literature review in research design

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 22 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.

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 9:20 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
• Perspect Clin Res
• v.11(2); Apr-Jun 2020

Study designs: Part 7 – Systematic reviews

Priya ranganathan.

Department of Anaesthesiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Rakesh Aggarwal

1 Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

In this series on research study designs, we have so far looked at different types of primary research designs which attempt to answer a specific question. In this segment, we discuss systematic review, which is a study design used to summarize the results of several primary research studies. Systematic reviews often also use meta-analysis, which is a statistical tool to mathematically collate the results of various research studies to obtain a pooled estimate of treatment effect; this will be discussed in the next article.

In the previous six articles in this series on study designs, we have looked at different types of primary research study designs which are used to answer research questions. In this article, we describe the systematic review, a type of secondary research design that is used to summarize the results of prior primary research studies. Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for a particular research question.[ 1 ]

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

As defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , “Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol.”[ 2 ]

NARRATIVE VERSUS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

Review of available data has been done since times immemorial. However, the traditional narrative reviews (“expert reviews”) do not involve a systematic search of the literature. Instead, the author of the review, usually an expert on the subject, used informal methods to identify (what he or she thinks are) the key studies on the topic. The final review thus is a summary of these “selected” studies. Since studies are chosen at will (haphazardly!) and without clearly defined criteria, such reviews preferentially include those studies that favor the author's views, leading to a potential for subjectivity or selection bias.

In contrast, systematic reviews involve a formal prespecified protocol with explicit, transparent criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of studies, thereby ensuring completeness of coverage of the available evidence, and providing a more objective, replicable, and comprehensive overview it.

META-ANALYSIS

Many systematic reviews use an additional tool, known as meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique for combining the results of multiple studies in a systematic review in a mathematically appropriate way, to create a single (pooled) and more precise estimate of treatment effect. The feasibility of performing a meta-analysis in a systematic review depends on the number of studies included in the final review and the degree of heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria as well as the results between the included studies. Meta-analysis will be discussed in detail in the next article in this series.

THE PROCESS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The conduct of a systematic review involves several sequential key steps.[ 3 , 4 ] As in other research study designs, a clearly stated research question and a well-written research protocol are essential before commencing a systematic review.

Step 1: Stating the review question

Systematic reviews can be carried out in any field of medical research, e.g. efficacy or safety of interventions, diagnostics, screening or health economics. In this article, we focus on systematic reviews of studies looking at the efficacy of interventions. As for the other study designs, for a systematic review too, the question is best framed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format.

For example, Safi et al . carried out a systematic review on the effect of beta-blockers on the outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction.[ 5 ] In this review, the Population was patients with suspected or confirmed myocardial infarction, the Intervention was beta-blocker therapy, the Comparator was either placebo or no intervention, and the Outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. The review question was “ In patients with suspected or confirmed myocardial infarction, does the use of beta-blockers affect mortality or major adverse cardiovascular outcomes? ”

Step 2: Listing the eligibility criteria for studies to be included

It is essential to explicitly define a priori the criteria for selection of studies which will be included in the review. Besides the PICO components, some additional criteria used frequently for this purpose include language of publication (English versus non-English), publication status (published as full paper versus unpublished), study design (randomized versus quasi-experimental), age group (adults versus children), and publication year (e.g. in the last 5 years, or since a particular date). The PICO criteria used may not be very specific, e.g. it is possible to include studies that use one or the other drug belonging to the same group. For instance, the systematic review by Safi et al . included all randomized clinical trials, irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, or language, and reported outcomes, that had used any beta-blocker and in a broad range of doses.[ 5 ]

Step 3: Comprehensive search for studies that meet the eligibility criteria

A thorough literature search is essential to identify all articles related to the research question and to ensure that no relevant article is left out. The search may include one or more electronic databases and trial registries; in addition, it is common to hand-search the cross-references in the articles identified through such searches. One could also plan to reach out to experts in the field to identify unpublished data, and to search the grey literature non-peer-reviewednon-peer-reviewed. This last option is particularly helpful non-pharmacologic (theses, conference abstracts, and non-peer-reviewed journals). These sources are particularly helpful when the intervention is relatively new, since data on these may not yet have been published as full papers and hence are unlikely to be found in literature databases. In the review by Safi et al ., the search strategy included not only several electronic databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, etc.) but also other resources (e.g. Google Scholar, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and reference lists of identified studies).[ 5 ] It is not essential to include all the above databases in one's search. However, it is mandatory to define in advance which of these will be searched.

Step 4: Identifying and selecting relevant studies

Once the search strategy defined in the previous step has been run to identify potentially relevant studies, a two-step process is followed. First, the titles and abstracts of the identified studies are processed to exclude any duplicates and to discard obviously irrelevant studies. In the next step, full-text papers of the remaining articles are retrieved and closely reviewed to identify studies that meet the eligibility criteria. To minimize bias, these selection steps are usually performed independently by at least two reviewers, who also assign a reason for non-selection to each discarded study. Any discrepancies are then resolved either by an independent reviewer or by mutual consensus of the original reviewers. In the Cochrane review on beta-blockers referred to above, two review authors independently screened the titles for inclusion, and then, four review authors independently reviewed the screen-positive studies to identify the trials to be included in the final review.[ 5 ] Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by taking the opinion of a separate reviewer. A summary of this selection process, showing the degree of agreement between reviewers, and a flow diagram that depicts the numbers of screened, included and excluded (with reason for exclusion) studies are often included in the final review.

Step 5: Data extraction

In this step, from each selected study, relevant data are extracted. This should be done by at least two reviewers independently, and the data then compared to identify any errors in extraction. Standard data extraction forms help in objective data extraction. The data extracted usually contain the name of the author, the year of publication, details of intervention and control treatments, and the number of participants and outcome data in each group. In the review by Safi et al ., four review authors independently extracted data and resolved any differences by discussion.[ 5 ]

Handling missing data

Some of the studies included in the review may not report outcomes in accordance with the review methodology. Such missing data can be handled in two ways – by contacting authors of the original study to obtain the necessary data and by using data imputation techniques. Safi et al . used both these approaches – they tried to get data from the trial authors; however, where that failed, they analyzed the primary outcome (mortality) using the best case (i.e. presuming that all the participants in the experimental arm with missing data had survived and those in the control arm with missing mortality data had died – representing the maximum beneficial effect of the intervention) and the worst case (all the participants with missing data in the experimental arm assumed to have died and those in the control arm to have survived – representing the least beneficial effect of the intervention) scenarios.

Evaluating the quality (or risk of bias) in the included studies

The overall quality of a systematic review depends on the quality of each of the included studies. Quality of a study is inversely proportional to the potential for bias in its design. In our previous articles on interventional study design in this series, we discussed various methods to reduce bias – such as randomization, allocation concealment, participant and assessor blinding, using objective endpoints, minimizing missing data, the use of intention-to-treat analysis, and complete reporting of all outcomes.[ 6 , 7 ] These features form the basis of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2), which is a commonly used instrument to assess the risk of bias in the studies included in a systematic review.[ 8 ] Based on this tool, one can classify each study in a review as having low risk of bias, having some concerns regarding bias, or at high risk of bias. Safi et al . used this tool to classify the included studies as having low or high risk of bias and presented these data in both tabular and graphical formats.[ 5 ]

In some reviews, the authors decide to summarize only studies with a low risk of bias and to exclude those with a high risk of bias. Alternatively, some authors undertake a separate analysis of studies with low risk of bias, besides an analysis of all the studies taken together. The conclusions from such analyses of only high-quality studies may be more robust.

Step 6: Synthesis of results

The data extracted from various studies are pooled quantitatively (known as a meta-analysis) or qualitatively (if pooling of results is not considered feasible). For qualitative reviews, data are usually presented in the tabular format, showing the characteristics of each included study, to allow for easier interpretation.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses are used to test the robustness of the results of a systematic review by examining the impact of excluding or including studies with certain characteristics. As referred to above, this can be based on the risk of bias (methodological quality), studies with a specific study design, studies with a certain dosage or schedule, or sample size. If results of these different analyses are more-or-less the same, one can be more certain of the validity of the findings of the review. Furthermore, such analyses can help identify whether the effect of the intervention could vary across different levels of another factor. In the beta-blocker review, sensitivity analysis was performed depending on the risk of bias of included studies.[ 5 ]

IMPORTANT RESOURCES FOR CARRYING OUT SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

Cochrane is an organization that works to produce good-quality, updated systematic reviews related to human healthcare and policy, which are accessible to people across the world.[ 9 ] There are more than 7000 Cochrane reviews on various topics. One of its main resources is the Cochrane Library (available at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ ), which incorporates several databases with different types of high-quality evidence to inform healthcare decisions, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Clinical Answers.

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

The Cochrane handbook is an official guide, prepared by the Cochrane Collaboration, to the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews.[ 10 ]

Review Manager software

Review Manager (RevMan) is a software developed by Cochrane to support the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews, including tools for performing meta-analysis.[ 11 ] It is freely available in both online (RevMan Web) and offline (RevMan 5.3) versions.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.[ 12 ] It can be used both by authors of such studies to improve the completeness of reporting and by reviewers and readers to critically appraise a systematic review. There are several extensions to the PRISMA statement for specific types of reviews. An update is currently underway.

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement summarizes the recommendations for reporting of meta-analyses in epidemiology.[ 13 ]

PROSPERO is an international database for prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews in healthcare.[ 14 ] It aims to avoid duplication of and to improve transparency in reporting of results of such reviews.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

• Literature Review
• Academic Integrity
• Citing Sources
• Fair Use, Permissions, and Copyright
• Writing Resources
• Grants and Fellowships
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 March 2024

A systematic review of the methodology of trade-off analysis in agriculture

• Timo S. Breure   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5695-8064 1 ,
• Natalia Estrada-Carmona   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4329-5470 2 ,
• Athanasios Petsakos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0224-4087 3 ,
• Elisabetta Gotor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0533-3077 3 ,
• Boris Jansen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4493-1734 4 &
• Jeroen C. J. Groot   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6516-5170 1  

Nature Food volume  5 ,  pages 211–220 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4652 Accesses

33 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agroecology
• Ecological modelling
• Ecosystem services
• Environmental impact
• Sustainability

Trade-off analysis (TOA) is central to policy and decision-making aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural landscapes. Yet, a generic methodological framework to assess trade-offs in agriculture is absent, largely due to the wide range of research disciplines and objectives for which TOA is used. In this study, we systematically reviewed 119 studies that have implemented TOAs in landscapes and regions dominated by agricultural systems around the world. Our results highlight that TOAs tend to be unbalanced, with a strong emphasis on productivity rather than environmental and socio-cultural services. TOAs have mostly been performed at farm or regional scales, rarely considering multiple spatial scales simultaneously. Mostly, TOAs fail to include stakeholders at study development stage, disregard recommendation uncertainty due to outcome variability and overlook risks associated with the TOA outcomes. Increased attention to these aspects is critical for TOAs to guide agricultural landscapes towards sustainability.

Similar content being viewed by others

Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture

An interactive model to assess pathways for agriculture and food sector contributions to country-level net-zero targets

Ecological sensitivity within human realities concept for improved functional biodiversity outcomes in agricultural systems and landscapes

Contemporary agriculture should not only provide food, fibre, feed and fuel but also environmental and socio-economic benefits for rural communities and beyond 1 . To ensure that agriculture delivers multiple services while minimizing its negative impacts, society must be aware of the trade-offs and synergies that may arise. The nature of these trade-offs depends on location-specific natural, social and cultural conditions that place constraints on the inputs and outputs of an agricultural system. For example, market-based farmers are concerned with enhancing commodity production, whereas the priority of subsistence farmers lies with improving food security 2 . The global imperative to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) underscores the need to reduce the environmental impact of land use practices and strengthen equitable social outcomes at both landscape and community levels. However, achieving the SDGs might require sacrifices to primary productivity and economic revenues. Thus, to reconcile the demands of agriculture and inform decision-making, an analysis is required of potential trade-offs measured against agronomic, environmental, economic and social indicators 3 .

Trade-off analysis (TOA) was established as a concept to generate quantitative information on competing (trade-offs) or complementary (synergies) indicators that can be used to guide policy and decision-making 4 . A typical TOA project starts with three preparatory steps: formulation of the research question, identification of which indicators to assess, and formulation of hypotheses about the relationships between the indicators and the associated trade-offs and synergies. Subsequently, the management, policy or technological changes that affect the TOA indicators can be identified and included in the analysis framework. Then, the trade-offs and synergies under changing conditions or scenarios can be quantified and, finally, the results are communicated to relevant stakeholders to inform decision-making and policy 4 . Since its first implementation in the context of agriculture, a wide range of methods have been used to conduct TOAs, including optimization, simulations, qualitative, econometric and narrative-based approaches. In some cases, these approaches are deployed in a spatially explicit manner with the support of geographic information systems (GIS) 5 .

Although important advances have been made regarding TOA in agricultural contexts, researchers have expressed concerns about the scope and methodological limitations of published studies. These concerns relate to the limited transfer of the academic knowledge generated by TOA into decision- and policy-making due to the inability to take into account social and cultural factors 6 , the sparsity of multi- and cross-scale assessments 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , and the limited representation of uncertainty 8 , 9 and risk analysis 5 .

The concerns reported in the literature on the limitations of TOA analysis can indeed have important implications. First, failure to recognize the importance of scale (spatial, temporal, jurisdictional and legislative) in TOA may lead to erroneous inferences on how the relationships between trade-offs and indicators develop across scales. Multiple scales can be analysed without interactions between them or a cross-scale analysis can be performed that accounts for interactions between scales 10 . Furthermore, adverse effects appearing outside the TOA case study area (off-site effects) may offset any gains stemming from a TOA-informed policy 11 . Second, recognition of social interactions and cultural values is needed to assure representation of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries relevant to the topic at hand, that is, distributional justice 9 , 10 . Representation among stakeholders and their involvement in the design and implementation of a TOA can increase the legitimacy of its findings, assure that the data used are relevant to the context and thus enhance adoption of a study’s findings 12 . Third, validation and acknowledgement of uncertainty in both data and model estimates increase the robustness of a TOA and can facilitate risk-based decision-making 13 , 14 , 15 .

Previous literature reviews on TOA in agriculture adopted a ‘storytelling’ approach, where key studies were selected from the literature to discuss research trends. However, given the wide scope of TOAs applied in the context of agriculture, a systematic review could reveal the variety of approaches used and potential knowledge gaps, as well as the indicators that were studied and by which methods, ultimately facilitating the comparability of results.

Here we report on the TOA indicators, methodology and analysis used in 119 peer-reviewed articles. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize articles based on the extent to which they considered (1) indicators relevant to environmental and socio-economic services, (2) multiple spatial scales and their interactions, (3) the comprehensive involvement of stakeholders, and (4) the validity of trade-offs and recommendations in the context of associated uncertainties and risks (see Table 1 for further details). Finally, a cluster analysis shows which indicators were frequently studied together and which TOA methods were associated with each cluster.

The aim of this study was thus to provide an overview of the peer-reviewed literature on TOA in the context of agriculture using a systematic approach. For this purpose, we sought to define how trade-offs in agriculture are conceptualized, characterized and analysed in the TOA literature. Based on these findings, we have identified common gaps in the implementation of TOA.

The distribution of publication dates for the articles in the sample was mainly centred in the years 2015–2021 (Extended Data Fig. 1a ). Specifically, 73% of the articles were published after 2014, which indicates an increasing research effort directed towards TOAs in an agricultural context (Extended Data Fig. 1b ).

Common interrelationships and co-occurrences among TOA indicators

The articles examined included a median of 3.8 ± 1.9 (s.d.) TOA indicators, ranging from 1 to 10. Based on the cumulative distribution, 52% of the articles included three or fewer TOA indicators, while 90% included six or fewer TOA indicators (Extended Data Fig. 2a ). The most prevalent indicators across all articles were ‘profitability’ (57%, economic), ‘yield’ (44%, agronomic) and ‘water quantity’ (34%, sustainable resource management). The second most common set of indicators encompassed a selection of biophysical (for example, ‘water quality’ and ‘greenhouse gases’), agronomic (for example, ‘input efficiency’ and ‘land use efficiency’) and economic indicators (for example, ‘assets’), ranging between 13% and 21% (Fig. 1 ). The remaining TOA indicators were used less frequently and related to economic (that is, ‘labour productivity’ and ‘poverty’), human health (for example, ‘nutrition’, ‘health’ or ‘food security’) and agronomic (that is, ‘self-sufficiency’) aspects, representing a share of 5–6% (Fig. 1 ). Rarely considered TOA indicators (less than 5%) included ‘market supply or demand’ (economic), ‘yield stability’ (agronomic), ‘empowerment’ and ‘gender equity’ (both human health; Fig. 1 ).

Percentage of articles that include a TOA indicator (black dotted line and circles) and the share of each TOA method M1–M9 used to study that indicator (coloured bars). The prefixes of the TOA indicators refer to their class association (A, E, H, S) and number of occurrence within that class as provided in Table 1 . Table 1 also describes the TOA methods M1–M9.

The articles were grouped into 11 clusters, depending on which TOA indicators were assessed (left y -axis dendrogram in Fig. 2 ). These clusters show a dominant theme based on the co-occurrence of TOA indicators (right y- axis in Fig. 2 ). For example, in cluster 7, ‘poverty’ was studied in conjunction with ‘soil nutrients’, whereas in cluster 5, ‘poverty’ was studied in conjunction with ‘profitability’, ‘food security’ and ‘nutrition’. The clustering of articles by TOA indicator reveals which TOA indicators are often studied together. Indicators of ‘profitability’ and ‘yield’ were the most commonly used (Figs. 1 and 2 ) and were generally combined with case-specific environmental and social indicators (Fig. 2 ). This suggests that agronomic and economic viability are conditional for the exploration of improvements in agricultural system sustainability. The cluster with the largest number of articles (cluster 6, Fig. 2 ) concerned agricultural production and water quality. This highlights the strong focus on solving pressing issues related to pollution by surplus nutrients from fertilizers and manure.

The articles were clustered by TOA indicator (row-wise) and TOA indicator clusters (column-wise). The associations of articles with clusters are indicated by the colours and labels on the left of the figure; the colours are arbitrary. TOA indicator clusters (top x axis) are specified by colour, corresponding to the main indicator categories (legend in top left of the figure), and their name (bottom x axis). The matrix indicates whether a TOA indicator has been included in an article (red) or not (beige). The labels on the right list the main TOA indicators included in each cluster. GHG, greenhouse gases; SOC, soil organic carbon; supp./dem., supply or demand.

The clustering of TOA indicators (top x -axis dendrogram in Fig. 2 ) shows that for 50% of the indicators, the indicator closest in the dendrogram belongs to the same category (sustainable resource management, agronomic, economic or human health). In particular, four out of five human health indicators were studied in isolation from other indicators, forming closely paired branches (top x -axis dendrogram, orange colour, in Fig. 2 ).

The application of TOA methods varied across different TOA indicators and clusters. For example, the TOA indicators ‘labour productivity’, ‘empowerment’, ‘gender equity’ and ‘yield stability’ lacked cases involving spatially explicit methods (M1 or M8; Fig. 1 ). This same observation applies to the clusters in which these TOA indicators belong (Fig. 3 ). While the absence of spatially explicit methods for social indicators such as ‘empowerment’ and ‘gender equity’ is expected, given that their spatial dimension is often disregarded, it is worth noting that gender and empowerment may relate to the spatial distribution of fields and resources in the landscape. For instance, their distance from the location of the homestead or decision-making processes regarding the (distribution of) use and ownership of these resources. Clusters of articles associated with ‘yield’, ‘energy’, ‘biodiversity’ and ‘land use’ exhibited a high use of GIS (M8), qualitative (M6) and other (M9) methods, with fewer articles applying optimization methods (M3; Fig. 3 ). Lastly, an interesting anomaly is the ‘health’ indicator, where methods M1–M3, encompassing (spatially explicit) simulations and optimization methods, were conspicuously absent (Fig. 1 ).

Cluster associations are as per Fig. 2 and the number of articles within each cluster is given by n .

Frequency of criteria levels

The majority of TOAs were conducted at regional (65%) and farm (17%) scales, followed by field (7%) and national (6%) scales. The TOAs conducted at multi-country (4%) and global scales, along with ‘other’, accounted for only a small proportion of the analyses (Fig. 4a ). The spatial scales for TOAs differed from the scales at which modelling was performed or data were collected, with the farm and field scale contributing to a combined share of 48%. Of the articles considered, 12% implemented cross-scale analyses and 17% considered off-site effects (Fig. 4a ). Case study areas were predominantly delineated using administrative borders (54%), followed by biophysical delineation (24%), with 18% of the articles using both methods (Fig. 4b ).

a , Criteria related to the scale of the analysis. TOA: the spatial scale at which the TOA was conducted. The numbers refer to the spatial scales of field (1), farm (2), regional (3), national (4), multi-country (5) and global (6). Off-site: whether off-site effects have been considered in the TOA. Discipline: the spatial scale at which modelling or data collection was performed for a discipline. The numbers refer to the spatial scales detailed above for TOA. Cross-scale: whether aggregative (1), interactive (2) or no cross-scale modelling was performed (3). b , Criteria related to the TOA framework. TOA method: the methods used to perform the TOAs. The numbers refer to the TOA methods M1–M9 defined in Table 1 . System border: which boundaries were used to define the TOA case study area. Scenario: whether the article considered a scenario and, if so, which type of scenario. The numbers refer to the scenarios 1–8 defined in Table 1 . c , Criteria related to stakeholders. Type: whether local beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, experts, government, farmers, distant beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, academics, private organizations or environmental organizations were involved. Inclusion: whether the study included stakeholders. Implementation: whether stakeholders were involved in consultation, co-development, valuation or validation. d , Criteria related to TOA robustness: whether the article performed a validation, risk analysis or acknowledged uncertainty. e , The frequency (shown in the circles) for each spatial scale at which the modelling or data collection was performed for a given discipline. f , The frequency (shown in the circles) at which an article considered a given scenario in TOA for each spatial scale. The scenario numbers 1–8 are defined in Table 1 .

Including a scenario in the TOA allows investigation of the effect of a postulated event or driver on the TOA indicators. In our analysis, scenarios focusing on climate, behavioural or demographic change accounted for 14% of the articles, while scenarios involving alternative intensities of resource use constituted 37% of the articles. Scenarios were absent in 25% of the articles (Fig. 4b ). Over half of the articles included stakeholders in their analysis, with a relatively equal spread across stakeholder types, except for ‘distant beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries’, which were under-represented. Farmers and experts constituted a larger share (48%) compared to other categories (Fig. 4c ). Stakeholders were mainly involved in consultation and valuation, with co-development and validation implemented in less than 25% of the articles considered (Fig. 4c ). Overall, the robustness of the TOA results was not widely considered, as the criteria ‘uncertainty’ and ‘validation’ were logged for less than 50% of the articles. Articles incorporating risk analysis constituted 12% of the sample (Fig. 4d ).

Links between spatial scales and criteria

Of the articles considered, ‘livestock’, ‘fisheries’ and ‘forestry’ accounted for a relatively small share (16%) compared with ‘crop’, ‘economic’ and ‘environmental’ disciplines. For the livestock discipline, modelling and data collection were predominantly carried out at the farm scale, while for forestry, they were primarily conducted at the field or regional scale (Fig. 4e ). For the economic discipline, modelling and data collection were evenly distributed between the farm ( n  = 34) and regional ( n  = 34) scales (Fig. 4e ), in contrast to the overall share of these scales across all of the articles, where ‘regional’ constituted 65% and ‘farm’ constituted 17% of the articles (Fig. 4a ). In general, for a large share of the reviewed articles, data were collected and modelling was performed at the field and farm scales, but the TOA was conducted at the regional scale. These findings show that, before the TOA, some form of aggregation occurs in the majority of the reviewed articles. Regarding the spatial scale at which the TOA was conducted for articles including a scenario, two observations can be made. First, all of the scenarios (except the resource use scenario) were rarely studied at scales larger than the national scale. Second, the climate, behavioural and demographic change scenarios were almost exclusively studied at the regional scale (Fig. 4f ). These results show that few studies investigated how scenarios unfolding at smaller or larger scales affect the indicators at the TOA scale.

Multi-scale, cross-scale and robustness criteria

Figure 5 shows the percentage of articles that include a TOA indicator (black line, the same as shown in Fig. 1 ). The articles were then divided into subsets according to whether they included a cross-scale, multi-scale or robustness criterion. The coloured lines represent the percentage of articles in the subset that include a specific TOA indicator. With the exception of indicators rarely included in all articles (for example, those related to nutrition or health), most TOA indicators were present in articles adopting a cross-scale modelling framework (Fig. 5a ). These findings occur despite the overall low number of articles (<20%) reporting cross-scale analyses (Fig. 5a ). Notably, articles applying an interactive modelling framework did not include ‘water quality’, ‘soil erosion’, ‘soil organic carbon’ and ‘biodiversity’, despite these indicators having a relatively high frequency across all articles (Fig. 5a ).

The percentages of all reviewed articles and subsets of articles that include specific TOA indicators. a – c , The subsets comprise articles that included cross-scale ( a ), multi-scale ( b ) and robustness ( c ) criteria. In b , TOA refers to articles in which the TOA was conducted on multiple spatial scales, ‘Discipline’ refers to articles that considered multiple spatial scales for modelling or data collection, and ‘Off-site’ refers to articles in which effects outside the TOA case study area were considered.

Across all articles, 17% considered off-site effects (Fig. 4a ). Notably, the ‘poverty’ and ‘soil erosion’ indicators were under-represented in articles considering off-site effects (Fig. 5b ). Eight indicators were excluded in articles considering multiple spatial scales in modelling or data collection (‘discipline’ in Fig. 5b ). This finding is particularly striking for ‘biodiversity’, given that it constitutes a large share of spatially explicit TOA methods (Fig. 1 ).

Thirteen per cent of articles reported TOA on multiple spatial scales, with seven indicators excluded in these cases (‘TOA’ in Fig. 5b ). Among the excluded indicators, those related to human health dominated (except for ‘nutrition’). For certain indicators, these findings are to be expected. For instance, market supply or demand (economic) is irrelevant at low geographical scales (field and farm) as prices are determined at the regional (local), national or international scale. The articles that included a risk analysis showed stark contrasts between TOA indicators with respect to their representation relative to all articles. Economic and human health indicators were particularly over-represented, while ‘yield’, ‘input efficiency’ and a set of biophysical indicators were under-represented (Fig. 5c ). For articles in which uncertainty was acknowledged or validation was performed, no indicators were over- or under-represented relative to their inclusion across all articles (Fig. 5c ).

Limitations on the inclusion of TOA indicators

Recent reviews on TOA have stated that there is little to no representation of indicators related to social interactions, justice and gender issues in TOAs for agricultural systems 5 , 6 . These studies referred in particular to intra-household equity, asset ownership, health, education and nutrition. Our results also demonstrate that social and cultural TOA indicators are largely absent, mostly considered in isolation and studied by statistical approaches. These findings are probably a result of the limited data availability and the inability of TOA methods to include socio-cultural indicators for features and processes that are difficult to capture quantitatively 16 , 17 . We further note a similarly low frequency for the following indicators: food security, self-sufficiency and yield stability. These findings raise questions about the rationale behind the selection of TOA indicators. That is, the prevalent use of profitability and crop yield as primary indicators reflects the focus on profit and crop yield maximization in the literature 5 . The outcomes and priorities of a TOA depend on the chosen objectives and indicators. Alternative indicators might therefore facilitate a more comprehensive analysis of the delivery of environmental, economic and socio-cultural services from agriculture. One illustrative example is the metric ‘nutritional yield’, defined as “the number of hectares required to provide sufficient quantity to fulfil 100% of dietary reference intake for a nutrient for one adult” 2 . Nutritional yield thus allows the assessment of land use efficiency in both agronomic and social terms. Integrating nutritional yield into TOA in the context of subsistence agriculture could unveil the need for changes in farmers’ crop plans to balance food security and economic profitability objectives.

TOA methodologies

The formulation of research objectives, questions and methodology determines the information base that a TOA can provide 16 , 18 . Decisions regarding TOA objectives and methodology determine the degree to which scales, disciplines and indicators are compartmentalized. In addition, these decisions influence the range of interventions and scenarios explored for alternative agro-environmental management of land, resources and technologies 7 , 18 . The results of our analysis reveal associations between TOA methods and indicators, indicating common gaps, such as the absence of articles reporting the use of spatially explicit methods to study the indicators ‘human health’ and ‘yield stability’. Studying these indicators in a spatially explicit manner could allow for targeted land use planning at the local scale. For instance, Prestele and Verburg demonstrated that spatially explicit analysis of climate-smart agriculture adoptions unveils local-scale trade-offs affecting yield and soil carbon sequestration at an aggregated scale 19 . Our results also underscore expected patterns, with socio-economic indicators predominantly studied through statistical approaches and qualitative methods. These methods, static and based on existing datasets, differ from mechanistic models, which allow extrapolation and ex ante assessment under alternative future scenarios. Simulations based on mechanistic models hold the potential to explore scenarios that minimize trade-offs between indicators 3 , 7 . However, the validity of this kind of optimization depends on having sufficient understanding of relevant processes and feedbacks in the socio-environmental system 3 . For example, while crop models vary in their capacity to assess climate change impacts, they share common limitations, such as inadequate representation of low-intensity agricultural systems 20 . We found that a description of study limitations in the context of the TOA framework, for example, excluded aspects, was often absent. Ideally, models and associated uncertainties would be assessed in the design phase of the TOA. This could ensure the availability of adequate information for quantifying all desired parameters at the desired resolution, allowing the study to comprehensively represent the agricultural system. Such an approach is crucial to guide planning in future management decisions aligned with research objectives 17 .

Involvement of stakeholders and practical application of TOA results

One recurring concern in the literature is the frequent omission of stakeholders at the onset of the TOA, potentially limiting the practical application of TOA results 6 , 8 . Our findings partially support these concerns, given that co-development with stakeholders was observed in only 10% of the articles. However, making a definitive statement on equal representation among stakeholders proved challenging as there was generally an absence of a systematic inventory outlining the relevance of different stakeholders to the decision-making process based on their interests and influence 21 . Our analysis shows that farmers and experts were the primary stakeholders included in the articles. Nonetheless, the omission of distant beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is noteworthy as they are likely to be relevant to the decision-making process in numerous cases, especially when off-site effects are considered in TOAs conducted on multiple scales.

Multi- and cross-scale analysis

Depending on the research objectives, the TOA literature underscores the importance of acknowledging processes across scales and including them in research 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 22 . In many of the articles, data were collected or modelling was performed at field and farm scales, yet the TOA was conducted at the regional scale. This highlights an opportunity for multi-scale TOA analysis, potentially enhancing the relevance of TOA studies to policy. For example, bilevel optimization is a promising approach to facilitating nested decision-making processes at different scales. In this approach, the solution at the higher level (for example, larger spatial scale) depends on the solution at the lower level (for example, smaller spatial scale). Bostian et al. demonstrated the application of this methodology in recognizing multiple spatial scales inherent to non-point pollution regulation 23 . However, the restricted application of cross-scale analysis in our sample (12%) shows the limited extent to which TOA in agriculture captures the hierarchical nature of social, cultural, environmental, economic and agronomic processes.

Furthermore, 17% of the articles considered effects outside the TOA case study area, considering off-site effects in a diverse array of subjects, including transnational emission permits, water trading and increased demand for scarce resources, anticipated to influence their shadow prices 24 , 25 , 26 . However, off-site effects might have feedbacks, such as dependencies between alternative production systems within a supply chain 27 . In such cases, the delineation of the system boundary must be considered in the context of these feedbacks to ensure their inclusion within the system. In cases where off-site effects do not have feedbacks, these can be classified as ‘teleconnections’, denoting processes whose cause and effect are widely separated 28 . A case in point is a study of the water quality of the Danube River, in which distant beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, represented by an international committee, were considered in the TOA 29 . The results also show that climate, behavioural and demographic scenarios were rarely assessed at lower or higher scales (compared to the regional scale). This underscores that the extent to which these scales are relevant to TOA is understudied and merits further research. For example, generic methods, such as the carbon 30 or water 31 footprint, can provide a broad assessment of which off-site effects at larger scales are relevant to TOA outcomes. These approaches may facilitate the inclusion of underlying causes, the involvement of more inclusive stakeholders and account for leakage effects, such as the expansion of agricultural lands beyond the TOA case study area 32 .

Ideally, a TOA methodological framework is conceptualized such that (1) it recognizes multi- and cross-scale interactions where applicable, (2) the system boundary aligns with substantiated biophysical and relevant socio-institutional boundaries, and (3) it recognizes the heterogeneity in which scales and associated consequences are perceived as well as valued by different stakeholders 10 .

Robustness of TOA results

The risk associated with TOA extends across spatial, temporal and jurisdictional scales, carrying implications for the dissemination of TOA results 13 . The under-representation of ‘yield’ in articles considering risk analysis highlights the dichotomy between yield and profitability as the most prominent indicators. That is, risk analysis appears to be mainly associated with the economic domain 5 . However, it is important to recognize that the evaluation of risk and the formulation of relevant strategies (risk aversion, mitigation or offsetting) are critical for farmers adopting system transformations, such as alternative forms of land use to mitigate inputs and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Integrating risk into TOA enables the study of the policies and incentives necessary for achieving whole-system transformations towards sustainable agricultural practices 13 , 14 . Decision-making under uncertainty becomes interpretable when recommendations are accompanied by an assessment of associated risks. Ideally, these risks are context-specific. For example, Hochman et al. provided TOA results on crop rotations alongside a minimum risk threshold quantified as the highest gross margin for the poorest 20% of years 33 .

While a moderate number of the articles considered uncertainty, only a few articles quantified changes in trade-offs as a function of uncertainty. The inclusion of stochastic components and the associated uncertainty inherent in biological systems could facilitate a more realistic description of outcomes, proving valuable for decision-making 13 , 15 . Varying input data or model parameterization within an expected range could reveal the sensitivity of results. For instance, when climate scenarios are used, realizations of these scenarios can be used to assess the stochasticity of the objectives for which the TOA is implemented 34 . This approach enables the acknowledgement of both the frequency and pattern of stochastic events, including extreme weather events, and their impact on TOA outcomes. Consequently, an analysis of the adaptability of a farming system would not solely rely on optimal solutions given the mean output but would also account for associated variability and unexpected events 15 . However, it is crucial to contextualize the effect of stochasticity. For example, the relative impact of model or parameter uncertainty on optimization outcomes has been shown to vary depending on the prioritization of objectives and site conditions 35 .

Limitations of this study

An important limitation of our review lies in the use of ‘trade-off analysis’ as a single term in our Web of Science search string. There are research areas that address trade-offs and synergies across various disciplines, scales and methods without explicitly using the term ‘trade-off analysis’ to describe their research objectives. Examples include the ‘food–energy–water nexus’ literature 36 , as well as research under the auspices of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) ( https://agmip.org/ ) and the Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land-Use and Energy (FABLE) Consortium 37 . Both AgMIP and FABLE are particularly concerned with the relevance of TOA to policy. AgMIP explicitly states the use of “multiple scenarios and models to assess and probabilistically manage risk” 38 . Given the focus of these studies on global and regional assessments, we anticipate that our findings for those spatial scales could be affected. Indeed, the identified gaps in TOA implementation need to be viewed in the context of our sample, which mostly comprises studies in which modelling or data analysis was performed up to the regional level and TOA at the regional scale.

The method used to log the occurrence of pre-set criteria not only affects the variance within a criterion but also influences its abundance. For example, Sanon et al. included a large number of TOA indicators that were all classified under ‘biodiversity’ 29 . Thus, binary criteria logging does not capture the intensity with which a criterion is considered, a well-known phenomenon in the field of ecology 39 . This limitation may have resulted in the underestimation of both the intensity with which certain TOA indicators and their classes have been studied (Fig. 1 ) and the total number of TOA indicators considered per article (Extended Data Fig. 2 ).

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, it is possible to identify some actions that would increase the contribution of TOAs to SDG-aligned agricultural landscapes.

For instance, future studies should include multi- and cross-scale effects when relevant to the research objectives. We have identified an opportunity for multi-scale analysis, given that many studies aggregated farm- or field-scale data before performing TOA at a regional scale. As the inclusion of multiple scales, indicators and methods may in some cases reduce the generalizability of results and make them more context-specific, an alternative would be to discuss the anticipated implications of multi- and cross-scale effects on the study findings.

Furthermore, the relevance of TOA to society and policy can be improved by formulating research objectives such that TOA indicators lie within the scope of frameworks such as the SDGs. The most frequent indicators were biophysical or informed by profit maximization theory (for example, profitability and yield). However, indicators relevant to human well-being, security and farm resilience (for example, empowerment, nutrition and yield stability) occurred less frequently. To aid the interpretation of TOA results, the rationale behind the TOA methodology that is used to assess indicators should be listed together with a critical review of how the agricultural system under study is represented and what is excluded as a consequence.

In the reviewed articles, the most consulted stakeholders were farmers and experts, stakeholder co-development and validation were rare, and scenarios were predominantly based on resource use with little consideration of off-site effects. These findings suggest that TOAs mostly explore alternative management across a set of farms rather than policies and incentives that would facilitate whole landscape and food system transformations.

Agricultural policy- and decision-making carry an inherent risk. TOAs will become more operational when they evaluate associated risks and list strategies to manage these risks. This process could promote the robustness of quantified trade-offs with respect to the associated uncertainty of data and variability in outcomes. Finally, an inventory of stakeholders that are relevant to the decision-making process and their respective roles in the study would provide legitimacy of results. While this element has already been recognized in the literature 12 , 29 , some of the shortcomings that we have identified here would probably occur less frequently, particularly the lack of stakeholder inclusion and the over-representation of specific stakeholder types and methods of stakeholder engagement.

Closer adherence to these guidelines could enhance the relevance of TOA to the scientific community, policy-makers and farmers.

We followed the approach of Lautenbach et al. and Seppelt et al. in their systematic review of the literature on ecosystem services 9 , 22 . The generic structure involved (1) the identification, screening and selection of relevant peer-reviewed literature from a global repository, (2) formulation of the criteria against which to evaluate each article (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1 ), and (3) descriptive statistics and cluster analysis to assess common interrelationships between criteria and identify knowledge gaps.

We used the following search string “ALL=agricultur* AND (“trade off* analysis” OR “trade-off* analysis” OR “tradeoff* analysis”)” in the Web of Science (on 14 September 2021) to identify peer-reviewed articles in English reporting TOA. We found 153 articles with publication dates spanning from 1993 to 2021. We excluded studies that mentioned the existence of trade-offs but did not assess relationships between indicators. For this reason, review and opinion papers were considered off-topic and were excluded from the search results. Furthermore, methodological papers that did not involve a case study were also excluded, leading to a total sample of 119 articles.

We selected criteria based on current TOA research 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 16 , 22 and recorded information on these criteria that were relevant to the conceptualization, characterization and analysis of trade-offs in agriculture (research objective 1). Briefly, the criteria included the type of TOA methods used, the spatial scales at which the analyses were performed and/or data collected, the indicators assessed in the TOA, which stakeholder types were included as well as how the stakeholders were engaged in the case study, whether the case study included alternative scenarios and of what type, how the case study area was delineated, whether effects outside the case study area were considered, and whether the case study acknowledged and accounted for uncertainty, validated results or performed a risk analysis. To assess whether cross-scale analyses were performed in case studies, we adopted the definition of Kanter et al., who distinguished between model frameworks that aggregate outputs at lower scales to use as inputs at higher scales (aggregative) and model frameworks that have submodels operating at different spatial and temporal resolutions (interactive) 6 . Thus, whereas an aggregative model framework follows a sequential approach, an interactive model framework performs analysis across scales simultaneously, allowing for interactions between scales and emergent indicators at higher levels. Furthermore, descriptive information was collected for three criteria: the agricultural system(s) studied, agricultural activities and knowledge gaps reported in the discussion section of the article. All of the criteria are listed in Table 1 with a generic description. We refer the reader to Supplementary Table 1 for more detailed information on the criteria. Based on these criteria, knowledge gaps were then assessed through descriptive statistics and cluster analysis (research objective 2).

The decision of which TOA indicators to include is a major methodological decision in TOA as it determines which interrelations are considered and analysed, and therefore which trade-offs and synergies can be identified. We anticipated thematic clusters of TOA indicators based on the discipline, scale, geography and method considered. To identify co-occurrences between TOA indicators, we performed hierarchical Ward clustering to group articles by TOA indicators as well as the TOA indicators themselves based on the Jaccard similarity coefficient 40 . Through the use of the Jaccard similarity metric, we accounted for the double-zero problem. Namely, the absence of a TOA indicator in two articles does not indicate a similarity, whereas its presence does 9 . For the clustering of articles by the TOA indicators used, the number of clusters to be retained was decided by the ‘elbow’ method based on the Mantel correlation between the data for each cluster and the raw distance matrix 40 . For the clustering of TOA indicators, the dendrogram was not cut to visualize common co-occurrences for all of the TOA indicators.

Criteria were logged in a Microsoft Office Excel (2021) spreadsheet (Supplementary Data 1 ). The data collected during this systematic review were further analysed and visualized in R (ref. 41 ). Data handling, visualizations and analysis were performed using the following R packages: tidyverse 42 , dendextend 43 , cluster 44 , vegan 45 and pheatmap 46 .

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The dataset created has been made available as extended data.

Code availability

The code created for data handling, analysis and visualizations is available on request.

Renting, H. et al. Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J. Environ. Manag. 90 , 112–123 (2009).

Article   Google Scholar  

DeFries, R. et al. Synergies and trade-offs for sustainable agriculture: nutritional yields and climate-resilience for cereal crops in Central India. Glob. Food Sec. 11 , 44–53 (2016).

Seppelt, R., Lautenbach, S. & Volk, M. Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: a plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 , 458–463 (2013).

Stoorvogel, J. J., Antle, J. M., Crissman, C. C. & Bowen, W. The tradeoff analysis model: integrated bio-physical and economic modeling of agricultural production systems. Agric. Syst. 80 , 43–66 (2004).

Antle, J. M. & Valdivia, R. O. Trade-off analysis of agri-food systems for sustainable research and development. Q Open https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoaa005 (2021).

Kanter, D. R. et al. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 163 , 73–88 (2018).

Groot, J. C. J. et al. On the contribution of modelling to multifunctional agriculture: learning from comparisons. J. Environ. Manag. 90 , 147–160 (2009).

Klapwijk, C. J. et al. Analysis of trade-offs in agricultural systems: current status and way forward. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6 , 110–115 (2014).

Lautenbach, S. et al. Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Reg. Environ. Change 19 , 2151–2172 (2019).

Cash, D. W. et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc . https://www.jstor.org/stable/26265993 (2006).

Gibson, R. B. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 24 , 170–182 (2006).

Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100 , 8086–8091 (2003).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. R. Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers. Agric. Syst. 75 , 161–197 (2003).

Hardaker, J. B., Lien, G., Anderson, J. R. & Huirne, R. B. Coping with Risk in Agriculture: Applied Decision Analysis (Cabi, 2015).

Uusitalo, L., Lehikoinen, A., Helle, I. & Myrberg, K. An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of deterministic models in decision support. Environ. Model. Softw. 63 , 24–31 (2015).

Thornton, P. K. et al. A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agric. Syst. 167 , 161–175 (2018).

Jones, J. W. et al. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: state of agricultural systems science. Agric. Syst. 155 , 269–288 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Morrison-Saunders, A. & Pope, J. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 , 54–63 (2013).

Prestele, R. & Verburg, P. H. The overlooked spatial dimension of climate‐smart agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 1045–1054 (2020).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Ewert, F. et al. Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Environ. Model. Softw. 72 , 287–303 (2015).

Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 182–190 (2020).

Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S. & Schmidt, S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 , 630–636 (2011).

Bostian, M., Whittaker, G., Barnhart, B., Fare, R. & Grosskopf, S. Valuing water quality tradeoffs at different spatial scales: an integrated approach using bilevel optimization. Water Res. Econ. 11 , 1–12 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Popp, A. et al. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett . https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034017 (2011).

Hayha, T., Franzese, P. P., Paletto, A. & Fath, B. D. Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 14 , 12–23 (2015).

Maraseni, T., An-Vo, D. A., Mushtaq, S. & Reardon-Smith, K. Carbon smart agriculture: an integrated regional approach offers significant potential to increase profit and resource use efficiency, and reduce emissions. J. Clean. Prod . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124555 (2021).

Modongo, O. & Kulshreshtha, S. N. Economics of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada. Agric. Syst. 162 , 229–238 (2018).

Kinzig, A. P. in The Princeton Guide to Ecology (eds Levin, S. A. et al.) 573–670 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2012).

Sanon, S., Hein, T., Douven, W. & Winkler, P. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: the case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. J. Environ. Manag. 111 , 159–172 (2012).

Wright, L. A., Kemp, S. & Williams, I. ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Manag. 2 , 61–72 (2011).

Chapagain, A. K. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of Morocco and the Netherlands: global water use as a result of domestic consumption of agricultural commodities. Ecol. Econ. 64 , 109–118 (2007).

Lambin, E. F. & Meyfroidt, P. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 3465–3472 (2011).

Hochman, Z. et al. Cropping system yield gaps can be narrowed with more optimal rotations in dryland subtropical Australia. Agric. Syst. 184 , 102896 (2020).

Karner, K., Schmid, E., Schneider, U. A. & Mitter, H. Computing stochastic Pareto frontiers between economic and environmental goals for a semi-arid agricultural production region in Austria. Ecol. Econ . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107044 (2021).

Holzkämper, A., Klein, T., Seppelt, R. & Fuhrer, J. Assessing the propagation of uncertainties in multi-objective optimization for agro-ecosystem adaptation to climate change. Environ. Model. Softw. 66 , 27–35 (2015).

D’Odorico, P. et al. The global food–energy–water nexus. Rev. Geophys. 56 , 456–531 (2018).

FABLE Consortium. Pathways to Sustainable Land-Use and Food Systems. 2020 Report of the FABLE Consortium (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2020); https://doi.org/10.22022/ESM/12-2020.16896

Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project. Approach. Track 2: Climate change multi-model assessment AgMIP https://agmip.org/approach-4/ (2023).

Royle, J. A. & Nichols, J. D. Estimating abundance from repeated presence–absence data or point counts. Ecology 84 , 777–790 (2003).

Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology (Elsevier, 2012).

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R package version 4.1.2. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).

Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw . https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 (2019).

Galili, T. dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting, and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 31 , 3718–3720 (2015).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M. & Hornik, K. cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.1.2 (2021).

Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.5-7 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).

Kolde, R. pheatmap: Pretty heatmaps. R package version 1.0.12 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pheatmap (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge R. Seppelt for his comments on the initial methodology. This work was made possible by the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) and the One CGIAR Initiatives ‘Nexus Gains—Realizing Multiple Benefits Across Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystems’ and ‘Nature Positive Solutions’, together with all of the donors who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR and One CGIAR Fund. For a list of One CGIAR Fund donors, please see http://www.cgiar.org/our-funders . This research was partly funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID; AID-BFS-G-11-00002) as part of the US government’s Feed the Future Initiative. The contents of this Article are the responsibility of the producing organizations and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of USAID or the US government.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Timo S. Breure & Jeroen C. J. Groot

Bioversity International, Montpellier, France

Natalia Estrada-Carmona

Bioversity International, Rome, Italy

Athanasios Petsakos & Elisabetta Gotor

Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Boris Jansen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

T.S.B. conceived and designed the study, led and performed the review and data analyses, interpretations and writing. N.E.-C. contributed to the study’s design, interpretations and writing. A.P., E.G. and B.J. contributed to interpretations and writing. J.C.J.G. contributed to the study’s design, analysis, interpretations and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeroen C. J. Groot .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Food thanks John Antle and Emma Stephens for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 articles per year of publication..

Number of articles by publication year ( a ) and its cumulative distribution ( b ).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Figures on the number of trade-off analysis (TOA) indicators considered.

Cumulative distribution of articles per number of TOA indicators included within an article ( a ). Frequency (%) of the number of TOA indicators included within an article, color-coded by cluster as specified in Fig. 2 in the main text ( b ).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Table 1, Figs. 1–9 and a list of articles included in the systematic review.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary data 1.

Criteria assessed in the systematic review. This file was used to perform the analysis and create the figures.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Breure, T.S., Estrada-Carmona, N., Petsakos, A. et al. A systematic review of the methodology of trade-off analysis in agriculture. Nat Food 5 , 211–220 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00926-x

Download citation

Received : 25 August 2022

Accepted : 15 January 2024

Published : 05 March 2024

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00926-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Literature Review Research Design

• First Online: 04 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

325 Accesses

This chapter addresses the literature review research design’s peculiarities, characteristics, and significant fallacies. Conducting and writing poor literature reviews is one way to lower academic work’s value. State-of-the-art literature reviews are valuable and publishable scholarly documents. Too many new scholars think that empirical research is the only proper research. In this chapter, researchers find relevant information on how to write a literature review research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes by referring to related research designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Behringer, S., Ulrich, P., & Unruh, A. (2019). Compliance management in family firms: A systematic literature analysis. Corporate Ownership & Control, 17 (1), 140–157.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3–15.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78 , 367–409.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101.

Carrillat, F. A., Legoux, R., & Hadida, A. L. (2018). Debates and assumptions about motion picture performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 , 273–299.

Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus, 3 , 511.

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7 , 177–188.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5 , 3–8.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82 , 581–629.

Hart, C. (1999). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . SAGE.

Google Scholar  

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 2–7.

LeCompte, M. D., Klingner, J. K., Campbell, S. A., & Menk, D. W. (2003). Editors’ introduction. Review of Educational Research, 73 (2), 123–124.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 , W-65.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 , 136–154.

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 , 1–5.

Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14 , (13).

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104 , 333–339. (Quelle noch einfügen im Text bei LeComplte Abschnitt).

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4 , 356–367.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26 , 3.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 , 546–553.

Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11 , 20.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Literature Review Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_13

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research