A Literature Review Is Roughly Consulting the Library to Learn What Has Happened in the Past

What this handout is about

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

Introduction

OK. You've got to write a literature review. You grit off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get fix to issue a "thumbs up" or "thumbs downward" as you lot leaf through the pages. "Literature review" done. Right?

Incorrect! The "literature" of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the corking 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 y'all to requite your personal stance on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular discipline surface area, and sometimes information in a detail subject area expanse within a sure time period.

A literature review can exist just a elementary summary of the sources, only it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a epitomize of the important information of the source, merely a synthesis is a re-organisation, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of erstwhile material or combine new with old interpretations. Or information technology 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 nearly pertinent or relevant.

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

The main focus of an academic enquiry paper is to develop a new statement, and a research newspaper is likely to incorporate a literature review as one of its parts. In a inquiry paper, you use the literature as a foundation and every bit back up for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, even so, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without calculation new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide y'all with a handy guide to a item topic. If yous have limited time to acquit research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act every bit a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that go along them up to engagement with what is electric current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the brownie of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation. Comprehensive cognition of the literature of the field is essential to near research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, only by and large 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 go to it! What should I practice before writing the literature review?

Analyze

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

Roughly how many sources should you include?
What types of sources (books, journal manufactures, 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 data, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Wait 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 manufactures of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read are also splendid entry points into your ain inquiry.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier information technology will be to limit the number of sources yous demand to read in society to go a adept survey of the material. Your teacher will probably not look yous to read everything that'south out at that place on the topic, just you'll brand your chore easier if y'all first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries take research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. Yous tin 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'south (or other professors') knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: "If y'all had to read only ane book from the 90's on topic 10, what would information technology exist?" Questions such equally this help yous to discover and determine apace the nigh seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use data that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical issues are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years sometime 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 exist what is needed, because what is of import is how perspectives have changed through the years or inside a certain time flow. Endeavor sorting through another current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your subject expects. You can as well use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is non.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Discover a focus

A literature review, like a term newspaper, is usually organized around ideas, non the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that y'all volition non only simply list your sources and get into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely just selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or bug connect your sources together. Do they nowadays one or unlike solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well practice they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a tendency in the field? A raging contend? Pick 1 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 statement), simply you lot do need to tell readers what to expect. Endeavour writing a simple argument that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Hither are a couple of examples:

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

Consider system

You've got a focus, and y'all've stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective style of presenting the information? What are the virtually of import 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 bones categories

Simply like near academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information department; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a determination and/or recommendations section to finish 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 (run into below for more data on each).
Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what y'all 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 fifty-fifty further.

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

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

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

Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write near the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, commencement you would talk most the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, and so 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. Simply 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 most other subjects/objects that were created much before. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, so, but if the order demonstrates a more than important trend. For instance, you could society a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a alter in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Past trend: A better fashion to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under some other trend, such as the history of whaling. And then your review would have subsections co-ordinate to eras within this catamenia. 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 result, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may all the same be an of import 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 but difference here betwixt a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the almost: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon applied science.But more accurate thematic reviews tend to intermission away from chronological guild. 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 fourth dimension periods within each department according to the point made.

Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor commonly does non accept to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale projection, ane methodological arroyo would exist 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 affect of whaling on a customs. A methodological telescopic 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 effigy 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 take subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, yous might need to add boosted sections that are necessary for your report, only do not fit in the organizational strategy of the trunk. What other sections you include in the body is upwards to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might desire to consider:

Current State of affairs: Data 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 sympathise the literature review, if the trunk of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Methods and/or Standards: The criteria yous 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 simply peer-reviewed manufactures and journals.

Questions for Farther Inquiry: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a outcome of the review?

Begin composing

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

Even so, 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 up in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such equally "author," "pedestrian," and "persons." The students were asked to draw any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton establish that people imagined 3.three men to each woman in the masculine "generic" status and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism deemed for some of the masculine bias, sexist linguistic communication amplified the event. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Criminal 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 similar any other academic inquiry 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 simply the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information y'all 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 whatever direct quotes. That is considering 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 but cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills practice quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common cognition, or taken directly from the study. But if yous find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your teacher.

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your ain vocalization

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

Use circumspection when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is non your own, be certain to represent the author's data or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding case, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the writer of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide aplenty note 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

Typhoon in hand? Now yous're ready to revise. Spending a lot of fourth dimension revising is a wise idea, because your principal objective is to present the material, not the statement. So check over your review once again to brand sure information technology follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for about other bookish forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that y'all've presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be certain to use terminology familiar to your audience; become rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that yous've documented your sources and formatted the review accordingly 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 lot to do your own research to find boosted publications. Please do not utilise this list every bit a model for the format of your ain reference listing, as it may not friction match the citation manner you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please run into 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, sixth 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: 10 Speed Press.

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

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

Creative Commons License This piece of work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
You may reproduce information technology for non-commercial utilize if yous use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Heart, University of Northward Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

daltonbegge1983.blogspot.com

Source: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/