Literature review

For a focused scientic review, see Systematic review.

main (Ways of thinking - Remembering, Understanding,

Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating and Creating).[3][5]

A literature review is a text of a scholarly paper,

which includes the current knowledge including substantive ndings, as well as theoretical and methodological
contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews use
secondary sources, and do not report new or original experimental work.[1]

The rst category in Blooms taxonomy is remembering.

For a person doing a literature review this would include
tasks such as recognition, retrieval and recollection of the
relevant literature. During this stage relevant books, articles, monographs, dissertations, etc. are identied and
read. Blooms second category understanding occurs as
the scholar comprehends the material they have collected
and read. This step is critical because no one can write
clearly about something they do not understand. Understanding may be challenging because the literature could
introduce the scholar to new terminology, conceptual
framework and methodology. Comprehension (particularly for new scholars) is often improved by taking careful
notes. In Blooms third category applying the scholar is
able to make connections between the literature and his
or her larger research project. This is particularly true if
the literature review is to be a chapter in a future empirical study. The literature review begins to inform the research question, and methodological approaches. When
scholars analyze (fourth category in Blooms taxonomy)
they are able to separate material into parts and gure out
how the parts t together. Analysis of the literature allows the scholar to develop frameworks for analysis and
the ability to see the big picture and know how details
from the literature t within the big picture. Analysis facilitates the development of an outline (list). The books,
articles and monographs read will be of dierent quality
and value. When scholars use Blooms fth category evaluating they are able to see the strengths and weaknesses of
the theories, arguments, methodology and ndings of the
literature they have collected and read.[5] When scholars
engage in creating the nal category in Blooms taxonomy, they bring creativity to the process of doing a literature review. In other words, they draw new and original
insights from the literature. They may be able to nd a
fresh and original research question, identify a heretofore,
unknown gap in the literature or make surprising connections. By understanding how ways of thinking connect to
tasks of a literature review, a scholar is able to be selfreective and bring metacognition to the process of reviewing the literature.[6]

Types

Most often associated with academic-oriented literature,

such as a thesis, dissertation or a peer-reviewed journal
article, a literature review usually precedes the methodology and results section although this is not always the
case. Literature reviews are also common in a research
proposal or prospectus (the document that is approved
before a student formally begins a dissertation or thesis).
Its main goals are to situate the current study within the
body of literature and to provide context for the particular reader. Literature reviews are a basis for research in
nearly every academic eld.[2]
A systematic review is a literature review focused on a
research question, trying to identify, appraise, select and
synthesize all high quality research evidence and arguments relevant to that question. A meta analysis is typically a systematic review using statistical methods to effectively combine the data used on all selected studies to
produce a more reliable result.

Process and product

Shields and Rangarajan (2013) distinguish between the

process of reviewing the literature and a nished work or
product known as a literature review.[3] The process of reviewing the literature is often ongoing and informs many
aspects of the empirical research project. All of the latest
literature should inform a research project. Scholars need
to be scanning the literature long after a formal literature
review product appears to be completed.

Most of these tasks and thinking challenges occur before

the writing even begins. The process of reviewing the literature and writing a literature review can be complicated
and lengthy. It is helpful to bring a system of organization
and planning to the task. When an orderly system can be
designed, it is easier to keep track of the articles, books,

A careful literature review is usually 15 to 30 pages and

could be longer. The process of reviewing the literature requires dierent kinds of activities and ways of
thinking.[4] Shields and Rangarajan (2013) and Granello
(2001) link the activities of doing a literature review with
Benjamin Blooms revised taxonomy of the cognitive do1

5 FURTHER READING

materials read, notes, outlines and drafts.

[7]

See also
Empirical study of literature
Review journal

References

[1] Baglione, L. (2012) Writing a Research Paper in Political

Science. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.
[2] Lamb, David. "The Uses of Analysis: Rhetorical Analysis, Article Analysis, and the Literature Review". Academic Writing Tutor. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
[3] Shields, Patricia and Rangarjan, Nandhini. 2013. A
Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual
Frameworks and Project Management. Stillwater, OK:
New Forums Press. pp. 193-229 ISBN 1-58107-247-3
[4] Baker, P. 2000. Writing a Literature Review. The Marketing Review 1(2) 219-47.
[5] Granello, D. H. 2001. Promoting cognitive complexity
in graduate written work: Using Blooms taxonomy as a
pedagogical tool to improve Literature Reviews. Counselor Education & Supervision 40, 292-307.
[6] Shields, Patricia and Rangarjan, Nandhini. 2013. A
Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual
Frameworks and Project Management. Stillwater, OK:
New Forums Press. Shields and Rangarajan (2013) devote Chapter 8 to creativity in the research process.
[7] Shields, Patricia. 2000. Step by Step: Building a Research
Project Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press

Further reading

General
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide
for Literature Reviews.
Creswell, John (2007) Review of the Literature,
Chapter 2 of Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dellinger, A. (2005). Validity and the Review of
Literature. Research in the Schools; 12(2), pp. 41
54.
Dellinger, A. B. & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward
a Unied Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research;
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 309332.

Galvan, J. L. (2009). Writing Literature Reviews.

Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., and Adams, A. (2006)
Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for PeerReviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade. Journal
of Chiropractic Medicine; 5(3), pp. 101114.
Hart, C. (2008) Literature Reviewing and Argumentation. In The Postgraduates Companion,
(eds.) Gerard Hall and Jo Longman. UKGrad.
United Kingdom. London: Sage ISBN 978-1-41293026-0
Various elds
Christopher, Aidan (2012). Stock/inventory Management System
Hart, C. (1998) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. United
Kingdom. 230 pp. London: Sage ISBN 0-76195974-2 Set book Open University Social Science
Masters.
Hart, C. (2001) Doing a Literature Search: A Guide
for the Social Sciences. 194 pp. London: Sage.
ISBN 0 761 6809 1.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.1

Text

Literature review Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature%20review?oldid=646251671 Contributors: Bdonlan, Bearcat, Nurg,

Gyrofrog, Piotrus, MeltBanana, Camw, Graham87, MZMcBride, Bgwhite, RussBot, Petiatil, Manop, SaveTheWhales, Skizzik, Neo-Jay,
A. B., Fuhghettaboutit, Esrever, Delta759, FleetCommand, Dynaow, James086, Sturm55, Mentisto, Shirt58, HartnerAlex, Cyclonius,
WhatamIdoing, Longhikes, STBotD, Signalhead, DoorsAjar, TXiKiBoT, Drgeller, Technopat, GregX102, Tuyvan, Prcr, Flyer22, Sanya3,
Jdmmxbth, ClueBot, ImperfectlyInformed, Abdellinger, Eeekster, Libermann, BirgerH, The Founders Intent, Aitias, The Baroness of
Morden, Ps07swt, XLinkBot, Jkeiren, Chanakal, Little Mountain 5, Felix Folio Secundus, Addbot, Andrewroquiz, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Tohd8BohaithuGh1, Santryl, Ciphers, Piano non troppo, Materialscientist, LilHelpa, Blackcat11, A.amitkumar, FrescoBot, Rosecleareld,
Pinethicket, A8UDI, RedBot, MastiBot, Forp, Dinamik-bot, Theorists, Sabzali, EmausBot, AsceticRose, Hodgdons secret garden, Ugghupp1, ClueBot NG, Timothy.conder, MelbourneStar, Cntras, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bipin000, Frze, Jasper343, EuroCarGT, Jajobi,
Randykitty, Nobodyknow, Reid Berryman, Joseph A. norton, Interceptr, Beth.Alex123, Swatiandketan, Barniecadd and Anonymous: 107

6.2

Images

File:Ambox_important.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)

6.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0