studies to be analyzed is more than 25.
• Penn State University (n.d.) Empirical Research, Retrieved from; https://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/researchguides/edupsych/empirical.html [Accessed 7th Sep, 2015].
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

2 thoughts on “How to empirically review the literature?”

Proofreading.

• Submission of manuscripts
• About the journal
• Editorial Board
• Instructions to authors
• Text (English)
• Download PDF (English)
• StambleUpon

Writing the literature review for empirical papers

The purpose of the paper is to offer guidance regarding how to write a Literature Review for empirical papers, that provides adequate background and convincing support. The literature review plays the fundamental role of unveiling the theory, or theories, that underpin the paper argument, sets its limits, and defines and clarifies the main concepts that will be used in the empirical sections of the text.

Originality

Most papers and books focus on literature review as full articles (systematic reviews, meta analyses and critical analyses) or dissertation, chapters, this paper is focused on literature review for an empirical article.

Research method

It is a theoretical essay.

Main findings

The paper summarizes the main steps for performing a literature review and guides how to organize the analyzed literature.

Implications for theory and practice

Well-crafted literature reviews are the cornerstone of good papers, and this paper offers some guidance on how to write good reviews for empirical papers, and, as a consequence, to produce better quality texts.

Keywords Literature review; Metanalyses; Critical analyses; Empirical paper

1. Introduction

As former editors of Production Journal, we have observed that one of the main reasons for the immediate rejection of a paper is what is generally referred as “lack of conceptual (or theoretical) contribution”, i.e., when Editors/Referees are unable to identify which are the proposed additions to the theory authors wish to present in their texts. During 2015-2017 period, the Production Journal rejected 65% of the submissions during the first screening process, mainly for missing theoretical contribution.

The quest for contribution rests on the principle that creating science is a collective and cumulative endeavour, in which each researcher builds upon previously developed knowledge by others, and presents her contribution to the field. The issue of how to make a contribution has already been addressed by several authors from the Organizational Theory field ( Sutton & Staw, 1995 Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). The relationship between integrating sphere and diffusion theory calculations of fluence rate at the wall of a spherical cavity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 1-12. PMid:7708833. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788... ; Whetten, 2003 Whetten, D. (2003). O que constitui uma contribuição teórica?. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43(3), 69-73. ), OM ( Boer et al., 2015 Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1231-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-... ), and it will also be the subject of another paper in this journal, but we believe that weakness is not only related to the paper rationale, where the argument for contribution is developed, but also to how authors construct the theoretical background of their texts. A good literature review supports the paper assertion for contribution, and it is the cornerstone of a successful paper. Even when a paper does make a clear claim for conceptual contribution, it is not uncommon to find that the literature review section does not provide it a consistent foundation, weakening the whole paper, and frequently jeopardizing authors´ efforts. In fact, the absence of a well-crafted theoretical background undermines any paper and wastes effort-intensive fieldwork.

However, despite its importance, it seems that how to build the review of a body of literature is considered a simple, obvious task ( Hart, 1998 Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. London: Sage Publications. ), and thus, there is actually few texts that delve into that effort. To make things harder, indications of how to build strong theory into a paper can be confusing, especially because authors have to deal with many trade-offs: comprehensiveness versus deepness, simplicity versus accuracy ( Sutton & Staw, 1995 Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). The relationship between integrating sphere and diffusion theory calculations of fluence rate at the wall of a spherical cavity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 1-12. PMid:7708833. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788... ) and so on. However, there are a number of good references on how to write a literature review for two purposes: (a) as chapters of master theses and doctoral dissertations (e.g. Boote & Beile, 2005 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. ; Hart, 1998 Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. London: Sage Publications. ), and (b) for literature reviews as full articles (e.g. Kitchenham et al., 2009 Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.... ; Tranfield et al., 2003 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.0037... ; Thomé et al., 2016 Thomé, A. M. T., Scavarda, L. F., & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Production Planning and Control, 27(5), 408-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.... ). This paper draws upon those contributions to suggest some guidelines for authors to write literature review sections for their empirical papers, and provide a convincing rationale to supports this effort, especially from the Operations Management (OM) point of view. It is structured as follows: it briefly presents the different strategies for writing literature reviews as full papers, and then discuss how to write the review section for an empirical paper, based particularly on the literature for theses and dissertations.

2. Literature reviews as full articles

Literature reviews are often presented as full papers, and there are journals which scope is focused on this genre, as the International Journal of Management Review, the Academy Management of Review and the Psychological Review. Reviews offer a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the academic production on a certain topic, and are very useful for both novice and experienced researchers. There are some strategies to build literature review articles: the meta-analysis (MA), the critical analysis (CA), and the integrative or systematic literature review (SLR).

MAs propose one or more research questions and to answer them, analyse large sets of articles on a subject, which authors, titles, keywords, abstracts and references are collected from academic portals and organized in a database. MAs perform statistical analyses on collected data, often using specific software (e.g. Citespace, VOSviewer, Sitkis, etc.), and present an aggregate description of how the academic output has evolved, which are the more prominent papers and authors, how they are connected by the citations they share, and how they answer the research questions. In that sense, MAs synthesize and present a comprehensive view of the literature, and, if the paper set is carefully assembled, offer an overall reliability that cannot be reached from other methods ( Tranfield et al., 2003 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.0037... ). MAs can be used as the first step for a SLR or a CA, or, for instance, to present a bird´s eye picture of the literature in a dissertation. Many academic portals (Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, Science Direct, SciElo) and/or softwares support some level of MA, providing descriptive statistics on sets of papers, which can support further analysis. However, if there are no research questions to be discussed, descriptive statistics hardly ever present theoretical contributions per se, and MAs should offer, at minimum, a critique on the field and present opportunities for future research. For further study, Fink (1998 Fink, A. (1998). Conducting research literature review: from paper to the internet. London: Sage. , p. 216) offers a guide on how to write MAs (Seven Steps to a Meta-Analysis).

In a CA, authors examine the main concepts, ideas and relationships of an issue presented by the extant literature, provide a critique, and in several cases, offer research propositions or a framework for future analysis. A CA can summarize a body of literature, report on the evolution of a research field, or reconcile different research strands on the same topic. Generally, paper set selection is subjective, which departs it from MAs: the set of papers is collected by the writers, who decide both what to include and how those ideas will be discussed and summarized. In that sense, it does not intend to be exhaustive, authors are concerned to give the most accurate picture of the field from their point of view. But even in CAs, there are also paper sets defined by statistical sampling (e.g. Burgess et al., 2006 Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R. (2006). Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(7), 703-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570610672202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570610672... ). CAs can cover broad or narrow topics: for example, Anderson et al. (1989) Anderson, J. C., Cleveland, G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). Operations strategy: a literature review. Journal of Operations Management, 8(2), 133-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(89)90016-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(89)9... provided an overview and an analysis on the literature on Operations strategy, while Ngai et al. (2008) Ngai, E. W. T., Moon, K. K. L., Riggins, F. J., & Yi, C. Y. (2008). RFID research: an academic literature review (1995-2005) and future research directions. International Journal of Production Economics, 12(2), 510-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.0... delivered an analysis on the literature on RFID. They can discuss topics from few or several perspectives or lines of research: Rochet & Tirole (2006) Rochet, J., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667. offered a report on the evolution of the knowledge on multi-sided markets and platforms, while Mills et al. (2004) Mills, J., Schmitz, J., & Frizelle, G. (2004). A strategic review of “supply networks”. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10), 1012-1036. reviewed the literature on supply networks. CA offers a view on the state-of-art of knowledge on a subject, provide analytical frameworks and indicate avenues for future research. CAs should follow the same quality principles as any research project, and some guidelines for a good CA are ( Popay et al., 1998 Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341-351. PMID: 10558335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10497323980080... , 2006 Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1, b92. Retrieved in 2017, July 9, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Rodgers4/publication/233866356_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_Methods_Programme/links/02e7e5231e8f3a6183000000/Guidance-on-the-conduct-of-narrative-synthesis-in-systematic-reviews-A-product-from-the-ESRC-Methods-Programme.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar... ):

Different sources and journals should be explored;

The sample has to be selected in a purposeful way, guided and shaped by theory. It must give attention to the diverse contexts and meanings that the study is aiming to explore;

Interpretation needs to follow a clear and explicit process;

Claims and assertions must be logically supported, theoretically grounded and be amenable of generalization, i.e., they should be applicable in different contexts.

The SLR is a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way, generating new frameworks and perspectives ( Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... ), using a much larger paper set than a CA. It also departs from research questions and requires a great deal of skill and insight ( Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... ), it is not just an aggregation of all existing evidence on a research question; it intends to provide evidence-based guidelines for researchers and practitioners. To Kitchenham et al. (2009) Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.... SLR is a literature survey with defined research questions, a clear search and data extraction process, and its presentation (detailed in Appendix Appendix Summarizing the key points of a paper. Authors Objective Findings Research Question Further Research Limitations Methodology Practical Implications Abbariki et al. (2017) The paper analyses whether tacit knowledge was being shared through collective learning routines at two sites where employees were undertaking knowledge-intensive work. Superiors can overlook the presence of embedded knowledge work in tasks environments that are largely static, procedure driven and independent.In such environments, employees need to be grated opportunities to meet together to share tacit knowledge that cannot be accommodated by archiven-based knowledge management platforms. How can employees share tacit knowledge if they are performing tasks independently, and if their superiors discourage face-to-face interactions when they are performing tasks in real time? Enhance confirm ability by examining sites that are similar to Cases, with employees operating within a largely static, solo work and procedure-driven task environment Although the authors sought to obtain a close-up picture of how tacit knowledge was being shared at Case A, the very nature of such knowledge rendered it difficult for employees to provide explanations to an outside interviewer 34 semi structured interviews about task environment and collective learning activities of informants at various hierarchical levelsCase A: 3 directors/9 senior managers/16 operational managersCase B: 1 director, 2 senior managers and 2 operational managers a) It is important for managers to recognize that even procedure-governed tasks require tacit knowledgeb) Managers should encourage and facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge among employeesc) Computer-based knowledge sharing platforms cannot substitute for face-to-face knowledge sharing forums, since they not help employees to articulate their own tacit knowledge or to decode the tacit knowledge of othersd) If managers prefer to restrict opportunities for employees to engage in ad hoc meetings while they are performing their tasks, they may schedule periodic “off-line” face to face forums Torraco (2005) This article discusses how to organize and write an integrative literature review and cites examples of published integrative literature reviews that illustrate how this type of research has made substantive contributions to the knowledge base of human resource development. It Categorizes Four Forms of Synthesis from Integrative Literature Reviews: a) Research agenda b) Taxonomy c) Alternative models or conceptual frameworks d) Meta-theory.A Checklist for Writing an Integrative Literature Review: a) Before Writing an Integrative Literature Review b) Organizing an Integrative Literature Review c) Writing an Integrative Literature Review Not Available Not Available The paper is focused in Human Resources and could be expanded for others areas The paper discusses 31 papers to provide its findings. This article offers guidelines for writing integrative literature reviews to support authors to do this task. Kitchenham et al. (2009) This study assesses the impact of systematic literature reviews (SLRs), which are the recommended evidence-based software engineering method for aggregating evidence. The authors define evidence as a synthesis of best quality scientific studies on a specific topic or research question, which the main method of synthesis is a systematic literature review (SLR) Not available The authors indicate to extend this study by under- taking a broader automated search for other SLRs over the same time period. They also plan to repeat this study at the end of 2009 to track the progress of SLRs and evidence-based software engineering. This study suffers from a number of limitations; in particular, the authors have restricted themselves to a manual search of international journals and conferences. This study has been undertaken as a systematic literature review based on the original guidelines as proposed by Kitchenham et al. (2009). In this case the goal of the review is to assess systematic literature reviews (which are referred to as secondary studies), so this study is categorized as a tertiary literature review. The authors exampled issues to guide how to do Research Questions (RQ), Limitations and Quality Assessment in their paper, which helps other authors: RQ1. How much SLR activity has there been since 2004? RQ2. What research topics are being addressed? RQ3. Who is leading SLR research? RQ4. What are the limitations of current research?With respect to limitations of SLRs (RQ4) the authors considered issues: RQ4.1. Were the research topics limited? RQ4.2. Is there evidence that the use of SLRs is limited due to lack of primary studies? RQ4.3. Is the quality of SLRs appropriate, if not, is it improving? RQ4.4. Are SLRs contributing to practice by defining practice guidelines?The Quality Assessment criteria are based on four quality assessment (QA) questions:QA1. Are the review’s inclusion and exclusion criteria described and appropriate?QA2. Is the literature search likely to have covered all relevant studies?QA3. Did the reviewers assess the quality/validity of the included studies?QA4. Were the basic data/studies adequately described? ). Tranfield et al. (2003) Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.0037... cite it as a replicable, scientific and transparent process that aims to minimize bias through an exhaustive literature search on published and unpublished studies, providing an audit trail of the reviewers decisions, procedures and conclusions. Thus, SLRs are related to locating, appraising and synthesizing evidence ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden MA: Blackwell. ). SLRs entail a series of techniques for minimizing bias and error, and thus, SLRs and MAs are widely regarded as providing ‘high-quality’ evidence. The pros and cons of a SLR are indicated in Table 1 .

A SLR starts arguing the need for the review article, the importance of the problem or topic to be examined, and by justifying why a SLR is the appropriate way to address the problem. Then it selects and examines a body of literature, exposing its strengths and deficiencies, to create a better understanding of the topic through synthesis, by integrating existing and new ideas to create a new formulation for the topic or issue ( Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... , p. 362). Unlike a CA, in which authors review the literature from a personal perspective, a SLR makes the reviewing process as structured, transparent, replicable and exhaustive as possible ( Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... ). In order to achieve these aims, a structured process must be followed to design and implement the paper database, from which it is possible to identify patterns and themes of various publications, as well as their frequency and occurrence. Data can provide evidence on changes, shifts and gaps of the literature. Three major phases are required to build a SLR: (i) planning, (ii) execution, and (iii) summarization/reporting. In the first phase, authors must identify the need for a review and create a review protocol 1 1 Protocol is a document that presents an explicit scientific “road map”, detailing the rational and planned methodological and analytical approach of the review (Shamseer et al., 2015, p. 3). . In the second, they should identify and select relevant primary studies, perform data extraction from paper databases and synthesize them. Finally, in the third phase, they should summarize and report the results. There are online manuals for performing MAs and SLRs ( Higgins & Green, 2011 Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. 2011. Retrieved in 2017, December 4, from http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/... ) and some guidelines to perform those phases are presented in ( Kitchenham et al., 2009 Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.... ; Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... ).

Table 2 presents an overview of the three strategies and offers an analysis based on a representative example.

3. The literature review in an empirical paper

In this section we discuss the literature review as a part of an empirical article. It plays the fundamental role of unveiling the theory, or theories, that underpin the paper argument, or, if there are no such theoretical background, which is the related extant knowledge. It sets the limits of discussion, and defines and clarifies the main concepts that will be used in the empirical sections. A substantive and thorough literature review is the basis for any good research project ( Boote & Beile, 2005 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. ) and a well-crafted literature review section provides the theoretical foundation that is required to support any argument of contribution.

Theories are systems of concepts that “[...] explain facts and provide stories as to how phenomena work the way that they do [...]” ( Boer et al., 2015 Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1231-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-... , p. 1247), and the first task of a literature review is to reveal which theories are used in the paper´s argument. Boer et al. (2015) Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1231-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-... propose that there are two fundamental ways to make a theoretical contribution: exploratory studies observe and identify interesting phenomena that are not yet well explained by extant literature and propose hypotheses, while confirmatory studies empirically test those hypotheses and confirm, refute or expand them. Knowledge creation rests upon a cycle of testing and amending or refuting existing theory, and the first step to succeed in that task, is to provide a clear picture of the underlying or related theories that support the paper argument. The literature review section opens up the field, showing how the issue under study has been discussed and which are its main concepts, how they have been studied from different points of view and how the field has evolved over time, in order to synthesize them and identify theoretical lacunae. Thus, crafting the literature review section of a paper must be concerned with three goals: setting its theoretical background, identifying gaps in the literature, and defining the key concepts that will be used in the paper:

Establishing the theoretical background : some research projects are related to a single theory, while others work with multiple theories - to set up the background is to position the paper within the theory or theories that support and are used in its argument. It is useful to balance classic texts, which have established the discussion, with contemporary references, that show the current state of the field. Although the number of references should not be the main concern, the analysis must be comprehensive and include what is most relevant, which is not usually obtained by discussing only a few authors. For instance Abbariki et al. (2017) Abbariki, M., Snell, R. S., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2017). Sharing or ignoring tacit knowledge? A comparison of collective learning routines at two sites. Journal of General Management, 42(5), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03063070177029... used 84 references to built the theoretical background, and synthesized it in four sections: a relational perspective on workplace knowledge, Processing tacit knowledge, Contextual factors affecting employee collaboration in processing tacit knowledge and Collective learning routines;

Identifying gaps : a theoretical gap refers to a missing point in our current knowledge on a subject, or to an improperly conducted discussion, and the literature review should point to it. Theoretical gaps can be identified based on three rationales: (a) incompleteness – the current literature have not still properly discussed the problem or phenomenon; (b) inadequacy – the extant literature has not yet incorporated different perspectives on the problem or phenomenon, and (c) incommensurability – what is currently known on a subject has taken a wrong path and the existing theoretical discussion is misguided and incorrect ( Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997 Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023-1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256926. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256926... ). Contemporary, recent references are very important to the contribution claim, as they provide topicality;

Defining key concepts : all key concepts used in the paper arguments must be clearly defined, as well as how they relate to each other, if that is the case, based on previous work. However, a literature review should not limit itself to a list of concept and construct definitions ( Sutton & Staw, 1995 Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). The relationship between integrating sphere and diffusion theory calculations of fluence rate at the wall of a spherical cavity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 1-12. PMid:7708833. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788... ), it should present how they interconnected and how they will be used to support the argument. (e.g. Abbariki et al. (2017) Abbariki, M., Snell, R. S., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2017). Sharing or ignoring tacit knowledge? A comparison of collective learning routines at two sites. Journal of General Management, 42(5), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03063070177029... defined key concepts on the different perspectives of knowledge to support their study).

4. Which are the main characteristics of a good literature review?

A good literature review must address different requirements, covering the relevant literature and synthesizing it with clarity. A journal paper has usually length limitations, thus, the literature review section needs to limit itself to what is important to the argument. Dissertation guides and handbooks (e.g. Boote & Beile, 2005 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. ) indicate the key features for a literature review, which are also applicable for papers:

Coverage – Relevant references must be covered by the text. It does not mean just citing lots of authors, but identifying and presenting the relevant literature, the main research strands, and building a framework where the paper can be positioned. It is like drawing a map in which key places are identified, and indicating where in that map the paper argument is located. The issue of length must be carefully addressed, and as a general rule, it is always better to have a deeper discussion on the topics the paper delves in, than a superficial overview of several arguments;

Synthesis – A good literature review is not a just a long list of citations, it should summarize and connect relevant references. Synthesis is not just putting references and concepts together. It requires creativity to offer a fresh, new view on the topic, for instance a model or a framework, which reflects the unique knowledge developed by the author ( Torraco, 2005 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15344843052782... ). The synthesis can be presented in the form of questions or propositions that have to be either verified or answered by fieldwork. It can also propose a model or a framework, which will be tested or applied in the empirical sections of the paper;

Rhetoric – The text must be clear and coherent, ideas must be presented in a well-articulated text, which does not make unsupported assertions;

Significance – The review also must show which is the practical and theoretical significance of the research problem. We strongly recommend that research problem should evidence theoretical aspects and also register organizational contributions as observed in Abbariki et al. (2017) Abbariki, M., Snell, R. S., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2017). Sharing or ignoring tacit knowledge? A comparison of collective learning routines at two sites. Journal of General Management, 42(5), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03063070177029... , which indicated the core of significance in paper’ introduction.

A good literature review balances “[...] appropriate breadth and depth, rigor and consistency, clarity and brevity [...]” ( Hart, 1998 Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. London: Sage Publications. , p. 2), making an effective analysis and synthesis of the identified literature. Consistency and clarity are essential, as they support a coherent argument, while depth and rigor show how authors master the subject, providing a well-developed argument. Finally, brevity is also essential, as all relevant literature must be presented, analysed and articulated in a limited space. When one finishes reading the literature review, one should be able to answer the following questions:

What are the main sources on the subject under study?

Which are the key theories and ideas that support the paper´s assertions?

How the paper argument relates to a major issue or debate on the topic?

What are the key concepts of the paper´s argument and how are they are defined?

5. How to write a literature review for empirical papers?

Novice researchers may find the task of writing the literature review a quite overwhelming task after reading this paper to this point. To offer some practical steps to start it, we suggest that the researcher starts with a preliminary CA. To perform it, we suggest starting with a small set of 8 to 10 papers. To select papers, talking to supervisors and seasoned researchers is always the first action to take. Also, papers can be obtained from academic portals, such as Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Science Direct, EBSCO, JSTOR, SciELO, which strengths and weaknesses are indicated in Table 3 . As each portal has its selection of sources, it may be convenient to search in more than one to get better coverage. Also, portals usually rank papers by number of citation/relevance, which is useful to identify fundamental papers and authors. However, it is important to remember that the older the paper, the greater the probability of citation, so if only number of citations is considered, one may end up with an older, and sometimes out-dated, set of papers. Finally, that paper set is just a preliminary selection, which needs to be refined as the researcher keeps studying the subject, and she will find that citations from papers are always a good source for further reading.

After assembling the initial set of papers, the aims, research questions, methods, findings, limitations and suggestions for future research can be extracted from each paper. Empirical papers usually are structured in at least five sections: (1) introduction, (2) literature review, (3) empirical methods, (4) data analysis, discussion and findings, and (5) conclusions. The introduction section usually presents the paper´s aim, the theoretical gaps it addresses and its research questions, and the conclusion section discuss its limitations and opportunities for future research. Thus, reading first those sections usually helps to better grasp the whole paper.

After reading each paper, we suggest to summarize data in a table, as recorded in the Appendix Appendix Summarizing the key points of a paper. Authors Objective Findings Research Question Further Research Limitations Methodology Practical Implications Abbariki et al. (2017) The paper analyses whether tacit knowledge was being shared through collective learning routines at two sites where employees were undertaking knowledge-intensive work. Superiors can overlook the presence of embedded knowledge work in tasks environments that are largely static, procedure driven and independent.In such environments, employees need to be grated opportunities to meet together to share tacit knowledge that cannot be accommodated by archiven-based knowledge management platforms. How can employees share tacit knowledge if they are performing tasks independently, and if their superiors discourage face-to-face interactions when they are performing tasks in real time? Enhance confirm ability by examining sites that are similar to Cases, with employees operating within a largely static, solo work and procedure-driven task environment Although the authors sought to obtain a close-up picture of how tacit knowledge was being shared at Case A, the very nature of such knowledge rendered it difficult for employees to provide explanations to an outside interviewer 34 semi structured interviews about task environment and collective learning activities of informants at various hierarchical levelsCase A: 3 directors/9 senior managers/16 operational managersCase B: 1 director, 2 senior managers and 2 operational managers a) It is important for managers to recognize that even procedure-governed tasks require tacit knowledgeb) Managers should encourage and facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge among employeesc) Computer-based knowledge sharing platforms cannot substitute for face-to-face knowledge sharing forums, since they not help employees to articulate their own tacit knowledge or to decode the tacit knowledge of othersd) If managers prefer to restrict opportunities for employees to engage in ad hoc meetings while they are performing their tasks, they may schedule periodic “off-line” face to face forums Torraco (2005) This article discusses how to organize and write an integrative literature review and cites examples of published integrative literature reviews that illustrate how this type of research has made substantive contributions to the knowledge base of human resource development. It Categorizes Four Forms of Synthesis from Integrative Literature Reviews: a) Research agenda b) Taxonomy c) Alternative models or conceptual frameworks d) Meta-theory.A Checklist for Writing an Integrative Literature Review: a) Before Writing an Integrative Literature Review b) Organizing an Integrative Literature Review c) Writing an Integrative Literature Review Not Available Not Available The paper is focused in Human Resources and could be expanded for others areas The paper discusses 31 papers to provide its findings. This article offers guidelines for writing integrative literature reviews to support authors to do this task. Kitchenham et al. (2009) This study assesses the impact of systematic literature reviews (SLRs), which are the recommended evidence-based software engineering method for aggregating evidence. The authors define evidence as a synthesis of best quality scientific studies on a specific topic or research question, which the main method of synthesis is a systematic literature review (SLR) Not available The authors indicate to extend this study by under- taking a broader automated search for other SLRs over the same time period. They also plan to repeat this study at the end of 2009 to track the progress of SLRs and evidence-based software engineering. This study suffers from a number of limitations; in particular, the authors have restricted themselves to a manual search of international journals and conferences. This study has been undertaken as a systematic literature review based on the original guidelines as proposed by Kitchenham et al. (2009). In this case the goal of the review is to assess systematic literature reviews (which are referred to as secondary studies), so this study is categorized as a tertiary literature review. The authors exampled issues to guide how to do Research Questions (RQ), Limitations and Quality Assessment in their paper, which helps other authors: RQ1. How much SLR activity has there been since 2004? RQ2. What research topics are being addressed? RQ3. Who is leading SLR research? RQ4. What are the limitations of current research?With respect to limitations of SLRs (RQ4) the authors considered issues: RQ4.1. Were the research topics limited? RQ4.2. Is there evidence that the use of SLRs is limited due to lack of primary studies? RQ4.3. Is the quality of SLRs appropriate, if not, is it improving? RQ4.4. Are SLRs contributing to practice by defining practice guidelines?The Quality Assessment criteria are based on four quality assessment (QA) questions:QA1. Are the review’s inclusion and exclusion criteria described and appropriate?QA2. Is the literature search likely to have covered all relevant studies?QA3. Did the reviewers assess the quality/validity of the included studies?QA4. Were the basic data/studies adequately described? (Authors, Objective, Findings, Research-questions, Further Research, Limitations, Methodology, Practical Implications). For further study, Perkmann et al. (2013 Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autioa, E., Broströmc, A., D’Este, P., Finif, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldif, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitsong, M., Llerenai, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrerof, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.... , p. 434-439) applied similar strategy to summarize 133 articles, recording them in a table with the following columns: Research questions, Data Method, Dependent variables, and Findings.

From this initial step, the author can assess if there is good coverage, which papers support the claims that will be made, and which present concept definitions. At this point, the author will realize which are subjects need to be further studied, and will start a new round of paper search and reading. It is a cyclical process, and ideally, in each cycle a clearer and deeper perspective is reached.

As academic output is huge and keeps growing literally everyday, there is the danger of losing focus and the researcher must be cautious about when to finish the literature search, as sometimes one is tempted to keep looking for more texts. Here again, guidance from supervisors and help from seasoned researchers is always a good way to check is the required coverage and deepness has been reached. Finally, the researcher must sum up her work on a text, which must offer a good synthesis and good rhetoric. Novice researchers will find that the first draft is never a good text, and a well-crafted piece of writing is the outcome of several revisions. Figure 1 summarizes the main steps for performing a literature review:

6. Conclusions

Well-crafted literature reviews are the cornerstone of good papers, however it is not uncommon to find weak, or even absent, literature reviews among OM submissions to Production. That weakness jeopardizes any claim for contribution authors might have, and frequently undermines all effort put into fieldwork and data analysis. However, as an applied field, research in OM should not start exclusively from theory, practice has been and should continue to be a major source for research ( Boer et al., 2015 Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1231-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-... ). Interesting, real world phenomena should motivate us to study and solve them, but our efforts should be aimed towards not only its solution, but also to how it can be generalized. There is no contribution case that stands the lack of a proper literature review and we hope to have offered some guidance on how to write good reviews for empirical papers, and, as a consequence, to produce better quality texts.

Appendix Summarizing the key points of a paper.

• 1 Protocol is a document that presents an explicit scientific “road map”, detailing the rational and planned methodological and analytical approach of the review ( Shamseer et al., 2015 Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 349, g7647. PMid:25555855. , p. 3).
• How to cite this article: Nakano, D., & Muniz Jr., J. (2018). Writing the literature review for an empirical paper. Production, 28 , e20170086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20170086
• Abbariki, M., Snell, R. S., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2017). Sharing or ignoring tacit knowledge? A comparison of collective learning routines at two sites. Journal of General Management , 42 (5), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702997 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702997
• Anderson, J. C., Cleveland, G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). Operations strategy: a literature review. Journal of Operations Management , 8 (2), 133-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(89)90016-8 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(89)90016-8
• Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 35 (9), 1231-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0119
• 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.
• Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R. (2006). Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 26 (7), 703-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570610672202 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570610672202
• Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2012). Management research London: Sage.
• Fink, A. (1998). Conducting research literature review: from paper to the internet London: Sage.
• Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review London: Sage Publications.
• Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 2011. Retrieved in 2017, December 4, from http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ » http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
• Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology , 51 (1), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009
• Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution. Academy of Management Journal , 40 (5), 1023-1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256926 » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256926
• Mills, J., Schmitz, J., & Frizelle, G. (2004). A strategic review of “supply networks”. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 24 (10), 1012-1036.
• Ngai, E. W. T., Moon, K. K. L., Riggins, F. J., & Yi, C. Y. (2008). RFID research: an academic literature review (1995-2005) and future research directions. International Journal of Production Economics , 12 (2), 510-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.004 » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.004
• Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles. Knowledge and Process Management , 13 (2), 73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251
• Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autioa, E., Broströmc, A., D’Este, P., Finif, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldif, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitsong, M., Llerenai, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrerof, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy , 42 (2), 423-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide Malden MA: Blackwell.
• Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1, b92 Retrieved in 2017, July 9, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Rodgers4/publication/233866356_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_Methods_Programme/links/02e7e5231e8f3a6183000000/Guidance-on-the-conduct-of-narrative-synthesis-in-systematic-reviews-A-product-from-the-ESRC-Methods-Programme.pdf » https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Rodgers4/publication/233866356_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_Methods_Programme/links/02e7e5231e8f3a6183000000/Guidance-on-the-conduct-of-narrative-synthesis-in-systematic-reviews-A-product-from-the-ESRC-Methods-Programme.pdf
• Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research , 8 (3), 341-351. PMID: 10558335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800305 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800305
• Rochet, J., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics , 37 (3), 645-667.
• Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity ranking. Knowledge and Process Management , 11 (3), 185-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.203 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.203
• Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) , 349 , g7647. PMid:25555855.
• Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). The relationship between integrating sphere and diffusion theory calculations of fluence rate at the wall of a spherical cavity. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (3), 1-12. PMid:7708833. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788 » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393788
• Thomé, A. M. T., Scavarda, L. F., & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Production Planning and Control , 27 (5), 408-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464
• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review , 4 (3), 356-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management , 14 (3), 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
• Whetten, D. (2003). O que constitui uma contribuição teórica?. Revista de Administração de Empresas , 43 (3), 69-73.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection 2018
• Received 24 Oct 2017
• Accepted 22 Jan 2018

• * [email protected]

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | tables.

• Figures (1)

Figure 1   Steps for a LR.

Table 1   Pros and cons of a systematic literature review.

• Source: Easterby-Smith et al. (2012 Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2012). Management research. London: Sage. , p. 109).

Table 2   MA, CA and SLR Examples and Main Points.

Table 3   overview of sources..

• Source: adapted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2012). Management research. London: Sage. .

How to cite

Pdf version for download, related articles.

• Google Scholar

Versões e tradução automática

• Google Translator
• Microsoft Translator