limitations of a literature review dissertation

Limitations of the literature – A guide to a sticky problem

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

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

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

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 The study is dated as in out-of-date e.g. 1985 This is important as a criticism except in the case of historical studies or in reference to a classical piece of work that set the standard for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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was very helpful to me.

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

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

Power To Truth With JJ Tabane

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Apr 1, 2024 9:56 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 314 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our  mailing list  and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

• Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

How to structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation

There is no "one best way" to structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation. However, we recommend a structure based on three moves : the announcing , reflecting and forward looking move. The announcing move immediately allows you to identify the limitations of your dissertation and explain how important each of these limitations is. The reflecting move provides greater depth, helping to explain the nature of the limitations and justify the choices that you made during the research process. Finally, the forward looking move enables you to suggest how such limitations could be overcome in future. The collective aim of these three moves is to help you walk the reader through your Research Limitations section in a succinct and structured way. This will make it clear to the reader that you recognise the limitations of your own research, that you understand why such factors are limitations, and can point to ways of combating these limitations if future research was carried out. This article explains what should be included in each of these three moves :

• THE ANNOUNCING MOVE: Identifying limitations and explaining how important they are
• THE REFLECTING MOVE: Explaining the nature of the limitations and justifying the choices you made
• THE FORWARD LOOKING MOVE: Suggesting how such limitations could be overcome in future

THE ANNOUNCING MOVE Identifying limitations, and explaining how important they are

There are many possible limitations that your research may have faced. However, is not necessary for you to discuss all of these limitations in your Research Limitations section. After all, you are not writing a 2000 word critical review of the limitations of your dissertation, just a 200-500 word critique that is only one section long (i.e., the Research Limitations section within your Conclusions chapter). Therefore, in this first announcing move , we would recommend that you identify only those limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (a) the quality of your findings; and (b) your ability to effectively answer your research questions and/or hypotheses.

We use the word potential impact because we often do not know the degree to which different factors limited our findings or our ability to effectively answer our research questions and/or hypotheses. For example, we know that when adopting a quantitative research design, a failure to use a probability sampling technique significantly limits our ability to make broader generalisations from our results (i.e., our ability to make statistical inferences from our sample to the population being studied). However, the degree to which this reduces the quality of our findings is a matter of debate. Also, whilst the lack of a probability sampling technique when using a quantitative research design is a very obvious example of a research limitation, other limitations are far less clear. Therefore, the key point is to focus on those limitations that you feel had the greatest impact on your findings, as well as your ability to effectively answer your research questions and/or hypotheses.

Overall, the announcing move should be around 10-20% of the total word count of the Research Limitations section.

THE REFLECTING MOVE Explaining the nature of the limitations and justifying the choices you made

Having identified the most important limitations to your dissertation in the announcing move , the reflecting move focuses on explaining the nature of these limitations and justifying the choices that you made during the research process. This part should be around 60-70% of the total word count of the Research Limitations section.

It is important to remember at this stage that all research suffers from limitations, whether it is performed by undergraduate and master's level dissertation students, or seasoned academics. Acknowledging such limitations should not be viewed as a weakness, highlighting to the person marking your work the reasons why you should receive a lower grade. Instead, the reader is more likely to accept that you recognise the limitations of your own research if you write a high quality reflecting move . This is because explaining the limitations of your research and justifying the choices you made during the dissertation process demonstrates the command that you had over your research.

We talk about explaining the nature of the limitations in your dissertation because such limitations are highly research specific. Let's take the example of potential limitations to your sampling strategy. Whilst you may have a number of potential limitations in sampling strategy, let's focus on the lack of probability sampling ; that is, of all the different types of sampling technique that you could have used [see Types of probability sampling and Types of non-probability sampling ], you choose not to use a probability sampling technique (e.g., simple random sampling , systematic random sampling , stratified random sampling ). As mentioned, if you used a quantitative research design in your dissertation, the lack of probability sampling is an important, obvious limitation to your research. This is because it prevents you from making generalisations about the population you are studying (e.g. Facebook usage at a single university of 20,000 students) from the data you have collected (e.g., a survey of 400 students at the same university). Since an important component of quantitative research is such generalisation, this is a clear limitation. However, the lack of a probability sampling technique is not viewed as a limitation if you used a qualitative research design. In qualitative research designs, a non-probability sampling technique is typically selected over a probability sampling technique.

And this is just part of the puzzle?

Even if you used a quantitative research design, but failed to employ a probability sampling technique, there are still many perfectly justifiable reasons why you could have made such a choice. For example, it may have been impossible (or near on impossible) to get a list of the population you were studying (e.g., a list of all the 20,000 students at the single university you were interested in). Since probability sampling is only possible when we have such a list, the lack of such a list or inability to attain such a list is a perfectly justifiable reason for not using a probability sampling technique; even if such a technique is the ideal.

As such, the purpose of all the guides we have written on research limitations is to help you: (a) explain the nature of the limitations in your dissertation; and (b) justify the choices you made.

In helping you to justifying the choices that you made, these articles explain not only when something is, in theory , an obvious limitation, but how, in practice , such a limitation was not necessarily so damaging to the quality of your dissertation. This should significantly strengthen the quality of your Research Limitations section.

THE FORWARD LOOKING MOVE Suggesting how such limitations could be overcome in future

Finally, the forward looking move builds on the reflecting move by suggesting how the limitations you have discuss could be overcome through future research. Whilst a lot could be written in this part of the Research Limitations section, we would recommend that it is only around 10-20% of the total word count for this section.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Present the Limitations of the Study Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

The limitations of a study are the elements of methodology or study design that impact the interpretation of your research results. The limitations essentially detail any flaws or shortcomings in your study. Study limitations can exist due to constraints on research design, methodology, materials, etc., and these factors may impact the findings of your study. However, researchers are often reluctant to discuss the limitations of their study in their papers, feeling that bringing up limitations may undermine its research value in the eyes of readers and reviewers.

In spite of the impact it might have (and perhaps because of it) you should clearly acknowledge any limitations in your research paper in order to show readers—whether journal editors, other researchers, or the general public—that you are aware of these limitations and to explain how they affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the research.

In this article, we provide some guidelines for writing about research limitations, show examples of some frequently seen study limitations, and recommend techniques for presenting this information. And after you have finished drafting and have received manuscript editing for your work, you still might want to follow this up with academic editing before submitting your work to your target journal.

Why do I need to include limitations of research in my paper?

Although limitations address the potential weaknesses of a study, writing about them toward the end of your paper actually strengthens your study by identifying any problems before other researchers or reviewers find them.

Furthermore, pointing out study limitations shows that you’ve considered the impact of research weakness thoroughly and have an in-depth understanding of your research topic. Since all studies face limitations, being honest and detailing these limitations will impress researchers and reviewers more than ignoring them.

Where should I put the limitations of the study in my paper?

Some limitations might be evident to researchers before the start of the study, while others might become clear while you are conducting the research. Whether these limitations are anticipated or not, and whether they are due to research design or to methodology, they should be clearly identified and discussed in the discussion section —the final section of your paper. Most journals now require you to include a discussion of potential limitations of your work, and many journals now ask you to place this “limitations section” at the very end of your article. 

Some journals ask you to also discuss the strengths of your work in this section, and some allow you to freely choose where to include that information in your discussion section—make sure to always check the author instructions of your target journal before you finalize a manuscript and submit it for peer review .

Limitations of the Study Examples

There are several reasons why limitations of research might exist. The two main categories of limitations are those that result from the methodology and those that result from issues with the researcher(s).

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

Limitations of research due to methodological problems can be addressed by clearly and directly identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this could have been addressed—and SHOULD be addressed in future studies. The following are some major potential methodological issues that can impact the conclusions researchers can draw from the research.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling errors occur when a probability sampling method is used to select a sample, but that sample does not reflect the general population or appropriate population concerned. This results in limitations of your study known as “sample bias” or “selection bias.”

For example, if you conducted a survey to obtain your research results, your samples (participants) were asked to respond to the survey questions. However, you might have had limited ability to gain access to the appropriate type or geographic scope of participants. In this case, the people who responded to your survey questions may not truly be a random sample.

Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

When conducting a study, it is important to have a sufficient sample size in order to draw valid conclusions. The larger the sample, the more precise your results will be. If your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to identify significant relationships in the data.

Normally, statistical tests require a larger sample size to ensure that the sample is considered representative of a population and that the statistical result can be generalized to a larger population. It is a good idea to understand how to choose an appropriate sample size before you conduct your research by using scientific calculation tools—in fact, many journals now require such estimation to be included in every manuscript that is sent out for review.

Lack of previous research studies on the topic

Citing and referencing prior research studies constitutes the basis of the literature review for your thesis or study, and these prior studies provide the theoretical foundations for the research question you are investigating. However, depending on the scope of your research topic, prior research studies that are relevant to your thesis might be limited.

When there is very little or no prior research on a specific topic, you may need to develop an entirely new research typology. In this case, discovering a limitation can be considered an important opportunity to identify literature gaps and to present the need for further development in the area of study.

Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

After you complete your analysis of the research findings (in the discussion section), you might realize that the manner in which you have collected the data or the ways in which you have measured variables has limited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results.

For example, you might realize that you should have addressed your survey questions from another viable perspective, or that you were not able to include an important question in the survey. In these cases, you should acknowledge the deficiency or deficiencies by stating a need for future researchers to revise their specific methods for collecting data that includes these missing elements.

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

Study limitations that arise from situations relating to the researcher or researchers (whether the direct fault of the individuals or not) should also be addressed and dealt with, and remedies to decrease these limitations—both hypothetically in your study, and practically in future studies—should be proposed.

Limited access to data

If your research involved surveying certain people or organizations, you might have faced the problem of having limited access to these respondents. Due to this limited access, you might need to redesign or restructure your research in a different way. In this case, explain the reasons for limited access and be sure that your finding is still reliable and valid despite this limitation.

Time constraints

Just as students have deadlines to turn in their class papers, academic researchers might also have to meet deadlines for submitting a manuscript to a journal or face other time constraints related to their research (e.g., participants are only available during a certain period; funding runs out; collaborators move to a new institution). The time available to study a research problem and to measure change over time might be constrained by such practical issues. If time constraints negatively impacted your study in any way, acknowledge this impact by mentioning a need for a future study (e.g., a longitudinal study) to answer this research problem.

Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

Researchers might hold biased views due to their cultural backgrounds or perspectives of certain phenomena, and this can affect a study’s legitimacy. Also, it is possible that researchers will have biases toward data and results that only support their hypotheses or arguments. In order to avoid these problems, the author(s) of a study should examine whether the way the research problem was stated and the data-gathering process was carried out appropriately.

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

When you discuss the limitations of your study, don’t simply list and describe your limitations—explain how these limitations have influenced your research findings. There might be multiple limitations in your study, but you only need to point out and explain those that directly relate to and impact how you address your research questions.

We suggest that you divide your limitations section into three steps: (1) identify the study limitations; (2) explain how they impact your study in detail; and (3) propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives. By following this sequence when discussing your study’s limitations, you will be able to clearly demonstrate your study’s weakness without undermining the quality and integrity of your research.

Step 1. Identify the limitation(s) of the study

• This part should comprise around 10%-20% of your discussion of study limitations.

The first step is to identify the particular limitation(s) that affected your study. There are many possible limitations of research that can affect your study, but you don’t need to write a long review of all possible study limitations. A 200-500 word critique is an appropriate length for a research limitations section. In the beginning of this section, identify what limitations your study has faced and how important these limitations are.

You only need to identify limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (1) the quality of your findings, and (2) your ability to answer your research question.

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

• This part should comprise around 60-70% of your discussion of limitations.

After identifying your research limitations, it’s time to explain the nature of the limitations and how they potentially impacted your study. For example, when you conduct quantitative research, a lack of probability sampling is an important issue that you should mention. On the other hand, when you conduct qualitative research, the inability to generalize the research findings could be an issue that deserves mention.

Explain the role these limitations played on the results and implications of the research and justify the choice you made in using this “limiting” methodology or other action in your research. Also, make sure that these limitations didn’t undermine the quality of your dissertation .

Step 3. Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives (optional)

• This part should comprise around 10-20% of your discussion of limitations.

After acknowledging the limitations of the research, you need to discuss some possible ways to overcome these limitations in future studies. One way to do this is to present alternative methodologies and ways to avoid issues with, or “fill in the gaps of” the limitations of this study you have presented.  Discuss both the pros and cons of these alternatives and clearly explain why researchers should choose these approaches.

Make sure you are current on approaches used by prior studies and the impacts they have had on their findings. Cite review articles or scientific bodies that have recommended these approaches and why. This might be evidence in support of the approach you chose, or it might be the reason you consider your choices to be included as limitations. This process can act as a justification for your approach and a defense of your decision to take it while acknowledging the feasibility of other approaches.

P hrases and Tips for Introducing Your Study Limitations in the Discussion Section

The following phrases are frequently used to introduce the limitations of the study:

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”
• “As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.”
• “There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the study focused on …. Second ….”

For more articles on research writing and the journal submissions and publication process, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resources page.

And be sure to receive professional English editing and proofreading services , including paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

• Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations (PhD student)
• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Limitations of the Study (USC Library)
• Research Limitations (Research Methodology)
• How to Present Limitations and Alternatives (UMASS)

Article References

Pearson-Stuttard, J., Kypridemos, C., Collins, B., Mozaffarian, D., Huang, Y., Bandosz, P.,…Micha, R. (2018). Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002551

Xu, W.L, Pedersen, N.L., Keller, L., Kalpouzos, G., Wang, H.X., Graff, C,. Fratiglioni, L. (2015). HHEX_23 AA Genotype Exacerbates Effect of Diabetes on Dementia and Alzheimer Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. PLOS. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001853

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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 2 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.

Dissertations - Skills Guide

• Where to start
• Research Proposal
• Ethics Form
• Primary Research

Literature Review

• Methodology
• Downloadable Resources
• Further Reading

What is it?

Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature review. In this section we discuss literature reviews for the whole dissertation.

What are the benefits of a literature review?

There are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. The advantages of conducting a literature review include accessibility, deeper understanding of your chosen topic, identifying experts and current research within that area, and answering key questions about current research. The disadvantages might include not providing new information on the subject and, depending on the subject area, you may have to include information that is out of date.

How do I write it?

A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is:

Introduction (including methodology)

This particular example is split into 6 sections, however it may be more or less depending on your topic.

Literature Reviews Further Reading

• << Previous: Primary Research
• Next: Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

Language: English | Chinese

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

执行范围界定审查: 为护理和助产学生、临床医生、研究人员及学者提供实用指南, danielle pollock.

1 JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA, Australia

Ellen L. Davies

2 Adelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA, Australia

Micah D. J. Peters

3 Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Clinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide SA, Australia

4 The Centre for Evidence‐based Practice South Australia (CEPSA): A JBI Centre of Excellence, Adelaide SA, Australia

Andrea C. Tricco

5 Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada

6 Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada

7 Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Kingston ON, Canada

Lyndsay Alexander

8 School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen UK

9 The Scottish Centre for Evidence‐based Multi‐professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Aberdeen UK

Patricia McInerney

10 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg South Africa

11 The Wits‐JBI Centre for Evidence‐Based Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group, Johannesburg South Africa

Christina M. Godfrey

12 School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston ON, Canada

Hanan Khalil

13 School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne Vic, Australia

Zachary Munn

The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research.

Discussion Paper.

Data Sources

Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR).

Implications for nursing and midwifery

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency.

This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery.

With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

摘要

目的.

本研究旨在讨论可用的方法论资源和最佳实践指南, 以便确定和执行涉及护理和助产政策、实践及研究的范围审查。

设计

讨论稿。

数据来源

参考最近更新的JBI范围审查指南 (2020年) 以及系统审查和荟萃分析范围审查扩展的首选报告项目 (PRISMA‐ScR) , 以便探讨最佳实践的范围审查程序。

护理和助产学启示

范围审查可用于合成证据, 目前越来越普遍。其主要用于解决大量研究问题, 并汇集通过不同来源获得的证据。范围审查是一种有用的证据合成方式, 适用于护理和助产程序, 并可为研究人员提供机会, 帮助其审查广泛的证据和资源。然而, 仍应严格执行范围审查程序, 且应保证其透明度。

结论

本研究可为研究人员、临床医师提供指导和建议, 帮助其合成证据, 并在护理和助产领域应用范围审查方法。

影响

伴随着范围审查日益普及, 多个学术和临床学科人员提出应保证方法的严谨性、透明度和适当性, 包括护理和助产学。本讨论稿的重点在于范围审查的各组成部分, 包括: 提出研究问题和目标; 制定方案; 确定资格标准和拟议搜索方法; 寻找和选择证据; 提取和分析证据; 展示结果以及概述护理和助产领域的具体证据。此外, 讨论内容包括方法选择时间和评论发表方法。此方法适用于护理和助产学科, 可用于协助护理和/或助产学生、临床医生、研究人员和学术人员。

1. INTRODUCTION

Scoping reviews are an invaluable form of evidence synthesis. Foundational concepts and evidence can be mapped, allowing for examination of practice, policy, and research and gaps in evidence and policy can be identified. The results of scoping reviews can provide indications for where further research may be required and inform the development of these research endeavours (Khalil et al.,  2016 ; Munn, Peters, et al., 2018 ; Tricco et al.,  2016 ). Scoping reviews have become increasingly popular, particularly in the health and social science disciplines, and they are broadly accepted as a helpful adjunct for informing new research projects (Pham et al.,  2014 ; Tricco et al.,  2016 ). As the popularity of scoping reviews has increased, so too have the criticisms of this methodological approach for synthesizing evidence (Davis et al.,  2009 ; Tricco et al.,  2016 ). Davis et al. ( 2009 ) undertook a review that explored the nature and status of scoping review studies in nursing literature. Their findings suggested that scoping reviews in the discipline were poorly understood and there was a lack of consistency and methodological rigour (Davis et al.,  2009 ). Criticism of researchers' approaches to conducting scoping reviews is not limited to the field of nursing. Tricco et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a review of scoping reviews and found variability in approach among the 494 included reviews and highlighted the need for a standardized reporting guideline specific to the scoping review approach. The purpose of the current study is to highlight available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery practice and research.

2. BACKGROUND

The first framework for conducting a scoping review was proposed by Arksey and O'Malley ( 2005 ) and remains popular across disciplines (Pham et al.,  2014 ). Extensions of this framework were later provided by Levac et al. ( 2010 ) in response to confusion and criticisms of the Arksey and O'Malley approach. These initial attempts have provided guidance to many researchers, but a lack of methodological clarity continues to exist, particularly with regards to the analysis of data. In response to ongoing concerns about the scoping review methodology, the JBI guidance for scoping reviews was developed by a working group of methodological experts (the Scoping Review Methodological working group). The aim in developing the guidance was to clarify each element required in a scoping review (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ). This guidance was developed through a consultative process with key stakeholders (Khalil et al.,  2020 ; Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ).

3. DATA SOURCES

Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice were explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guidance (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ) and Tricco, Lillie, et al. ( 2018 ) and Tricco, Zarin, et al. ( 2018 ) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR) (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ). This was supported by the varied experience of the authors who comprise methodologists, researchers, and clinicians who share an interest in evidence‐based health care.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. when should a scoping review methodology be selected.

When planning any research project, it is important to select the correct methodology. There are several approaches for conducting evidence synthesis (Grant & Booth,  2009 ; Munn et al.,  2018 ). Each has its merits, but they are not all suitable for all research questions. Scoping reviews share some similar methodological principles as other types of evidence synthesis. For example, both scoping reviews and systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence to address a particular research question after a rigorous and systematic search of available literature (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ). The major differences between scoping and systematic reviews are the purposes for conducting these investigations and the intended use of the results (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ). A systematic review should be conducted if the intention is to produce evidence to inform decisions about feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness of a particular treatment or practice (Munn, Peters, et al., 2018 ; Munn, Stern, et al., 2018 ). For example, these decisions could relate to the effectiveness of an intervention, prognosis of a condition, diagnostic accuracy of a test, and experiences of a phenomenon (Munn, Stern, et al., 2018 ). As such, systematic reviews will often inform policy decisions and clinical practice and may form the basis of trustworthy clinical guidelines. Scoping reviews map the literature and provide an overview of evidence, concepts, or studies in a particular field. Although scoping reviews may also be used to inform policy and practice, the type of decisions they inform are not necessarily related to questions of feasibility, appropriateness, or effectiveness, but more so around priorities for research, clarifying concepts and definitions, providing research frameworks or providing background, or contextual information on phenomena or concepts. Appropriate indications for scoping reviews are to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, or to investigate research conduct (Munn, Peters, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

Figure  1 provides an overview of the major considerations required for selecting a scoping review methodology. Of note, it is important to recognize that the role of a scoping review is not to provide recommendations for practice or to inform clinical guidelines. It is also not recommended that scoping reviews address questions about the experiences of populations unless it is designed as a preliminary search of literature that will inform the development of a systematic review. Reviews that seek to describe experiences or current practice will be more useful to the clinical and academic community if they are conducted using a systematic review methodology.

Considerations for selecting a scoping review methodology

There are some additional considerations when planning to undertake a scoping review. These include available resources, such as databases and other potential sources of data (e.g., policies or practice frameworks), co‐authors for the study selection and extraction process, software to support the process (such as SUMARI and/or reference management software) (Munn et al.,  2019 ), an academic librarian to assist with preparing the search strategy, and sufficient time (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ). It may also be prudent to consider where the protocol and final review may be published once they have been completed.

Other suggestions that may assist with preparing a scoping review for publication in a peer‐reviewed journal include:

• Registering scoping review and/or develop a scoping review protocol to submit for peer‐review publication.
• Find a suitable target journal and review author guidelines to ensure that they publish scoping reviews.
• Demonstrate that the review has been rigorously undertaken and complies with the JBI 2020 guide and PRISMA ScR (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

You may also consider contacting the target journal's editor and asking if the review that is being proposed would be considered for inclusion in their publication. This is not a guarantee but may save some time if they do not consider the article to be suitable.

4.2. JBI guidance

When the decision is made to pursue a scoping review, several choices can be made, including which guidelines to use. It is recommended that the JBI approach is followed, as it is, to date, the most rigorous and defined methodology. The JBI approach for scoping reviews contains nine steps (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ) and expands on the work of Arksey and O'Malley ( 2005 ) and Levac et al. ( 2010 ). Concept explanations and definition clarifications are included to enhance the quality and understanding of scoping review methodology. The following presents an overview of the guidelines in relation to the discipline of nursing and midwifery and includes examples of best practice.

4.3. Protocol development and registration

Scoping review protocols can be registered through Fig Share ( https://figshare.com/ ) and Web of Science ( webofknowledge.com ), but not currently through PROSPERO. Examples of protocol templates can be found on JBI SUMARI (Munn et al.,  2019 ) or through the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Chapter 11) (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ).

Journal requirements for a registered, a priori scoping review protocol vary. The JBI and Scoping Review Methodological working group highly recommend that one is undertaken and indeed, JBI Evidence Synthesis requires a previously published protocol before they will accept a completed scoping review. There are a range of nursing and medical journals, besides JBI Evidence Synthesis, which will accept scoping review protocols. These include the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Systematic Reviews, BMC Medical Research Methodology, and BMJ Open. The advantage of developing a scoping review protocol is that it minimizes the potential for ad hoc decision‐making that may reduce the methodological rigour of the scoping review. Changes made from the protocol to the final scoping review report are allowed but should be transparent and be reported in the final report. For example, Bobbette et al.'s ( 2020 ) scoping review addressed changes that have been made to their data extraction form since the protocol stage.

4.4. Consultation with stakeholders

Arksey and O'Malley ( 2005 ), Levac et al. ( 2010 ), and the JBI guidance (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ) offer differing perspectives on the importance of consultation with key stakeholders throughout scoping reviews. Arksey and O'Malley ( 2005 ) suggest it is an optional component, however, Levac et al. ( 2010 ) argued that it should be considered a required component. JBI recommends that consultation should occur with key stakeholders, information scientists, research librarians, and experts throughout the development of the protocol, execution, and dissemination of the evidence (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ).

Research librarians/information scientists play an important role in the process of conducting a scoping review. Ideally, they should be contacted during the development of the protocol to help define the search strategy and to identify relevant databases. As each database has a different search approach, research librarians/information scientists can also help ensure equivalence with each search. Their time and expertise should be acknowledged in the scoping review publication.

Consulting with researchers or content experts in the relevant field is important during the process of conducting a scoping review. This type of consultation can enhance the relevance of the research and ensure that the search strategy includes the appropriate terms. They may also be useful in finding resources that may not be identified through the searching of databases, grey literature, and references. For example, researchers may communicate with others in the field to ask if they have documents that could fit the inclusion criteria.

Other stakeholders may include patients and their informal caregivers, policymakers, government agencies, patient advocacy organizations, and healthcare providers (Cottrell et al.,  2015 ). Cottrell et al. ( 2015 ) identified the following reasons stakeholders should be included when conducting evidence synthesis:

• To inform researchers about topics that are needed and relevant to the identified community, thus reducing research waste (Glasziou & Chalmers,  2018 ).
• To assist with refining the research question, clarifying definitions, reviewing the research, and providing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and;
• To identify research gaps.

Acknowledging the involvement of stakeholder's involvement in any publications is required. This could either be in the acknowledgement section, or if they meet the necessary requirements, as an author of the scoping review.

4.5. Developing review objectives and questions

Arguably, one of the most important steps to consider when producing a scoping review is the development of the review question. Without a clear question, a scoping review will lack direction and coherence. The review question should be directly related to the overall objective of the review, it should be transparent, and located in the introduction section of the paper (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

One benefit of scoping reviews is that the review question can be broader than those developed for systematic reviews. Examples of broad review questions that have been undertaken previously include: ‘What is known from the existing literature about succession planning in nursing education?’ (Phillips et al.,  2019 , p. 888), ‘What is the nature of the evidence relevant to the provision of mental health interventions by midwives?’ (Coates & Foureur,  2019 , p. 391), and ‘How have former [intensive care unit] patients and their families been involved in critical care research and/or [quality improvement] projects’ (Bench et al.,  2018 , p. 218). These questions seek information and knowledge regarding subjects in niche and emerging areas of healthcare provision and research. The results of these studies could lead to a refined and more specific systematic review or could identify a paucity of research in that area of interest.

Numerous formats have been developed to guide the inclusion of information in a review question, but not all of these are suitable for scoping reviews. When developing a question for a scoping review, the recommended format is the ‘PCC’ mnemonic, where the Population, Concept, and Context are described (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ). Table  1 provides examples of well‐crafted review questions and objectives that follow this method. In both examples, the population, concept, and context are clearly identified, and a direct relationship can be observed between the review question and the review's objectives. The objectives provide a statement of what the authors seek to accomplish. Typically, objectives will describe what will be investigated, identified, explored, determined, or mapped. It is important that all objectives relate directly to the review question. If they do not, the overarching question(s) may not sufficiently represent the scope of the review and should be revised.

Examples of review objectives and questions from scoping review protocols

Abbreviations: QoL, quality of life; ScR, scoping review; SDB, sleep‐disordered breathing.

4.6. Developing eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria will dictate the papers that will be included in the review. If these criteria are too broad, the volume of included papers may be too cumbersome for one review. If these criteria are too narrow, there is a risk that no suitable papers will be located.

Eligibility criteria should be directly linked to the research objective(s) and question(s). The PCC framework used for developing the research objective(s) and question(s) will also inform inclusion and exclusion criteria and consequently the literature search strategy (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ). This is demonstrated well in Feo et al.'s ( 2020 ) scoping review and is outlined in Figure  2 .

Relationship between research objectives, question(s) and eligibility criteria, Feo et al. ( 2020 )

A rationale should be provided for all exclusion criteria (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ). For example, if the review will be limited to a type of literature (peer‐reviewed articles) year of publication (within previous 10 years), geographical location (rural and remote settings), or population (individuals with Type 2 diabetes mellitus), a reason should be provided for why these limitations are required.

4.7. Describing the planned approach to evidence searching, selection, data extraction, and presentation of the evidence

Planning how the searching, selection, data extraction, and presentation of the evidence will occur needs to be documented in an a priori protocol. During planning stages, it is recommended that an Academic Librarian assists with developing the search strategy.

While a protocol is recommended, scoping reviews can be iterative and flexible. Concepts that may not have been discovered in the initial exploratory search may become a focus. If this occurs, changes to the protocol are permitted, but deviations need to be described in the final scoping review manuscript.

4.8. Searching for the evidence

The intention of this stage is to identify all relevant published and potentially unpublished evidence. Scoping reviews can include a broad scope of evidence, such as peer‐reviewed articles, news articles, theses, opinion pieces, and letters to editors. This information is not always located easily through a database search. Nonetheless, the search strategy must be reproducible and therefore the search process requires detailed documentation. Ideally, the search should be sensitive enough to identify all the relevant evidence, but specific enough that the search does not contain an excessive volume of irrelevant articles. Aromataris and Riitano ( 2014 ) describe how to develop a search strategy for systematic reviews, but this approach can also be applied to scoping reviews. The article describes the development of concept maps and logic grids that can provide visual representation of the search strategy and assist with identifying items relevant to your review (Aromataris & Riitano,  2014 ).

Searching for the evidence should occur in a broad range of relevant databases. For nursing and midwifery, these may include Medline, CINAHL, or OVID Emcare, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Nursing and Allied Health databases. Further searches of clinical trial searchers, such as the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), may be relevant. The PsycInfo database can also be useful for questions which combine nursing/midwifery practice with mental health, psychological, and social science concepts, for example, identifying the range of tools to measure behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship (Feo et al.,  2020 ). If the inclusion criteria contain theses, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses databases should also be searched.

A benefit of scoping reviews is the potential to include a variety of document types other than academic literature. This ‘grey literature’ is the information not controlled by traditional academic publishers and can include conference abstracts, theses, government reports, patents, and clinical practice guidelines, to name a few (Aromataris & Riitano,  2014 ). This is particularly useful in emerging fields, where peer‐reviewed publications may be limited, but other documents exist (Aromataris & Riitano,  2014 ). Grey literature can also be useful for understanding what resources are available to consumers, patients, or relatives. For example, Scott et al. ( 2019 ) explored guidelines which were easily accessible for handling storage of human breast milk through the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo, as well as Public Health sites. It may be valuable to include grey literature in a scoping review for a variety of reasons. For example, Gamble et al. ( 2020 ) included policy documents in their scoping review on hospital accreditation in midwifery care.

Aromataris and Riitano ( 2014 ) provide a detailed outline on how to search for grey literature, recommending resources such as OpenGrey.eu or Greylit.Org. The CADTH ‘Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health‐related grey literature’ is also a useful tool in retrieving grey literature in a comprehensive and documented approach ( https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding‐evidence/grey‐matters ; accessed 14 December 2020). Searching for grey literature can be difficult as it is not necessarily organized or indexed like peer‐reviewed articles in academic databases. Balancing the sensitivity and specificity of the search with resource limitations, particularly time restrictions, is challenging. If a grey literature search is conducted, it is necessary to determine and justify the extent of the search in the protocol and finalized scoping review.

Developing and implementing the search strategy should occur in three stages and in collaboration with a research librarian. These stages include:

• Initial search: Search for articles relating to the review topic in at least two relevant databases and identify words and phrases found in the title, abstract, and index of papers that would likely be included in the review to inform your final search strategy
• Second search: Using the identified search terms, formally conduct a search in the selected databases, and grey literature locations. Document these searches for inclusion in the final PRISMA flow chart (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).
• Reference list search: Search the reference list of (a) all the identified studies from the initial search (consider time restrictions), (b) studies included from full‐text review, or (c) studies included in the review. It can also be useful to scan the reference list of related reviews identified in the search. To evaluate the search strategy, the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) is a checklist developed by librarians is a useful tool (Sampson et al.,  2009 ; Sampson et al., 2008 ). During this stage, analyse the title of the articles and assess if it aligns with the review inclusion criteria. Details of how many studies were identified in the reference list search should be included in the PRISMA flow chart (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 201 8).

4.9. Selecting the evidence

Study selection is based on the eligibility criteria. Piloting the selection process, reviewing the management of disagreements, and the type of software that will be used in this stage need to be specified in the protocol and final scoping review manuscript.

4.9.1. Piloting selection process

During each stage of evidence selection, at least two reviewers will review each article. Piloting this stage is important to ensure consistency across the review team. Developing an ‘elaboration document’, which provides details on each included and excluded document, can be helpful. There are various approaches to piloting source selection. The JBI Reviewers Manual for Scoping Reviews, for example, suggests each member reviews a sample of 25 titles/abstracts and then meets to discuss discrepancies and potential modifications. When agreement among team reaches 75% or greater, the selection of articles can continue (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ).

Managing disagreements

If there are disagreements between the two reviewers and consensus cannot occur, a third reviewer can assess the source to determine its eligibility.

Software for source selection

There are several applications suitable for assisting the selection of evidence. These include Covidence®, Endnote™, and Excel®. Peters ( 2017 ) has developed a step‐by‐step guide on managing source selection through endnote and has aligned this approach with PRISMA guidelines (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

4.10. Extracting the evidence

Once sources have been selected for inclusion, evidence can be extracted. Two steps should occur before data are formally extracted. The first, during the protocol development stage, is to develop a standardized extraction form. Secondly, pilot testing of the form with two or more reviewers with two to three papers to ensure consistency. In scoping reviews, this may be an iterative process and the form may be adjusted. If the extraction form changes between the protocol stage and conducting the scoping review, it should be stated in the scoping review. An example of a data extraction table is provided in Table  2 .

Example of data extraction form for scoping reviews

4.10.1. Critical appraisal or risk of bias

Critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments are not required in scoping reviews, however, some methodologists (Levac et al.,  2010 ) do suggest that quality appraisal be considered. If critical appraisal or risk of bias is performed, an explanation for why it is being conducted should be outlined. The process and critical appraisal tools used also need to be described to improve transparency and methodological rigour.

4.11. Analysis of the evidence

The intention of scoping reviews is to provide a map and summary of available evidence, not to synthesize results into a set of final estimates or findings to inform decision‐making. Analysing the evidence gathered from the included studies is therefore normally descriptive, such as through frequency counting and basic coding. This can include organizing qualitative data into categories. An example of this type of qualitative descriptive approach can be seen in a scoping review that was investigating the needs of individuals recovering from a first episode of mental illness (Davies et al.,  2018 ). The purpose of the review was, in part, to identify the needs experienced by individuals from this population. To facilitate a meaningful response to the review question, items of need identified in included articles were extracted and placed into categories (Davies et al.,  2018 ).

It is common to see attempts to thematically analyse information in scoping reviews. This approach is not inherently wrong, but it does conflict with the purpose of scoping reviews: to map and chart the available evidence. If a review requirement is to examine or explore the experiences of a given population, then a qualitative systematic review may be more appropriate (Lockwood et al.,  2015 ).

4.12. Presentation of the results

There are various approaches for presenting data from included articles. The selected approach should be described in the protocol and final scoping review manuscript. Commonly, scoping reviews use a tabular format to present the information gathered in the extraction and analysis stage. These tables should include the components of the PCC mnemonic and other relevant information, which aligns with the objectives and research question.

There are no defined rules on how to present results. Interesting examples include Fernandes Agreli et al.'s ( 2019 ) word cloud that was developed through NVivo to describe the most common words used to describe patient involvement in infection prevention and control guidelines. Kynoch et al. ( 2019 ) created a honeycomb heat map to provide a visual summary of the information needs and seeking behaviours of patients and families in acute healthcare settings. Other styles of presentations include pie charts and bubble plots. Alongside any visual representations, a narrative description is also required.

4.13. Summarizing the evidence

The discussion and conclusion paragraphs provide an opportunity to summarize evidence described in the included papers and to link this to the broader clinical and academic context (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ). When undertaking this task, it can be tempting to discuss issues that are tangential to the purpose of the review. Alignment between the summarized evidence of the review and the review question and objectives is vital for the cohesion of a review. As such, a few considerations may assist with compiling the discussion and conclusion sections.

Firstly, have all elements of the review question(s) and objective(s) been addressed? If all elements of the review question and objectives have been met in the results section, the discussion section can focus on the extent of evidence available and place this evidence into context. Given the nature of scoping reviews, there are circumstances where review questions and objectives may not be addressed due to insufficient literature. If this is the case, the discussion section provides an opportunity to discuss gaps in knowledge, new hypotheses, and considerations for future research.

Secondly, has the review question been addressed accurately? The discussion section provides an opportunity to demonstrate the alignment of review results with review questions and objectives. When conducting a scoping review, the information that is located can highlight new avenues of inquiry. It can be tempting to discuss these tangential subjects in the discussion section, without re‐focussing on the primary aim of the review. Ensuring alignment among the review question, objectives, results, and discussion will strengthen the integrity of the review.

Thirdly, has the paper been adequately situated within the context of the relevant field of literature, practice and/or policy? A good discussion section will highlight the contribution the review has made to the relevant field through reflecting on what has preceded the review and projecting the potential implications for future investigation and planning. The purpose of many scoping reviews is to describe the nature and diversity of available evidence (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ). As such, the discussion section should describe, with detail, the gaps in knowledge relating to the phenomenon, context, or concept that is under investigation.

The discussion will include a description of the strengths and limitations of the review. A significant strength of a scoping review will be the demonstration of compliance with a rigorous methodological and reporting framework. This can be achieved by transparently documenting the review process and adhering to the JBI (2020) guidance and the PRISMA‐ScR (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

Review limitations that may be described can be divided into two broad categories: limitations relating to the methodology of the scoping review and limitations of the available research, literature, policy, and practice documents that were available to address the review questions and objectives. Limitations of the scoping review methodology include the absence of methodological and risk of bias evaluations and the resultant inappropriateness of the review to be used as evidence for clinical guidelines, limitations, and recommendations (Arksey & O'Malley,  2005 ; Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Tricco et al.,  2016 ).

Implications for practice is often a section that is requested by nursing and midwifery journals. As the purpose of a scoping review should not be to provide recommendations for clinical practice or policy change, this section can be challenging to compose. Some suggestions for addressing this section in a scoping review have been included in the JBI 2020 guidance (Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ). These include identifying gaps in knowledge identified in the review, describing specific implications for future research, and making suggestions for the conduct of a more specific research question that could be investigated through a systematic review (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ).

4.14. Using the PRISMA‐ScR

Scoping reviews are required to demonstrate the same transparency and reporting standards applied to systematic reviews. The original PRISMA was developed for systematic reviews and does not include some considerations relevant to scoping reviews. The PRISMA‐ScR contains 20 essential items, which should be reported and two optional items (critical appraisal of individual sources and within sources of evidence) (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ). The PRISMA‐ScR is not to be used instead of the JBI guide (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 ; Peters, Marnie, et al., 2020 ), but in conjunction. The JBI guidance provides a structure for how to initiate, develop, and undertake a scoping review; the PRISMA ScR is used to assist in developing a scoping review manuscript for publication to ensure it meets reporting standards (Tricco, Lillie, et al., 2018 ; Tricco, Zarin, et al., 2018 ).

4.15. Additional resources

Resources are available to assist with planning and developing scoping reviews. If there are challenges with deciding what type of review to undertake, the website: https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net/ (accessed 12 December 2020), provides a useful decision‐making tool. Further resources include the JBI Scoping Review Working Group (scopingreviews.jbi.global; accessed 12 December 2020) and their newly updated JBI reviewer's manual ( https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews ; accessed 12 December 2020). Another resource, which includes video presentations for the individual steps of a scoping review, is the UniSA Scoping Review website ( https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/ScopingReview ; accessed 12 December 2020). Further information and resources about the PRISMA‐ScR can be found here: https://knowledgetranslation.net/portfolios/the‐prisma‐scr2/ (accessed 12 December 2020).

5. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY

Scoping reviews are a valuable form of evidence synthesis. The scoping review approach to evidence synthesis is increasingly being adopted by nurses and midwives who are seeking to map evidence and describe relevant literature. As the methodology for undertaking a scoping review advances and becomes more refined, it is important for nurses and midwives to be using the most current and appropriate guidelines, particularly if wanting to publish results or to use the results to inform future research. This study provides an overview of best practice and current guidelines for nursing and midwifery students, academics, and clinicians who are considering undertaking a scoping review. Examples and advice are offered to assist with the appropriate adoption of this methodology and the distribution of results to the broader community.

6. CONCLUSION

The scoping review methodology presents nursing and midwifery academics and clinicians with a valuable and adaptable opportunity to synthesize evidence. This approach to evidence synthesis has certainly grown in popularity in these professions and will no doubt continue to be used in the future. As this type of review continues to be adopted, it is vital that they are conducted rigorously and in accordance with the latest methodological recommendations. The process for how to perform a scoping review from inception to publication has been outlined in this study with a goal of facilitating conceptual clarity for nursing and midwifery academics, clinicians, and policymakers who are undertaking a scoping review.

Peer Review

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.14743 .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The team would like to thank Alexa McArthur, Midwife, and Researcher for reading the study to ensure it was appropriate for midwifery professionals.

Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics . J Adv Nurs .2021; 77 :2102–2113. 10.1111/jan.14743 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DP and ZM are paid staff with JBI, Adelaide, which supports the Scoping Review Methodology Group. AT is supported by the Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis.

• Arksey, H. , & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aromataris, E. , & Riitano, D. (2014). Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review . American Journal of Nursing , 114 ( 5 ), 49–56. 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bench, S. , Eassom, E. , & Poursanidou, K. (2018). The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: A scoping review of the literature . International Journal of Consumer Studies , 42 ( 2 ), 217–231. 10.1111/ijcs.12406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobbette, N. , Ouellette‐Kuntz, H. , Tranmer, J. , Lysaght, R. , Ufholz, L.‐A. , & Donnelly, C. (2020). Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and interprofessional, team‐based primary health care: A scoping review . JBI Evidence Synthesis , 18 ( 7 ), 1470–1514. 10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00200 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coates, D. , & Foureur, M. (2019). The role and competence of midwives in supporting women with mental health concerns during the perinatal period: A scoping review . Health & Social Care in the Community , 27 ( 4 ), e389–e405. 10.1111/hsc.12740 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies, E. L. , Gordon, A. L. , Pelentsov, L. J. , Hooper, K. J. , & Esterman, A. J. (2018). Needs of individuals recovering from a first episode of mental illness: A scoping review . International Journal of Mental Health Nursing , 27 ( 5 ), 1326–1343. 10.1111/inm.12518 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, K. , Drey, N. , & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 46 ( 10 ), 1386–1400. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feo, R. , Conroy, T. , Wiechula, R. , Rasmussen, P. , & Kitson, A. (2020). Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: A scoping review . Journal of Clinical Nursing , 29 ( 11–12 ), 1808–1821. 10.1111/jocn.14947 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes Agreli, H. , Murphy, M. , Creedon, S. , Ni Bhuachalla, C. , O'Brien, D. , Gould, D. , Savage, E. , Barry, F. , Drennan, J. , Smiddy, M. P. , Condell, S. , Horgan, S. , Murphy, S. , Wills, T. , Burton, A. , & Hegarty, J. (2019). Patient involvement in the implementation of infection prevention and control guidelines and associated interventions: A scoping review . British Medical Journal Open , 9 ( 3 ), e025824. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025824 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gamble, J. , Browne, J. , & Creedy, D. K. (2020). Hospital accreditation: Driving best outcomes through continuity of midwifery care? A scoping review . Women and Birth . 10.1016/j.wombi.2020.01.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasziou, P. , & Chalmers, I. (2018). Research waste is still a scandal—An essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers . BMJ , 363 , k4645. 10.1136/bmj.k4645 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant, M. J. , & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26 ( 2 ), 91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kao S. S., Peters M. D. J., Ooi E. H. (2017). Pediatric tonsillectomy quality of life assessment instruments . JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , 15 ( 5 ), 1222–1227. 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003131. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalil, H. , Peters, M. , Godfrey, C. M. , McInerney, P. , Soares, C. B. , & Parker, D. (2016). An evidence‐based approach to scoping reviews . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 13 ( 2 ), 118–123. 10.1111/wvn.12144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalil, H. , Peters, M. D. , Tricco, A. C. , Pollock, D. , Alexander, L. , McInerney, P. , & Munn, Z. (2020). Guidance to conducting high quality scoping reviews . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , in press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kynoch, K. , Ramis, M. A. , Crowe, L. , Cabilan, C. J. , & McArdle, A. (2019). Information needs and information seeking behaviors of patients and families in acute healthcare settings: A scoping review . JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , 17 ( 6 ), 1130–1153. 10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003914 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac, D. , Colquhoun, H. , & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology . Implementation Science , 5 ( 1 ), 69. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lockwood, C. , Munn, Z. , & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta‐aggregation . International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare , 13 ( 3 ), 179–187. 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000062 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Motu'apuaka, M. , Whitlock, E. , Kato, E. , Uhl, S. , Belinson, S. , Chang, C. , Hoomans, T. , Meltzer, D. , Noorani, H. , Robinson, K. , Anderson, J. , Paynter, R. , Guise, J.‐M. , & Cottrell, E. (2015). Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews . Comparative Effectiveness Research , 5 , 13–19. 10.2147/CER.S69605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munn, Z. , Aromataris, E. , Tufanaru, C. , Stern, C. , Porritt, K. , Farrow, J. , Lockwood, C. , Stephenson, M. , Moola, S. , Lizarondo, L. , McArthur, A. , Peters, M. , Pearson, A. , & Jordan, Z. (2019). The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: The Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI) . International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare , 17 ( 1 ), 36–43. 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munn, Z. , Peters, M. D. J. , Stern, C. , Tufanaru, C. , McArthur, A. , & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 ( 1 ), 143. 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munn, Z. , Stern, C. , Aromataris, E. , Lockwood, C. , & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 ( 1 ), 5. 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, M. D. J. (2017). Managing and coding references for systematic reviews and scoping reviews in EndNote . Medical Reference Services Quarterly , 36 ( 1 ), 19–31. 10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, M. D. J. , Godfrey, C. , McInerney, P. , Munn, Z. , Tricco, A. C. , Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In Aromataris E., & Munn Z. (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis, JBI, 2020 . 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, M. D. J. , Marnie, C. , Tricco, A. C. , Pollock, D. , Munn, Z. , Alexander, L. , McInerney, P. , Godfrey, C. M. , & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews . JBI Evidence Synthesis , 18 ( 10 ), 2119–2126. 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pham, M. T. , Rajić, A. , Greig, J. D. , Sargeant, J. M. , Papadopoulos, A. , & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency . Research Synthesis Methods , 5 ( 4 ), 371–385. 10.1002/jrsm.1123 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips, J. L. , Heneka, N. , Bhattarai, P. , Fraser, C. , & Shaw, T. (2019). Effectiveness of the spaced education pedagogy for clinicians' continuing professional development: A systematic review . Medical Education , 53 ( 9 ), 886–902. 10.1111/medu.13895 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson, M. , McGowan, J. , Cogo, E. , Grimshaw, J. , Moher, D. , & Lefebvre, C. (2009). An evidence‐based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 62 ( 9 ), 944–952. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson, M. , McGowan, J. , Lefebvre, C. , Moher, D. , & Grimshaw, J. (2008). PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies . : Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/477_PRESS‐Peer‐ReviewElectronic‐Search‐Strategies_tr_e.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, H. , Sweet, L. , Strauch, L. , & Muller, A. (2019). Expressed breastmilk handling and storage guidelines available to mothers in the community: A scoping review . Women and Birth , 33 ( 5 ), 426–432. 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco, A. C. , Lillie, E. , Zarin, W. , O'Brien, K. , Colquhoun, H. , Kastner, M. , Levac, D. , Ng, C. , Sharpe, J. P. , Wilson, K. , Kenny, M. , Warren, R. , Wilson, C. , Stelfox, H. T. , & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 16 ( 1 ), 15. 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco, A. C. , Lillie, E. , Zarin, W. , O'Brien, K. K. , Colquhoun, H. , Levac, D. , Moher, D. , Peters, M. D. J. , Horsley, T. , Weeks, L. , Hempel, S. , Akl, E. A. , Chang, C. , McGowan, J. , Stewart, L. , Hartling, L. , Aldcroft, A. , Wilson, M. G. , Garritty, C. , … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR): checklist and explanation . Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 ( 7 ), 467. 10.7326/M18-0850 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco, A. C. , Zarin, W. , Ghassemi, M. , Nincic, V. , Lillie, E. , Page, M. J. , Shamseer, L. , Antony, J. , Rios, P. , Hwee, J. , Veroniki, A. A. , Moher, D. , Hartling, L. , Pham, B. , & Straus, S. E. (2018). Same family, different species: Methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 96 , 133–142. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu Z., Steenbeek A., Macdonald M., MacDonald C., McKibbon S. (2019). Characteristics of Indigenous healing strategies in Canada . JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , 17 , ( 9 ), 1933–1940. 10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003942. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Dissertations & projects: Literature-based projects

• Research questions
• The process of reviewing
• Project management
• Literature-based projects

On these pages:

“As a general rule, the introduction is usually around 5 to 10 per cent of the word limit; each chapter around 15 to 25 per cent; and the conclusion around 5 per cent.” Bryan Greetham, How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation

This page gives guidance on the structure of a literature-based project.   That is, a project where the data is found in existing literature rather than found through primary research. They may also include information from primary sources such as original documents or other sources.

How to structure a literature-based project

The structure of a literature-based dissertation is usually thematic, but make sure to check with your supervisor to make sure you are abiding by your department’s project specifications. A typical literature-based dissertation will be broken up into the following sections:

Abstract or summary

Acknowledgments, contents page, introduction.

• Literature Review

Themed Chapters

• Bibliography

Use this basic structure as your document plan . Remember that you do not need to write it in the order it will finally be written in. 

For more advice on managing the order of your project, see our section on Project Management.   

If you use the template provided on our Formatting page, you will see that it already has a title page included. You just need to fill in the appropriate boxes by typing or choosing from the drop-down-lists. The information you need to provide is: 

• Type of assignment (thesis, dissertation or independent project)
• Partial or full fulfilment information
• Subject area
• Your name (and previous qualifications if applicable)
• Month and year of submission

This may not always be required - check with your tutor.

• It is  independent  of the rest of the report - it is a mini-report, which needs to make sense completely on its own.
• References should  not  be included.
• Nothing should appear in the abstract that is not in the rest of the report.
• Usually between 200-300 words.
• Write as a  single  paragraph.

It is recommended that you write your abstract  after  your report.

If you choose not to use the template, then you will need to go through the document after it is written and create list showing which heading is on which page of your document.

Purpose: To thank those who were directly involved in your work .

• Do not confuse the acknowledgements section with a dedication - this is not where you thank your friends and relatives unless they have helped you with your manuscript.
• Acknowledgments are about courtesy, where you thank those who were directly involved in your work, or were involved in supporting your work (technicians, tutors, other students, financial support etc).
• This section tends to be  very brief , a few lines at the most. Identify those who provided you with the most support, and thank them appropriately.
• At the very least, make sure you acknowledge your supervisor!!

Purpose: To state the research problem, provide justification for your research questions and explain your methodology and main findings.

• Explain what the problem you will be addressing is, what your research questions are, and why they will help address the issue.
• Explain your basic methodology
• Define the scope of the dissertation, explaining any limitations.
• Layout the structure of the dissertation, taking the reader through each section and providing any key definitions.
• Very briefly describe what your main findings are - but leave the detail for the sections below.

It is good practice to come back to the introduction after you have finished writing up the rest of the document to ensure it sets the appropriately scene for subsequent sections.

Background Literature Review

This may be part of your introduction - check what your supervisor advises.

Purpose: Positions your project within the wider literature. Justifies your research questions

As you are undertaking a literature-based project, it can seem odd to include a separate literature review - and indeed some supervisors may suggest it is not necessary. However, most will have a section, either as a separate chapter, or as part of the introduction, that:

• Provides a background to your study
• Shows where your study fits within the existing literature
• Justifies your research questions and methods (your search strategy etc).  

For more advice on writing a literature review see the Literature Review pages on this guide.

Purpose: To present the themes you have identified in your research and explain how they contribute to answering your research questions

You will typically have 3-5 themed chapters. Each one should contain:

• An introduction to the theme - what things it means and what it incorporates.
• How the theme was addressed within the literature - this should be analytical not just descriptive.
• A conclusion which shows how the theme relates to the research question(s).

Ensuring your themed chapters flow

Choosing the order of your theme chapters is an important part of the structure to your project. For example, if you study History and your project covers a topic that develops over a large time period, it may be best to order each chapter chronologically. Other subjects may have a natural narrative running through the themes. Think about how your reader will be able to follow along with your overall argument.

Although each chapter must be dedicated to a particular theme, it must link back to previous chapters and flow into the following chapter. You need to ensure they do not seem like they are unrelated to each other. There will be overlaps, mention these.

Some literature-based projects will focus on primary sources. If yours does, make sure primary sources are at the core of your paragraphs and chapters, and use secondary sources to expand and explore the theme further. 

Purpose: To present the conclusion that you have reached as a result of both the literature review and the analysis in your thematic chapters

A conclusion summarises all the points you have previously made and it  should not  include any evidence or topics you have not included in your introduction or main body. There should be no surprises.

It should be about 5-10% of your word limit so make sure you leave enough words to do it justice. There will be marks in the marking scheme specifically allocated to the strength of your conclusion which cannot be made up elsewhere.

Some conclusions will also include recommendations for practice or ideas for further research. Check with your supervisor to see if they are expecting either or both of these.

• Questionnaires
• Transcriptions
• Correspondence

If you have information that you would like to include but are finding it disrupts the main body of text as its too cumbersome, or would distract from the main arguments of your dissertation, the information can be included in the appendix section. Each appendix should be focused on one item. 

Appendices  should not include any information that is key to your topic or overall argument. 

Reference list

It is good practice to develop a reference list whilst  writing the project, rather than leaving it until the end. This prevents a lot of searching around trying to remember where you accessed a particular source. If using primary sources, it also allows you to monitor the balance between primary and secondary sources included in the project. There is software available to help manage your references and the university officially supports RefWorks and EndNote. 

For more advice on reference management, see our Skills Guide: Referencing Software

• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Scientific >>
• Last Updated: Feb 28, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations
• Login to LibApps
• Library websites Privacy Policy
• University of Hull privacy policy & cookies
• Website terms and conditions
• Accessibility
• Report a problem

Advantages and disadvantages of literature review

This comprehensive article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of literature review in research. Reviewing relevant literature is a key area in research, and indeed, it is a research activity in itself. It helps researchers investigate a particular topic in detail. However, it has some limitations as well.

What is literature review?

In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of literature review, it is important to understand what a literature review is and how it differs from other methods of research. According to Jones and Gratton (2009) a literature review essentially consists of critically reading, evaluating, and organising existing literature on a topic to assess the state of knowledge in the area. It is sometimes called critical review.

A literature review is a select analysis of existing research which is relevant to a researcher’s selected topic, showing how it relates to their investigation. It explains and justifies how their investigation may help answer some of the questions or gaps in the chosen area of study (University of Reading, 2022).

A literature review is a term used in the field of research to describe a systematic and methodical investigation of the relevant literature on a particular topic. In other words, it is an analysis of existing research on a topic in order to identify any relevant studies and draw conclusions about the topic.

A literature review is not the same as a bibliography or a database search. Rather than simply listing references to sources of information, a literature review involves critically evaluating and summarizing existing research on a topic. As such, it is a much more detailed and complex process than simply searching databases and websites, and it requires a lot of effort and skills.

Advantages of literature review

Information synthesis

A literature review is a very thorough and methodical exercise. It can be used to synthesize information and draw conclusions about a particular topic. Through a careful evaluation and critical summarization, researchers can draw a clear and comprehensive picture of the chosen topic.

Familiarity with the current knowledge

According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.

Creation of new body of knowledge

One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge. Through careful evaluation and critical summarisation, researchers can create a new body of knowledge and enrich the field of study.

Answers to a range of questions

Literature reviews help researchers analyse the existing body of knowledge to determine the answers to a range of questions concerning a particular subject.

Disadvantages of literature review

Time consuming

As a literature review involves collecting and evaluating research and summarizing the findings, it requires a significant amount of time. To conduct a comprehensive review, researchers need to read many different articles and analyse a lot of data. This means that their review will take a long time to complete.

Lack of quality sources  

Researchers are expected to use a wide variety of sources of information to present a comprehensive review. However, it may sometimes be challenging for them to identify the quality sources because of the availability of huge numbers in their chosen field. It may also happen because of the lack of past empirical work, particularly if the selected topic is an unpopular one.

Descriptive writing

One of the major disadvantages of literature review is that instead of critical appreciation, some researchers end up developing reviews that are mostly descriptive. Their reviews are often more like summaries of the work of other writers and lack in criticality. It is worth noting that they must go beyond describing the literature.

Key features of literature review

Clear organisation

A literature review is typically a very critical and thorough process. Universities usually recommend students a particular structure to develop their reviews. Like all other academic writings, a review starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. Between the beginning and the end, researchers present the main body of the review containing the critical discussion of sources.

No obvious bias

A key feature of a literature review is that it should be very unbiased and objective. However, it should be mentioned that researchers may sometimes be influenced by their own opinions of the world.

Proper citation

One of the key features of literature review is that it must be properly cited. Researchers should include all the sources that they have used for information. They must do citations and provide a reference list by the end in line with a recognized referencing system such as Harvard.

To conclude this article, it can be said that a literature review is a type of research that seeks to examine and summarise existing research on a particular topic. It is an essential part of a dissertation/thesis. However, it is not an easy thing to handle by an inexperienced person. It also requires a lot of time and patience.

Hope you like this ‘Advantages and disadvantages of literature review’. Please share this with others to support our research work.

Other useful articles:

How to evaluate website content

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

Advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling

Last update: 08 May 2022

References:

Jones, I., & Gratton, C. (2009) Research Methods for Sports Shttps://www.howandwhat.net/new/evaluate-website-content/tudies, 2 nd edition, London: Routledge

University of Illinois (2022) Literature review, available at: https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/literature-review (accessed 08 May 2022)

University of Reading (2022) Literature reviews, available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/starting (accessed 07 May 2022)

Author: M Rahman

M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.

Related Posts

How to be a good team player, competitive advantage for tourist destinations, advantages and disadvantages of snowball sampling.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on August 21, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and paper or dissertation topic , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. It should not be a second results section.

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary : A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarize your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about discussion sections.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasize weaknesses or failures.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

Try for free

Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. To speed up the process you can use a summarizer to quickly get an overview of all important findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported—aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that…
• The study demonstrates a correlation between…
• This analysis supports the theory that…
• The data suggest that…

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualizing your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organize your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis…
• Contrary to the hypothesized association…
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2022) that…
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is y .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of…
• The results do not fit with the theory that…
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between…
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to…
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of…
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalizability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analyzing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalizability of the results is limited by…
• The reliability of these data is impacted by…
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm…
• The methodological choices were constrained by…
• It is beyond the scope of this study to…

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done—give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish…
• Future studies should take into account…
• Avenues for future research include…

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a results section | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Research Limitations

It is for sure that your research will have some limitations and it is normal. However, it is critically important for you to be striving to minimize the range of scope of limitations throughout the research process.  Also, you need to provide the acknowledgement of your research limitations in conclusions chapter honestly.

It is always better to identify and acknowledge shortcomings of your work, rather than to leave them pointed out to your by your dissertation assessor. While discussing your research limitations, don’t just provide the list and description of shortcomings of your work. It is also important for you to explain how these limitations have impacted your research findings.

Your research may have multiple limitations, but you need to discuss only those limitations that directly relate to your research problems. For example, if conducting a meta-analysis of the secondary data has not been stated as your research objective, no need to mention it as your research limitation.

Research limitations in a typical dissertation may relate to the following points:

1. Formulation of research aims and objectives . You might have formulated research aims and objectives too broadly. You can specify in which ways the formulation of research aims and objectives could be narrowed so that the level of focus of the study could be increased.

2. Implementation of data collection method . Because you do not have an extensive experience in primary data collection (otherwise you would not be reading this book), there is a great chance that the nature of implementation of data collection method is flawed.

3. Sample size. Sample size depends on the nature of the research problem. If sample size is too small, statistical tests would not be able to identify significant relationships within data set. You can state that basing your study in larger sample size could have generated more accurate results. The importance of sample size is greater in quantitative studies compared to qualitative studies.

4. Lack of previous studies in the research area . Literature review is an important part of any research, because it helps to identify the scope of works that have been done so far in research area. Literature review findings are used as the foundation for the researcher to be built upon to achieve her research objectives.

However, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic if you have focused on the most contemporary and evolving research problem or too narrow research problem. For example, if you have chosen to explore the role of Bitcoins as the future currency, you may not be able to find tons of scholarly paper addressing the research problem, because Bitcoins are only a recent phenomenon.

5. Scope of discussions . You can include this point as a limitation of your research regardless of the choice of the research area. Because (most likely) you don’t have many years of experience of conducing researches and producing academic papers of such a large size individually, the scope and depth of discussions in your paper is compromised in many levels compared to the works of experienced scholars.

You can discuss certain points from your research limitations as the suggestion for further research at conclusions chapter of your dissertation.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

Customer Reviews

Rebecca Geach