organization of literature review

Literature Reviews

"How To" Books
Examples of Literature Reviews
Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
Organizing the Literature Review
Writing the Literature Review
Endnote This link opens in a new window
Evaluating Websites

Organization

Organization of your Literature Review

What is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? What order should you present them?

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).

Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing the literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

You've decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you've just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980's. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Chronological

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication

Order your sources chronologically by publication if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Another way to organize sources chronologically is to examine the sources under a trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Using this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.

More authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

<< Previous: Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
Last Updated: Nov 2, 2021 12:11 PM
URL: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/literature-review
Request a Class
Hours & Locations
Ask a Librarian
Special Collections
Library Faculty & Staff

Library Administration: 631.632.7100

Stony Brook Home
Campus Maps
Web Accessibility Information
Accessibility Barrier Report Form

Comments or Suggestions? | Library Webmaster

Except where otherwise noted, this work by SBU Libraries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

The Literature Review: 5. Organizing the Literature Review

1. Introduction
2. Why Do a Literature Review?
3. Methods for Searching the Literature
4. Analysing the Literature
5. Organizing the Literature Review
6. Writing the Review

1. Organizing Principles

A literature review is a piece of discursive prose, not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It should have a single organizing principle:

Thematic - organize around a topic or issue
Chronological - sections for each vital time period
Methodological - focus on the methods used by the researchers/writers

4. Selected Online Resources

Literature Review in Education & Behavioral Sciences This is an interactive tutorial from Adelphi University Libraries on how to conduct a literature review in education and the behavioural sciences using library databases
Writing Literature Reviews This tutorial is from the Writing section of Monash University's Language and Learning Online site
The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This guide is from the Health Services Writing Centre at the University of Toronto
Learn How to Write a Review of the Literature This guide is part of the Writer's Handbook provided by the Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Structure of the Literature Review

Although your literature review will rely heavily on the sources you read for its information, you should dictate the structure of the review. It is important that the concepts are presented in an order that makes sense of the context of your research project.

There may be clear divisions on the sets of ideas you want to discuss, in which case your structure may be fairly clear. This is an ideal situation. In most cases, there will be several different possible structures for your review.

Similarly to the structure of the research report itself, the literature review consists of:

Introduction

Introduction - profile of the study

Define or identify the general topic to provide the context for reviewing the literature
Outline why the topic is important
Identify overall trends in what has been published about the topic
Identify conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions
Identify gaps in research and scholarlship
Explain the criteria to be used in analysing and comparing the literature
Describe the organization of the review (the sequence)
If necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)

Body - summative, comparative, and evaluative discussion of literature reviewed

For a thematic review:

organize the review into paragraphs that present themes and identify trends relevant to your topic
each paragraph should deal with a different theme - you need to synthesize several of your readings into each paragraph in such a way that there is a clear connection between the sources
don't try to list all the materials you have identified in your literature search

From each of the section summaries:

summarize the main agreements and disagreements in the literature
summarize the general conclusions that have been drawn
establish where your own research fits in the context of the existing literature

5. A Final Checklist

Have you indicated the purpose of the review?
Have you emphasized recent developments?
Is there a logic to the way you organized the material?
Does the amount of detail included on an issue relate to its importance?
Have you been sufficiently critical of design and methodological issues?
Have you indicated when results were conflicting or inconclusive and discussed possible reasons?
Has your summary of the current literature contributed to the reader's understanding of the problems?

3. Tips on Structure

A common error in literature reviews is for writers to present material from one author, followed by information from another, then another.... The way in which you group authors and link ideas will help avoid this problem. To group authors who draw similar conclusions, you can use linking words such as:

additionally

When authors disagree, linking words that indicate contrast will show how you have analysed their work. Words such as:

on the other hand
nonetheless

will indicate to your reader how you have analysed the material. At other times, you may want to qualify an author's work (using such words as specifically, usually, or generally ) or use an example ( thus, namely, to illustrate ). In this way you ensure that you are synthesizing the material, not just describing the work already carried out in your field.

Another major problem is that literature reviews are often written as if they stand alone, without links to the rest of the paper. There needs to be a clear relationship between the literature review and the methodology to follow.

<< Previous: 4. Analysing the Literature
Next: 6. Writing the Review >>
Last Updated: Feb 8, 2022 5:25 PM
URL: https://libguides.uwi.edu/litreviewsoe

Literature Review Guide: How to organise the review

What is a Literature Review?
How to start?
Search strategies and Databases
Examples of Literature Reviews
How to organise the review
Library summary
Emerald Infographic

How to structure your literature review (ignore the monotone voice as advice is good)

How to structure and write your literature review

Chronological, ie. by date of publication or trend
Methodological
Use Cooper's taxonomy to explore and determine what elements and categories to incorporate into your review
Revise and proofread your review to ensure your arguments, supporting evidence and writing is clear and precise

Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach . British Journal of Nursing, 17 (1), pp.38-43.

Different ways to organise a Literature Review

CHRONOLOGICAL (by date): This is one of the most common ways, especially for topics that have been talked about for a long time and have changed over their history. Organise it in stages of how the topic has changed: the first definitions of it, then major time periods of change as researchers talked about it, then how it is thought about today.

BROAD-TO-SPECIFIC : Another approach is to start with a section on the general type of issue you're reviewing, then narrow down to increasingly specific issues in the literature until you reach the articles that are most specifically similar to your research question, thesis statement, hypothesis, or proposal. This can be a good way to introduce a lot of background and related facets of your topic when there is not much directly on your topic but you are tying together many related, broader articles.

MAJOR MODELS or MAJOR THEORIES : When there are multiple models or prominent theories, it is a good idea to outline the theories or models that are applied the most in your articles. That way you can group the articles you read by the theoretical framework that each prefers, to get a good overview of the prominent approaches to your concept.

PROMINENT AUTHORS : If a certain researcher started a field, and there are several famous people who developed it more, a good approach can be grouping the famous author/researchers and what each is known to have said about the topic. You can then organise other authors into groups by which famous authors' ideas they are following. With this organisation it can help to look at the citations your articles list in them, to see if there is one author that appears over and over.

CONTRASTING SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT : If you find a dominant argument comes up in your research, with researchers taking two sides and talking about how the other is wrong, you may want to group your literature review by those schools of thought and contrast the differences in their approaches and ideas.

Ways to structure your Literature Review

Different ways to organise your literature review include:

Topical order (by main topics or issues, showing relationship to the main problem or topic)
Chronological order (simplest of all, organise by dates of published literature)
Problem-cause-solution order
General to specific order
Known to unknown order
Comparison and contrast order
Specific to general order
<< Previous: Videos
Next: Library summary >>
Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 4:07 PM
URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I. Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II. Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV. Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V. Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

<< Previous: Theoretical Framework
Next: Citation Tracking >>
Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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:

Example of literature review outline structure

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.

The body section of your literature review is the where you'll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research.

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 .

Adopting the chronological structure allows you to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged 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.

The thematic structure allows you to organise your literature by theme or category – e.g. by independent variables.

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.

The methodological structure allows you to organise your chapter by the analysis method used - e.g. qual, quant or mixed.

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.

In the conclusion section, you’ll need to present the key findings of your literature review and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you'll need to make it clear what your study will add to the literature.

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:

Literature review 101 - how to find articles

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.

× The Sherrill Library will be REMOTE March 4-17 due to construction. Study spaces, computers and printers will be available in the open atrium spaces. Moriarty Library will be open as usual. See library hours below. As always, our web resources are available 24/7. Questions? Our Chat and Ask Us! services are available from Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.

× the libraries will be closed for patriots' day on monday, april 15th. enjoy the holiday, × spring break: monday, 03/13/2023 - sunday, 03/19/2023: library pickups are by appointment. need an appointment email us at sherrill library: [email protected] or moriarty library: [email protected], × alert mm/dd/yyyy: something is broken please contact us with questions., × alert 12/14/2023: ebsco allsearch is unavailable. we are working to fix this as quickly as we can. in the meanwhile, please try searching for articles from our proquest central database and for ebooks and books from our flo catalog . we're very sorry for the inconveniance. --> × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more for other campus plans, see the lesley university covid-19 response. any other questions ask us, × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more any other questions ask us.

Literature Review
What type of literature review should you write?
Hide Menu Thingy Widget
Additional Guides & Reading Materials

Library & Research Help

Sherrill Library: 617-349-8850
Moriarty Library: 617-349-8070
Text: 617-340-8008
Research Help: Ask Us!
Email: [email protected]
Art & Design Research Email: [email protected]

There are different methods to organize and present the materials collected for the literature review.

The list below goes over different organizational frameworks that can be used to present the research conducted. If you are not sure what method to use, check with your professor.

Chronological: The chronological framework organizes the literature in the order in which they are published. For example, if you were writing about a specific teaching method, you would begin with the materials that first introduced the method. You would then follow with case studies applying that method. You would conclude your review with contemporary papers that may even give a historical perspective on the method from when it was first conceived and how it is applied today.
by publication: This framework is useful if you notice a series of articles that are written in response to one another that are all within one publication. You still follow chronological order, but you break it so that the articles responding to one another are grouped together.
by trend: This framework looks at specific trends and organizes them chronologically. For example, if you were looking at the history of assistive technology in helping students with disabilities, you may organize the reviews by what disability was being treated, and then present the history of using assistive technology to treat that particular disability in chronological order.
Thematic: The thematic framework is similar to organizing by trend, except that you are not organizing the reviews in the order that they were published. This does not mean that you do not consider the timeline for how a topic or issue developed, but that you will not focus on organizing your reviews chronologically. Rather, the emphasis will be on the themes you find within the topic or issue — such as commonalities — and from there you fit your reviews into the separate ideas in which they fit. For example, if the review topic was arts-based research, your review may focus on different ways artistic inquiry was used to understand the creative process, focusing then on the concepts rather than the development.
Methodological: The method or practice applied in a case study can be the basis for organizing a literature review. This framework focuses on how the author(s) or the person(s) administering a study applied similar methods as another study. As a result, the types of literature in a literature review that applies the methodological framework tends to review similar materials. For example, if you reviewed methods used to treat post traumatic stress syndrome, the review would organize the studies by the methods used to treat the patients and not the order that the studies were published.

Note: After choosing the organizational framework for the literature review, it should be easier to write because you should have a clear idea of what sections you need to include in the paper. For example, a chronological review will have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review will have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

In some cases the literature does not quite fit the framework you have chosen. In this case, you should determine where it makes sense to place the literature and confirm this choice with your professor.

<< Previous: Literature Review
Next: Additional Guides & Reading Materials >>
Last Updated: Dec 15, 2022 2:41 PM
URL: https://research.lesley.edu/LitReview

Moriarty Library

Porter Campus 1801 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 617-349-8070

Sherrill Library

South Campus 89 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-349-8850

UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

Organizing/Writing
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
Finding "The Literature"

Consider Organization

Literature review synthesis matrix, composing your literature review, managing citations / zotero.

APA Style This link opens in a new window
Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
MLA Style This link opens in a new window
Sample Literature Reviews

Presentation on Synthesizing a Literature Review

You've got a focus, and you've narrowed it down to a thesis statement. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern. Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each). Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed? Organizing the body Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review: You've decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you've just finished reading Moby Dick , and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 2020's. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 2021 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick , so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel. Chronological If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (2021), and finally the biology articles (2000s) and the recent articles (last five years) on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus. By publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. By trend A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote more than a century apart.

But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History : The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards : The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

(Adapted from "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

This synthesis matrix in Excel can help you get a jumpstart on finding ways in which the literature differs and is the same.

Synthesis Matrix

O nce you've settled on a general pattern of organization, you're ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as "writer," "pedestrian," and "persons." The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine "generic" condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense," Women and Language19:2.

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review's focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton's study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil's. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Use a citation manager to manage citations from journals, books, documents, and internet sites.

A good one to use is Zotero. Instructions on using it can be found in the following guide:

Zotero Guide

Content for this section of the guide was taken from Literature Reviews from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , under the guidelines of their Creative Commons License.

<< Previous: Finding "The Literature"
Next: APA Style >>
Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Eugene McDermott Library

Literature review.

Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
Organizing the Literature Review
Writing the Literature Review
Examples of Literature Reviews

Organization

Organization of your Literature Review

What is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? What order should you present them?

Basic Outline of a Literature Review

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).

Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing the literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed ? ( " Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Organizing the Body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

Chronological

By publication

Methodological

( "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Other Sections to Include in a Literature Review

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

( " Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

<< Previous: Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 12:28 PM
URL: https://libguides.utdallas.edu/literature-review

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

Roughly how many sources should you include?
What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
Should you evaluate your sources?
Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Strategy: Literature Reviews

What is a literature review?

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about a particular subject area or topic.

A Literature Review provides an overview of selected sources on a topic.

Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be:

a summary of sources an organized presentation of sources a synthesis or interpretation of sources an evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product .

It may be:

a part of your research process a part of your final research publication an independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context .

It will help you and your readers:

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process.

It will help you to:

establish your knowledge understand what has been said define your questions establish a relevant methodology refine your voice situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization .

an introduction or overview a body or organizational sub-divisions a conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized:

chronologically: organized by date of publication methodologically: organized by type of research method used thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

Mountain Top By Alice Noir for the Noun Project

Find a focus
Find models
Review your target publication
Track citations
Read critically
Manage your citations
Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Next: Managing Sources >>
Literature Review
Managing Sources

More sources

Byrne, D. (2017). Reviewing the literature. Project Planner. 10.4135/9781526408518.
Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
PhD on Track
CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation
CU Honors Thesis
University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
Research Guides
Site: Research Strategies
Last Updated: Aug 10, 2020 11:33 AM
URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview

Ask a Librarian

Literature Reviews

1. What is a Literature Review?
Developing a Research Question
Types of Reviews
EagleSearch and Research Databases
Search Tips and Shortcuts
4. Organizing Your Research
5. Writing a Literature Review
Additional Resources

Documenting Research

Synthesis Matrix You can download and use this synthesis matrix to help organize your research.
Summary Record You can download and use this summary record to organize important elements of your research. This spreadsheet will be very useful once you begin writing your literature review.

Adapted from: Management & Business Research (2018). Sage Publications.

Organizing Your Research

As you progress in your research and start to collect relevant books, articles, and more, you may want to use a citation and research management tool to help you organize your research. The Hunt Library provides access to an institutional subscription to RefWorks, but there are also other free tools available.

See the below research guides for more information.

RefWorks by David Woolard Last Updated Sep 21, 2023 472 views this year
Citation & Research Management Tools by David Woolard Last Updated May 15, 2023 382 views this year

Synthesis Matrix

Once you have searched and analyzed the literature, you can now synthesize what you have learned and how it fits into your research project. You will then be ready to write your literature review.

One strategy is to create a synthesis matrix. A synthesis matrix helps you organize the main points of each book, article, or other information resource you use. It allows you to see how the sources relate to each other and helps guide your writing.

2:06 Tutorial about creating a synthesis matrix

<< Previous: Search Tips and Shortcuts
Next: 5. Writing a Literature Review >>
Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 10:38 AM
URL: https://guides.erau.edu/lit-review

Hunt Library

Mori Hosseini Student Union 1 Aerospace Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Phone: 386-226-6595 Toll-Free: 800-678-9428

Maps and Parking

Report a Problem
Suggest a Purchase

Library Information

Departments and Staff
Library Collections
Library Facilities
Library Newsletter
Hunt Library Employment

University Initiatives

Scholarly Commons
Data Commons
University Archives
Open and Affordable Textbooks

Conducting a Literature Review

Getting Started
Define your Research Question
Finding Sources
Evaluating Sources

Organizing the Review

Cite and Manage your Sources

Introduction

Organizing your literature review involves examining the sources you have and determining how they best fit together to form a coherent and complete narrative. However you choose to do this, the goal should be to organize your literature in a way that naturally flows and makes sense to your reader.

Additional Resources

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing by the University of West Florida Libraries
Literature Reviews: Organizing Your Research by the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Hunt Library

A literature review is structured similarly to other research essays, opening with an introduction that explains the topic and summarizes how the review will be conducted, several body paragraphs organized to share your findings, and a concluding paragraph.

There are many different ways to organize the body of your review. Some possible approaches are listed below.

Subtopic/Theme

While they all share the same overarching topic, each source approaches it in a slightly different way, valuing certain aspects or methods more than others. For example, with a literature review about the impacts of the Affordable Care Act, some literature might focus on the demographic changes in access to healthcare, or the actions taken by private health insurance companies, or even the way healthcare is discussed in politics. By combining sources that discuss the same subtopics, you can organize your review to show how the articles overlap and complement one another to create a more complete view of the existing research.

For a thematic literature review, each body paragraph would consist of one of these themes, or subtopics, and the literature associated with it.

Alternatively, you can group your resources by their relevance to your research question. Again using the ACA as an example, it might be a good idea to begin with the sources that most broadly address the impacts of the Affordable Care Act and then order the literature by increasing specificity.

Methodology

It may be the case that your literature can be neatly defined into different types of research, such as different methods to treat an illness or ways to test a hypothesis. Examining the literature by the ways in which the authors tried to answer questions associated with the topic is a useful way to compare and contrast research results, as well as identify potential strengths or weaknesses in the methodologies used.

Varying Opinions/Problem & Solution(s)

Your various sources might not all come to the same conclusions about the topic; in fact, especially with controversial subject matter, there may be widely differing opinions on the issues and how best to approach them. Related to the thematic review, this type of literature review structure uses the first body paragraph to pose a question, then each of the body paragraphs illustrating the differing answers found in the literature. It is an excellent way to address arguments and counter-arguments if your topic is hotly contested in academic and popular works.

If you find yourself struggling to differentiate your sources by topic or relevance because they are all about equal in these regards, it might be a good idea to organize them chronologically.

There are two major types of chronology literature reviews tend to be grouped by:

Publication date : Start with the earliest-published research and finish with the most current
By trend : Organize sources into eras based on the time period and relative events associated with the topic. For example, regarding the Affordable Care Act, it could be split into the time before the ACA was passed, the immediate aftermath (2010-2011), Obama's second term (2012-2016), etc.

Using a Synthesis Matrix

A literature review doesn't merely summarize the current research on a topic: part of your responsibility is to take this information and make something new out of it that can be used by future researchers. This process of combining other sources of information and making an original argument out of them is called synthesis , which literally means "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system." You will synthesize the literature you've selected for review to form an argument about where more research needs to be done on your topic.

One of the most important elements of synthesis in a literature review is analysis: rather than simply repeating the results of each source you've found, you are going to analyze it for similarities to your other resources, limitations and strengths of the methodology, and an examination of the conclusions drawn by the author(s) compared to the rest of the research on the topic. This is why proper organization of the literature is so important; it will allow you to group your sources by theme so that they can be more easily compared and contrasted.

In addition to the recommendations elsewhere on this page, a common method for preparing to organize your literature is by using a synthesis matrix. This is a tool to help pick out the most important aspects of each source and see where the most common themes lie.

With the major information organized like this, it is easy to see which resources used similar methods of research, which had similar or differing results, and when chronologically the research was conducted. Grouping the literature by any of these similarities could be a useful way to organize your review.

How to Synthesize Your Literature Review by Britt McGowan & UWF Libraries
Synthesizing Sources by Purdue Online Writing Lab

Questions the Literature Review Should Answer

The University of the West Indies (linked below) provides a useful checklist of questions that a good literature review should address. When outlining your review, pay attention to how you will answer the following:

These will likely be answered throughout your body paragraphs, but it might be worthwhile to address some of these in the conclusion instead or in addition.

Organizing the Literature Review by the University of the West Indies

<< Previous: Evaluating Sources
Next: Writing the Review >>
Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 10:37 AM
URL: https://libraryservices.acphs.edu/lit_review

University Libraries
Research Guides
Subject Guides

What is a literature review?

Organization
Getting Started
Finding the Literature

A Process for Organizing Your Review of the Literature

Tools to help organize your literature review.

Connect with Your Librarian
More Information

Citation Management

Zotero: A Beginner's Guide by Todd Quinn Last Updated Mar 29, 2024 14473 views this year
Zotero v. EndNote v. Mendeley by Todd Quinn Last Updated Mar 13, 2023 351 views this year
EndNote Software: Beginner's Guide by Todd Quinn Last Updated Jan 24, 2024 2665 views this year

More information

Literature review assignments A video on how to organize literature reviews.
Select the most relevant material from your sources With your research question in mind, read each of your sources and identify the material that is most relevant to that question. This might be material that answers the question directly, but it might also be material that helps explain why it’s important to ask the question or that is otherwise relevant to your question. When you pull this material from your source, you can extract it as a direct quotation, or you can paraphrase the passage or idea. (Make sure you enclose direct quotations in quotation marks!) A single source may have more than one idea relevant to your question.
Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself Many writers put the material they have selected into a grid. They place each quotation or paraphrase in a cell in that grid. Arranging your selected material in a grid has two benefits: first, you can view your relevant material away from the source text (meaning you are now working with fewer words and pages!). Second, you can view all of the material that will go into your lit review in one place.

Once you have created these groups of ideas, approaches, or themes, give each one a label. The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure.

Now that you have identified the topics you will discuss in your lit review, look them over as a whole. Do you see any gaps that you should fill by finding additional sources? If so, do that research and add those sources to your groupings.

Once you have an assertion for each of your groupings, put those assertions in the order that you want to use in the lit review. This may be the order that has the best logical flow, or the order that tells the story you want to tell in the lit review.

Source: Organizing Literature Reviews: The Basics from George Mason University

Bubbl.us Bubbl.us makes it easy to organize your ideas visually in a way that makes sense to you and others.
Coggle Coggle is online software for creating and sharing mindmaps and flowcharts.
Google Sheets Create a matrix with author names across the top (columns), themes on the left side (rows).
Microsoft Excel Create a matrix with author names across the top (columns), themes on the left side (rows).
Mind42 Mind42 is a free online mind mapping software. In short: Mind42 offers you a software that runs in your browser to create mind maps - a special form of a structured diagram to visually organize information.
Popplet Mind maps, flow charts, timelines, story boards and more.
Scapple Ever scribbled ideas on a piece of paper and drawn lines between related thoughts? Then you already know what Scapple does. It's a virtual sheet of paper that lets you make notes anywhere and connect them using lines or arrows.
XMind The full-featured mind mapping and brainstorming app.

<< Previous: Finding the Literature
Next: Connect with Your Librarian >>
Last Updated: Aug 17, 2023 9:45 AM
URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/litreview

Reserve a study room
Library Account
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

What is a Literature Review?
Developing a Research Question
Selection Criteria
Database Search
Documenting Your Search

Review Matrix

Reference Management

Using a spreadsheet or table to organize the key elements (e.g. subjects, methodologies, results) of articles/books you plan to use in your literature review can be helpful. This is called a review matrix.

When you create a review matrix, the first few columns should include (1) the authors, title, journal, (2) publication year, and (3) purpose of the paper. The remaining columns should identify important aspects of each study such as methodology and findings.

Click on the image below to view a sample review matrix.

You can also download this template as a Microsoft Excel file .

The information on this page is from the book below. The 5th edition is available online through VCU Libraries.

<< Previous: Documenting Your Search
Next: Reference Management >>
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review

Library & Information Services

Literature reviews: parts & organization of a literature review.

Back to Lovejoy Library
Literature Reviews

Parts & Organization of a Literature Review

Why are Literature Reviews Important

Literature reviews typically follow the introduction-body-conclusion format. If your literature review is part of a larger project or paper, the introduction and conclusion of the lit review may be just a few sentences, while you focus most of your attention on the body. If it is a standalone piece, then the introduction and conclusion may take up more space.

A literature review typically follows this model:

Introduction:

An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is.
Noting key topics or texts that will appear in the review.
A potential description of how you found your sources, and how you chose them for inclusion and discussion for your review.
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 and their voices – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
Critically Evaluate : Mention strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs : Use this body paragraph space to draw and show connections, comparisons, and contrasts between your selected sources.

Conclusion:

Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
Connect it back to your primary research question. Remind readers what your thesis is.

Purdue University – Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). What are the Parts of a Lit Review?; How Should I Organize My Lit Review?. Retrieved from: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/writing_a_literature_review.html

<< Previous: Why are Literature Reviews Important
Next: Example >>
Last Updated: Sep 9, 2021 3:29 PM
URL: https://libguides.siue.edu/litreview

University Library

Research Guides

Organizational Development

Literature Reviews
Books & Media
Articles & Journals

What is a Literature Review?

The scholarly conversation.

A literature review provides an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic. It allows the author to synthesize and place into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic. It helps map the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns. It forms the foundation for the author’s subsequent research and justifies the significance of the new investigation.

A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research.

The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.
The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.
In the body of the review, the author should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups, the author can then discuss the merits of each article and analyze and compare the importance of each article to similar ones.
The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.
The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the literature review.

Key Questions for a Literature Review

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

Who are the key researchers on this topic?
What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?
How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?
Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?
Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?
How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?
Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?
What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?
How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation ?

Examples of Literature Reviews

Example of a literature review at the beginning of an article: Forbes, C. C., Blanchard, C. M., Mummery, W. K., & Courneya, K. S. (2015, March). Prevalence and correlates of strength exercise among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors . Oncology Nursing Forum, 42(2), 118+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=sonomacsu&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA422059606&asid=27e45873fddc413ac1bebbc129f7649c Example of a comprehensive review of the literature: Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature. British Journal Of Nursing , 25 (6), 303-306. For additional examples, see:

Galvan, J., Galvan, M., & ProQuest. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.). [Electronic book]

Pan, M., & Lopez, M. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. [ Q180.55.E9 P36 2008]

Useful Links

Write a Literature Review (UCSC)
Literature Reviews (Purdue)
Literature Reviews: overview (UNC)
Review of Literature (UW-Madison)

Evidence Matrix for Literature Reviews

The Evidence Matrix can help you organize your research before writing your lit review. Use it to identify patterns and commonalities in the articles you have found--similar methodologies ? common theoretical frameworks ? It helps you make sure that all your major concepts covered. It also helps you see how your research fits into the context of the overall topic.

Evidence Matrix Special thanks to Dr. Cindy Stearns, SSU Sociology Dept, for permission to use this Matrix as an example.
<< Previous: Articles & Journals
Next: APA 6th ed >>
Last Updated: Feb 2, 2024 12:47 PM
URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/od

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

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

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

Julie a. luft.

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

Sophia Jeong

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

Robert Idsardi

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

Grant Gardner

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

Associated Data

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

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

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

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

Building Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions and Advice

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

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

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

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

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

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

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

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

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

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

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cbe-21-rm33-g001.jpg

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

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

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

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

Supplementary Material

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

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
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
16 April 2024

Structure peer review to make it more robust

Mario Malički 0

Mario Malički is associate director of the Stanford Program on Research Rigor and Reproducibility (SPORR) and co-editor-in-chief of the Research Integrity and Peer Review journal.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

In February, I received two peer-review reports for a manuscript I’d submitted to a journal. One report contained 3 comments, the other 11. Apart from one point, all the feedback was different. It focused on expanding the discussion and some methodological details — there were no remarks about the study’s objectives, analyses or limitations.

My co-authors and I duly replied, working under two assumptions that are common in scholarly publishing: first, that anything the reviewers didn’t comment on they had found acceptable for publication; second, that they had the expertise to assess all aspects of our manuscript. But, as history has shown, those assumptions are not always accurate (see Lancet 396 , 1056; 2020 ). And through the cracks, inaccurate, sloppy and falsified research can slip.

As co-editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review (an open-access journal published by BMC, which is part of Springer Nature), I’m invested in ensuring that the scholarly peer-review system is as trustworthy as possible. And I think that to be robust, peer review needs to be more structured. By that, I mean that journals should provide reviewers with a transparent set of questions to answer that focus on methodological, analytical and interpretative aspects of a paper.

For example, editors might ask peer reviewers to consider whether the methods are described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the work, whether extra statistical analyses are needed, and whether the authors’ interpretation of the results is supported by the data and the study methods. Should a reviewer find anything unsatisfactory, they should provide constructive criticism to the authors. And if reviewers lack the expertise to assess any part of the manuscript, they should be asked to declare this.

Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just

Other aspects of a study, such as novelty, potential impact, language and formatting, should be handled by editors, journal staff or even machines, reducing the workload for reviewers.

The list of questions reviewers will be asked should be published on the journal’s website, allowing authors to prepare their manuscripts with this process in mind. And, as others have argued before, review reports should be published in full. This would allow readers to judge for themselves how a paper was assessed, and would enable researchers to study peer-review practices.

To see how this works in practice, since 2022 I’ve been working with the publisher Elsevier on a pilot study of structured peer review in 23 of its journals, covering the health, life, physical and social sciences. The preliminary results indicate that, when guided by the same questions, reviewers made the same initial recommendation about whether to accept, revise or reject a paper 41% of the time, compared with 31% before these journals implemented structured peer review. Moreover, reviewers’ comments were in agreement about specific parts of a manuscript up to 72% of the time ( M. Malički and B. Mehmani Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/mrdv; 2024 ). In my opinion, reaching such agreement is important for science, which proceeds mainly through consensus.

Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off

I invite editors and publishers to follow in our footsteps and experiment with structured peer reviews. Anyone can trial our template questions (see go.nature.com/4ab2ppc ), or tailor them to suit specific fields or study types. For instance, mathematics journals might also ask whether referees agree with the logic or completeness of a proof. Some journals might ask reviewers if they have checked the raw data or the study code. Publications that employ editors who are less embedded in the research they handle than are academics might need to include questions about a paper’s novelty or impact.

Scientists can also use these questions, either as a checklist when writing papers or when they are reviewing for journals that don’t apply structured peer review.

Some journals — including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the PLOS family of journals, F1000 journals and some Springer Nature journals — already have their own sets of structured questions for peer reviewers. But, in general, these journals do not disclose the questions they ask, and do not make their questions consistent. This means that core peer-review checks are still not standardized, and reviewers are tasked with different questions when working for different journals.

Some might argue that, because different journals have different thresholds for publication, they should adhere to different standards of quality control. I disagree. Not every study is groundbreaking, but scientists should view quality control of the scientific literature in the same way as quality control in other sectors: as a way to ensure that a product is safe for use by the public. People should be able to see what types of check were done, and when, before an aeroplane was approved as safe for flying. We should apply the same rigour to scientific research.

Ultimately, I hope for a future in which all journals use the same core set of questions for specific study types and make all of their review reports public. I fear that a lack of standard practice in this area is delaying the progress of science.

Nature 628 , 476 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9

Reprints and permissions

Competing Interests

M.M. is co-editor-in-chief of the Research Integrity and Peer Review journal that publishes signed peer review reports alongside published articles. He is also the chair of the European Association of Science Editors Peer Review Committee.

Scientific community
Peer review

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Editorial 24 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Computational Spatial Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Staff Scientist - Genetics and Genomics

Technician - senior technician in cell and molecular biology.

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

Postdoctoral Associate

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Organizational unlearning as a process: What we know, what we don’t know, what we should know

Open access
Published: 23 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Adrian Klammer ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9665-0419 1 ,
Thomas Grisold 2 ,
Nhien Nguyen 3 &
Shih-wei Hsu 4

Although the field of organizational unlearning has recently gained increased interest, its conceptual foundations and raison d’être are still debated. In this review, we aim to revisit various discourses and arguments to advance the understanding of organizational unlearning in management and organization studies. Using an integrative literature review approach with systematic elements, we examine the existing body of research on organizational unlearning. We review the literature from different perspectives, focusing on a process-based understanding in terms of why and how organizations intentionally discard knowledge. Based on our review, we develop an integrative framework that portrays organizational unlearning as a dynamically unfolding process over time. We propose implications and offer research directions that will allow future researchers to develop a more profound understanding of the concept.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Organizational unlearning implies that organizations intentionally and deliberately discard undesired, obsolete, or harmful knowledge—often to make room for the creation of new knowledge (Tsang and Zahra 2008 ). To this end, organizational unlearning can target different knowledge structures, such as systems, routines, basic assumptions, values, or norms. Moreover, it can occur in various contexts, such as innovation (Wang et al. 2013 ; Yang et al. 2014 ; Açıkgöz et al. 2021 ), mergers and acquisitions (Tsang 2008 ; Wang et al. 2017 ), organizational change (Grisold et al. 2020 ), and social care (Brook et al. 2016 ), among others.

Despite the considerable uptake of organizational unlearning in research, the concept has sparked controversy, primarily owing to its conceptual ambiguities (see Klein 1989 ; Martin de Holan 2011b ; Howells and Scholderer 2016 ; Tsang 2017a , b ; 1989 ); Klammer et al. 2019b ). Along these lines, it has been argued that the term organizational unlearning conveys the impression that knowledge can be eliminated from organizations, essentially insinuating that targeted knowledge structures can be objectified and selectively erased (Turc and Baumard 2007 ; Howells and Scholderer 2016 ; Grisold et al. 2017 ). The main objection to these claims is that a large share of organizational knowledge is embedded in mental models, practices, and routines, which cannot be removed or taken out in any literal sense (e.g., Cowan et al. 2000 ; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001 ).

In response to these claims, emerging arguments emphasize that organizational unlearning should be understood as a process (e.g., Fiol and O’Connor 2017a , b ; Grisold et al. 2017 ; Kluge and Gronau 2018 ; Peschl 2019 ; Burton et al. 2023 ). These arguments depart from the observation that organizational knowledge is deeply embedded in collective beliefs and routines. If some of these knowledge structures are to be unlearned, one has to focus on how they become less dominant over time . In other words, from a process-based perspective, organizational unlearning implies that organizational actors gradually reduce the influence of unwanted or harmful knowledge structures by blocking or preventing their enactment (Grisold et al. 2017 ; Kluge and Gronau 2018 ). As this process progresses, old knowledge becomes less likely to be used (and new knowledge, if any, becomes more likely to be used).

Such process-based views of unlearning evoke considerable interest in the field. They not only resonate with perspectives from other fields, such as psychology and cognitive sciences (e.g., Kluge and Gronau 2018 ; Peschl 2019 ; Haase et al. 2020 ), but also inform practical interventions to enable or support unlearning initiatives (Klammer et al. 2019a ; Grisold et al. 2020 ). However, we lack a systematic understanding of what we know about the process behind organizational unlearning. Some open questions include the following: what does this process imply? How does it evolve? Why and when does it succeed or fail?

Existing reviews of organizational unlearning (e.g., Tsang and Zahra 2008 ; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2019 ; Sharma and Lenka 2022a , b ) highlight various important aspects, but do not establish a process-based understanding of organizational unlearning. Hence, in this review, we pursue the following questions: what do we know about the process of organizational unlearning, and how can we synthesize existing perspectives? To answer these questions, we develop a multi-perspective and integrative view to explain how organizational unlearning evolves over time.

2 Review approach

We followed an integrative review approach, including systematic elements, to search for relevant literature. Due to the field’s fragmented understanding, we deem it necessary and suitable to bring different perspectives together to surface the nature of the concept, develop implications, and provide avenues for future research. This procedure is motivated by the observation that organizational unlearning is discussed within the broader realm of management and organization studies (MOS), but its conceptual assumptions and conversation topics remain within rather insulated communities in specific sub-fields, thereby fostering and reproducing different perspectives on the same concept.

We (the authors) ascribe ourselves as researchers in the broader field of MOS, although each of us has researched organizational unlearning from a different perspective, based on different scholarly communities. This enabled us to adopt different perspectives to examine the same phenomenon. We initially engaged in several rounds of discussion and sensemaking to establish our position and define the scope of our review (Cronin and George 2023 ). In the time between these discussions, each author conducted initial, non-systematic searches (Rojon et al. 2021 ) to bring in different perspectives. We then established our final position that organizational unlearning is a processual phenomenon warranting attention to the antecedents, outcomes, and dynamics of intentionally discarding undesired or outdated knowledge from organizations.

After establishing our position, we applied various systematic steps to build the foundation for our review (Tranfield et al. 2003 ). We searched for literature on organizational unlearning written in English from 1981 (Hedberg’s book chapter as the starting point) to February 2024. Using the keywords [organization* AND unlearn*], we conducted a title and abstract search in Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier), ProQuest (ABI/INFORM), and Elsevier (ScienceDirect) databases (n = 1104). Next, we merged all results from the databases into a list and, subsequently, deleted duplicate results (n = 759). In an initial review, we read all titles and abstracts and applied two specific criteria to exclude false positives. First, we removed literature from research fields that have no connection to the broader domain of MOS (e.g., clinical psychology). Second, we excluded studies that only serendipitously mentioned the term unlearning in the title or abstract (n = 246). Next, we screened and assessed the remaining full texts. At this stage, we identified literature that fell outside our scope. In doing so, we eliminated non-substantive works that use the term “unlearning” in the title or abstract, while not thoroughly addressing or discussing the phenomenon in the remainder of the paper (n = 88).

As an important additional step, we added an integrative dimension to maximize the comprehensiveness of our review. We conducted hand-searching, snow-balling, and citation-tracking to identify relevant literature that did not fit our search criteria and might have been missed (cf. Trullen et al. 2020 ). Additionally, we integrated literature from our respective communities to acquire different perspectives (cf. Cronin and George 2023 ). This approach allowed us to incorporate relevant literature beyond our initial, systematic search strings. In doing so, we illustrated that some works examine, at their core, intentional loss of knowledge in the context of MOS, without actually using the term unlearning (e.g., Polites and Karahanna 2012 ; Pentland et al. 2020 ), but are deemed useful to further the understanding of the phenomenon (n = 124) (Fig. 1 ).

Overview of the search process

We analyzed and synthesized the final sample using an Excel data extraction template to elicit both quantitative (e.g., authors, publication information) and qualitative (e.g., methodology, findings) information. In terms of the content, we identified relevant perspectives that previous researchers have used to empirically investigate and theorize about organizational unlearning, and which are relevant to examining organizational unlearning as a process.

3.1 Organizational unlearning as a process: Definitions and viewpoints

The concept’s raison d’être has been discussed from various perspectives. Starbuck (in: Nguyen 2017 ) explains the origins of unlearning as an organizational phenomenon in MOS. Hedberg and Starbuck observe that organizations find it difficult to adapt to crises and changing environments; they face failure, reluctance, or hesitancy to unlearn (e.g., Hedberg et al. 1976 ; Starbuck et al. 1978 ; Nystrom and Starbuck 1984 ; Starbuck 1996 ). While some assert that unlearning is subsumable under organizational learning (Huber 1991 ), or argue for its inclusion in the wider context of learning dynamics (Visser 2017 ), others recognize the merits of treating organizational unlearning as a distinct, isolated, and stand-alone phenomenon (Tsang 2017a , b ; Becker 2019 ).

While terms, such as knowledge, dominant logics, or routines are loosely used to describe what organizational unlearning entails, existing studies fall short of clearly defining the kinds of knowledge structures being investigated, respectively unlearned. We found that cognitive and behavioral knowledge structures are two of the most widely used perspectives for pinpointing the locus of the unlearning process (Akgün et al. 2007b ; Tsang and Zahra 2008 ). While the cognitive perspective describes how unlearning helps discard knowledge that has been collectively interpreted, the behavioral perspective refers to how routines, habits, or procedures are collectively abandoned (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2011 ). The collective lens of shared beliefs and assumptions is thought to be a vital part of the unlearning process (Turc and Baumard 2007 ). Sinkula ( 2002 ) suggests that organizational unlearning starts with changing cognitive structures, mental models, dominant logics, and other core assumptions that guide behavior. In turn, organizations can destabilize and eliminate behaviors, such as routines, habits, or procedures (Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004b ; Fiol and O’Connor 2017a , b ).

Visser ( 2017 ) highlights the interplay of complex social processes as organizational unlearning necessitates individuals to let go of part of their identities as enacted practices are strongly connected to social identities (McKeown 2012 ). In addition, unlearning has also been explored from emotional (Pratt and Barnett 1997 ; Rushmer and Davies 2004 ) and normative perspectives (Yildiz and Fey 2010 ). Hence, organizational unlearning is a multi-faceted term yielding multiple associations regarding the dynamics of knowledge loss.

3.2 Organizational unlearning mechanisms and conceptualizations

Several studies aim to shed light on different mechanisms of unlearning explaining how organizations discard existing knowledge. Bowker ( 1997 ), for example, distinguishes between clearance and erasure of organizational knowledge. Similarly, unlearning has been described as the process by which organizational members gradually refrain from enacting existing routines over time by removing cues (Kluge and Gronau 2018 ). Organizations might unlearn through tailored interventions, such as inactivating specific knowledge structures or rivaling enforced enactment (Turc and Baumard 2007 ).

Several quantitative empirical studies investigate the mechanisms of organizational unlearning. For example, the “unlearning context,” introduced by Cegarra-Navarro and Sánchez-Polo ( 2008 ) includes sequential unlearning steps from the individual to the organizational level. This model has been widely used in other studies (e.g., Cegarra-Navarro et al. 2010 , 2011a , b , 2013 , 2014 , 2016 , 2021 ; Cepeda-Carrion et al. 2012a , b ; Cegarra-Navarro and Cepeda-Carrion 2013 ; Ortega-Gutiérrez et al. 2015 , 2022 ; Wensley and Cegarra-Navarro 2015 ; Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley 2019 ; Lyu et al. 2022 ). Akgün et al. ( 2006 , 2007a , b ) operationalize unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines, a conceptualization that has been used in several other studies (e.g., Wang et al. 2013 , 2017 ; Yang et al. 2014 ; Xi et al. 2020 ; Zhao and Wang 2020 ).

Qualitative empirical studies paint a more fine-grained picture of unlearning mechanisms in organizations. Mechanisms to facilitate organizational unlearning might vary, depending on the timing of their occurrence or the desired outcomes of the process (e.g., Grisold et al. 2020 ; Xu et al. 2023 ). Rezazade Mehrizi and Lashkarbolouki ( 2016 ) outline the cognitive and behavioral dynamics of organizational unlearning when discarding troubled business models including the stages of realizing, revitalizing, parallelizing, and marginalizing. Similarly, Tsang ( 2008 ) finds organizational unlearning mechanisms at different stages of knowledge transfer to acquisition joint ventures. Stage-driven process models are often found in practitioner articles that typically provide advice on how managers can help their organizations unlearn as they follow a sequence of steps (Reese 2017 ; Klammer et al. 2019a ; Govindarajan et al. 2020 , 2021 ).

Another way to unpack organizational unlearning mechanisms is to sketch its recursive nature. The key assumption here is that unlearning is a fragile and highly dynamic process wherein discarding and learning activities unfold interchangeably (Nygren et al. 2017 ), or sometimes occur simultaneously (Fiol and O’Connor 2017a , b ). Organizational unlearning cycles (Pratt and Barnett 1997 ; Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley 2019 ; Hamza-Orlinska et al. 2024 ) or spirals (Macdonald 2002 ; Grisold and Kaiser 2017 ) provide additional insights into the recursive nature of the process. Peschl ( 2019 ) argues that the exact process of unlearning cannot be defined; embracing an unknown future means to embark on an uncertain and emergent process.

Further, we identified studies that relate organizational unlearning to learning and relearning, often contextualized in sequential learning-unlearning-relearning steps (e.g., Azmi 2008 ; Rupcic 2019 ; Sharma and Lenka 2019 ; Zhao and Wang 2020 ). This idea stresses that unlearning occurs in relation to existing knowledge (prior learning) and relearning (new learning of knowledge). From this viewpoint, new learning cannot be acquired before established knowledge has been removed. Existing views on mechanisms and conceptualizations share the commonality that organizational unlearning is a process characterized by context-specific dynamics in terms of discarding and/or acquiring knowledge.

3.3 Levels of unlearning

We found different views regarding the levels as well as their interdependence and interplay during unlearning processes. Generally, unlearning is portrayed as an organizational phenomenon that helps describe learning, adaptation, and change, or how firms deal with crises (Nguyen 2017 ; Vu and Nguyen 2022 ). Researching organizational unlearning, however, also requires an understanding of individuals and groups, as organizations do not have cognitive capabilities per se (Hedberg 1981 ; Brooks et al. 2022 ).

For example, awareness and relinquishing capabilities are strongly connected to intentional knowledge loss of individuals (Becker 2008 , 2010 ). Individual unlearning can also be described as a transformative journey of discernment including receptivity, recognition, and grieving (Macdonald 2002 ). Further, individual unlearning in organizational contexts has been typologized into routine unlearning, wiping, and deep unlearning depending on the depth of the discarding process (Rushmer and Davies 2004 ; Hislop et al. 2014 ).

A conceptual attempt to explain the interplay between different levels suggests that individual unlearning first promotes group and, subsequently, organizational unlearning, or vice versa (Zhao et al. 2013 ). We identified two viewpoints on how unlearning transfers across levels: top-down and bottom-up. The idea of unlearning as a top-down activity refers to instances wherein organizational decision-makers introduce changes that require individuals to discard existing assumptions, mental models, behaviors, or routines (e.g., Nystrom and Starbuck 1984 ; Martin de Holan et al. 2004 ; Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004a ; Nguyen 2017 ; Grisold et al. 2020 ; Klammer 2021 ). On the other hand, unlearning as a bottom-up activity describes the effects of individuals’ decisions to discard existing knowledge structures of an organization (e.g., Becker 2008 , 2010 ; Hislop et al. 2014 ; Matsuo 2019a ). Additionally, we found studies that specifically deal with the individual level (Tanaka 2023 ; Yin 2023 ) or group levels (e.g., Akgün et al. 2006 , 2007a ; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2020 ; Açıkgöz et al. 2021 ). The process of organizational unlearning can differ significantly, depending on whether and how unlearning unfolds within or between different organizational levels and entities over time.

3.4 Timing of organizational unlearning

Existing research highlights how the process of unlearning depends on timing-related decisions. To ensure strategic resilience in a world of turbulence and uncertainty, organizations should take action before it is desperately needed, thus unlearning should be a proactive process (Morais-Storz and Nguyen 2017 ). Managers should be able to identify early warning signs of an inflection point, that is, a shift in the external environment causing change that alters the basic assumptions upon which a business is built (McGrath 2019 ; Sharma and Lenka 2024 ). An early warning system may help identify and unlearn basic assumptions that are no longer applicable (McGrath and Euchner 2020 ).

Numerous studies indicate, however, that this approach can be challenging. First, it is difficult to anticipate the exact timing of environmental change (Martignoni and Keil 2021 ) to initiate the process of organizational unlearning. Second, organizations might find it difficult to find and adopt new operating methods because they have become firmly dependent on past methods (Starbuck 2017 ; Snihur 2018 ) and might be stuck in competence traps due to inertia arising from prior success (Leonard-Barton 1992 ). Third, it is not easy to tell whether companies render an old belief obsolete (Nguyen 2017 ), because it can often only be known retrospectively if an organization’s belief has become obsolete and, therefore, should have been discarded (Martignoni and Keil 2021 ). Fourth, unlearning requires a collective decision-making process, challenged by specialized personnel, who see their careers as tied to existing strategies and their core beliefs (Starbuck 2017 ).

We found two conflicting paradigms regarding the timing of organizational unlearning: (i) the reactive paradigm, which suggests that unlearning can only take place after noticeable failures or major interruptions, and (ii) the proactive paradigm, which implies that unlearning should occur prior to inflection points. We observed that many empirical studies empirically investigate organizational unlearning from the perspective of the reactive paradigm. For example, organizations tend to introduce technical and organizational change only after the occurrence of catastrophic failures, as in the case of NASA during the Challenger disaster (Starbuck and Milliken 1988 ). Conversely, only very few studies investigate proactive unlearning approaches at the organizational level. For example, Burt and Nair ( 2020 ) investigate how an organization proactively discards deeply held assumptions about its business logic, and thus initiates strategic change. Hence, the point of initiating the purposeful discarding of knowledge seems vital to navigating unlearning processes in organizations.

3.5 Critical views of organizational unlearning

We also found that critical approaches shed light on the process of organizational unlearning. These approaches are considered “critical” because they fit in with what Fournier and Grey ( 2000 ; cf. Alakavuklar and Alamgir 2018 ) called “non-performative intent,” an important theme in critical management studies. In general, they highlight the importance of unlearning, but reject “the instrumental and performative use of unlearning in the sole service of attaining organizational goals” in the neoliberal system (Visser 2017 , p. 49). In this regard, these views differ from many other MOS approaches to organizational unlearning.

Although Contu et al. ( 2003 , p. 934) do not directly address the concept itself, they offer a useful starting point for the critical understanding of organizational unlearning in MOS and identify two central issues as learning can become “antithetical:” to learn is to disorganize and increase variety, but to organize is to reduce variety. That is, learning can be used as a tool to enhance organizational performance, but it can also have a wider impact beyond managerial concerns and may violate the common social good. These views have important implications for a critical understanding of the organizational unlearning process.

Brook et al. ( 2016 , p. 371) contend that there is a cultural tendency to see learning as an unquestionably “good thing,” which altogether is exacerbating rather than resolving the problems confronting business and societies (cf. Contu et al. 2003 ; Hsu 2013 ). In Brook et al.’s ( 2016 ) account, organizational unlearning is a necessity because it not only problematizes the self-evident, positive views of learning, but also reveals the political nature of learning; they applied the concept of organizational unlearning in the field of (critical) action learning and argue that unlearning is particularly relevant to address “wicked problems,” like global warming.

Drawing upon Foucault’s ( 1991 ) governmentality, Chokr ( 2009 , p. 61) perceives unlearning as a reflective, enduring capability for individuals “not to be governed” by “the illusory world of all the ideas, notions and, beliefs that hem, jostle, whirl, confuse and oppress them.” Ultimately, for Chokr ( 2009 , p. 49), unlearning should generate “well-trained minds and individuals capable of questioning, critical thinking, imagination, creativity and self-reflective deliberation as engaged citizens.” Pedler and Hsu ( 2014 ) apply this approach to MOS and suggest that power is an inseparable, unmanageable, and uncontrollable dimension of learning, and that unlearning implies an individual’s capability to recognize the inevitable power relations in the process of learning, and making ethical judgments over time. Hsu ( 2021 ) articulates three capabilities implied by an on-going attempt of unlearning in the field of management education: the capability to think differently, to approach knowledge autonomously, and to act as self-governed, self-reflective, self-engaged citizens.

Antonacopoulou ( 2009 , p. 424) views unlearning as an on-going practice of “asking different questions by extending the outcomes sought” which is “in sharp contrast to previous conceptualizations” to remove “old knowledge in favour of new knowledge.” Unlearning ought to trigger “difference” (Deleuze 1994 ). Hsu ( 2013 ) contends that unlearning, as a practice, bears liberating and emancipatory implications as it enables individuals to develop a capability to problematize institutionalized ideologies and actions; epistemologically, unlearning assists the rediscovery of what Foucault ( 1980 ) called “subjugated knowledge.” Such subjugated knowledge may include that wisdom has been marginalized within predominant theories and practices, for example, the wisdom of non-action (Hsu 2013 ). Drawing upon a feminist, de-colonial, and arts-based perspective, Krauss ( 2019 ) views unlearning as a collective practice that assists individuals in creating alternative forms of living while breaking with the promise of economic advancement and growth. Taken together, these views suggest that the process of organizational unlearning requires several skills and practices associated with the capability or possibility of individuals and collectives to question and discard knowledge.

3.6 Summary of key findings

The following table provides an overview of the key points of each perspective in the process of organizational unlearning (Table 1 ). Our findings form the foundation of the implications, the integrative framework as well as future research directions.

4 Implications

The current body of literature shares three common underlying assumptions about the concept:

Organizational unlearning is perceived as a process that is based on an organization’s intention to discard—often multiple and intertwined—existing organizational knowledge structures;

Organizational unlearning evolves through mechanisms that assume different shapes and forms, depend significantly on the context, and are mostly introduced reactively to ensure organizational survival during crises, facilitate organizational change and learning, and improve innovativeness; and

Organizational unlearning is regarded as a highly complex organizational phenomenon as it dynamically unfolds within and across multiple levels, such as groups or individuals.

Our review, however, also reveals that the concept of organizational unlearning is imbalanced and fragmented (cf. Martin de Holan and Phillips 2011 ; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2019 ) which has led to its contestation (cf. Klein 1989 ; Howells and Scholderer 2016 ; Tsang 2017a , b ), because our understanding of how unlearning unfolds in organizational settings over time is still vague.

Three issues stand out. First, studies use different underlying assumptions about the concept, each typically arising from and remaining within its own domain. Using different terminologies (e.g., intentional forgetting, unlearning) or using the same terminology to describe different underlying assumptions about unlearning (e.g., unlearning following a sequential, recursive, or dialectic logic) leads to discrepancies and hampers our understanding of the concept. This also pertains to the process of unlearning; for instance, do organizations try to overwrite established knowledge by enacting new knowledge, or is knowledge aimed to be erased? Second, existing literature tends to focus on specific aspects of organizational unlearning (e.g., levels, antecedents, outcomes) without setting studies in a wider context, thereby leading to fragmentation. This perpetuates existing conceptual issues regarding the process of unlearning. Third, and in contrast to the previous point, other studies disregard the clarification of underlying assumptions about organizational unlearning (e.g., problematization or clearly defining levels), fostering a lack of decipherability.

We find that literature lacks an encompassing perspective that synthesizes existing conceptualizations and empirical studies to clarify why unlearning occurs, what it entails, and how the process actually unfolds. We propose and visualize an integrative framework that considers the issues outlined above and incorporates various fragments and streams in the field of organizational unlearning. To build a framework that is applicable across all communities within MOS, we assert that viewing unlearning as a process and making the concept dynamic are key to bringing different perspectives together. In the following, we articulate and discuss four implications that help future studies navigate through the profound and dynamic nature of organizational unlearning.

4.1 Implication 1: Organizational unlearning involves multiple levels

Unlearning entails a profound interdependence and interplay between and within different levels of an organization. However, existing research reflects a distinction between levels, with studies typically focusing on the individual level (Hislop et al. 2014 ; Matsuo 2018 , 2019a , b ), the group level (Akgün et al. 2006 ; Lee and Sukoco 2011 ; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2020 ), or the organizational level (Yang et al. 2014 ; Snihur 2018 ). Whether initiated top-down or bottom-up (Klammer et al. 2019a ; Padan and Nguyen 2020 ; Grisold et al. 2020 ), unlearning cannot be perceived as an isolated phenomenon. It dynamically and sometimes even simultaneously affects all entities including individuals, groups as well as the entire organization. Literature highlights the vital role of individuals and groups in the process of unlearning (Zhao et al. 2013 ; Hislop et al. 2014 ; Kluge 2023 ); since these claims are conceptual, however, we know little about the dynamics that unfold across these levels.

We suggest that the unlearning process manifests at all organizational levels. It is crucial to stress that in order to understand unlearning at the collective level, one cannot aggregate and extrapolate individual-level cognitive processes (Grisold and Kaiser 2017 ). Rather, collective unlearning involves complex feedback mechanisms that either reinforce or diminish the influence of old knowledge on organizational practices, which, in turn, spills over to collective activities (e.g., Crossan et al. 1999 ).

4.2 Implication 2: Motives behind organizational unlearning need to be translated into interventions

Organizational unlearning is enabled by intentional interventions that specifically aim to support the process of discarding obsolete knowledge structures over time. Several empirical studies offer initial insights into the workings and dynamics of interventions as mechanisms of organizational unlearning.

Perhaps the most challenging and complex intervention is to reduce the influence of old knowledge over time. While explicit, codified knowledge, such as written rules and regulations can be discarded relatively easily, implicit knowledge structures, like assumptions, beliefs, values, or norms are unequally harder to be unlearned. For this intervention, it is important to eliminate retrieval cues that make individuals draw less from old knowledge or habits over time (Kluge and Gronau 2018 ). This also holds true when no new knowledge should be implemented; reducing the influence of old knowledge is key in discarding an organization’s obsolete cognitive and behavioral knowledge structures to free up space for future possibilities (Peschl 2019 ). Combining both approaches, appreciative inquiry, for example, can facilitate the discarding of old knowledge while simultaneously addressing the creation of new knowledge (Srithika and Bhattacharyya 2009 ). Additionally, the benefits of the “new” should be constantly reinforced through feedback and clear communication (Grisold et al. 2020 ).

4.3 Implication 3: Processes of organizational unlearning differ in form, antecedents, and outcomes

We suggest that antecedents can be based on reactive and proactive grounds, and that the (desired) outcomes of organizational unlearning can only be fully known once the process has been completed. Generally, scholars promote the understanding that organizational unlearning is a reactive phenomenon (Snihur 2018 ) typically triggered by problems (Hedberg 1981 ; Nystrom and Starbuck 1984 ) or different cues (Sinkula 2002 ). More recent studies show that organizational unlearning also entails a proactive dimension and is advantageous when executed proactively (Morais-Storz and Nguyen 2017 ). In terms of outcomes and consequences, unlearning is generally perceived as a positive phenomenon. It is regarded as a facilitator of organizational change (e.g., Johannessen and Hauan 1994 ; Turc and Baumard 2007 ; Martin de Holan 2011a ; Mull et al. 2023 ; van Oers et al. 2023 ; Hamza-Orlinska et al. 2024 ) and an enabler of innovation and innovative behavior (e.g., Becker 2008 ; Cepeda-Carrion et al. 2012a ; Leal-Rodríguez et al. 2015 ; Zhang et al. 2022 ; Zhao et al. 2022 ; Klammer et al. 2023 ).

Researchers have seldom questioned the positive value of organizational unlearning. However, as knowledge is intertwined throughout the organization and embedded in assumptions, world views, values, habits, routines, processes, etc., unlearning specific knowledge structures might lead to a decrease of value or functioning of other parts (Zahra et al. 2011 ). Therefore, it is difficult to judge the value of (to-be) discarded knowledge. Organizational unlearning prompts a clash between the past, present, and future and involves different elements, such as culture, assumptions, beliefs, structures, strategies, routines, or habits. Hence, and contrary to managerial expectations (Govindarajan et al. 2021 ), the outcome of organizational unlearning can only be fully understood once the process is complete.

4.4 Implication 4: Prevalent organizational contexts highly influence the unlearning process

Researchers need to acknowledge that organizational unlearning comes with different reasons, decisions, and strategies. Studying idiosyncratic features of a given organizational context contrasts with the prevalent focus in organizational unlearning research. Some studies provide in-depth insights about how unlearning unfolds in a specific organizational context (Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004b ; Rezazade Mehrizi and Lashkarbolouki 2016 ; Burt and Nair 2020 ). The contexts or situated features in which unlearning occurs, however, remain elusive as the main interest is often placed on abstract sequences or phases that characterize unlearning (e.g., Nygren et al. 2017 ; Cegarra-Navarro et al. 2021 ; Kim and Park 2022 ). This comes at the cost of understanding how organizational unlearning actually unfolds and what elements it entails.

Empirical studies that embrace the processes through which organizational phenomena unfold typically find that these processes are tied to the specific situated context of organizations (Langley et al. 2013 ). Based on this line of thinking, we argue that the elaboration of an empirically examined unlearning process should be tied to its organizational context and other prevailing situated features.

We summarize and visualize our implications in an integrative framework (Fig. 2 ) to highlight the characteristics of the organizational unlearning process. Unlearning in organizations depends on a variety of factors that can alter the course of the process. In the following, we propose future research avenues that can further our understanding of organizational unlearning.

Process-based framework of organizational unlearning

5 Future research directions

5.1 forging organizational unlearning research as process-based studies.

Discarded knowledge that has once been enacted in organizations is difficult to capture. Researchers have attempted to capture this process using cross-sectional surveys (e.g., Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin 2003 ). We believe that—although efforts to operationalize unlearning are immensely valuable—existing questionnaires fall short of capturing the full extent of the organizational unlearning process; not capturing the full extent of unlearning does not allow for explaining non-linear dynamics that underlie the process (e.g., actors may find it more difficult to unlearn initially, but it becomes significantly easier after knowledge has been used less often). We assert that researchers need to study the concept more profoundly and longitudinally by examining different antecedents, processes, interventions, outcomes, levels, knowledge structures, and so on, from a process-based perspective (Langley and Tsoukas 2017 ). This can be achieved through methods, such as ethnography or case study research, that capture discarded knowledge and allow for a deep observation of the organizational unlearning process.

New research methods for generating insightful data may contribute to a clearer understanding of the phenomenon. One of the issues in survey-based research, for example, is knowledge retrieval; asking subjects if they currently need to unlearn, or have unlearned knowledge recently, might trigger an association with old knowledge. Hence, the process of unlearning could be disturbed. Methods that track the development and paths of knowledge to make it more explicit are especially interesting (Kluge et al. 2019 ).

Turning to research methods in digital environments, for example, may allow researchers to generate fresh insights into organizational unlearning. The increasing availability of digital trace data, i.e., digital footprints that are automatically recorded whenever actors use information technology, such as ERP systems (Pentland et al. 2020 ) or online platforms (Lindberg et al. 2016 ), renders promising opportunities. Digital trace data are considered particularly useful by organizational researchers because they provide an unobtrusive and unbiased way of studying organizational work (e.g., Berente et al. 2019 ). Using digital trace data to study unlearning processes allows researchers to gain an accurate picture of the more and less frequently adopted actions, and how processes change over time (e.g., before and after an unlearning-related intervention). Therefore, using digital trace data could open entirely new avenues for investigating organizational unlearning. Researchers could conduct in-depth analyses to examine whether, and/or how, interventions yield desired outcomes, undesired routines vanish, or single actions disappear over time.

Process-based studies can also shed a more nuanced light on mechanisms, antecedents, or outcomes (Langley et al. 2013 ). Our findings on the timing of unlearning imply that organizations, although seldom investigated empirically, do not always wait until they have no other choice but to unlearn. This challenges the assumption that organizational unlearning is caused exclusively by endogenous or exogenous shocks and, in turn, raises questions about the antecedents and expected outcomes of the process. Diagnosing antecedents and outcomes seems to be a major challenge, often because we can only observe organizational unlearning retrospectively.

If organizations understand how knowledge abandonment can help them achieve specific goals, they can design a setup for the type of unlearning that matches their objectives. For example, for organizations that want to improve gradually and continuously, shallow unlearning would be a good option because it contributes to day-to-day adaptation without destroying operational stability. Organizations that want to challenge their deeply held beliefs or taken-for-granted assumptions might require a proactive and deep unlearning approach. Following this line of thinking, we suggest for future studies to focus on the dynamic nature of the concept to highlight the specific facets and interventions of organizational unlearning processes, and provide in-depth explanations of how organizations intentionally refrain from using old knowledge over time. Focusing on such dynamics might also provide fresh perspectives on the interdependence and interplay at different organizational levels. These insights are needed, from our point of view, to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the organizational unlearning phenomenon, and demarcate it from related concepts, such as organizational learning and change (Howells and Scholderer 2016 ).

5.2 Highlighting contextual features and the nature of the unlearning process

Putting increased focus on the context of an organization may shed light on how or why organizations detach from—or keep adhering to—old routines, assumptions, and beliefs. Foregrounding the idiosyncratic features of old knowledge and how they are tied to the context of an organization might inform the design of effective interventions in a given situation. As such, unlearning interventions have both explanatory and normative value for organizational unlearning research. From an explanatory perspective, focusing on the context of unlearning interventions enables researchers to outline why an unlearning process unfolds the way it does. Differences in the width and depth of unlearning interventions, paired with the desired outcomes of the process, may explain how organizations intentionally remove knowledge from points A to B in a specific context. From a normative perspective, the awareness of contextual features can guide organizations, policy-makers, and other stakeholders in initiating and guiding different unlearning processes.

This also corresponds with emerging claims that MOS researchers should increasingly engage in real-world problem solving (e.g., Hideg et al. 2020 ; Howard-Grenville 2021 ). For example, scholars in the field of MOS have increasingly focused on grand challenges, questioning how organizations can effectively address complex social and environmental threats (e.g., Ambos and Tatarinov 2022 ; Voegtlin et al. 2022 ; Sele et al. 2024 ). One underlying theme in this stream of research is that organizations need to replace their established logics and routines, which are often profit-oriented, with new and more conducive ones. The transition from old to new ways of doing things, however, rarely works smoothly. Several studies have found that organizations tend to fall back on old detrimental knowledge as they tackle grand challenges (e.g., Wright and Nyberg 2017 ; van Wijk et al. 2020 ). Focusing on contextual features and the in-situ nature of unlearning processes helps researchers understand the latent, sub-conscious facets of why knowledge abandonment might or might not unfold in a given situation.

5.3 Spotlighting power, power relations, and politics in unlearning processes

Critical perspectives of unlearning, informed by critical management studies, problematize the predominant managerial understanding of organizational unlearning, because they recognize that the process is highly power-laden. Such views differ from the vast majority of existing unlearning literature. While critical perspectives do not forsake the idea of unlearning and learning, they suggest that these processes may have far-reaching effects, for which organizations and managers purport to take responsibility. However, to date, critical views of unlearning have had little impact on mainstream MOS literature, but may enrich the aforementioned research possibilities.

First, future studies could focus on the power relations embedded in the process of organizational unlearning. For instance, managerial intervention in the unlearning process inevitably reflects different interests and may generate resistance because unlearning, like learning, is also a socially constructed entity with relations of power (Pedler and Hsu 2014 ). It is important to understand the different stakeholders and organizational politics involved in this process, including the beneficiaries and victims of organizational unlearning. Second, the critical views of unlearning may legitimize what Pedler and Hsu ( 2019 ) called an “alternative paradigm” of learning organizations. Future studies could explore how the unlearning process stimulates incompatible organizational purpose that collides with the prevailing one. Researchers may also explore different forms of wisdom and their relationship with organizational unlearning, and how unlearning helps inspire alternative organizational realities.

6 Practical implications

Organizational unlearning, particularly seen as a process that evolves over time, has significant practical implications for how organizations progress, innovate, and adapt to changing environments. By actively unlearning outdated or inefficient practices, organizations can adopt innovative methods and technologies more effectively (Di Maria et al. 2023 ). This process is crucial in rapidly changing industries where clinging to old ways can be a significant disadvantage. Unlearning, when understood as an on-going and persistent effort, helps to create a culture of agility and flexibility. Organizations become more adept at responding to market changes, customer needs, and emerging trends.

Furthermore, leaders and managers play a crucial role in initiating, modelling, and facilitating unlearning. This process calls for adaptable and self-aware leaders capable of challenging the status quo. It also requires them to be effective communicators in guiding their teams through unlearning processes. Organizational unlearning encourages a culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness, which is essential for strategic planning and problem-solving. To summarize, understanding organizational unlearning as an on-going effort requires deliberate strategies and a supportive organizational culture as it involves systematic approaches to identify what needs to be unlearned, mechanisms to facilitate the unlearning process, and the integration of new learning and knowledge into an organization's operations.

7 Conclusion

Our review of the existing literature in the broader context of MOS and its respective domains reveals a fragmented field of organizational unlearning, including studies based on different underlying assumptions about the concept. To bring different viewpoints together and highlight concerns about the phenomenon, we propose implications and possible future research directions that will help researchers navigate through the jungle of different understandings of unlearning. Table 2 presents exemplary research questions that can serve as starting points for future research. Organizational unlearning is best understood and researched as an intentionally initiated and dynamically unfolding process that aims to discard or reduce undesired knowledge structures over time.

Data availability

The authors do not generate new datasets in this literature review. All articles and works included in this literature review can be accessed through the databases mentioned in the text.

References marked with an asterisk indicate works analyzed in the literature review.

*Açıkgöz A, Demirkan I, Latham GP, Kuzey C (2021) The relationship between unlearning and innovation ambidexterity with the performance of new product development teams. Group Decis Negot 30:945–982

Article Google Scholar

*Akgün AE, Lynn GS, Byrne JC (2006) Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 23:73–88

*Akgün AE, Byrne JC, Lynn GS, Keskin H (2007a) New product development in turbulent environments: impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. J Eng Technol Manag 24:203–230

*Akgün AE, Byrne JC, Lynn GS, Keskin H (2007b) Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations. J Organ Change Manag 20:794–812

*Alakavuklar ON, Alamgir F (2018) Ethics of resistance in organisations: a conceptual proposal. J Bus Ethics 149:31–43

Ambos TC, Tatarinov K (2022) Building responsible innovation in international organizations through intrapreneurship. J Manag Stud 59:92–125

*Antonacopoulou EP (2009) Impact and scholarship: unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Manag Learn 40:421–430

*Azmi FT (2008) Mapping the learn-unlearn-relearn model: imperatives for strategic management. Eur Bus Rev 20:240–259

*Becker KL (2008) Unlearning as a driver of sustainable change and innovation: three Australian case studies. Int J Technol Manag 42:89–106

*Becker KL (2010) Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. J Organ Change Manag 23:251–268

*Becker KL (2019) Organizational unlearning: the challenges of a developing phenomenon. Learn Organ 26:534–541

Berente N, Seidel S, Safadi H (2019) Research commentary––data-driven computationally intensive theory development. Inf Syst Res 30:50–64

*Bowker GC (1997) Lest we remember: organizational forgetting and the production of knowledge. Account Manag Inf Technol 7:113–138

Google Scholar

*Brook C, Pedler M, Abbott C, Burgoyne J (2016) On stopping doing those things that are not getting us to where we want to be: unlearning, wicked problems and critical action learning. Hum Relat 69:369–389

*Brooks J, Grugulis I, Cook H (2022) Unlearning and consent in the UK Fire and Rescue Service. Hum Relat 75:2300–2317

*Burt G, Nair AK (2020) Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: strategic foresight through ‘unlearning.’ Technol Forecast Soc Change 153:119927

*Burton N, Vu MC, Hawkins M (2023) Secular discernment: a process of individual unlearning and collective relearning. Manag Learn 54:680–704

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G (2013) Implementing telemedicine technologies through an unlearning context in a homecare setting. Behav Inf Technol 32:80–90

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Polo MT (2008) Linking the individual forgetting context with customer capital from a seller’s perspective. J Oper Res Soc 59:1614–1623

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Wensley AKP (2019) Promoting intentional unlearning through an unlearning cycle. J Organ Change Manag 32:67–79

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Eldridge S, Martinez-Martinez A (2010) Managing environmental knowledge through unlearning in Spanish hospitality companies. J Environ Psychol 30:249–257

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G, Eldridge S (2011a) Balancing technology and physician–patient knowledge through an unlearning context. Int J Inf Manag 31:420–427

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Vidal ME, Cegarra-Leiva D (2011b) Balancing exploration and exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. Manag Decis 49:1099–1119

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Martinez-Martinez A, Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Leal-Rodríguez AL (2013) Environmental knowledge, unlearning, and performance in hospitality companies. Manag Decis 51:341–360

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Eldridge S, Wensley AKP (2014) Counter-knowledge and realized absorptive capacity. Eur Manag J 32:165–176

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Vidal ME, Cegarra-Leiva D (2016) Linking unlearning with work-life balance: an initial empirical investigation into SMEs. J Small Bus Manag 54:373–391

*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Wensley AKP, Batisic S, Evans M, Cubillas Para C (2021) Minimizing the effects of defensive routines on knowledge hiding though unlearning. J Bus Res 137:58–68

*Cepeda-Carrion G, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Jimenez-Jimenez D (2012a) The effect of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: context and information systems capability as catalysts. Brit J Manag 23:110–129

*Cepeda-Carrion G, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Martinez-Caro E (2012b) Improving the absorptive capacity through unlearning context: an empirical investigation in hospital-in-the-home units. Serv Ind J 32:1551–1570

*Chokr NN (2009) Unlearning or ‘How NOT To Be Governed?’ Societas, Charlottesville

*Contu A, Grey C, Örtenblad A (2003) Against learning. Hum Relat 56:931–952

Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Ind Corp Change 9:211–253

Cronin MA, George E (2023) The why and how of the integrative review. Organ Res Methods 26:186–192

Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24:522–537

*Deleuze G (1994) Difference and repetition. Athlone Press, London

Di Maria M, Walter D, Schoormann T, Knackstedt R (2023) Practical support for unlearning—a systematic review to organize the field. In: Aenestad M, Klein S, Tarafdar M (eds) Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Information Systems

*Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (2011) In praise of organizational forgetting. J Manag Inq 20:311–316

*Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2017a) Unlearning established organizational routines—Part I. Learn Organ 24:13–29

*Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2017b) Unlearning established organizational routines—Part II. Learn Organ 24:82–92

*Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York

Foucault M (1991) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Penguin Books, London

*Fournier V, Grey C (2000) At the critical moment: conditions and prospects from critical management studies. Hum Relat 53:7–32

Govindarajan V, Srivastava A, Grisold T, Klammer A (2020) COVID-imposed opportunity to selectively unlearn past practices. In: California Management Review Insight. https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2020/10/selective-unlearning . Accessed 2 March 2023

Govindarajan V, Srivastava A, Grisold T, Klammer A (2021) Resist old routines when returning to the office. In: Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/05/resist-old-routines-when-returning-to-the-office . Accessed 3 March 2023

*Grisold T, Kaiser A (2017) Leaving behind what we are not: applying a systems thinking perspective to present unlearning as an enabler for finding the best version of the self. J Organ Transform Soc Change 14:39–55

*Grisold T, Klammer A, Kragulj F (2020) Two forms of organizational unlearning: insights from engaged scholarship research with change consultants. Manag Learn 51:598–619

*Grisold T, Kaiser A, Hafner J (2017) Unlearning before creating new knowledge: A cognitive process. In: Bui TX, Sprague Jr. R (eds) Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 4614–4623

Haase J, Matthiesen J, Schüffler AS, Kluge A (2020) Retentivity beats prior knowledge as predictor for the acquisition and adaptation of new production processes. In: Bui TX, Sprague Jr. R (eds) Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 4796–4805

*Hamza-Orlinska A, Maj J, Shantz A, Vassilopoulou J (2024) Unlearning diversity management. J World Bus 59:101519

*Hedberg BLT (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (eds) Handbook of organizational design: adapting organizations to their environments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–27

*Hedberg BLT, Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (1976) Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Adm Sci Q 21:41–65

Hideg I, DeCelles KA, Tihanyi L (2020) From the editors: publishing practical and responsible research in AMJ. Acad Manag J 63:1681–1686

*Hislop D, Bosley S, Coombs CR, Holland J (2014) The process of individual unlearning: a neglected topic in an under-researched field. Manag Learn 45:540–560

Howard-Greenville J (2021) Grand challenges, Covid-19 and the future of organizational scholarship. J Manag Stud 58:254–258

*Howells J, Scholderer J (2016) Forget unlearning? How an empirically unwarranted concept from psychology was imported to flourish in management and organization studies. Manag Learn 47:443–463

*Hsu S-w (2013) Alternative learning organization. In: Örtenblad A (ed) Handbook of research on the learning organization: adaptation and context. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 358–371

*Hsu S-w (2021) Exploring an alternative: Foucault-Chokr’s unlearning approach to management education. Int J Manag Educ 19:100496

Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ Sci 2:88–115

*Johannessen JA, Hauan A (1994) Organizational unlearning. Create Innov Manag 3:43–53

*Kim EJ, Park S (2022) Unlearning in the workplace: antecedents and outcomes. Hum Resour Dev Q 33:273–296

*Klammer A (2021) Embracing organisational unlearning as a facilitator of business model innovation. Int J Innov Manag 25:2150061

*Klammer A, Gueldenberg S (2019) Unlearning and forgetting in organizations: a systematic review of literature. J Knowl Manag 23:860–888

*Klammer A, Gueldenberg S (2020) Honor the old, welcome the new: an account of unlearning and forgetting in NPD teams. Eur J Innov Manag 23:581–603

*Klammer A, Grisold T, Gueldenberg S (2019a) Introducing a “stop-doing” culture: How to free your organization from rigidity. Bus Horiz 62:451–458

*Klammer A, Grisold T, Nguyen N (2019b) Guest editorial: opportunities and interdisciplinary perspectives for organizational unlearning. Learn Organ 26:445–453

*Klammer A, Hora W, Kailer N (2023) Opposites attract: How incumbents learn and unlearn in coopetitive relationships with start-ups. Ind Mark Manag 112:85–97

*Klein JI (1989) Parenthetic learning in organizations: toward the unlearning of the unlearning model. J Manag Stud 26:291–308

*Kluge A (2023) Recent findings on organizational unlearning and intentional forgetting research (2019–2022). Front Psychol 14:1160173

*Kluge A, Gronau N (2018) Intentional forgetting in organizations: the importance of eliminating retrieval cues for implementing new routines. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00051

*Kluge A, Schüffler AS, Thim C, Haase J, Gronau N (2019) Investigating unlearning and forgetting in organizations: research methods, designs and implications. Learn Organ 26:518–533

*Krauss A (2019) Unlearning institutional habits: an arts-based perspective on organizational unlearning. Learn Organ 26:485–499

Langley A, Tsoukas H (2017) The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Langley A, Smallman C, Tsoukas H, Van de Ven AH (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Acad Manag J 56:1–13

*Leal-Rodríguez AL, Eldridge S, Roldán JL, Leal-Millán AG, Ortega-Gutiérrez J (2015) Organizational unlearning, innovation outcomes, and performance: the moderating effect of firm size. J Bus Res 68:803–809

*Lee LTS, Sukoco BM (2011) Reflexivity, stress, and unlearning in the new product development team: the moderating effect of procedural justice. R&D Manag 41:410–423

Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strat Manag J 13:111–125

Lindberg A, Berente N, Gaskin J, Lyytinen K (2016) Coordinating interdependencies in online communities: a study of an open source software project. Inf Syst Res 27:751–772

*Lyu C, Zhang F, Ji J, Teo TSH, Wang T, Liu Z (2022) Competitive intensity and new product development outcomes: the roles of knowledge integration and organizational unlearning. J Bus Res 139:121–133

*Macdonald G (2002) Transformative unlearning: safety, discernment and communities of learning. Nurs Inq 9:170–178

*Martignoni D, Keil T (2021) It did not work? Unlearn and try again—unlearning success and failure beliefs in changing environments. Strat Manag J 42:1057–1082

*Martin de Holan P (2011a) Agency in voluntary organizational forgetting. J Manag Inq 20:317–322

*Martin de Holan P (2011b) Organizational forgetting, unlearning, and memory systems. J Manag Inq 20:302–304

*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2004a) Organizational forgetting as strategy. Strat Organ 2:423–433

*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2004b) Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Manag Sci 50:1603–1613

*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2011) Organizational forgetting. In: Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds) Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 433–451

*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N, Lawrence TB (2004) Managing organizational forgetting. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45:45–51

*Matsuo M (2018) Goal orientation, critical reflection, and unlearning: an individual-level study. Hum Resour Dev Q 29:49–66

*Matsuo M (2019a) Critical reflection, unlearning, and engagement. Manag Learn 50:465–481

*Matsuo M (2019b) The unlearning of managerial skills: a qualitative study of executive officers. Eur Manag Rev 16:303–315

McGrath RG (2019) Seeing around corners: How to spot inflection points in business before they happen. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

McGrath RG, Euchner J (2020) Seeing around corners: an interview with Rita McGrath. Res-Technol Manag 63:12–17

*McKeown I (2012) Teaching old dogs new tricks: Why unlearning matters in SMEs. Int J Entrep Innov 13:25–34

*Morais-Storz M, Nguyen N (2017) The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience. Learn Organ 24:93–106

*Mull M, Duffy C, Silberman D (2023) Forgetting to learn and learning to forget: the call for organizational unlearning. Eur J Train Dev 47:586–598

*Nguyen N (2017) The journey of organizational unlearning: a conversation with William H. Starbuck Learn Organ 24:58–66

*Nygren NV, Jokinen A, Nikula A (2017) Unlearning in managing wicked biodiversity problems. Landsc Urban Plan 167:473–482

*Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (1984) To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organ Dyn 12:53–65

*Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G, Leal-Rodríguez AL (2015) Linking unlearning with quality of health services through knowledge corridors. J Bus Res 68:815–822

*Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Cepeda-Carrión I, Alves H (2022) The role of absorptive capacity and organizational unlearning in the link between social media and service dominant orientation. J Knowl Manag 26:920–942

*Padan T, Nguyen N (2020) Responsible management unlearning. In: Laasch O, Suddaby R, Freeman RE, Jamali D (eds) Research handbook of responsible management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 501–515

*Pedler M, Hsu S-w (2014) Unlearning, critical action learning and wicked problems. Action Learn Res Pract 11:296–310

*Pedler M, Hsu S-w (2019) Regenerating the learning organization: towards an alternative paradigm. Learn Organ 26:97–112

*Pentland B, Liu P, Kremser W, Hærem T (2020) The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Q 44:19–47

*Peschl MF (2019) Unlearning towards an uncertain future: on the back end of future-driven unlearning. Learn Organ 26:454–469

*Polites GL, Karahanna E (2012) Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q 36:21–42

*Pratt MG, Barnett CK (1997) Emotions and unlearning in Amway recruiting techniques: promoting change through ‘safe’ ambivalence. Manag Learn 28:65–88

*Reese S (2017) Putting organizational unlearning into practice: a few steps for the practitioner. Learn Organ 24:67–69

*Rezazade Mehrizi MH, Lashkarbolouki M (2016) Unlearning troubled business models: from realization to marginalization. Long Range Plan 49:298–323

Rojon C, Okupe A, McDowall A (2021) Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int J Manag Rev 23:191–223

*Rupcic N (2019) Learning-forgetting-unlearning-relearning—the learning organization’s learning dynamics. Learn Organ 26:542–548

*Rushmer R, Davies HTO (2004) Unlearning in health care. BMJ Qual Saf 13:ii10–ii15

Sele K, Mahringer CA, Danner-Schröder A, Grisold T, Renzl B (2024) We are all pattern makers! How a flat ontology connects organizational routines and grand challenges. Strat Organ. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270231215685

*Sharma S, Lenka U (2019) Exploring linkages between unlearning and relearning in organizations. Learn Organ 26:500–517

*Sharma S, Lenka U (2022a) Counterintuitive, yet essential: taking stock of organizational unlearning research through a scientometric analysis (1976–2019). Knowl Manag Res Pract 20:152–174

*Sharma S, Lenka U (2022b) On the shoulders of giants: uncovering key themes of organizational unlearning research in mainstream management journals. Rev Manag Sci 16:1599–1695

*Sharma S, Lenka U (2024) How does transformational leadership impact organizational unlearning: insights from persistence theories. J Organ Change Manag 37:150–172

*Sheaffer Z, Mano-Negrin R (2003) Executives’ orientations as indicators of crisis management policies and practices. J Manag Stud 40:573–606

*Sinkula JM (2002) Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning. J Bus Ind Mark 17:253–269

*Snihur Y (2018) Responding to business model innovation: organizational unlearning and firm failure. Learn Organ 25:190–198

*Srithika TM, Bhattacharyya S (2009) Facilitating organizational unlearning using appreciative inquiry as an intervention. Vikalpa 34:67–78

*Starbuck WH (1996) Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. Int J Technol Manag 11:725–737

*Starbuck WH (2017) Organizational learning and unlearning. Learn Organ 24:30–38

Starbuck WH, Milliken FJ (1988) Challenger: fine-tuning the odds until something breaks. J Manag Stud 25:319–340

*Starbuck WH, Greve A, Hedberg BLT (1978) Responding to Crises. J Bus Adm 9:111–137

*Tanaka S (2023) Effects of goal orientation and unlearning on individual exploration activities. J Workplace Learn 35:57–74

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Manag 14:207–222

Trullen J, Bos-Nehles A, Valverde M (2020) From intended to actual and beyond: a cross-disciplinary view of (human resource management) implementation. Int J Manag Rev 22:150–176

*Tsang EWK (2008) Transferring knowledge to acquisition joint ventures: an organizational unlearning perspective. Manag Learn 39:5–20

*Tsang EWK (2017a) How the concept of organizational unlearning contributes to studies of learning organizations: a personal reflection. Learn Organ 24:39–48

*Tsang EWK (2017b) Stop eulogizing, complicating or straitjacketing the concept of organizational unlearning, please. Learn Organ 24:78–81

*Tsang EWK, Zahra SA (2008) Organizational unlearning. Hum Relat 61:1435–1462

Tsoukas H, Vladimirou E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? J Manag Stud 38:973–993

*Turc E, Baumard P (2007) Can organizations really unlearn? In: McInerney CR, Day RE (eds) Rethinking knowledge management: from knowledge objects to knowledge processes. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–146

Chapter Google Scholar

*van Oers L, Feola G, Runhaar H, Moors E (2023) Unlearning in sustainability transitions: insight from two Dutch community-supported agriculture farms. Environ Innov Soc Transit 46:100693

van Wijk J, van Wijk J, Drost S, Stam W (2020) Challenges in building robust interventions in contexts of poverty: insights from an NGO-driven multi-stakeholder network in Ethiopia. Organ Stud 41:1391–1415

*Visser M (2017) Learning and unlearning: a conceptual note. Learn Organ 24:49–57

Voegtlin C, Scherer AG, Stahl GK, Hawn O (2022) Grand societal challenges and responsible innovation. J Manag Stud 59:1–28

*Vu MC, Nguyen LA (2022) Mindful unlearning in unprecedented times: implications for management and organizations. Manag Learn 53:797–817

*Wang X, Lu Y, Zhao Y, Gong S, Li B (2013) Organizational unlearning, organizational flexibility and innovation capability: an empirical study of SMEs in China. Int J Technol Manag 61:132–155

*Wang X, Xi Y, Xie J, Zhao Y (2017) Organizational unlearning and knowledge transfer in cross-border M&A: the roles of routine and knowledge compatibility. J Knowl Manag 21:1580–1595

*Wensley AKP, Cegarra-Navarro JG (2015) Overcoming knowledge loss through the utilization of an unlearning context. J Bus Res 68:1563–1569

Wright C, Nyberg D (2017) An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad Manag J 60:1633–1661

*Xi Y, Wang X, Zhu Y (2020) Organizational unlearning and knowledge transfer in cross-border M&As: the mediating role of knowledge integration from a routine-based view. J Knowl Manag 24:841–860

*Xu N, Wu X, Du J, Li S (2023) Organizational unlearning: a process of tension imposition, integration, and splitting. Eur Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12586

*Yang KP, Chou C, Chiu YJ (2014) How unlearning affects radical innovation: the dynamics of social capital and slack resources. Technol Forecast Soc Change 87:152–163

*Yildiz HE, Fey CF (2010) Compatibility and unlearning in knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions. Scand J Manag 26:448–456

*Yin J (2023) Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: the mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning. Curr Psychol 42:2708–2718

*Zahra SA, Abdelgawad SG, Tsang EWK (2011) Emerging multinationals venturing into developed economies: Implications for learning, unlearning, and entrepreneurial capability. J Manag Inq 20:323–330

*Zhang F, Lyu C, Zhu L (2022) Organizational unlearning, knowledge generation strategies and radical innovation performance: evidence from a transitional economy. Eur J Mark 56:133–158

*Zhao Y, Wang X (2020) Organisational unlearning, relearning and strategic flexibility: from the perspective of updating routines and knowledge. Technol Anal Strat Manag 32:1251–1263

*Zhao Y, Lu Y, Wang X (2013) Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning: a dynamic process of knowledge management. J Knowl Manag 17:902–912

*Zhao Y, Wang Z, Feng T, Kong T, Zhang Q (2022) Organizational unlearning and inclusive innovation: the moderating role of green control ambidexterity. Sustain Dev 30:539–555

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Liechtenstein. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Liechtenstein Business School, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein

Adrian Klammer

Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Thomas Grisold

Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Nhien Nguyen

Center for General Education, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

Shih-wei Hsu

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Klammer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Klammer, A., Grisold, T., Nguyen, N. et al. Organizational unlearning as a process: What we know, what we don’t know, what we should know. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00430-3

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2023

Accepted : 31 March 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00430-3

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

Organizational unlearning
Unlearning process
Knowledge loss
Literature review
Integrative literature review

JEL Classification

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Open access
Published: 23 April 2024

Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma 1 , 2 ,
Dominique Sluijsmans 3 ,
Arnoldo Riquelme 4 ,
Ignacio Villagran ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-8326 1 ,
Lorena Isbej ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-8484 2 , 5 ,
María Teresa Olivares-Labbe 6 &
Sylvia Heeneman 7

BMC Medical Education volume 24 , Article number: 440 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Feedback processes are crucial for learning, guiding improvement, and enhancing performance. In workplace-based learning settings, diverse teaching and assessment activities are advocated to be designed and implemented, generating feedback that students use, with proper guidance, to close the gap between current and desired performance levels. Since productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured feedback activities within undergraduate workplace-based learning settings. However, these settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students. This scoping review maps literature on how feedback processes are organised in undergraduate clinical workplace-based learning settings, providing insight into the design and use of feedback.

A scoping review was conducted. Studies were identified from seven databases and ten relevant journals in medical education. The screening process was performed independently in duplicate with the support of the StArt program. Data were organized in a data chart and analyzed using thematic analysis. The feedback loop with a sociocultural perspective was used as a theoretical framework.

The search yielded 4,877 papers, and 61 were included in the review. Two themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: (1) The organization of the feedback processes in workplace-based learning settings, and (2) Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. The literature describes multiple teaching and assessment activities that generate feedback information. Most papers described experiences and perceptions of diverse teaching and assessment feedback activities. Few studies described how feedback processes improve performance. Sociocultural factors such as establishing a feedback culture, enabling stable and trustworthy relationships, and enhancing student feedback agency are crucial for productive feedback processes.

Conclusions

This review identified concrete ideas regarding how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. The feedback encounter should be organized to allow follow-up of the feedback, i.e., working on required learning and performance goals at the next occasion. The educational programs should design feedback processes by appropriately planning subsequent tasks and activities. More insight is needed in designing a full-loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices.

Peer Review reports

The design of effective feedback processes in higher education has been important for educators and researchers and has prompted numerous publications discussing potential mechanisms, theoretical frameworks, and best practice examples over the past few decades. Initially, research on feedback primarily focused more on teachers and feedback delivery, and students were depicted as passive feedback recipients [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. The feedback conversation has recently evolved to a more dynamic emphasis on interaction, sense-making, outcomes in actions, and engagement with learners [ 2 ]. This shift aligns with utilizing the feedback process as a form of social interaction or dialogue to enhance performance [ 4 ]. Henderson et al. (2019) defined feedback processes as "where the learner makes sense of performance-relevant information to promote their learning." (p. 17). When a student grasps the information concerning their performance in connection to the desired learning outcome and subsequently takes suitable action, a feedback loop is closed so the process can be regarded as successful [ 5 , 6 ].

Hattie and Timperley (2007) proposed a comprehensive perspective on feedback, the so-called feedback loop, to answer three key questions: “Where am I going? “How am I going?” and “Where to next?” [ 7 ]. Each question represents a key dimension of the feedback loop. The first is the feed-up, which consists of setting learning goals and sharing clear objectives of learners' performance expectations. While the concept of the feed-up might not be consistently included in the literature, it is considered to be related to principles of effective feedback and goal setting within educational contexts [ 7 , 8 ]. Goal setting allows students to focus on tasks and learning, and teachers to have clear intended learning outcomes to enable the design of aligned activities and tasks in which feedback processes can be embedded [ 9 ]. Teachers can improve the feed-up dimension by proposing clear, challenging, but achievable goals [ 7 ]. The second dimension of the feedback loop focuses on feedback and aims to answer the second question by obtaining information about students' current performance. Different teaching and assessment activities can be used to obtain feedback information, and it can be provided by a teacher or tutor, a peer, oneself, a patient, or another coworker. The last dimension of the feedback loop is the feedforward, which is specifically associated with using feedback to improve performance or change behaviors [ 10 ]. Feedforward is crucial in closing the loop because it refers to those specific actions students must take to reduce the gap between current and desired performance [ 7 ].

From a sociocultural perspective, feedback processes involve a social practice consisting of intricate relationships within a learning context [ 11 ]. The main feature of this approach is that students learn from feedback only when the feedback encounter includes generating, making sense of, and acting upon the information given [ 11 ]. In the context of workplace-based learning (WBL), actionable feedback plays a crucial role in enabling learners to leverage specific feedback to enhance their performance, skills, and conceptual understandings. The WBL environment provides students with a valuable opportunity to gain hands-on experience in authentic clinical settings, in which students work more independently on real-world tasks, allowing them to develop and exhibit their competencies [ 3 ]. However, WBL settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote self-directed learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students [ 12 ]. Consequently, designing purposive feedback opportunities within WBL settings is a significant challenge for clinical teachers and faculty.

In undergraduate clinical education, feedback opportunities are often constrained due to the emphasis on clinical work and the absence of dedicated time for teaching [ 13 ]. Students are expected to perform autonomously under supervision, ideally achieved by giving them space to practice progressively and providing continuous instances of constructive feedback [ 14 ]. However, the hierarchy often present in clinical settings places undergraduate students in a dependent position, below residents and specialists [ 15 ]. Undergraduate or junior students may have different approaches to receiving and using feedback. If their priority is meeting the minimum standards given pass-fail consequences and acting merely as feedback recipients, other incentives may be needed to engage with the feedback processes because they will need more learning support [ 16 , 17 ]. Adequate supervision and feedback have been recognized as vital educational support in encouraging students to adopt a constructive learning approach [ 18 ]. Given that productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured teaching and learning feedback activities within undergraduate WBL settings.

Despite the extensive research on feedback, a significant proportion of published studies involve residents or postgraduate students [ 19 , 20 ]. Recent reviews focusing on feedback interventions within medical education have clearly distinguished between undergraduate medical students and residents or fellows [ 21 ]. To gain a comprehensive understanding of initiatives related to actionable feedback in the WBL environment for undergraduate health professions, a scoping review of the existing literature could provide insight into how feedback processes are designed in that context. Accordingly, the present scoping review aims to answer the following research question: How are the feedback processes designed in the undergraduate health professions' workplace-based learning environments?

A scoping review was conducted using the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [ 22 ], intertwined with the PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis [ 23 ]. Scoping reviews allow us to study the literature without restricting the methodological quality of the studies found, systematically and comprehensively map the literature, and identify gaps [ 24 ]. Furthermore, a scoping review was used because this topic is not suitable for a systematic review due to the varied approaches described and the large difference in the methodologies used [ 21 ].

Search strategy

With the collaboration of a medical librarian, the authors used the research question to guide the search strategy. An initial meeting was held to define keywords and search resources. The proposed search strategy was reviewed by the research team, and then the study selection was conducted in two steps:

An online database search included Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO.

A directed search of ten relevant journals in the health sciences education field (Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Journal of Surgical Education, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education Online, Perspectives on Medical Education and The Clinical Teacher) was performed.

The research team conducted a pilot or initial search before the full search to identify if the topic was susceptible to a scoping review. The full search was conducted in November 2022. One team member (MO) identified the papers in the databases. JF searched in the selected journals. Authors included studies written in English due to feasibility issues, with no time span limitation. After eliminating duplicates, two research team members (JF and IV) independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts using the exclusion and inclusion criteria described in Table 2 and with the support of the screening application StArT [ 25 ]. A third team member (AR) reviewed the titles and abstracts when the first two disagreed. The reviewer team met again at a midpoint and final stage to discuss the challenges related to study selection. Articles included for full-text review were exported to Mendeley. JF independently screened all full-text papers, and AR verified 10% for inclusion. The authors did not analyze study quality or risk of bias during study selection, which is consistent with conducting a scoping review.

The analysis of the results incorporated a descriptive summary and a thematic analysis, which was carried out to clarify and give consistency to the results' reporting [ 22 , 24 , 26 ]. Quantitative data were analyzed to report the characteristics of the studies, populations, settings, methods, and outcomes. Qualitative data were labeled, coded, and categorized into themes by three team members (JF, SH, and DS). The feedback loop framework with a sociocultural perspective was used as the theoretical framework to analyze the results.

The keywords used for the search strategies were as follows:

Clinical clerkship; feedback; formative feedback; health professions; undergraduate medical education; workplace.

Definitions of the keywords used for the present review are available in Appendix 1 .

As an example, we included the search strategy that we used in the Medline/PubMed database when conducting the full search:

("Formative Feedback"[Mesh] OR feedback) AND ("Workplace"[Mesh] OR workplace OR "Clinical Clerkship"[Mesh] OR clerkship) AND (("Education, Medical, Undergraduate"[Mesh] OR undergraduate health profession*) OR (learner* medical education)).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used (Table 1 ):

Data extraction

The research group developed a data-charting form to organize the information obtained from the studies. The process was iterative, as the data chart was continuously reviewed and improved as necessary. In addition, following Levac et al.'s recommendation (2010), the three members involved in the charting process (JF, LI, and IV) independently reviewed the first five selected studies to determine whether the data extraction was consistent with the objectives of this scoping review and to ensure consistency. Then, the team met using web-conferencing software (Zoom; CA, USA) to review the results and adjust any details in the chart. The same three members extracted data independently from all the selected studies, considering two members reviewing each paper [ 26 ]. A third team member was consulted if any conflict occurred when extracting data. The data chart identified demographic patterns and facilitated the data synthesis. To organize data, we used a shared Excel spreadsheet, considering the following headings: title, author(s), year of publication, journal/source, country/origin, aim of the study, research question (if any), population/sample size, participants, discipline, setting, methodology, study design, data collection, data analysis, intervention, outcomes, outcomes measure, key findings, and relation of findings to research question.

Additionally, all the included papers were uploaded to AtlasTi v19 to facilitate the qualitative analysis. Three team members (JF, SH, and DS) independently coded the first six papers to create a list of codes to ensure consistency and rigor. The group met several times to discuss and refine the list of codes. Then, one member of the team (JF) used the code list to code all the rest of the papers. Once all papers were coded, the team organized codes into descriptive themes aligned with the research question.

Preliminary results were shared with a number of stakeholders (six clinical teachers, ten students, six medical educators) to elicit their opinions as an opportunity to build on the evidence and offer a greater level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to the preliminary findings [ 26 ]. No quality appraisal of the studies is considered for this scoping review, which aligns with the frameworks for guiding scoping reviews [ 27 ].

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

A database search resulted in 3,597 papers, and the directed search of the most relevant journals in the health sciences education field yielded 2,096 titles. An example of the results of one database is available in Appendix 2 . Of the titles obtained, 816 duplicates were eliminated, and the team reviewed the titles and abstracts of 4,877 papers. Of these, 120 were selected for full-text review. Finally, 61 papers were included in this scoping review (Fig. 1 ), as listed in Table 2 .

PRISMA flow diagram for included studies, incorporating records identified through the database and direct searching

The selected studies were published between 1986 and 2022, and seventy-five percent (46) were published during the last decade. Of all the articles included in this review, 13% (8) were literature reviews: one integrative review [ 28 ] and four scoping reviews [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Finally, fifty-three (87%) original or empirical papers were included (i.e., studies that answered a research question or achieved a research purpose through qualitative or quantitative methodologies) [ 15 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ].

Table 2 summarizes the papers included in the present scoping review, and Table 3 describes the characteristics of the included studies.

The thematic analysis resulted in two themes: (1) the organization of feedback processes in WBL settings, and (2) sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. Table 4 gives a summary of the themes and subthemes.

Organization of feedback processes in WBL settings.

Setting learning goals (i.e., feed-up dimension).

Feedback that focuses on students' learning needs and is based on known performance standards enhances student response and setting learning goals [ 30 ]. Discussing goals and agreements before starting clinical practice enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. Farrell et al. (2017) found that teacher-learner co-constructed learning goals enhance feedback interactions and help establish educational alliances, improving the learning experience [ 50 ]. However, Kiger (2020) found that sharing individualized learning plans with teachers aligned feedback with learning goals but did not improve students' perceived use of feedback [ 64 ]

Two papers of this set pointed out the importance of goal-oriented feedback, a dynamic process that depends on discussion of goal setting between teachers and students [ 50 ] and influences how individuals experience, approach, and respond to upcoming learning activities [ 34 ]. Goal-oriented feedback should be embedded in the learning experience of the clinical workplace, as it can enhance students' engagement in safe feedback dialogues [ 50 ]. Ideally, each feedback encounter in the WBL context should conclude, in addition to setting a plan of action to achieve the desired goal, with a reflection on the next goal [ 50 ].

Feedback strategies within the WBL environment. (i.e., feedback dimension)

In undergraduate WBL environments, there are several tasks and feedback opportunities organized in the undergraduate clinical workplace that can enable feedback processes:

Questions from clinical teachers to students are a feedback strategy [ 74 ]. There are different types of questions that the teacher can use, either to clarify concepts, to reach the correct answer, or to facilitate self-correction [ 74 ]. Usually, questions can be used in conjunction with other communication strategies, such as pauses, which enable self-correction by the student [ 74 ]. Students can also ask questions to obtain feedback on their performance [ 54 ]. However, question-and-answer as a feedback strategy usually provides information on either correct or incorrect answers and fewer suggestions for improvement, rendering it less constructive as a feedback strategy [ 82 ].

Direct observation of performance by default is needed to be able to provide information to be used as input in the feedback process [ 33 , 46 , 49 , 86 ]. In the process of observation, teachers can include clarification of objectives (i.e., feed-up dimension) and suggestions for an action plan (i.e., feedforward) [ 50 ]. Accordingly, Schopper et al. (2016) showed that students valued being observed while interviewing patients, as they received feedback that helped them become more efficient and effective as interviewers and communicators [ 33 ]. Moreover, it is widely described that direct observation improves feedback credibility [ 33 , 40 , 84 ]. Ideally, observation should be deliberate [ 33 , 83 ], informal or spontaneous [ 33 ], conducted by a (clinical) expert [ 46 , 86 ], provided immediately after the observation, and clinical teacher if possible, should schedule or be alert on follow-up observations to promote closing the gap between current and desired performance [ 46 ].

Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), by definition, entail direct observation of performance during authentic task demonstration [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. WBAs can significantly impact behavioral change in medical students [ 55 ]. Organizing and designing formative WBAs and embedding these in a feedback dialogue is essential for effective learning [ 31 ].

Summative organization of WBAs is a well described barrier for feedback uptake in the clinical workplace [ 35 , 46 ]. If feedback is perceived as summative, or organized as a pass-fail decision, students may be less inclined to use the feedback for future learning [ 52 ]. According to Schopper et al. (2016), using a scale within a WBA makes students shift their focus during the clinical interaction and see it as an assessment with consequences [ 33 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) pointed out that an environment that only contains assessments with a summative purpose will not lead to a culture of learning and improving performance [ 56 ]. The recommendation is to separate the formative and summative WBAs, as feedback in summative instances is often not recognized as a learning opportunity or an instance to seek feedback [ 54 ]. In terms of the design, an organizational format is needed to clarify to students how formative assessments can promote learning from feedback [ 56 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) identified that enabling students to have more control over their assessments, designing authentic assessments, and facilitating long-term mentoring could improve receptivity to formative assessment feedback [ 56 ].

Multiple WBA instruments and systems are reported in the literature. Sox et al. (2014) used a detailed evaluation form to help students improve their clinical case presentation skills. They found that feedback on oral presentations provided by supervisors using a detailed evaluation form improved clerkship students’ oral presentation skills [ 78 ]. Daelmans et al. (2006) suggested that a formal in-training assessment programme composed by 19 assessments that provided structured feedback, could promote observation and verbal feedback opportunities through frequent assessments [ 43 ]. However, in this setting, limited student-staff interactions still hindered feedback follow-up [ 43 ]. Designing frequent WBA improves feedback credibility [ 28 ]. Long et al. (2021) emphasized that students' responsiveness to assessment feedback hinges on its perceived credibility, underlining the importance of credibility for students to effectively engage and improve their performance [ 31 ].

The mini-CEX is one of the most widely described WBA instruments in the literature. Students perceive that the mini-CEX allows them to be observed and encourages the development of interviewing skills [ 33 ]. The mini-CEX can provide feedback that improves students' clinical skills [ 58 , 60 ], as it incorporates a structure for discussing the student's strengths and weaknesses and the design of a written action plan [ 39 , 80 ]. When mini-CEXs are incorporated as part of a system of WBA, such as programmatic assessment, students feel confident in seeking feedback after observation, and being systematic allows for follow-up [ 39 ]. Students suggested separating grading from observation and using the mini-CEX in more informal situations [ 33 ].

Clinical encounter cards allow students to receive weekly feedback and make them request more feedback as the clerkship progresses [ 65 ]. Moreover, encounter cards stimulate that feedback is given by supervisors, and students are more satisfied with the feedback process [ 72 ]. With encounter card feedback, students are responsible for asking a supervisor for feedback before a clinical encounter, and supervisors give students written and verbal comments about their performance after the encounter [ 42 , 72 ]. Encounter cards enhance the use of feedback and add approximately one minute to the length of the clinical encounter, so they are well accepted by students and supervisors [ 72 ]. Bennett (2006) identified that Instant Feedback Cards (IFC) facilitated mid-rotation feedback [ 38 ]. Feedback encounter card comments must be discussed between students and supervisors; otherwise, students may perceive it as impersonal, static, formulaic, and incomplete [ 59 ].

Self-assessments can change students' feedback orientation, transforming them into coproducers of learning [ 68 ]. Self-assessments promote the feedback process [ 68 ]. Some articles emphasize the importance of organizing self-assessments before receiving feedback from supervisors, for example, discussing their appraisal with the supervisor [ 46 , 52 ]. In designing a feedback encounter, starting with a self-assessment as feed-up, discussing with the supervisor, and identifying areas for improvement is recommended, as part of the feedback dialogue [ 68 ].

Peer feedback as an organized activity allows students to develop strategies to observe and give feedback to other peers [ 61 ]. Students can act as the feedback provider or receiver, fostering understanding of critical comments and promoting evaluative judgment for their clinical practice [ 61 ]. Within clerkships, enabling the sharing of feedback information among peers allows for a better understanding and acceptance of feedback [ 52 ]. However, students can find it challenging to take on the peer assessor/feedback provider role, as they prefer to avoid social conflicts [ 28 , 61 ]. Moreover, it has been described that they do not trust the judgment of their peers because they are not experts, although they know the procedures, tasks, and steps well and empathize with their peer status in the learning process [ 61 ].

Bedside-teaching encounters (BTEs) provide timely feedback and are an opportunity for verbal feedback during performance [ 74 ]. Rizan et al. (2014) explored timely feedback delivered within BTEs and determined that it promotes interaction that constructively enhances learner development through various corrective strategies (e.g., question and answers, pauses, etc.). However, if the feedback given during the BTEs was general, unspecific, or open-ended, it could go unnoticed [ 74 ]. Torre et al. (2005) investigated which integrated feedback activities and clinical tasks occurred on clerkship rotations and assessed students' perceived quality in each teaching encounter [ 81 ]. The feedback activities reported were feedback on written clinical history, physical examination, differential diagnosis, oral case presentation, a daily progress note, and bedside feedback. Students considered all these feedback activities high-quality learning opportunities, but they were more likely to receive feedback when teaching was at the bedside than at other teaching locations [ 81 ].

Case presentations are an opportunity for feedback within WBL contexts [ 67 , 73 ]. However, both students and supervisors struggled to identify them as feedback moments, and they often dismissed questions and clarifications around case presentations as feedback [ 73 ]. Joshi (2017) identified case presentations as a way for students to ask for informal or spontaneous supervisor feedback [ 63 ].

Organization of follow-up feedback and action plans (i.e., feedforward dimension).

Feedback that generates use and response from students is characterized by two-way communication and embedded in a dialogue [ 30 ]. Feedback must be future-focused [ 29 ], and a feedback encounter should be followed by planning the next observation [ 46 , 87 ]. Follow-up feedback could be organized as a future self-assessment, reflective practice by the student, and/or a discussion with the supervisor or coach [ 68 ]. The literature describes that a lack of student interaction with teachers makes follow-up difficult [ 43 ]. According to Haffling et al. (2011), follow-up feedback sessions improve students' satisfaction with feedback compared to students who do not have follow-up sessions. In addition, these same authors reported that a second follow-up session allows verification of improved performances or confirmation that the skill was acquired [ 55 ].

Although feedback encounter forms are a recognized way of obtaining information about performance (i.e., feedback dimension), the literature does not provide many clear examples of how they may impact the feedforward phase. For example, Joshi et al. (2016) consider a feedback form with four fields (i.e., what did you do well, advise the student on what could be done to improve performance, indicate the level of proficiency, and personal details of the tutor). In this case, the supervisor highlighted what the student could improve but not how, which is the missing phase of the co-constructed action plan [ 63 ]. Whichever WBA instrument is used in clerkships to provide feedback, it should include a "next steps" box [ 44 ], and it is recommended to organize a long-term use of the WBA instrument so that those involved get used to it and improve interaction and feedback uptake [ 55 ]. RIME-based feedback (Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating) is considered an interesting example, as it is perceived as helpful to students in knowing what they need to improve in their performance [ 44 ]. Hochberg (2017) implemented formative mid-clerkship assessments to enhance face-to-face feedback conversations and co-create an improvement plan [ 59 ]. Apps for structuring and storing feedback improve the amount of verbal and written feedback. In the study of Joshi et al. (2016), a reasonable proportion of students (64%) perceived that these app tools help them improve their performance during rotations [ 63 ].

Several studies indicate that an action plan as part of the follow-up feedback is essential for performance improvement and learning [ 46 , 55 , 60 ]. An action plan corresponds to an agreed-upon strategy for improving, confirming, or correcting performance. Bing-You et al. (2017) determined that only 12% of the articles included in their scoping review incorporated an action plan for learners [ 32 ]. Holmboe et al. (2004) reported that only 11% of the feedback sessions following a mini-CEX included an action plan [ 60 ]. Suhoyo et al. (2017) also reported that only 55% of mini-CEX encounters contained an action plan [ 80 ]. Other authors reported that action plans are not commonly offered during feedback encounters [ 77 ]. Sokol-Hessner et al. (2010) implemented feedback card comments with a space to provide written feedback and a specific action plan. In their results, 96% contained positive comments, and only 5% contained constructive comments [ 77 ]. In summary, although the recommendation is to include a “next step” box in the feedback instruments, evidence shows these items are not often used for constructive comments or action plans.

Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes.

Multiple sociocultural factors influence interaction in feedback encounters, promoting or hampering the productivity of the feedback processes.

Clinical learning culture

Context impacts feedback processes [ 30 , 82 ], and there are barriers to incorporating actionable feedback in the clinical learning context. The clinical learning culture is partly determined by the clinical context, which can be unpredictable [ 29 , 46 , 68 ], as the available patients determine learning opportunities. Supervisors are occupied by a high workload, which results in limited time or priority for teaching [ 35 , 46 , 48 , 55 , 68 , 83 ], hindering students’ feedback-seeking behavior [ 54 ], and creating a challenge for the balance between patient care and student mentoring [ 35 ].

Clinical workplace culture does not always purposefully prioritize instances for feedback processes [ 83 , 84 ]. This often leads to limited direct observation [ 55 , 68 ] and the provision of poorly informed feedback. It is also evident that this affects trust between clinical teachers and students [ 52 ]. Supervisors consider feedback a low priority in clinical contexts [ 35 ] due to low compensation and lack of protected time [ 83 ]. In particular, lack of time appears to be the most significant and well-known barrier to frequent observation and workplace feedback [ 35 , 43 , 48 , 62 , 67 , 83 ].

The clinical environment is hierarchical [ 68 , 80 ] and can make students not consider themselves part of the team and feel like a burden to their supervisor [ 68 ]. This hierarchical learning environment can lead to unidirectional feedback, limit dialogue during feedback processes, and hinder the seeking, uptake, and use of feedback [ 67 , 68 ]. In a learning culture where feedback is not supported, learners are less likely to want to seek it and feel motivated and engaged in their learning [ 83 ]. Furthermore, it has been identified that clinical supervisors lack the motivation to teach [ 48 ] and the intention to observe or reobserve performance [ 86 ].

In summary, the clinical context and WBL culture do not fully use the potential of a feedback process aimed at closing learning gaps. However, concrete actions shown in the literature can be taken to improve the effectiveness of feedback by organizing the learning context. For example, McGinness et al. (2022) identified that students felt more receptive to feedback when working in a safe, nonjudgmental environment [ 67 ]. Moreover, supervisors and trainees identified the learning culture as key to establishing an open feedback dialogue [ 73 ]. Students who perceive culture as supportive and formative can feel more comfortable performing tasks and more willing to receive feedback [ 73 ].

Relationships

There is a consensus in the literature that trusting and long-term relationships improve the chances of actionable feedback. However, relationships between supervisors and students in the clinical workplace are often brief and not organized as more longitudinally [ 68 , 83 ], leaving little time to establish a trustful relationship [ 68 ]. Supervisors change continuously, resulting in short interactions that limit the creation of lasting relationships over time [ 50 , 68 , 83 ]. In some contexts, it is common for a student to have several supervisors who have their own standards in the observation of performance [ 46 , 56 , 68 , 83 ]. A lack of stable relationships results in students having little engagement in feedback [ 68 ]. Furthermore, in case of summative assessment programmes, the dual role of supervisors (i.e., assessing and giving feedback) makes feedback interactions perceived as summative and can complicate the relationship [ 83 ].

Repeatedly, the articles considered in this review describe that long-term and stable relationships enable the development of trust and respect [ 35 , 62 ] and foster feedback-seeking behavior [ 35 , 67 ] and feedback-giver behavior [ 39 ]. Moreover, constructive and positive relationships enhance students´ use of and response to feedback [ 30 ]. For example, Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LICs) promote stable relationships, thus enhancing the impact of feedback [ 83 ]. In a long-term trusting relationship, feedback can be straightforward and credible [ 87 ], there are more opportunities for student observation, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 ]. Johnson et al. (2020) pointed out that within a clinical teacher-student relationship, the focus must be on establishing psychological safety; thus, the feedback conversations might be transformed [ 62 ].

Stable relationships enhance feedback dialogues, which offer an opportunity to co-construct learning and propose and negotiate aspects of the design of learning strategies [ 62 ].

Students as active agents in the feedback processes

The feedback response learners generate depends on the type of feedback information they receive, how credible the source of feedback information is, the relationship between the receiver and the giver, and the relevance of the information delivered [ 49 ]. Garino (2020) noted that students who are most successful in using feedback are those who do not take criticism personally, who understand what they need to improve and know they can do so, who value and feel meaning in criticism, are not surprised to receive it, and who are motivated to seek new feedback and use effective learning strategies [ 52 ]. Successful users of feedback ask others for help, are intentional about their learning, know what resources to use and when to use them, listen to and understand a message, value advice, and use effective learning strategies. They regulate their emotions, find meaning in the message, and are willing to change [ 52 ].

Student self-efficacy influences the understanding and use of feedback in the clinical workplace. McGinness et al. (2022) described various positive examples of self-efficacy regarding feedback processes: planning feedback meetings with teachers, fostering good relationships with the clinical team, demonstrating interest in assigned tasks, persisting in seeking feedback despite the patient workload, and taking advantage of opportunities for feedback, e.g., case presentations [ 67 ].

When students are encouraged to seek feedback aligned with their own learning objectives, they promote feedback information specific to what they want to learn and improve and enhance the use of feedback [ 53 ]. McGinness et al. (2022) identified that the perceived relevance of feedback information influenced the use of feedback because students were more likely to ask for feedback if they perceived that the information was useful to them. For example, if students feel part of the clinical team and participate in patient care, they are more likely to seek feedback [ 17 ].

Learning-oriented students aim to seek feedback to achieve clinical competence at the expected level [ 75 ]; they focus on improving their knowledge and skills and on professional development [ 17 ]. Performance-oriented students aim not to fail and to avoid negative feedback [ 17 , 75 ].

For effective feedback processes, including feed-up, feedback, and feedforward, the student must be feedback-oriented, i.e., active, seeking, listening to, interpreting, and acting on feedback [ 68 ]. The literature shows that feedback-oriented students are coproducers of learning [ 68 ] and are more involved in the feedback process [ 51 ]. Additionally, students who are metacognitively aware of their learning process are more likely to use feedback to reduce gaps in learning and performance [ 52 ]. For this, students must recognize feedback when it occurs and understand it when they receive it. Thus, it is important to organize training and promote feedback literacy so that students understand what feedback is, act on it, and improve the quality of feedback and their learning plans [ 68 ].

Table 5 summarizes those feedback tasks, activities, and key features of organizational aspects that enable each phase of the feedback loop based on the literature review.

The present scoping review identified 61 papers that mapped the literature on feedback processes in the WBL environments of undergraduate health professions. This review explored how feedback processes are organized in these learning contexts using the feedback loop framework. Given the specific characteristics of feedback processes in undergraduate clinical learning, three main findings were identified on how feedback processes are being conducted in the clinical environment and how these processes could be organized to support feedback processes.

First, the literature lacks a balance between the three dimensions of the feedback loop. In this regard, most of the articles in this review focused on reporting experiences or strategies for delivering feedback information (i.e., feedback dimension). Credible and objective feedback information is based on direct observation [ 46 ] and occurs within an interaction or a dialogue [ 62 , 88 ]. However, only having credible and objective information does not ensure that it will be considered, understood, used, and put into practice by the student [ 89 ].

Feedback-supporting actions aligned with goals and priorities facilitate effective feedback processes [ 89 ] because goal-oriented feedback focuses on students' learning needs [ 7 ]. In contrast, this review showed that only a minority of the studies highlighted the importance of aligning learning objectives and feedback (i.e., the feed-up dimension). To overcome this, supervisors and students must establish goals and agreements before starting clinical practice, as it allows students to measure themselves on a defined basis [ 90 , 91 ] and enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 , 92 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. In addition, learning goals should be shared, and co-constructed, through a dialogue [ 50 , 88 , 90 , 92 ]. In fact, relationship-based feedback models emphasize setting shared goals and plans as part of the feedback process [ 68 ].

Many of the studies acknowledge the importance of establishing an action plan and promoting the use of feedback (i.e., feedforward). However, there is yet limited insight on how to best implement strategies that support the use of action plans, improve performance and close learning gaps. In this regard, it is described that delivering feedback without perceiving changes, results in no effect or impact on learning [ 88 ]. To determine if a feedback loop is closed, observing a change in the student's response is necessary. In other words, feedback does not work without repeating the same task [ 68 ], so teachers need to observe subsequent tasks to notice changes [ 88 ]. While feedforward is fundamental to long-term performance, it is shown that more research is needed to determine effective actions to be implemented in the WBL environment to close feedback loops.

Second, there is a need for more knowledge about designing feedback activities in the WBL environment that will generate constructive feedback for learning. WBA is the most frequently reported feedback activity in clinical workplace contexts [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. Despite the efforts of some authors to use WBAs as a formative assessment and feedback opportunity, in several studies, a summative component of the WBA was presented as a barrier to actionable feedback [ 33 , 56 ]. Students suggest separating grading from observation and using, for example, the mini-CEX in informal situations [ 33 ]. Several authors also recommend disconnecting the summative components of WBAs to avoid generating emotions that can limit the uptake and use of feedback [ 28 , 93 ]. Other literature recommends purposefully designing a system of assessment using low-stakes data points for feedback and learning. Accordingly, programmatic assessment is a framework that combines both the learning and the decision-making function of assessment [ 94 , 95 ]. Programmatic assessment is a practical approach for implementing low-stakes as a continuum, giving opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance and having the student as an active agent [ 96 ]. This approach enables the incorporation of low-stakes data points that target student learning [ 93 ] and provide performance-relevant information (i.e., meaningful feedback) based on direct observations during authentic professional activities [ 46 ]. Using low-stakes data points, learners make sense of information about their performance and use it to enhance the quality of their work or performance [ 96 , 97 , 98 ]. Implementing multiple instances of feedback is more effective than providing it once because it promotes closing feedback loops by giving the student opportunities to understand the feedback, make changes, and see if those changes were effective [ 89 ].

Third, the support provided by the teacher is fundamental and should be built into a reliable and long-term relationship, where the teacher must take the role of coach rather than assessor, and students should develop feedback agency and be active in seeking and using feedback to improve performance. Although it is recognized that institutional efforts over the past decades have focused on training teachers to deliver feedback, clinical supervisors' lack of teaching skills is still identified as a barrier to workplace feedback [ 99 ]. In particular, research indicates that clinical teachers lack the skills to transform the information obtained from an observation into constructive feedback [ 100 ]. Students are more likely to use feedback if they consider it credible and constructive [ 93 ] and based on stable relationships [ 93 , 99 , 101 ]. In trusting relationships, feedback can be straightforward and credible, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 , 88 ]. Coaching strategies can be enhanced by teachers building an educational alliance that allows for trustworthy relationships or having supervisors with an exclusive coaching role [ 14 , 93 , 102 ].

Last, from a sociocultural perspective, individuals are the main actors in the learning process. Therefore, feedback impacts learning only if students engage and interact with it [ 11 ]. Thus, feedback design and student agency appear to be the main features of effective feedback processes. Accordingly, the present review identified that feedback design is a key feature for effective learning in complex environments such as WBL. Feedback in the workplace must ideally be organized and implemented to align learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessments, allowing learners to learn, practice, and close feedback loops [ 88 ]. To guide students toward performances that reflect long-term learning, an intensive formative learning phase is needed, in which multiple feedback processes are included that shape students´ further learning [ 103 ]. This design would promote student uptake of feedback for subsequent performance [ 1 ].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study are (1) the use of an established framework, the Arksey and O'Malley's framework [ 22 ]. We included the step of socializing the results with stakeholders, which allowed the team to better understand the results from another perspective and offer a realistic look. (2) Using the feedback loop as a theoretical framework strengthened the results and gave a more thorough explanation of the literature regarding feedback processes in the WBL context. (3) our team was diverse and included researchers from different disciplines as well as a librarian.

The present scoping review has several limitations. Although we adhered to the recommended protocols and methodologies, some relevant papers may have been omitted. The research team decided to select original studies and reviews of the literature for the present scoping review. This caused some articles, such as guidelines, perspectives, and narrative papers, to be excluded from the current study.

One of the inclusion criteria was a focus on undergraduate students. However, some papers that incorporated undergraduate and postgraduate participants were included, as these supported the results of this review. Most articles involved medical students. Although the authors did not limit the search to medicine, maybe some articles involving students from other health disciplines needed to be included, considering the search in other databases or journals.

The results give insight in how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. On a small scale, i.e., in the feedback encounter between a supervisor and a learner, feedback should be organized to allow for follow-up feedback, thus working on required learning and performance goals. On a larger level, i.e., in the clerkship programme or a placement rotation, feedback should be organized through appropriate planning of subsequent tasks and activities.

More insight is needed in designing a closed loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices. The feedback that stimulates further action and learning requires a safe and trustful work and learning environment. Understanding the relationship between an individual and his or her environment is a challenge for determining the impact of feedback and must be further investigated within clinical WBL environments. Aligning the dimensions of feed-up, feedback and feedforward includes careful attention to teachers’ and students’ feedback literacy to assure that students can act on feedback in a constructive way. In this line, how to develop students' feedback agency within these learning environments needs further research.

Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38:698–712.

Article Google Scholar

Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E. Identifying feedback that has impact. In: The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2019. p. 15–34.

Chapter Google Scholar

Winstone N, Carless D. Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2020.

Google Scholar

Ajjawi R, Boud D. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863 .

Carless D. Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assess Eval High Educ. 2019;44:705–14.

Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci. 1989;18:119–44.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback The Meaning of Feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.

Zarrinabadi N, Rezazadeh M. Why only feedback? Including feed up and feed forward improves nonlinguistic aspects of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research. 2023;27(3):575–92.

Fisher D, Frey N. Feed up, back, forward. Educ Leadersh. 2009;67:20–5.

Reimann A, Sadler I, Sambell K. What’s in a word? Practices associated with ‘feedforward’ in higher education. Assessment evaluation in higher education. 2019;44:1279–90.

Esterhazy R. Re-conceptualizing Feedback Through a Sociocultural Lens. In: Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E, editors. The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5 .

Bransen D, Govaerts MJB, Sluijsmans DMA, Driessen EW. Beyond the self: The role of co-regulation in medical students’ self-regulated learning. Med Educ. 2020;54:234–41.

Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, Van Der Vleuten CP. Feedback Redefined: Principles and Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:744–53.

Atkinson A, Watling CJ, Brand PL. Feedback and coaching. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(2):441–6.

Suhoyo Y, Schonrock-Adema J, Emilia O, Kuks JBM, Cohen-Schotanus JA. Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:79.

Bowen L, Marshall M, Murdoch-Eaton D. Medical Student Perceptions of Feedback and Feedback Behaviors Within the Context of the “Educational Alliance.” Acad Med. 2017;92:1303–12.

Bok HGJ, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JPI, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DADC, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Al-Kadri HM, Al-Kadi MT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Workplace-based assessment and students’ approaches to learning: A qualitative inquiry. Med Teach. 2013;35(SUPPL):1.

Dennis AA, Foy MJ, Monrouxe LV, Rees CE. Exploring trainer and trainee emotional talk in narratives about workplace-based feedback processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:75–93.

Watling C, LaDonna KA, Lingard L, Voyer S, Hatala R. ‘Sometimes the work just needs to be done’: socio-cultural influences on direct observation in medical training. Med Educ. 2016;50:1054–64.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review Academic Medicine. 2017;92:1346–54.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition methods and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.

StArt - State of Art through Systematic Review. 2013.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:1–9.

Peters MDJ, BPharm CMGHK, Parker PMD, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D, et al. The Feedback Tango: An Integrative Review and Analysis of the Content of the Teacher-Learner Feedback Exchange. Acad Med. 2018;93:657–63.

Ossenberg C, Henderson A, Mitchell M. What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019;24:383–401.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, Smyth E, Marron B, Murphy PJ, et al. Self -regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44:3–18.

Long S, Rodriguez C, St-Onge C, Tellier PP, Torabi N, Young M. Factors affecting perceived credibility of assessment in medical education: A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2022;27:229–62.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017.

Schopper H, Rosenbaum M, Axelson R. “I wish someone watched me interview:” medical student insight into observation and feedback as a method for teaching communication skills during the clinical years. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:286.

Crommelinck M, Anseel F. Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking behaviour: a literature review. Med Educ. 2013;47:232–41.

Adamson E, Kinga L, Foy L, McLeodb M, Traynor J, Watson W, et al. Feedback in clinical practice: Enhancing the students’ experience through action research. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;31:48–53.

Al-Mously N, Nabil NM, Al-Babtain SA, et al. Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2014;36(Supplement 1):S17-23.

Bates J, Konkin J, Suddards C, Dobson S, Pratt D. Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:362–74.

Bennett AJ, Goldenhar LM, Stanford K. Utilization of a Formative Evaluation Card in a Psychiatry Clerkship. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30:319–24.

Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Spruijt A, Van Beukelen P, Van Der Vleuten CP, Teunissen PW, et al. Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2016;38:88–95.

Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JP, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DA, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Calleja P, Harvey T, Fox A, Carmichael M, et al. Feedback and clinical practice improvement: A tool to assist workplace supervisors and students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;17:167–73.

Carey EG, Wu C, Hur ES, Hasday SJ, Rosculet NP, Kemp MT, et al. Evaluation of Feedback Systems for the Third-Year Surgical Clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:787–93.

Daelmans HE, Overmeer RM, Van der Hem-Stokroos HH, Scherpbier AJ, Stehouwer CD, van der Vleuten CP. In-training assessment: qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Medical education. 2006;40(1):51–8.

DeWitt D, Carline J, Paauw D, Pangaro L. Pilot study of a ’RIME’-based tool for giving feedback in a multi-specialty longitudinal clerkship. Med Educ. 2008;42:1205–9.

Dolan BM, O’Brien CL, Green MM. Including Entrustment Language in an Assessment Form May Improve Constructive Feedback for Student Clinical Skills. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27:461–4.

Duijn CC, Welink LS, Mandoki M, Ten Cate OT, Kremer WD, Bok HG. Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities. Perspectives on medical education. 2017;6:256–64.

Elnicki DM, Zalenski D. Integrating medical students’ goals, self-assessment and preceptor feedback in an ambulatory clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25:285–91.

Embo MP, Driessen EW, Valcke M, Van der Vleuten CP. Assessment and feedback to facilitate self-directed learning in clinical practice of Midwifery students. Medical teacher. 2010;32(7):e263-9.

Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17:15–26.

Farrell L, Bourgeois-Law G, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. An autoethnographic exploration of the use of goal oriented feedback to enhance brief clinical teaching encounters. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22:91–104.

Fernando N, Cleland J, McKenzie H, Cassar K. Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. Med Educ. 2008;42:89–95.

Garino A. Ready, willing and able: a model to explain successful use of feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:337–61.

Garner MS, Gusberg RJ, Kim AW. The positive effect of immediate feedback on medical student education during the surgical clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:391–7.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Palka T, Ford M, Trowbridge R. The Art (and Artifice) of Seeking Feedback: Clerkship Students’ Approaches to Asking for Feedback. Acad Med. 2018;93:1218–26.

Haffling AC, Beckman A, Edgren G. Structured feedback to undergraduate medical students: 3 years’ experience of an assessment tool. Medical teacher. 2011;33(7):e349-57.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, Schuwirth LWTT, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPMM. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:276–84.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Schuwirth LW, Wass V, Van der Vleuten CP, Konings KD, et al. Changing the culture of assessment: the dominance of the summative assessment paradigm. BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–4.

Harvey P, Radomski N, O’Connor D. Written feedback and continuity of learning in a geographically distributed medical education program. Medical teacher. 2013;35(12):1009–13.

Hochberg M, Berman R, Ogilvie J, Yingling S, Lee S, Pusic M, et al. Midclerkship feedback in the surgical clerkship: the “Professionalism, Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating, and Procedural Skills” application utilizing learner self-assessment. Am J Surg. 2017;213:212–6.

Holmboe ES, Yepes M, Williams F, Huot SJ. Feedback and the mini clinical evaluation exercise. Journal of general internal medicine. 2004;19(5):558–61.

Tai JHM, Canny BJ, Haines TP, Molloy EK. The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: opportunities in clinical medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21:659–76.

Johnson CE, Keating JL, Molloy EK. Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it? Med Educ. 2020;54:559–70.

Joshi A, Generalla J, Thompson B, Haidet P. Facilitating the Feedback Process on a Clinical Clerkship Using a Smartphone Application. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:651–5.

Kiger ME, Riley C, Stolfi A, Morrison S, Burke A, Lockspeiser T. Use of Individualized Learning Plans to Facilitate Feedback Among Medical Students. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32:399–409.

Kogan J, Shea J. Implementing feedback cards in core clerkships. Med Educ. 2008;42:1071–9.

Lefroy J, Walters B, Molyneux A, Smithson S. Can learning from workplace feedback be enhanced by reflective writing? A realist evaluation in UK undergraduate medical education. Educ Prim Care. 2021;32:326–35.

McGinness HT, Caldwell PHY, Gunasekera H, Scott KM. ‘Every Human Interaction Requires a Bit of Give and Take’: Medical Students’ Approaches to Pursuing Feedback in the Clinical Setting. Teach Learn Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2084401 .

Noble C, Billett S, Armit L, Collier L, Hilder J, Sly C, et al. ``It’s yours to take{’’}: generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:55–74.

Ogburn T, Espey E. The R-I-M-E method for evaluation of medical students on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:666–9.

Po O, Reznik M, Greenberg L. Improving a medical student feedback with a clinical encounter card. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7:449–52.

Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T, Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T. Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18:397–407.

Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feedback to students. Am J Surg. 2002;183:300–4.

Rassos J, Melvin LJ, Panisko D, Kulasegaram K, Kuper A. Unearthing Faculty and Trainee Perspectives of Feedback in Internal Medicine: the Oral Case Presentation as a Model. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2107–13.

Rizan C, Elsey C, Lemon T, Grant A, Monrouxe L. Feedback in action within bedside teaching encounters: a video ethnographic study. Med Educ. 2014;48:902–20.

Robertson AC, Fowler LC. Medical student perceptions of learner-initiated feedback using a mobile web application. Journal of medical education and curricular development. 2017;4:2382120517746384.

Scheidt PC, Lazoritz S, Ebbeling WL, Figelman AR, Moessner HF, Singer JE. Evaluation of system providing feedback to students on videotaped patient encounters. J Med Educ. 1986;61(7):585–90.

Sokol-Hessner L, Shea J, Kogan J. The open-ended comment space for action plans on core clerkship students’ encounter cards: what gets written? Acad Med. 2010;85:S110–4.

Sox CM, Dell M, Phillipi CA, Cabral HJ, Vargas G, Lewin LO. Feedback on oral presentations during pediatric clerkships: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2014;134:965–71.

Spickard A, Gigante J, Stein G, Denny JC. Automatic capture of student notes to augment mentor feedback and student performance on patient write-ups. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:979–84.

Suhoyo Y, Van Hell EA, Kerdijk W, Emilia O, Schönrock-Adema J, Kuks JB, et al. nfluence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkships: does culture matter? BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–7.

Torre DM, Simpson D, Sebastian JL, Elnicki DM. Learning/feedback activities and high-quality teaching: perceptions of third-year medical students during an inpatient rotation. Acad Med. 2005;80:950–4.

Urquhart LM, Ker JS, Rees CE. Exploring the influence of context on feedback at medical school: a video-ethnography study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:159–86.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Lingard L. Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians. Med Educ. 2014;48:713–23.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: Professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94.

Soemantri D, Dodds A, Mccoll G. Examining the nature of feedback within the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX): an analysis of 1427 Mini-CEX assessment forms. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35:Doc47.

Van De Ridder JMMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OTJ, van der Ridder JM, Stokking KM, et al. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42:189–97.

van de Ridder JMMM, McGaghie WC, Stokking KM, ten Cate OTJJ. Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: a meta-review. Med Educ. 2015;49:658–73.

Boud D. Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. Clin Teach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12345 .

Brehaut J, Colquhoun H, Eva K, Carrol K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:435–41.

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. J Am Med Assoc. 1983;250:777–81.

Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. Br Med J. 2008;337(7681):1292–4.

Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29:855–71.

Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53:76–85.

van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LKJ, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34:205–14.

Schuwirth LWT, der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85.

Schut S, Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, van der Vleuten C, Heeneman S. Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners’ perceptions within programmatic assessment. Med Educ. 2018;52:654–63.

Henderson M, Boud D, Molloy E, Dawson P, Phillips M, Ryan T, Mahoney MP. Feedback for learning. Closing the assessment loop. Framework for effective learning. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department for Education and Training; 2018.

Heeneman S, Pool AO, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW, Oudkerk A, et al. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49:487–98.

Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen P, Brand P, Watling C. Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99.

Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34:787–91.

Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The, “Educational Alliance” as a Framework for Reconceptualizing Feedback in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2015;90:609–14.

Lockyer J, Armson H, Könings KD, Lee-Krueger RC, des Ordons AR, Ramani S, et al. In-the-Moment Feedback and Coaching: Improving R2C2 for a New Context. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12:27–35.

Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Assess Eval Account. 2009;21:5–31.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Ignacio Villagran

School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Lorena Isbej

Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dominique Sluijsmans

Centre for Medical and Health Profession Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Arnoldo Riquelme

School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Lorena Isbej

Sistema de Bibliotecas UC (SIBUC), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

María Teresa Olivares-Labbe

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Health Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Sylvia Heeneman

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.F-C, D.S, and S.H. made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. M.O-L contributed to the identification of studies. J.F-C, I.V, A.R, and L.I. made substantial contributions to the screening, reliability, and data analysis. J.F-C. wrote th e main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javiera Fuentes-Cimma .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1, supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fuentes-Cimma, J., Sluijsmans, D., Riquelme, A. et al. Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 440 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Clinical clerkship
Feedback processes
Feedforward
Formative feedback
Health professions
Undergraduate medical education
Undergraduate healthcare education
Workplace learning

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 5. The Literature Review

Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Glossary of Research Terms
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Executive Summary
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tertiary Sources
What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
Qualitative Methods
Quantitative Methods
Using Non-Textual Elements
Limitations of the Study
Common Grammar Mistakes
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Annotated Bibliography
Dealing with Nervousness
Using Visual Aids
Grading Someone Else's Paper
How to Manage Group Projects
Multiple Book Review Essay
Reviewing Collected Essays
About Informed Consent
Writing Field Notes
Writing a Policy Memo
Writing a Research Proposal
Acknowledgements

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits into the larger field of study.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

The purpose of a literature review is to:

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

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers.* First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply 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.

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.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
Value -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II. Development of the Literature Review

Four Stages

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

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:

Roughly how many sources should I include?
What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites)?
Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
Should I evaluate the sources?
Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature reviews. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make your job easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the HOMER catalog for books about the topic and review their contents for chapters that focus on more specific issues. You can also review the subject indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is very common in the sciences where research conducted only two years ago could be obsolete. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed because what is important is how perspectives have changed over the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is consider by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

Current Situation : information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
History : the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Selection Methods : the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
Standards : the way in which you present your information.
Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV. Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V. Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. Los Angeles, CA: London : SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout . Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation . vol. 14, June 2009; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

Look for repeating patterns in the research findings. If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research? Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
Look at sources the authors cite to in their work. If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been introduced in addressing the research question.
Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. If the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.
<< Previous: Theoretical Framework
Next: Citation Tracking >>
Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
QuickSearch
Library Catalog
Databases A-Z
Publication Finder
Course Reserves
Citation Linker
Digital Commons
Our Website

Research Support

Ask a Librarian
Appointments
Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
Research Guides
Databases by Subject
Citation Help

Using the Library

Reserve a Group Study Room
Renew Books
Honors Study Rooms
Off-Campus Access
Library Policies
Library Technology

User Information

Grad Students
Online Students
COVID-19 Updates
Staff Directory
News & Announcements
Library Newsletter

My Accounts

Interlibrary Loan
Staff Site Login

FIND US ON

Open access
Published: 24 April 2024

Transcending technology boundaries and maintaining sense of community in virtual mental health peer support: a qualitative study with service providers and users

Elmira Mirbahaeddin 1 &
Samia Chreim 1

BMC Health Services Research volume 24 , Article number: 510 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

This qualitative study explores the experiences of peer support workers (PSWs) and service users (or peers) during transition from in-person to virtual mental health services. During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for accessible and community-based mental health support has become increasingly important. This research aims to understand how technological factors act as bridges and boundaries to mental health peer support services. In addition, the study explores whether and how a sense of community can be built or maintained among PSWs and peers in a virtual space when connections are mediated by technology. This research fills a gap in the literature by incorporating the perspectives of service users and underscores the potential of virtual peer support beyond pandemic conditions.

Data collection was conducted from a community organization that offers mental health peer support services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 employees and 27 service users. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes and synthesize a comprehensive understanding.

The findings highlight the mental health peer support needs that were met through virtual services, the manifestation of technology-based boundaries and the steps taken to remove some of these boundaries, and the strategies employed by the organization and its members to establish and maintain a sense of community in a virtual environment marked by physical distancing and technology-mediated interrelations. The findings also reveal the importance of providing hybrid services consisting of a mixture of in person and virtual mental health support to reach a broad spectrum of service users.

Conclusions

The study contributes to the ongoing efforts to enhance community mental health services and support in the virtual realm. It shows the importance of virtual peer support in situations where in-person support is not accessible. A hybrid model combining virtual and in-person mental health support services is recommended for better accessibility to mental health support services. Moreover, the importance of organizational support and of equitable resource allocation to overcome service boundaries are discussed.

Peer Review reports

There is growing awareness around the world of the need to improve mental health services, yet the response to the need has been constrained [ 1 ]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has pointed to the urgent need to invest in community-based mental health services that prioritize a person-centred, recovery approach. Among these services, the WHO highlights the importance of peer support [ 1 ]. Formal mental health peer support refers to emotional and social support (Mental Health Commission of Canada, https://mentalhealthcommission.ca/what-we-do/access/peer-support/ ) provided by an individual referred to as a peer support worker (PSW). A mental health PSW is a person who has lived experience of mental health issues, has paid employment in a mental health support or services organization– often after receiving training– and offers intentional support to clients with mental health challenges through empathetic understanding and encouragement of self-determined recovery [ 2 , 3 ].

Peer support is based on the belief that individuals who have navigated their own recovery experiences hold unique insights and lived practical knowledge that can be helpful in supporting others in their recovery (Mead, Hilton & Curtis, 2001). The notion of recovery in mental health refers to a multidimensional process that involves individuals actively engaging in their own well-being, making self-determined choices, fostering social connections, and pursuing a meaningful life despite the presence of mental health challenges (Mead, Hilton & Curtis, 2001). Peer support represents a political alternative to professionally led services and decision-making processes; it is an important approach for promoting the agency of individuals with mental health issues and reversing the power imbalances prevalent in the mental health system. Peer support can promote empowerment and self-efficacy, help enhance coping skills and strategies, and contribute to overall quality of life and emotional well-being [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. It has been particularly helpful in situations where traditional professional mental health services might not fully address the needs of individuals or are not easily accessible [ 3 , 7 ].

The importance of peer support became particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic adversely affected access to in-person mental health services, especially in jurisdictions where lockdowns were enacted. Peer support services in an online format created an opportunity to maintain availability and accessibility to basic yet important community-based mental health support [ 8 ]. A number of jurisdictions increased their peer support capacities by offering PSW training on remote services during the COVID-19 crisis (e.g., the Digital Peer Support Certification for peer specialists in the US that provided Medicaid-reimbursable virtual health services) [ 9 ]. Virtual peer support services have been beneficial in various ways including overcoming geographical barriers, reducing regional inequalities in access to providers, and offering convenience for a wide range of vulnerable populations in communities [ 10 – 11 ]. Hence virtual peer support has created bridges allowing people in need of mental health support to access it. These bridges can be advantageous not only in crisis situations such as the pandemic but also in non-crisis contexts by offering expanded accessibility.

There has been growing use of technology for a variety of mental health and support services with an aim to improve accessibility [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. However, the move to provide mental health services and support remotely, despite its many benefits, also comes with challenges. These challenges include, among others, the need for providers and service users to adapt to the utilization of diverse technologies including synchronous (e.g. video calls) and asynchronous (e.g. apps) modalities [ 11 ]. We view the technological challenges as setting boundaries to providing, accessing and utilizing virtual services.

Existing literature does not provide adequate insight into how individuals adapt when a sudden and major change occurs from in-person to remote mental health and support services. Makarius & Larson (2017) state that the role of individuals in virtual work has been overlooked by considering them as “passive actors” [ 13 , p.166] while portraying organizations as accountable for effective virtual work. They indicate that extant research on virtual work has tended to focus on virtual teams. Therefore, there is a need for a greater focus on individual experiences [ 14 – 15 ]. This applies in a general sense, but also, specifically to peer support. With the advent of COVID-19, PSWs became one of the forefront providers of mental health support [ 9 ]. Service users also had to adjust to virtual services. Yet limited knowledge exists about the individual experiences in the process of adapting and acclimating to using online mediums in virtual services in the context of peer support [ 16 ]. As virtual mental health services and supports are expected to continue to be used in the future, the experiences of individuals providing and receiving virtual peer support have become an important research topic.

Another issue of importance that needs to be considered when peer support is delivered virtually is whether technology-mediated connections allow peer support groups and individuals to maintain a sense of community. This sense of community is grounded in people’s relationship with a group that offers them membership, fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection [ 17 ], yet it is unclear whether the sense of community that is characteristic of in-person peer support is severed when services move online.

Earlier conceptualizations of communities emphasized the spatial dimension, defining communities as groups of people associated with a setting such as a neighbourhood or village [ 18 ]. McMillan and Chavis (1986) point to earlier work [ 19 ] that distinguished between the geographical notion of community (such as a neighbourhood or town) and the relational notion concerned with human relationships regardless of location [ 20 ]. McMillan and Chavis [ 20 , p. 9] propose a definition of sense of community that applies to both of these conceptualizations, and is as follows: “Sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together.” These authors point to four elements in their definition: (a) membership (a feeling of belonging or personal relatedness), (b) influence (a sense of mattering to the group), (c) integration and fulfillment of needs (a feeling that needs will be met through membership in the group), and (d) shared emotional connection (a belief that members have shared history and similar experiences) [ 20 , p. 9].

In peer support communities, the principles of valuing individuals’ experiential knowledge of mental illnesses, determination for recovery, equality and reciprocity, and mutual agreement on what would be helpful for different individuals play a vital role [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. People benefit in different ways by having a sense of community. They experience less isolation and social exclusion, have a greater sense of well-being, can call on support when they need it and learn from the experiences of other members [ 22 – 23 ]. Cronenwett & Norris (2009) examined the role of social collectives in providing peer support services to individuals with co-occurring disorders and the benefits of social support and shared experiences in promoting recovery [ 24 ]. However, it is not clear yet how peer support sense of community is created or maintained in situations where peer support moves to a virtual space and relationships are mediated by technological tools. To our knowledge, this topic has not been addressed despite its importance.

Given the importance of peer support and the recent surge in virtual peer support service provision, our objective is to understand how technological factors can act as bridges and boundaries to services, and whether and how a peer sense of community can be built or maintained in a virtual space that relies extensively on the use of technological tools. We aim to understand these issues from the perspective of individuals affected directly by the changes from in-person to virtual services. Therefore, we focus on PSWs who provide support services, and on the service users or clients– also known as peers. Inclusion of peer voices is particularly important, given that this is a gap in the literature since much research on peer support is based on the views of managers and PSWs, and not on the views of the peers themselves [ 25 ]. This limitation in the literature applies to peer support specifically, but also more broadly. For example, a systematic review investigating the implementation and adoption of telemental health found that research studies involved fewer service users compared to the number of providers (only 9 out of 45 included papers involved service users), indicating that the point of view of service users has not been adequately researched and little is reported about their experiences [ 26 ].

Hence, we ask the following research questions: What mental health peer support needs were met with virtual services? How were technology-based boundaries manifested and what bridges were built to open boundaries? How, if at all, was a sense of community established or maintained in a virtual space? We researched these topics in the case of a peer support organization that transitioned from in-person to virtual services during the COVID-19 pandemic. While in the case we studied the move to a virtual space was a response to exacerbated mental health challenges during the pandemic, it also opened up opportunities to understand if and how peer support could be enacted virtually beyond pandemic conditions . The surging interest in providing mental health services and support virtually thus makes our study a timely endeavor, and our findings a valuable addition to the literature.

Study design and context

We adopted an exploratory case study approach [ 27 ] as it allows us to understand complex social phenomena and generate new insights [ 28 ]. We aimed to achieve a deep understanding of how members of a peer support organization viewed or experienced mental health needs within the broader social context of the pandemic, how they interacted with technological aspects of virtual services, and the strategies they used to create a sense of community in a virtual space.

Our primary data consisted of semi-structured interviews with employees (PSWs and/or managers) and service users (or peers) of a peer support organization based in a major city in Ontario, Canada. This organization had more than twenty compensated PSWs, some of whom held managerial positions in the organization. It served the needs of a large number of peers who sought its various services. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, this organization primarily offered in-person services that included, among others, various peer groups as well as recreational and social programs which were also intended to provide support. We initiated the data collection in the early stages of the pandemic when lockdown regulations were implemented in Ontario. The reason for selecting this particular case was the organization’s rapid transition to virtual platforms in response to increased demand for peer support during lockdowns and isolation.

Data collection

We collaborated with the organization in informing potential participants about the study. An email was sent by the organization to all its employees and service users informing them about the study, and inviting individuals interested in participating to contact the researchers. Thirteen PSWs and twenty-seven service users contacted the researchers. We interviewed all individuals who contacted us, thus our study included forty participants. Participants’ age ranged between being in their 20s and 60s, and the majority identified as female.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants. Different interview protocols were developed for each group of participants, and they were developed for this specific study. Based on the research questions and objectives, key themes were identified to guide the formulation of the interview questions. Moreover, the interview protocol was informed by existing literature on mental health peer support, the pandemic circumstances and concepts relating to boundary theory and sense of community. We adjusted the interview questions to account for feedback from the organization, whose approval we sought on the final interview protocols. A small group representing managers, PSWs and peers participated in providing feedback and validating the interview protocols. Overall, the questions were crafted to be clear and open-ended to encourage detailed responses and in-depth exploration of the subject matter. The interview protocols included questions on individuals’ mental health experiences during the pandemic, their experiences associated with opportunities and challenges of virtual services technology, the strategies that they and the organization used to capitalize on opportunities, remove difficulties, and build or maintain a sense of community. Open-ended questions enabled us to probe for additional details and allowed the participants to share beyond our questions, which provided us with rich and nuanced data [ 29 ]. The interviews were conducted via Zoom or phone, based on the participant’s preference. The interviews were conducted during the pandemic from February to November 2021. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

We conducted thematic analysis and used the N-Vivo software for data coding and retrieval. Specifically, we followed the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) [ 30 ]. Familiarization with the data started with both authors conducting a number of interviews conjointly, taking notes during this process and discussing the preliminary data. Familiarization was enhanced by the first author’s transcription of the interviews. We then generated initial codes by immersing ourselves in the data. The long list of initial codes– or descriptive codes [ 28 ]– was closely related to participants’ words. We then identified emergent themes by grouping similar codes together and reviewing that the coded extracts fit the themes. The process involved constant comparison and was iterative in that we reviewed the codes and themes and changed the theme names when we identified emergent ideas based on new data. Analysis was mostly inductive, but we had also been sensitized by extant literature. In the later stage of the analysis, we grouped the themes into more abstract categories, continuously reviewing and refining the categories. Our final descriptive codes and theme list is presented in Table 1 .

The first author performed the primary analysis and the second author reviewed the analysis on the basis of the data. When the authors’ interpretations differed, they returned to the data to find answers. This process offered confidence that the analysis was well anchored in the data from participants. We conducted member checking—explained in the next section— by seeking feedback from the participants on our analysis.

Establishing trustworthiness

We took several steps to establish the trustworthiness of the study [ 28 , 31 ]. Two researchers worked together on data analysis, returning to the data when disagreements emerged. This offered triangulation through the involvement of two researchers. We also report extensive quotes from our participants as evidence of our analysis. In addition, we conducted member checking to determine whether our findings captured well the experiences of participants and thus ensured the credibility of the results. This entailed sharing a draft of the manuscript with the participants and asking them to provide their feedback on the researchers’ interpretation and whether those aligned with their experiences. We received feedback from two PSWs and five peers, all of whom were in agreement with the results reported. One participant commented, “ I feel that the paper captured… challenges and victories peer supporters experienced during COVID ” and another participant stated, “ It is a good in-depth work/story showing the mental health challenges and how those were addressed during the pandemic, how people evolved from their experience and stood for each other when it mattered the most. ”

Research ethics

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board (REB) of the University of Ottawa (Reference number S-11-20-6226). All study participants were fully informed about the project through both written and oral communication, and willingly gave their consent. The consent form included information about mental health resources available to them if needed, and participants were informed about their right to withdraw from the study. All procedures followed the appropriate guidelines and regulations.

We begin with the results showing the need for virtual mental health support during the pandemic and follow with the technology-based boundaries and bridges identified in virtual mental health support. In the last section of the results, we focus on the strategies that were used by the collective to maintain a sense of community despite the physical distances. It is important to note that we give attention to pandemic-related dynamics where pertinent, but also go beyond the pandemic context to address more general issues related to virtual peer support that were central in our participants’ accounts.

Need for virtual mental health support services

Boundaries related to accessing in-person services.

The pandemic amplified social issues that resulted in a surge in mental health challenges. Peers shared concerns regarding social vulnerabilities that became exacerbated during the pandemic. They told us about their challenges which included homelessness, domestic abuse, and struggles with addiction that were exacerbated during lockdowns. One peer referred to the “ downward spiral [of mental health] once the COVID-19 pandemic hit”. A peer pointed out that “literally everything shut down in the city…the needs of the community are just desperate ”, and a PSW stated that “with the pandemic, there was a lot of isolation, and it was really hard…also just the transition back as things started opening up. It’s really anxiety provoking for a lot of people. ”

There was also difficulty finding mental health services as there were lengthy wait times to see a mental health professional. A peer stated: “I think the most difficult thing was probably finding people to connect with…. There was a three-month waiting list to be able to even speak to anybody.” It is important to note that accessing mental health services in person was difficult for many people even before and regardless of the pandemic. The following quote by a peer illustrates one of many situations under which accessing in-person peer support can be difficult: “When you have a baby, it’s hard to be somewhere on time and remember to bring everything that you need and deal with the cranky baby… When your expectation is that you’re going to participate in these types of groups in-person, it can be very jarring ”.

Virtual peer support as a bridge

Virtual services can be a bridge connecting individuals to mental health peer support, especially when these individuals experience challenges with attending in-person peer activities. The peer who reflected above on the difficulties associated with accessing in-person peer support pointed out that “ when you can proceed in groups virtually, you can mute yourself, you can step away, your baby’s crib is right there…. So it was a really wonderful option.” A peer reflecting on the high cost of seeking “formal therapy” and the inconvenience of doing so, pointed out that virtual peer support was “a light in the tunnel” for them: “it was free, it was accessible, it was easier to find a peer support group during times that I could access it. During the pandemic, I accessed more groups than I did [in person].”

We also heard from peers whose anxieties had been exacerbated during the pandemic. A peer shared that seeking in-person mental health support was a major challenge. This person added that “ it was nice to be able to access things from Zoom”. Considering the risk of contracting the coronavirus, peers felt that not having to leave the house gave them a “sense of accomplishment” because accessing services remotely helped them remain engaged. A peer noted that virtual peer support had been “ the winter month survival ” for many individuals.

Peers also told us that virtual support was helpful for them in general, and not only because of the pandemic. Social anxieties, unrelated to the pandemic, were often mentioned by participants. A peer stated: I’m very timid to talk in a support group, and with Zoom, I feel I can raise my hand with the computer and I get to speak. Whereas in a peer support group in person, I don’t always get to do that. And… you get to see everybody’s facial reactions when you’re in the gallery view [on Zoom], whereas you can’t do that when you’re in the group because I’m very shy and very anxious.”

Anxieties were also related to driving. A peer stated, “I feel grateful I don’t have to drive far or pay for parking. Without the anxiety of driving and being on time too is very relaxing… (Virtual peer support) is a blessing.” For some individuals for whom transportation to in-person meetings could be difficult due to time or financial constraints, virtual services opened the possibility of receiving peer support.

Peers also told us how the virtual services facilitated receiving support in cases where struggles with depression kept them from seeking in-person services: “ If you’re so depressed, it’s hard to get out of bed… That’s another thing about Zoom, you don’t have to worry so much about your appearance. If you haven’t washed your hair that day, it’s fine… It makes it so much easier to attend .”. Virtual services were also very helpful for peers who felt they needed to seek support frequently: “ I’ve struggled with feeling alone and… feeling overwhelmed… If I had to go to a walk-in, I wouldn’t have done it. I wouldn’t have had access and that would have been bad for me .” Moreover, peers who felt self-conscious about their appearance, had experienced weight shaming, or physical differences found it more comfortable to attend virtual meetings because they “take away the self-consciousness” as a participant stated. By allowing participants to control what they reveal (e.g. by turning the camera on or off), virtual meetings may offer a certain sense of safety that in-person meetings may not provide.

Importantly, we were told that new members had joined virtual meetings who had not previously participated in in-person peer services. A manager pointed out that “a lot of new people who were not previous members have joined the community to get support or to get social interaction” and a PSW stated: “ we are supporting more people now. Our meetings are much larger. I’ve had people contact me from other provinces asking ‘Am I allowed to join?’ We’ve decided that as long as we have the capacity, anybody who wants can come .”

In sum, virtual services offered benefits for individuals who struggled with various issues including anxieties and depression, or whose life circumstances made it difficult for them to commute to in-person meetings. Although the pandemic (and the lockdowns associated with it) exacerbated some of the challenges that people had faced, the quotes above indicate that some challenges were not specifically pandemic-related, but rather pertained to more general mental states and life circumstances. The fact that virtual meetings drew in attendance from individuals who had never been to in-person meetings is a further indication that virtual platforms increase accessibility for peers.

Boundaries and bridges relating to telecommunication technology for virtual mental health support

Accessing virtual services offered peers opportunities to receive support, but accessing these services had its own challenges. A major challenge was technology, which manifested in terms of access to and compatibility of devices, access to internet connection, and basic technological skills. We report on these challenges and on how they were mitigated.

Virtual service technology boundaries

Technology-based challenges were associated with access to and use of equipment, access to internet connections, and limited technology-based skills. Some individuals from both groups (peers and PSWs) found it difficult to transition to virtual services due to the unprecedented complexities introduced by the new service environment: “ the hardest thing for people is the technology part of it .” The experience of change to virtual services was described as “ anxiety-provoking ” for people who were not familiar with the use of technology such as computers and smartphones in daily life.

Accessing virtual services required the use of the appropriate equipment such as smart phones, and for some peers, access to these devices was a challenge. A peer described: “ The devices that I had access to were lower-end devices… My cell phone was blocking out and freezing ”. Another peer stated: “ I would drop in occasionally using my phone. But I didn’t have a computer, and currently, I’m receiving disability benefits… As far as having money to burn, that’s not an option for me, it’s a very tight situation ”. In addition, lack of access to and reliable internet connection was another boundary. A participant described the lockdown situation: “ It was a big shock. It’s a big change. It’s forcing a lot of people who didn’t have the Internet to get Internet. So that caused a lot of stress and strain on a lot of people ”. Peers who shared an internet connection with multiple residents had to coordinate schedules since simultaneous Zoom calls could interrupt connections.

For some individuals, a lack of technology-based skills was a boundary. Some peers had difficulty navigating the nuances of the various platforms and their compatibility with the devices they were using: “ You had to figure out what platform was used and whether or not your technology was going to be compatible with it. ” Other peers experienced difficulties early on with logging in and accessing meetings: “[It was a] struggle with the process of getting signed up, to get the notifications, to get the information ”. Others reported difficulty navigating the programs’ options during the meetings (e.g., using the raise hand option). The challenges did not only pertain to peers. PSWs also faced difficulties with technology: “I did not have the technology needed to be able to do my job from home. I had a smartphone, but it’s still very challenging to host a Zoom group when I can only see 4 little faces on a screen.”

Virtual service bridges: supports provided by the organization and PSWs

When the lockdowns were mandated, concern about peers’ mental health needs drove the organization to create a variety of platforms through which peer support services could be accessed. Within a few weeks, the organization created remote services to maintain continuity in support for peers. A PSW pointed out “They were relying on us for their well-being.” This created a sense of urgency to adapt quickly in order to meet the needs of the community.

Efforts were quickly deployed to connect with peers by phone and to create accessibility through online options. As a peer stated, they were “ trying to make things just as accessible as they could be ”. To this end, the organization engaged in advocacy efforts with external partners to provide devices, data, and internet connection to those without technology. A manager stated: “Many people with mental health and addictions don’t even have access… We have been providing people with tech and tablets and smartphones and connectivity, and we’re a peer agency, we don’t have this kind of stuff!… I kept raising it at our (regional health authority) table with a lot of people who are very high up. And they said, ‘Let’s do it’! So we applied and put together a proposal… We now have contracts with [internet] providers, so [one company] provides the smartphones with sim cards and [another company] provides the tablets.”

PSWs walked peers step by step through the Zoom functions that they needed in order to attend and participate in virtual meetings. A PSW pointed out: “ We did a lot of one-on-one training and coaching and mentoring with people to help them get their virtual equipment set up. At first, it was a lot of, ‘this is how you set up Zoom, this is how you set up your camera’… and then more people got comfortable using it .”

PSWs also received training and support. Training included group and one-on-one sessions, and manuals were made available to provide instructions for an online environment: “In the beginning, we had training from a staff member who is a certified online facilitator… and it walked us through how to use Zoom. I also had one-on-one training… to walk me individually before doing any online groups… I asked my questions, and felt comfortable then to roll with it, [and] manuals were written with the policies of how we were gonna do this online.”

The social media team of the organization also became very active during the early days of the lockdowns. A manager who was part of this team described the role of the social media team: “We re-did all the posters we had for in-person, we switched them to virtual, giving new contact information, laying out the registration process…Every day we posted what groups we had going on, and all of that content had been created after the pandemic started. Again, a lot of that very quick adaptation to the needs.” We were also told that the organization added and adjusted online group activities and services as the lockdown policies and the needs of the peer community changed.

In sum, the findings show the challenges and solutions relating to using telecommunication technology for virtual mental health support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessing and providing these virtual services required access to and compatibility with devices, reliable internet connection, and technology-based skills, which could be challenging for some individuals. To address these challenging access boundaries, the organization arranged to provide devices, data, and internet connections, along with training and ongoing support to both peers and PSWs. Meanwhile, the organization also experienced a learning curve as it was adapting to the new circumstances and applied efforts to bridge the gaps in service access.

Maintaining a sense of community in virtual mental health support services

The peer support community already existed before the pandemic lockdowns. Peers would come to the organization locale for in-person services and programs, and many relied on these programs for mental health support. The lockdowns were disruptive of the in-person programs, which had to be halted, and as we elaborated earlier, the organization quickly responded by establishing services online. We were interested in whether and how a sense of community could be re-established and maintained in a virtual environment. Our findings point to five strategies in which the organization and the peers engaged, and which enabled maintaining a sense of community. We present these strategies next, and would like to point out that although we discuss them separately to facilitate the presentation, these strategies were not mutually exclusive.

Maintaining continuous presence and social interaction

In a context of increasing isolation, and to meet the needs of peers, the organization quickly began to offer phone services whereby peers and PSWs could connect by phone. Participants told us the phone support communicated a sense of caring and had a significant impact on individuals’ mental health during the pandemic. One of several volunteer peers who took on the task of checking on other peers regularly, indicated that for some individuals, their only connection to the outside world was through these phone calls: “ It could mean the difference between being stable and unstable… Being unstable for a long time could lead to something terrible .” Phone calls were not only about mental health topics, but could also include friendly conversations about daily living activities, which solidified relationships. The peers looked forward to these phone calls as a means of getting positive contact with someone who cared to listen. As one peer said, “They opened up a phone line and… I would call almost every day… I really needed [peer support]… So having that as a service was really, really good.” And another peer stated: “[It was great] knowing that they’re always there. It’s just the comfort of knowing there’s someone to reach out to. ”

It is important to note the speed with which the organization was able to adapt and to create programs that met the peers’ needs, thus maintaining a continuous presence. As a manager stated, “ [peer support] works well in a pandemic because we were able to be more flexible.” This is in contrast to institutional mental health services that were subject to various regulatory restrictions that would delay the introduction of online services. A PSW stated, “ we are extremely adaptable.”

In short order, the organization created a variety of online groups and activities in which peers could register and participate. These programs allowed the peers to continue interacting and engaging with one another. The sense of community was palpable even for peers who did not participate actively in the programs: “So for these people [like me], even though their videos and microphones are off, being immersed in the group, feeling like, hey, I’m not the only one, these are my people… and they look good and they’re talking and they’re feeling great. I feel good being there. And I may not want to say anything. It’s amazing. It’s a good feeling.”

Another peer commented on the relationships with the PSWs in the virtual meetings and said “… you can access [virtual support] anywhere and see the facilitators that you’re connected to. And that sometimes is enough to just make my spirit go fly. ” A similar sentiment was communicated by PSWs, one of whom stated: “We have things seven days a week that peers can come and join us. That has been really great; [it] helps keep the sense of community because we have that touchpoint with them. “

Establishing multiple points of connection

The organization was intent on meeting the diverse needs of peers, and to this end, created a variety of virtual programs and groups as well as phone services. In addition to the mental support groups, there were special activities such as yoga, crafting, and cooking, all of which instigated mutual support. These various activities could draw in diverse people who share similar interests, creating online communities. Peers stated that despite the lack of one-on-one eye contact, they found online groups were effective in offering valuable social activities related to wellness, nutrition, parenting, and gender-based support. One peer noted, “ They have a variety (of services)… Sometimes I’m in the mode of meeting [people], or joining arts and crafts. Sometimes I join the trivia online.” Another peer indicated that it was possible “to find the niche of the thing that you were looking for ” and a third peer stated: “ the trivia for me is very engaging… everybody can play. ”

The availability of multiple points of connection implied that the peers and PSWs could remain connected to each other on a regular basis. Another initiative by the organization to encourage this sense of community was the creation of a Facebook group. Due to the variety of points of contact, new members joined as they learned about the virtual services, expanding the community. However, the main aim of the organization remained to continue providing mental health support. A manager stated: “A lot of what people wanted was social connection, which we do offer in recreation. But we’re a support-based organization, and even our recreation has some support components to it. We came up with this private Facebook group which has helped a lot with that because people can stay in touch, not just with facilitators or with a group in a moment, but they can talk to each other whenever they want should they choose to join. “

Building on organizational and peer culture

Participants pointed out that peer culture is permeated by care and concern for members, and this was clear in various quotes we reported above from managers, PSWs and peers. In fact, managers and PSWs are also peers and they pointed this out continuously during our study. For example, a manager stated: “ It’s very helpful when peer support is informed by a community of people. And when peers can run some of their own services and see that peers are not only people who are recipients of services but actually are also managers ”. This manager also pointed out: “A peer-run community of peer supporters can help people meet different needs: their creative needs, their social needs, their support needs. There are physical needs, we’re doing some walking. We’re supporting people to get technology so they can not only take part in our Zoom meetings but also order their own groceries online or maybe they can talk to their doctor online now. Peer support has a lot of strengths.”

Another manager noted, “ It’s never just a job for people [at the organization]. It’s about how we can create something that is going to benefit the people who need it .” This focus on helping and supporting each other was integral to the organization’s mission and culture. This focus was shared by peers. Increased involvement of peer volunteers, who were not paid by the organization, in running services including the voluntary phone line was highlighted as an example of peer values and practices. A manager explained, “ One of the things that’s really important is to rely on the people who are actually DOING the thing, as opposed to me saying “well I know what’s good for this”, but actually leaning into our values .” Various participants mentioned that the implementation of online mental health support during the pandemic was an indication of resiliency in the peer support community. A peer stated “ We weren’t able to meet face to face. So people took it upon themselves to set up and organize these meetings and to learn how to use the technology to provide those services. ”

Acting collectively

The sense of community was also enabled by how decisions were made in the organization and with the help of peers. Deciding and acting collectively helped maintain a sense of community in the virtual space. This approach was especially effective during times of disruption that affected the organization and the peers. Overall, the organization’s collaborative approach to decision-making and focus on benefiting those in need were key components of its success.

The organization relied on discussion-based decision-making, with all staff members coming together weekly to discuss various issues and make decisions for the week. The management approach was collaborative and non-hierarchical. A manager said, “ We make decisions with the management collectively, and at times, when it’s appropriate, we make decisions with all staff .” Another manager described how “ the hierarchy felt a lot flatter” during the pandemic and the priority became “Who’s got what competencies? Who’s got what skills? Bring them in!” . Different members of the organization contributed their knowledge and skills to enhance the capacity to move services online. A PSW said: “We all bring our own perspectives. So I said my specialty is looking at the programming and the scheduling and what is feasible for us as staff… it was a lot of communication.”

Sharing lived experiences and learning together

Peer support is based on the shared lived experience of individuals. Sharing these experiences helps build bonds among peers. We were interested in how the virtual environment could have affected the sharing of experiences. Although some peers pointed out that they found it easier to share experiences in person, others– as we showed earlier– indicated that the online environment made it easier for them to participate. A PSW indicated: “We offer that space to just connect… Even though we’re saying “You gotta raise your hand before you talk”– that was an adjustment period. But now it’s the norm… That sense of belonging comes from connecting around shared lived experiences. So connecting around that shared lived experience is still happening. It’s just virtual, and a little more systematic.”

A peer described how the shared lived experience was helpful when using virtual services during the pandemic: “The ability to participate with other people who are struggling [was helpful], I just think that sharing those feelings and hearing that you’re not alone was worthwhile to me ”. Another peer reflected on the importance of the virtual services for connection around shared experiences of feeling “lost”: “It was a wonderful place to connect with people who were also struggling when everybody was sort of lost and in the same boat”.

Shared experiences were not limited to feelings of being lost and struggling. Members were also learning together, which solidified the sense of community. A peer pointed out: “[Relationships] became stronger in a sense, because we were all in the same boat… Sometimes the facilitators themselves were like I don’t know how to do that . We were all learning…and figuring things out. And I think that’s a good way to become closer to people. ”

In sum, various strategies were used by the organization and the collective (including PSWs and peers) to build and maintain a sense of community that was anchored in peer culture values.

Continuation of mental health support through a hybrid mode: importance of combining in-person and virtual services

Virtual peer services were “a lifeline” especially during the pandemic, as a peer noted. However, some peers also looked forward to returning to in-person services for various reasons. For some, the in-person services provided structure to their week and a chance to leave the house. A peer noted: “It forces me to get out of the house…I’m having difficulty leaving the house…half of me looks forward to it [the weekly support meeting], and half of me dreads it. But in the end, I get myself out of the door and I walk up to the center…I feel so much better afterwards.”

Naturally occurring conversations during coffee breaks or after the meetings, which contribute to supporting relationships, were missed. As one peer stated, “ A lot of it [peer support] is the action piece and when you’re connecting virtually, it’s just not the same as being in person ”. Some participants pointed out that in-person interactions offered a deeper level of connection through shared energy and physical space. A participant noted, “ When someone’s super upset, you can feel it. When people are in their own homes, it feels disconnected because there are so many other people there. I feel like we’re seeing less emotional distress, whereas in-person, it would be brought out– and not distress in the sense that they’re not coping, but that they’re bringing big feelings or things on their mind and they’re expressing them freely in person. I feel there’s a lot less of that since being virtual .” Additionally, some participants felt “strange” expressing strong emotions through a computer screen and pointed out that virtual settings offered less authentic connections compared to in-person interactions. Nonetheless, participants acknowledged that some people could still struggle regardless of the mode of interaction.

It was also pointed out that although virtual events drew in people who had never attended in person, some peers who used to attend in-person meetings did not join any virtual meetings, and it was not clear why this was the case or how they coped with the pandemic. Some of these individuals could not be found on online platforms to connect with. A participant stated, “… there’s a whole voice of those who can’t access virtual, those who have only been going in-person… So I think we definitely should try to cater to both [when designing mental health support services ]”.

Overall, peers expressed support for maintaining remote online mental health peer support services even as lockdowns were lifted, and pointed out that transitioning to a hybrid mode would offer efficiency in resource utilization and greater convenience for remote access. A peer emphasizing the need to continue the virtual services noted the importance of social integration for peers with disabilities: “ I think there’s a lot of people, especially with disabilities or just more issues who have a really hard time going in person. I feel like there’s a lot more people who were able to access services and I don’t think that they should just be cut off and done. ” Those living on the outskirts of the city or with other commitments had limited time to attend in-person support meetings, making hybrid services desirable after pandemic restrictions were lifted. Online meetings made mental health services more accessible, allowing individuals to manage their work-life domains more harmoniously. A peer said: “… People are always finding it a stress release and I like accessing it (peer support) from home sometimes instead of having to go to places…Sometimes I’m just not into seeing people, or going out and dealing with traffic.”

In sum, continuing with virtual services while also maintaining in-person services was seen as offering more access to peer support services to a broader population, and as providing more choice for individuals who sought peer support.

This study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. It emphasizes the importance of providing virtual peer support in situations where mental health in-person support and services are not possible or accessible. We have highlighted the technology-based challenges and opportunities that create boundaries and bridges respectively to peer support in a virtual space. We have shown that a hybrid model involving both virtual and in-person services offers better accessibility to individuals and groups in need of support, and have argued for the importance of maintaining both modalities. We have also shown that a sense of community can be established in a virtual space, and have highlighted the strategies that peer organizations and their members can utilize to maintain the community spirit. As importantly, we have contributed to the literature by including peer voices and highlighting their experiences in their own words. Researchers have pointed out that the experiences of service users have not been adequately researched [ 26 ] and this is particularly so in the case of peers [ 25 ]. Our research enhances understanding of service users’ lived experiences.

A hybrid model of peer support services

Our findings show, consistent with the literature, that each of virtual and in-person peer support service has its own advantages and disadvantages when used singularly, and that the joint operation of virtual and in-person services through a hybrid model provides more accessible service [ 32 ]. Using both approaches conjointly offers the opportunity to strengthen community-based mental health, and to reinforce recovery approaches that promote individual choice and self-determination. The importance and benefits of peer support and recovery approaches have been documented [ 33 ] and have been implemented increasingly across countries around the globe [ 1 ]. A hybrid model benefits service users in that during health system crises, such as a pandemic caused by an infectious disease when mental health needs are higher, access to mental health support can be maintained. Overall, this model offers promising potential as a vital resource to support the mental well-being of populations.

Using both models conjointly benefits not only service users and communities but also organizations that support mental health. By maintaining and strengthening both types of services, organizations that provide mental health services can build their capacities and be better prepared for sudden changes that might require suspending or limiting in-person services. This enhances flexibility and adaptability by maintaining a system that can dynamically switch between the two modalities.

Yet, despite the benefits of maintaining virtual services alongside in-person services, some PSWs and peers in our study reported a number of technology-related challenges that included difficulties obtaining internet connection or proper equipment, as well as limited skills with respect to the use of technology. Our findings are consistent with research which shows that providers and users of virtual mental health services report several limitations, such as difficulties with the adoption of the remote practice, and access and literacy challenges [ 11 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Our findings also show that to be effective, a mental health support system that utilizes a virtual mode of service delivery requires appropriate technological tools and infrastructure, as well as appropriate support. In the case we studied, the organization advocated for and obtained access to the internet and equipment for peers. Further, the organization allocated extensive time to the training of PSWs and peers. PSWs, once versed on the use of the technology, offered help to peers in group settings and one-on-one when necessary. This kind of assistance and collaboration is common in peer support communities, where principles of mutuality and cooperation prevail, but this also suggests the importance of providing adequate resources to peer support communities so they can achieve their full potential.

Another challenge associated with the virtual environment is that computer-mediated communications provide fewer social context cues; hence individuals who join an online community may experience less personal connection [ 23 ]. This challenge was identified by some of our participants, prompting us to ask how a sense of community may be established and maintained when peers connect virtually.

Sense of community

Ilioudi et al. (2012) refer to virtual communities in health care as “a group of people using telecommunication with the purposes of delivering health care and education, and/or providing support” [ 38 , p.1]. These communities encompass a wide range of clinical services and technologies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increasing attention to online recovery services and phone support, self-help and mental health self-management delivered virtually or in e-communities [ 39 ]. E-communities are critical for mental health support and have the potential to transform the philosophical approach to the provision of mental health services as they help bridge the gap between the high prevalence of mental health challenges and the relatively low capacity of mental health systems [ 40 ].

In peer support communities, individuals share experiential knowledge to encourage and pursue recovery as a mutual goal, showing common purpose and interdependence [ 41 , 42 ]. Despite many peer support e-communities having been set up and having flourished during the COVID-19 pandemic and thereafter, there has been limited research on how the sense of community can be established or maintained in these groups. In studies of groups and communities more generally (and not only in the case of peer support), there has been focus on applying quantitative measurements and scales for the assessment of the sense of community, e.g., the Brief Sense of Community Index [ 43 ], and the Brief Sense of Community Scale [ 44 ]. These scales have been applied to study academic communities of practice [ 18 ], online education programs for different groups [ 45 – 46 ] and for individuals with serious mental illness living in community settings [ 47 ]. However, less research applies qualitative methods to explore in more depth this sense of community.

Literature shows that a sense of community is important in mental health support, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic [ 48 ]. A better understanding of the sense of community in virtual services could uncover factors that contribute to a positive therapeutic environment [ 49 ]. Our results identified five strategies to maintain a sense of community amongst peers and providers in a virtual environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the importance of having a holistic and multidimensional perspective where the organization, providers, and peers all play a role.

The strategies we identified resonate with McMillan and Chavis’ conceptualization of a sense of community [ 20 ]. Their conceptualization highlights four elements: (a) membership (a feeling of belonging), (b) influence (a sense of mattering to the group), (c) integration and fulfillment of needs (a feeling that needs will be met through membership in the group), and (d) shared emotional connection (a belief that members have shared history and similar experiences). By “ acting collectively” (as in our findings), individuals reinforce the notion that they belong to a community where their contributions matter and are valued. Acting collectively also allows the community to fulfill common needs. “ Building on organizational and peer culture ” involves recognizing the contributions of individual members that could reinforce the belief that each member has a meaningful impact on the community. This culture is inclusive and fosters integration and emotional connection among the members. “ Establishing multiple points of connection ” ensures that community members have diverse channels to interact, collaborate, and meet their needs. “ Maintaining a continuous presence and social interaction ” helps establish trust that membership in the community is a reliable path for meeting their needs. Finally, “ sharing lived experiences and learning together ” allows members to open up about their mental health (or other) challenges, contributing to an emerging collective narrative and shared history. Other organizations attempting to build or maintain a sense of community in a virtual space may find some of these strategies employed by the organization, the PSWs and the peers to be helpful.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our study has a number of limitations. Concerns regarding security and privacy in virtual health care communities have been highlighted in research [ 10 , 50 ]. Researchers have also pointed to potential conflicts within online communities set up for various purposes [ 51 , 52 ]. Our paper did not examine these privacy and social concerns, however, evidence regarding these topics is important to provide guidance on how to make virtual spaces safe for peers who participate. Future research on these topics would be useful.

In addition, our findings pointed to peer support users who did not access the mental health support services when these transitioned to virtual platforms. We did not have access to these individuals, and it is not clear what factors contributed to their absence. Future research may explore whether and how technology-based boundaries become an impediment to seeking mental health support for some individuals. We also need a better understanding of the mental health of individuals who stopped using peer support when services moved online.

Our study focused on an organization and its members (PSWs and peers) and did not include in-depth attention to macro system level influences on or implications of peer support in a virtual space. The socio-economic aspects of adopting virtual work and services require further exploration including the financial return on investment and social returns (e.g. recovery) associated with using hybrid mental health support services. Overall, future research may identify and address system level influences that can hinder or facilitate mental health virtual services within community organizations, and how the needs of and services provided by these organizations may influence the allocation of resources and mental health indicators at a systems level.

Implications for policy and practice

Our findings highlight the organization’s efforts to provide accessibility and support for both peers and PSWs and demonstrate the value of a proactive and responsive approach to addressing major change. Organizational and management support has been identified as a central factor in employees’ readiness when change occurs in an organization [ 53 ]. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic situation highlighted the adaptability and resilience of peer support services and communities. As a manager in our study pointed out, the peer support organization was able to quickly and flexibly respond to the sudden surge in need for mental health support at a time when more institutionalized and strongly professionalized services were struggling to adapt. The resilience and adaptability of peer support organizations and programs are strengths in mental health care systems that are struggling to meet the needs of populations [ 1 ], yet these organizations and programs often receive a relatively small share of health care resources. Future policy may consider a more equitable allocation of resources to peer support services.

Another policy-related implication pertains to technology infrastructure and more specifically to who gets access to devices (such as smart phones and computers) and internet connections. Our study highlighted that lack of access to these resources was a boundary that challenged some peers seeking virtual support services. The peer support organization stepped in to create bridges by advocating with funders and tech providers. However, this leaves unsolved an issue that needs to be addressed at a higher societal level, namely the limited, yet necessary, resources available to some segments of the population (typically homeless individuals, people with disabilities, refugees and other groups). This issue should be an important consideration in future policy.

Finally, our study pointed to several practical implications based on the experience of the case we studied. For example, we pointed to the various strategies that peer organizations can use to maintain a sense of community in a virtual space. Further, in anticipation of the growth of virtual peer support services, organizations may consider the need for renewed training modules that integrate necessary skills relating to using technology for recovery support. Peer support organizations may also consider building their capacity to respond quickly to crises and major changes, as it is during these situations that their services may be in most demand.

The important role of mental health community services and the changing drivers in mental health systems have been noted by researchers. Norton (2023) points out that “ mental health services are currently undergoing immense cultural, philosophical, and organizational change. One such mechanism involved in this change has been the recognition of lived experience as a knowledge subset in its own right ” [ 54 , p.1]. The trends of peer support gaining in importance and being delivered in virtual as well as in-person spaces are poised to continue in the future. It is incumbent on researchers to continue studying the challenges and opportunities of peer support in its various models. Our study has been a step in this direction.

Data availability

The dataset used in this research is not publicly available as set out by the research ethics approval from the University of Ottawa and the consent forms signed by the participants. Further information is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

Peer Support Worker

United Kingdom

United States

World Health Organization

Research Ethics Board

World Health Organization. Peer support mental health services: promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches. In: Guidance and technical packages on community mental health services: Promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches. World Health Organization. 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025783

Cyr C, McKee H, O’Hagan M, Priest R. For the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Making the case for peer support: Report to the peer support project committee of the mental health commission of Canada. Mental Health Commission of Canada; 2010/2016. http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca

Mirbahaeddin E, Chreim S. A narrative review of factors influencing peer support role implementation in mental health systems: implications for research, policy and practice. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2022;49(4):596–612.

Article Google Scholar

Burke E, Pyle M, Machin K, Varese F, Morrison AP. The effects of peer support on empowerment, self-efficacy, and internalized stigma: a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Stigma Health. 2019;4(3):337–56.

Ziegler E, Hill J, Lieske B, Klein J, dem OV, Kofahl C. Empowerment in cancer patients: does peer support make a difference? A systematic review. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(5):683–704.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Otte I, Werning A, Nossek A, Vollmann J, Juckel G, Gather J. Beneficial effects of peer support in psychiatric hospitals: a critical reflection on the results of a qualitative interview and focus group study. J Ment Health. 2020;29(3):289–95.

Kourgiantakis T, Markoulakis R, Lee E, Hussain A, Lau C, Ashcroft R, Goldstein AL, Kodeeswaran S, Williams CC, Levitt A. Access to mental health and addiction services for youth and their families in Ontario: perspectives of parents, youth, and service providers. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2023;17(1):1–15.

Fisher EB, Miller SM, Evans M, Luu SL, Tang PY, Dreyer Valovcin D, Castellano C. COVID-19, stress, trauma, and peer support—observations from the field. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(3):503–5.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fortuna KL, Myers AL, Walsh D, Walker R, Mois G, Brooks JM. Strategies to increase peer support specialists’ capacity to use digital technology in the era of COVID-19: pre-post study. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(7):e20429.

Moreno C, Wykes T, Galderisi S, Nordentoft M, Crossley N, Jones N, Arango C. How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(9):813–24.

Witteveen AB, Young S, Cuijpers P, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Barbui C, Bertolini F, Cabello M, Cadorin C, Downes N, Franzoi D, Gasior M. Remote mental health care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review. Behav Res Ther. 2022 Nov;11:104226.

Di Carlo F, Sociali A, Picutti E, Pettorruso M, Vellante F, Verrastro V, di Giannantonio M. Telepsychiatry and other cutting-edge technologies in COVID-19 pandemic: bridging the distance in mental health assistance. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;75(1).

Makarius EE, Larson BZ. Changing the perspective of virtual work: building virtual intelligence at the individual level. Acad Manag Perspect. 2017;31(2):159–78.

Baard SK, Rench TA, Kozlowski SWJ. Performance adaptation: a theoretical integration and review. J Manag. 2014;40(1):48–99.

Google Scholar

Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM. Seeing the forest for the trees: exploratory learning, mobile technology, and knowledge workers’ role integration behaviors. Acad Manag J. 2015;58(3):739–62.

Suresh R, Alam A, Karkossa Z. Using peer support to strengthen mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:1119.

Stewart K, Townley G. How far have we come? An integrative review of the current literature on sense of community and well-being. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;66(1–2):166–89.

Nistor N, Daxecker I, Stanciu D, Diekamp O. Sense of community in academic communities of practice: predictors and effects. High Educ. 2015;69:257–73.

Gusfield JR. The community: a critical response. New York: Harper Colophon; 1975.

McMillan DW, Chavis DM. Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Community Psychol. 1986;14(1):6–23.

Mead S, Hilton D, Curtis L. Peer support: a theoretical perspective. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2001;25(2):134–41.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Stanley J, Stanley J, Hensher D. Mobility, social capital and sense of community: what value? Urban Stud. 2012;49(16):3595–609.

Rovai AP. Building sense of community at a distance. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2002;3(1):1–16.

Cronenwett LR, Norris AE. Peer support for persons with co-occurring disorders and community tenure: a review of the literature. J Dual Diagn. 2009;5(3–4):279–90.

Walker G, Bryant W. Peer support in adult mental health services: a metasynthesis of qualitative findings. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2013;36(1):28–34.

Appleton R, Williams J, Vera San Juan N, Needle JJ, Schlief M, Jordan H, Sheridan Rains L, Goulding L, Badhan M, Roxburgh E, Barnett P, Spyridonidis S, Tomaskova M, Mo J, Harju-Seppänen J, Haime Z, Casetta C, Papamichail A, Lloyd-Evans B, Simpson A, Johnson S. Implementation, adoption, and perceptions of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e31746.

Yin RK. Case study research and applications. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018 Jan.

Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2020.

Marshall CR, Rossman GB, Blanco GL. Designing qualitative research. 7th ed. SAGE; 2022.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

Book Google Scholar

Strand M, Eng LS, Gammon D. Combining online and offline peer support groups in community mental health care settings: a qualitative study of service users’ experiences. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2020;14(1):1–12.

Piat M, Wainwright M, Rivest MP, Sofouli E, von Kirchenheim T, Albert H, Casey R, Labonté L, O’Rourke JJ, LeBlanc S. The impacts of implementing recovery innovations: a conceptual framework grounded in qualitative research. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2022;16(1):49.

Costa M, Reis G, Pavlo A, Bellamy C, Ponte K, Davidson L. Tele-mental health utilization among people with mental illness to access care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Community Ment Health J. 2021;57(4):720–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00789-7

Kane H, Gourret Baumgart J, El-Hage W, Deloyer J, Maes C, Lebas MC, Marazziti D, Thome J, Fond-Harmant L, Denis F. Opportunities and challenges for professionals in psychiatry and mental health care using digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(1):e30359.

Pierce BS, Perrin PB, Tyler CM, McKee GB, Watson JD. The COVID-19 telepsychology revolution: a national study of pandemic-based changes in U.S. mental health care delivery. Am Psychol. 2021;76(1):14–25.

Yue J-L, Yan W, Sun Y-K, Yuan K, Su S-Z, Han Y, Ravindran AV, Kosten T, Everall I, Davey CG, Bullmore E, Kawakami N, Barbui C, Thornicroft G, Lund C, Lin X, Liu L, Shi L, Shi J, Lu L. Mental health services for infectious disease outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. Psychol Med. 2020;50(15):2498–513.

Ilioudi S, Lazakidou AA, Glezakos N, Tsironi M. Health-related virtual communities and social networking services. In: Lazakidou AA, editor. Virtual communities, social networks and collaboration. Volume 15. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. pp. 1–13.

Fortuna KL, Solomon P, Rivera J. An update of peer support/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and critical ingredients. Psychiatr Q. 2022;93(2):571–86.

Van Os J, Guloksuz S, Vijn TW, Hafkenscheid A, Delespaul P. The evidence-based group‐level symptom‐reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry. 2019;18(1):88–96.

Davidson L, Bellamy C, Guy K, Miller R. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: a review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(2):123–8.

Solomon P. Peer support/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and critical ingredients. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2004;27(4):392.

Long DA, Perkins DD. Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI. J Community Psychol. 2003;31(3):279–96.

Peterson NA, Speer PW, McMillan DW. Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. J Community Psychol. 2008;36(1):61–73.

Shea P, Richardson J, Swan K. Building bridges to Advance the Community of Inquiry framework for online learning. Educ Psychol. 2022;57(3):148–61.

Baxter G, Hainey T. Remote learning in the context of COVID-19: reviewing the effectiveness of synchronous online delivery. J Res Innov Teach Learn. 2023;16(1):67–81.

Townley G, Kloos B, Wright PA. Understanding the experience of place: expanding methods to conceptualize and measure community integration of persons with serious mental illness. Health Place. 2009;15(2):520–31.

Bowe M, Wakefield JR, Kellezi B, Stevenson C, McNamara N, Jones BA, Sumich A, Heym N. The mental health benefits of community helping during crisis: coordinated helping, community identification and sense of unity during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2022;32(3):521–35.

Kitchen P, Williams A, Chowhan J. Sense of community belonging and health in Canada: a regional analysis. Soc Indic Res. 2012;107:103–26.

Lustgarten SD, Garrison YL, Sinnard MT, Flynn AW. Digital privacy in mental healthcare: current issues and recommendations for technology use. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020;36:25–31.

Ferguson J, Taminiau Y. Conflict and learning in inter-organizational online communities: negotiating knowledge claims. J Knowl Manag. 2014;18(5):886–904.

Hauser F, Hautz J, Hutter K, Füller J, Firestorms. Modeling conflict diffusion and management strategies in online communities. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2017;26(4):285–321.

Austin T, Chreim S, Grudniewicz A. Examining health care providers’ and middle-level managers’ readiness for change: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:47.

Norton MJ. Peer support working: a question of ontology and epistemology. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2023;17(1):1–4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the peer support organization, the peer support workers and the peers who kindly shared their experiences with us.

This research was financially supported by the Partnership Engage Grants COVID-19 Special Initiative from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Fund # 1008-2020-1020.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Ave E, K1N 6N5, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Elmira Mirbahaeddin & Samia Chreim

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This article is part of EM’s doctoral thesis. EM and SC contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was done in collaboration, and analysis and manuscript drafting were performed by EM, and were thoroughly reviewed by SC. Both authors critically revised the drafts until finalized.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elmira Mirbahaeddin .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This research involving human participants was granted ethical approval through the Research Ethics Board (REB) of the University of Ottawa (Reference number S-11-20-6226). We confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants in the study were given oral and written information about the project, and they provided informed consent. In the consent form, we provided resources for mental health support in case of need. In addition, the participants were informed of the possibility of withdrawal from the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mirbahaeddin, E., Chreim, S. Transcending technology boundaries and maintaining sense of community in virtual mental health peer support: a qualitative study with service providers and users. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 510 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10943-y

Download citation

Received : 12 January 2024

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10943-y

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

Mental health
Peer support
Virtual services
Technology boundaries
Access boundaries
Qualitative research

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

General enquiries: [email protected]

IMAGES

How to Write a Literature Review in 5 Simple Steps
Organization of Literature Review
Review of Related Literature: What Is RRL & How to Write It (Examples)
Write Online: Literature Review Writing Guide
Literature Review: Structure, Format, & Writing Tips
The Best Literature Review: 45 Great Tips on Format and Structure

VIDEO

3_session2 Importance of literature review, types of literature review, Reference management tool
What is Literature Review?
LITERATURE REVIEW HPEF7063 ACADEMIC WRITING FOR POSTGRADURATES
Literature Review for Research #hazarauniversity #trendingvideo #pakistan
Literature review || Analytical operation ||Method and writing history
The Literature Review

COMMENTS

Organizing the Literature Review
Just like most academic papers, literature reviews must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.
The Literature Review
Describe the organization of the review (the sequence) If necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope) Body - summative, comparative, and evaluative discussion of literature reviewed. For a thematic review: organize the review into paragraphs that present themes and identify trends relevant to your topic
Literature Review Guide: How to organise the review
Use Cooper's taxonomy to explore and determine what elements and categories to incorporate into your review; Revise and proofread your review to ensure your arguments, supporting evidence and writing is clear and precise; Source. Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach.
How to 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.
The Writing Center
A review of the literature surveys the scholarship and research relevant to your research question, but it is not a series of summaries. It is a synthesis of your sources. This means you cannot write a review of the literature (which we'll call a "lit review") by composing a summary of each of your sources, then stringing those summaries ...
5. The Literature Review
A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that ...
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
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.
Writing a Literature Review
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).
Organizing Your Literature Review
For example, if the review topic was arts-based research, your review may focus on different ways artistic inquiry was used to understand the creative process, focusing then on the concepts rather than the development. Methodological: The method or practice applied in a case study can be the basis for organizing a literature review. This ...
Literature Review: Conducting & Writing
Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level: First, cover the basic categories Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion ...
Organizing the Literature Review
Just like most academic papers, literature reviews must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature ...
Literature Reviews
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. ... Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level: First, cover the basic categories. Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must ...
The Writing Center
Organizing Literature Reviews: Advanced. One of the most difficult parts about writing a lit review is organizing it. Part of this difficulty lies in dealing with the large number of sources that will be part of the review, while the other lies in connecting sources to each other in a way that will support your purpose for writing the review.
Research Guides: Strategy: Literature Reviews: Literature Review
Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about a particular subject area or topic. A Literature Review provides an overview of selected sources on a topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: a summary of sources. an organized presentation of sources.
4. Organizing Your Research
You will then be ready to write your literature review. One strategy is to create a synthesis matrix. A synthesis matrix helps you organize the main points of each book, article, or other information resource you use. It allows you to see how the sources relate to each other and helps guide your writing.
Organizing the Review
A literature review is structured similarly to other research essays, opening with an introduction that explains the topic and summarizes how the review will be conducted, several body paragraphs organized to share your findings, and a concluding paragraph. ... This is why proper organization of the literature is so important; it will allow you ...
Organization
Tools to help organize your literature review. Bubbl.us makes it easy to organize your ideas visually in a way that makes sense to you and others. Coggle is online software for creating and sharing mindmaps and flowcharts. Create a matrix with author names across the top (columns), themes on the left side (rows).
Organize Key Findings
This is called a review matrix. When you create a review matrix, the first few columns should include (1) the authors, title, journal, (2) publication year, and (3) purpose of the paper. The remaining columns should identify important aspects of each study such as methodology and findings. Click on the image below to view a sample review matrix.
Literature Reviews: Parts & Organization of a Literature Review
Parts & Organization of a Literature Review. Literature reviews typically follow the introduction-body-conclusion format. If your literature review is part of a larger project or paper, the introduction and conclusion of the lit review may be just a few sentences, while you focus most of your attention on the body.
Four Ways to Structure Your Literature Review
A literature review is a critical component of a dissertation, thesis, or journal article. It can be used to: - Assess the current state of knowledge on a topic. - Identify gaps in the existing research. - Inform future research directions. The best structure for a literature review depends on the purpose of the review and the audience.
Literature Reviews
A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research. The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body ...
Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks
A literature review should connect to the study question, guide the study methodology, and be central in the discussion by indicating how the analyzed data advances what is known in the field. ... This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework ...
Structure peer review to make it more robust
Structure peer review to make it more robust. Everyone who reviews a manuscript should answer a transparent set of questions, to ensure that scientific literature is subject to reliable quality ...
Organizational unlearning as a process: What we know, what ...
Although the field of organizational unlearning has recently gained increased interest, its conceptual foundations and raison d'être are still debated. In this review, we aim to revisit various discourses and arguments to advance the understanding of organizational unlearning in management and organization studies. Using an integrative literature review approach with systematic elements, we ...
Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of
A scoping review was conducted using the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [], intertwined with the PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis [].Scoping reviews allow us to study the literature without restricting the methodological quality of the studies found ...
Full article: Organizational culture: a systematic review
2.1. Definition of organizational culture. OC is a set of norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes that guide the actions of all organization members and have a significant impact on employee behavior (Schein, Citation 1992).Supporting Schein's definition, Denison et al. (Citation 2012) define OC as the underlying values, protocols, beliefs, and assumptions that organizational members hold, and ...
Organizing Academic Research Papers: 5. The Literature Review
A literature review may consist of simple a summary of key sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate ...
A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation
First, the extant literature differentiates continuous and episodic change by the respective metaphor of the organization. In the episodic paradigm, organizations are seen as inertia-prone and infrequently changing, while in the continuous paradigm they are perceived as constantly adapting structures (Weick and Quinn, 1999).
Transcending technology boundaries and maintaining sense of community
Data collection was conducted from a community organization that offers mental health peer support services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 employees and 27 service users. ... An integrative review of the current literature on sense of community and well-being. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;66(1-2):166-89. Article PubMed ...