what is a literature review in biology

Research in the Biological and Life Sciences: A Guide for Cornell Researchers: Literature Reviews

• Books and Dissertations
• Databases and Journals
• Locating Theses
• Resource Not at Cornell?
• Citing Sources
• Staying Current
• Measuring your research impact
• Plagiarism and Copyright
• Data Management
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews
• Writing an Honors Thesis
• Poster Making and Printing
• Research Help

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Writing a Literature Review

The literature review is the section of your paper in which you cite and briefly review the related research studies that have been conducted. In this space, you will describe the foundation on which  your  research will be/is built. You will:

• discuss the work of others
• evaluate their methods and findings
• identify any gaps in their research
• state how  your  research is different

The literature review should be selective and should group the cited studies in some logical fashion.

If you need some additional assistance writing your literature review, the Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines offers a  Graduate Writing Service .

Demystifying the Literature Review

For more information, visit our guide devoted to " Demystifying the Literature Review " which includes:

• guide to conducting a literature review,
• a recorded 1.5 hour workshop covering the steps of a literature review, a checklist for drafting your topic and search terms, citation management software for organizing your results, and database searching.

Online Resources

• A Guide to Library Research at Cornell University
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students North Carolina State University 
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Written by Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto
• How to Write a Literature Review University Library, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Review of Literature The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Print Resources

• << Previous: Writing
• Next: Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 11:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/bio

• Where do I find biology resources in the library?
• What if I can't find what I'm looking for?
• How do I know if my source is a "scholarly" source?
• How do I paraphrase something?

Literature Review Basics

• Literature Review Step-by-Step
• Common Questions about Literature Reviews
• How do I craft a basic citation?
• What is citation tracing?
• How do I use Zotero for citation management?
• Who do I contact for help?

This video will provide a short introduction to literature reviews.

Steps For Writing a Literature Review

Recommended steps for writing a literature review:

• Review what a literature review is, and is not 
• Review your assignment and seek clarification from your instructor if needed
• Narrow your topic
• Search and gather literature resources. 
• Read and analyze literature resources
• Write the literature review
• Review appropriate  Citation and Documentation Style  for your assignment and literature review

Common Questions

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a type of scholarly, researched writing that discusses the already published information on a narrow topic . 

What is the purpose of a writing literature review?

Writing a literature review improves your personal understanding of a topic, and demonstrates your knowledge and ability to make connections between concepts and ideas. The literature review is a service to your reader, summarizing past ideas about a topic, bringing them up to date on the latest research, and making sure they have all any background information they need to understand the topic.  

What is "the literature"?

This already published information- called the literature- can be from primary information sources such as speeches, interviews, and reports, or from secondary information sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and books. These type of sources are probably familiar to you from previous research projects you’ve done in your classes.

Is a literature review it's own paper?

You can write a literature review as a standalone paper , or as part of a larger research paper . When a standalone paper, the literature review acts as a summary, or snapshot, of what has been said and done about a topic in the field so far. When part of the a larger paper, a literature review still acts as a snapshot, but the prior information it provides can also support the new information, research, or arguments presented later in the paper.

Does a literature review contain an argument?

No, a literature review does NOT present an argument or new information. The literature review is a foundation that summarizes and synthesizes the existing literature in order for you and your readers to understand what has already been said and done about your topic.

• << Previous: How do I paraphrase something?
• Next: How do I craft a basic citation? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 29, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://fhsuguides.fhsu.edu/biology

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
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Career Column 15 MAR 24

Divas, captains, ghosts, ants and bumble-bees: collaborator attitudes explained

A year in the life: what I learnt from using a time-tracking spreadsheet

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Being a parent is a hidden scientific superpower — here’s why

Career Column 13 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Embrace AI to break down barriers in publishing for people who aren’t fluent in English

Correspondence 12 MAR 24

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor to the rank of Associate Professor in computational biology

UNIL is a leading international teaching and research institution, with over 5,000 employees and 15,500 students split between its Dorigny campus, ...

Lausanne, Canton of Vaud (CH)

University of Lausanne (UNIL)

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

Junior Group Leader

The Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute seeks to appoint an outstanding scientist to a new Junior Group Leader position.

United Kingdom

Research projects in all fields of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences are welcome

The aim of fostering future world-class researchers at Kyoto University.

Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto University

Staff Scientist (Virology)

Staff Scientist position available at Scripps Research

La Jolla, California

The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

• Skip to search box
• Skip to main content

Princeton University Library

Ecology and evolutionary biology research guide.

• Finding Journal Articles
• Citation Searching
• Finding Books
• Finding News Sources
• Reference Sources
• Requesting Books & Articles
• Creating Bibliographies
• What is a Literature Review?

What is a literature review?

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• 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 forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

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.

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires 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

Remember, this is a process and not necessarily a linear one. As you search and evaluate the literature, you may refine your topic or head in a different direction which will take you back to the search stage. In fact, it is useful to evaluate as you go along so you don't spend hours researching one aspect of your topic only to find yourself more interested in another.

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper will 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.

For additional information, including suggestions for the structure of your literature review, see this guide from the University of North Carolina's Writing Center: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/

This <10 minute tutorial from North Carolina State University also provides a good overview of the literature review: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/lit-review/

Finding Examples

While we don't have any examples of an EEB JP literature review, it may be useful to look at other reviews to learn how researchers in the field "summarize and synthesize" the literature. Any research article or dissertation in the sciences will include a section which reviews the literature. Though the section may not be labeled as such, you will quickly recognize it by the number of citations and the discussion of the literature. Another option is to look for Review Articles, which are literature reviews as a stand alone article. Here are some resources where you can find Research Articles, Review Articles and Dissertations:

• Web of Science - If you'd like to limit your results to Review Articles, look to the left side of your results page. There you will see many options to refine your search including the section labeled Document Types. Select "Review" as the document type and click on Refine.
• Scopus - Similar to WoS, you can use the options on the left side of your results page if you'd like to limit the document type. Here you will again choose "Review" and then click on the Limit To button.
• Annual Reviews   - All articles in this database are review articles. You can search for your topic or browse in a related subject area.
• Dissertations @ Princeton - Provides access to many Princeton dissertations, full text is available for most published after 1996.

*** Note about using Review Articles in your research - while they are useful in helping you to locate articles on your topic, remember that you must go to and use the original source if you intend to include a study mentioned in the review. The only time you would cite a review article is if they have made an original insight in their work that you talk about in your paper. Going to the original research paper allows you to verify the information about that study and determine whether the points made in the review are valid and accurate.

• << Previous: Creating Bibliographies
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 3:30 PM
• URL: https://libguides.princeton.edu/eeb

• What are Articles?
• What Makes a Source Credible?

What is a Literature Review?

Literature review video.

• Where to Search for Articles?
• Books and E-books
• APA Citation
• Biology Associations
• Book a Librarian This link opens in a new window

In Research Articles 

What is a literature review? Rather than describing original research results, literature reviews summarize the research on a particular topic by synthesizing information from many primary sources.

Why should I read literature reviews? Review articles can be helpful for gathering background information and identifying key articles in a particular field.

How can I find a literature review? Many library databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, allow you to filter search results to include only "review articles" or "literature reviews."  

For Class Assignments 

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.

Source: The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue. (n/a). What is a literature review? Purdue University.  Writing a Literature Review // Purdue Writing Lab

• Writing a Literature Review - Purdue OWL A great place to learn more about Literature Reviews to help you write a literature. Consult Purdue OWL.

To better understand what is a literature review, watch the video from the NC State University Libraries. 

Watch  Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  00:09:37

Source: NC State University Libraries(n.a.)  Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students . Retrieved from   https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/lit-review  

• << Previous: What Makes a Source Credible?
• Next: Where to Search for Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 25, 2024 12:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wccnet.edu/biology

Biology: Literature Reviews

• Research Steps
• Literature Reviews
• About Scholarly Articles
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Evidence in Biology
• Open Access Resources

What is a Literature Review?

What is a literature review?

Before you start your research paper you need to find out what other research has been done on the topic.  A literature review will include the works you consulted in order to understand and investigate your research problem.  A good literature review is not simply a summary of other research articles. The sources listed should be organized logically with the sources dealing with the same aspects of the topic grouped together.  You should also evaluate the sources, show the relationships among them and explain why they are important (or not) for your own research.  

Literature reviews analyze  critically this segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a specific topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article. Either way, a literature review is supposed to provide the researcher/author and the audiences with a general image of the existing knowledge on the topic under question. A good literature review can ensure that a proper research question has been asked and a proper theoretical framework and/or research methodology have been chosen. To be precise, a literature review serves to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and to provide context for the reader. In such case, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the work.

• Literature Reviews - Handout

A literature review is important because it:

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

Questions to Ask

Some questions to think about as you develop your literature review:

• What is known about the subject?
• Are there any gaps in the knowledge of the subject?
• Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
• Who are the significant research personalities in this area?
• Is there consensus about the topic?
• What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
• What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
• What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
• What is the current status of research in this area?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?

Additional Help:

“Literature Reviews", The Writing Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It

Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan, and Michael Coughlan, “Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Approach,” British Journal of Nursing, 17, no 1 (2008), 38-43.

A Literature Review is NOT

Keep in mind that a literature review defines and sets the stage for your later research.  While you may take the same steps in researching your literature review, your literature review is not:

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

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

Steps to Conduct a Literature Review

Finding the literature.

• What Literature?
• Grey Literature
• Conference Papers

When someone talks about “the literature” they are referring to the body of research, scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory.  A literature review is a descriptive summary of research on a topic that has previously been studied. The purpose of a literature review is to inform readers of the significant knowledge and ideas that have been established on a topic. Its purpose is to compare, contrast and/or connect findings that were identified when reviewing researchers' work.

The word  literature  (in 'literature review') broadly refers to the scholarly or scientific writing on a topic.

Common sources of written works include:

•     peer-reviewed journal articles
•     books and book chapters
•     conference papers and government reports 
•     theses / dissertations

A good quality literature review involves searching a number of databases individually.

The  Library databases  are an excellent resource for finding  peer-reviewed journal articles  (and also book chapters and conference papers).

Databases may be multidisciplinary or discipline-specific. The best way to find the relevant databases for your review is to consult a list of databases such as the ones found in:

• The  Databases by Subject library guide
• Relevant subject-based library guides within your faculty area

Books  are often useful for background information when learning about a topic. They may be general, such as textbooks, or specialised.

A good way to find books is to use an online catalog such as the Felician University Library catalog.

• More recent editions may include information not found in previous editions
• Authors may discuss different aspects of a topic or present the information in different ways - reading widely can help understanding
• Once you have a basic understanding of the topic, searching for journal articles may help you to learn more and access the most current information.

Grey literature  is information which has been published informally or non-commercially (where the main purpose of the producing body is not commercial publishing) or remains unpublished.

It can include a range of material, such as government reports, policy documents, statistics, discussion papers, dissertations, conference proceedings and unpublished trial data. The quality of grey literature can vary greatly - some may be peer-reviewed whereas some may not have been through a traditional editorial process.

Grey literature may be included in a literature review to minimize  publication bias .

Key ways of  finding grey literature  include using search engines, databases, government or organization websites and grey literature directories. For example:

• Analysis and Policy Observatory
• OpenGrey (European)
• New York Academy of Medicine grey literature report (US)
• The Global Science Gateway

Additional statistics are available from many government websites. Try limiting by site or domain in  Google Advanced Search  and using the keyword Statistics.

Data Sources (includes Biological Sciences Data/Sets)

re3data.org (Registry of Research Data Repositories)

Dryad Digital Repository

U.S. Government Open Data

NIH Data Sharing Repositories

DataONE (Earth and environmental data)

EPA Environmental dataset gateway

OpenDOAR : Directory of Open Access Repositories is a browsable directory of open access repositories. Search by subject, country of origin and content type.

Health Statistics

CDC SNAPS (county and state level)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  

Community Health Status Indicators Report

County Health Rankings (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)  

Partners in Information Access for the Public Health Workforce  

State Health Facts Online (Kaiser Family Foundation)

Dissertation Databases

PQDT Open (ProQuest)

Open Access Theses and Dissertations

OpenDissertations (EBSCO)

Dissertation Search

Limit to Thesis/Dissertation under Content

Conference papers  are typically published in conference proceedings (the collection of papers presented at a conference), and may be found on an organization or Society's website, as a journal, or as a special issue of journal.

In some disciplinary areas (such as computer science), conference papers may be a particularly well regarded as a form of scholarly communication; the conferences are highly selective, the papers are generally peer-reviewed, and papers are published in proceedings affiliated with high-quality publishing houses.  

Tips for finding conference papers:

• The year of publication may be different to the year the conference was held. If applying a date limit to your search, try a range of years.
• Try searching for the conference title rather than the title or author of the paper. The entire conference proceedings may be cited under a special title. You can also try searching for the conference location or sponsoring organization.

When you are writing your own primary literature review you must:

(a) use recent articles that report research tightly connected to the same specific current research problem (not simply any primary articles somehow related to the same general topic), and;

(b) write paragraphs that explicitly compare the objectives, methods, and findings of the articles with each other and with your proposed research project or findings*

*A literature review is not simply summarizing each article separately one after the other -- that would be more like an annotated bibliography and does not connect the details to your own methods/findings in your research proposal (BIO 450) or discussion/conclusion (BIO 451).

Write about how the specific research objectives, methods, and findings of the articles are similar and how are they different from each other as well as yours. 

Literature Review vs. Systematic Review

It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic.  Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly.  Please review the following chart (and its corresponding poster linked below) for a detailed explanation of each as well as the differences between each type of review.

What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters by Lynn Kysh, MLIS, University of Southern California - Norris Medical Library

• << Previous: Research Steps
• Next: About Scholarly Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 7:39 AM
• URL: https://felician.libguides.com/bio

• UWF Libraries
• What is a Lit Review?
• Find Journal Articles
• Subdisciplines

What is a Literature Review?

What is a literature review: a tutorial, literature reviews: an overview for graduate students.

• Types of Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Citation Makers and Managers
• After Graduation

A Literature Review Is Not:

• just a summary of sources
• a grouping of broad, unrelated sources
• a compilation of everything that has been written on a particular topic
• literature criticism (think English) or a book review

So, what is it then?

A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents the literature that provides background information on your topic and shows a correspondence between those writings and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (by North Caroline State University Libraries)

• << Previous: Subdisciplines
• Next: Types of Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 8:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/biology

University Library

• Search Tips
• Explore Your Topic
• Research Article Definitions
• Find Sources
• Reading and Evaluating
• Organize, Write, & Cite

What is a Literature Review?

Why write a literature review.

• Get Involved!
• Research Help

A literature review is an explanation of what has been published on a subject. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment (sometimes in the form of an annotated bibliography), but more often it is part of the introduction to a research report, essay, thesis, or dissertation. It's not just a summary of sources. You should provide a new interpretation of old material. It should:

• Connect your references
• Synthesize what you've read
• Evaluate your resources.

A literature review should do these things:

• Be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• Synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• Identify areas of controversy in the literature
• Formulate questions that need further research
• To trace the progression of a field
• To evaluate your sources. Does one article have different conclusions or results from your other resources?
• To develop a better understanding of the field. It can be very helpful if you want to do your own research in the field.
• To give a new interpretation to previous research.
• << Previous: Organize, Write, & Cite
• Next: Get Involved! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2024 8:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.calstatela.edu/biology

• Queen's University Library
• Research Guides
• Writing a Literature Review
• Search Strategies
• Evaluating Information
• Finding Articles
• Finding Books
• Reference Materials
• Streaming Video
• Citing & Citation Management
• How to Read an Article and Take Notes
• Concept Mapping and the Synthesis Matrix
• Writing the Review
• Data Repositories
• Research Data Management This link opens in a new window
• Biology Field Stations

Scope Notes and Credits

Scope Notes

The purpose of this page is to provide information about writing literature reviews in STEM fields. 

Maggie Gordon, MLIS

Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are an important step in the research process and are commonly assigned in upper-year and graduate level courses. Alternatively, you may need to include one at the beginning of a research paper or as a chapter in a dissertation or thesis. No matter your reason for conducting one, a literature review should show the reader that you have a comprehensive understanding of the published research on a particular topic . The literature review should identify what has already been done and what is still left to be explored in your topic area, which prevents duplication of research efforts. Finally, it should show that you can position your own informed perspective into the scholarly conversation  as you make connections between studies and situate them within the broader context. The literature review should not be a summary of what you have found - it should be a critical evaluation . 

The three goals of a literature review are to:

• Summarize and analyze previous research and theories
• Identify trends, important questions, common methodology, controversy, and contested claims
• Highlight any gaps that may exist in the research to date

Depending on the purpose of your literature review, you may also need to situate your own research into the scholarly conversation and justify its value. 

Getting Started

It's important to be well organized before  you start working on your lit review. It might be helpful to have the following in place:

• A plan to keep track of where you search and what you search. This can be as simple as a Word or Excel file where you list the databases that you search in and the search strings, parameters, and other filters that you've used. 
• A citation management tool such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote. This will help you keep track of your references and auto-populate citations as you write your review. It can also be a great place to store PDFs of articles or book chapters that you read. For more information, see the tab on Citing & Citation Management

A sample search log: 

This can be adapted to suit your needs, for a literature review that is part of a course assignment, you likely will not need the last two columns. 

• << Previous: Citing & Citation Management
• Next: How to Read an Article and Take Notes >>

What about Systematic Reviews?

Systematic Reviews are another type of knowledge synthesis that people might refer to when talking about a literature reviews; however, they are quite different! A true systematic review must follow a rigorous methodological process and requires at least two people. Other common types of evidence synthesis include Narrative Reviews, Rapid Reviews, and Scoping Reviews. To learn more, visit our Guide to Systematic Reviews & Other Synthesis . 

• Last Updated: Jan 5, 2024 12:55 PM
• Subjects: Biology

• Research Guides

BIO 3800: Biological Research

• Literature Review
• Biological Research
• Writing A Scientific Paper
• Effective Presentations
• How to Prepare an Annotation
• Ethics in Research
• RefWorks & Zotero This link opens in a new window

Need Assistance?

Find your librarian, schedule a research appointment, today's hours : , what is a literature review.

A literature review ought to be a clear, concise synthesis of relevant information. A literature review should introduce the study it precedes and show how that study fits into topically related studies that already exist. Structurally, a literature review ought to be something like a funnel: start by addressing the topic broadly and gradually narrow as the review progresses.

from Literature Reviews by CU Writing Center

Why review the literature?

Reference to prior literature is a defining feature of academic and research writing. Why review the literature?

• To help you understand a research topic
• To establish the importance of a topic
• To help develop your own ideas
• To make sure you are not simply replicating research that others have already successfully completed
• To demonstrate knowledge and show how your current work is situated within, builds on, or departs from earlier publications

from Literature Review Basics from University of La Verne

Literature Review Writing Tips

Synthesize your findings . Your findings are your evaluation of the literature reviewed: what you consider the strengths and weakness of the studies reviewed; the comparison you did between studies; research trends and gaps in the research that you found while researching your topic, etc...

Across the articles that you read, pay attention to what are the:

• Common/contested findings
• Important trends
• Influential theories

Lectures & Slides

• Literature Reviews | CU Writing Center
• Writing a Literature Review | CU Writing Center
• Revising a Literature Review | CU Writing Center

How-To Guides

• Literature Reviews | Purdue OWL A how-to guide from Purdue OWL
• Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina
• Literature Reviews (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide | University of Connecticut
• Literature Reviews | Florida A & M
• Conduct a Literature Review | SUNY
• Literature Review Basics | University of LaVerne

Organizing a Literature Review

Your literature review should have the following components:

• Introduction : Provide an overview of your topic, including the major problems and issues that have been studied.
• Thematic : You may have noticed specific themes emerge as you did your reading; if so, this may be a good way to organize your literature review. 
• Chronological : To use the example above, you may have observed that the way principals deal with behavioral problems has changed over time. If that's the case, perhaps you want to give a historical overview of the literature.
• Methodological : There are a number of different types of methodologies used in research.
• Conclusion/Discussion : Summarize what you've found in your review of literature, and identify areas in need of further research. Make sure to mention any gaps in the literature - things you think should have been researched, but were not.

Sample Literature Reviews

• Sample Literature Reviews | University of West Florida
• Sample APA Papers: Literature Review | Purdue OWL

Other Libguides

• Literature Reviews | Webster University
• Write a Literature Review | UC Santa Cruz
• Literature Reviews | California State University

A literature review may exist as:

• part of a larger whole like a section of a journal article or dissertation, or chapter of a book
• a self-contained entity, like an entire journal article 
• << Previous: Effective Presentations
• Next: How to Prepare an Annotation >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 8:29 AM
• URL: https://libguides.cedarville.edu/bio3800

Biology 231 - Research Methods

• Verifying If An Article Is Peer-Reviewed
• Should I Trust Internet Sources?
• Suggested Databases for Finding Sources
• Critical Analysis
• Creating an Annotated Bibliography
• Creating a Literature Review
• Resources for Writing Research Proposals
• Off-Campus Access

Structure of an Evidence Matrix

The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate your familiarity with existing research and how your proposed research fits within it.  It should consist of at least 4-5 peer-reviewed articles and provide an integration of ideas, concepts, theories and findings.

Constructing an Evidence Matrix will assist in the dissection of the articles being reviewed and provide a system that easily organizes common themes for later discussion.

Create a spreadsheet with the following fields: 

Themes are items of interest to you found within the article and are points of comparison between articles.

• Has the subject or style of research evolved over time?
• Are there any approaches or variables that have been consistently examined?  Do the articles ask the same questions?  Can you identify any gaps in research or inquiry?
• Are you aware of any specific common theoretical models used?

NOTE:  It is crucial that when summarizing any content that you appropriate paraphrase the text entered into your matrix. If not, use quotation marks for any words that are not your own and provide page numbers for your quotes.  This will help avoid plagiarism.

Writing a Literature Review

In a full-length paper or thesis the literature review tends to be 4-5 paragraphs long and explains how your original research topic fits into the existing body of scholarship on the topic. 

A basic format is as follows:

Paragraph #1.  Introduction of the research topic.  "The purpose of the study is to...".

Paragraph #2.  Describe how others have studied the subjects (Methods column).  Include any sampling techniques, strategies and limitations to research processes.

Paragraph #3.  Discuss a common theme from two or more articles (identified in evidence matrix).

Paragraph #4.   Discuss a common theme from two or more articles (identified in evidence matrix).

Paragraph #5.  Discuss the existing research identified in previous paragraphs, then your research topic and why it is important.  Give strong examples why your research is relevant and necessary to build a stronger understanding of the subject.

TIPS: 

• Do not summarize each article read in a separate paragraph.  The purpose here is to critically analyze them as a whole and reflect.
• When referencing an article in the literature, do not refer to it by its title.  Instead relate the article to the author and date.

Source: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/c.php?g=202672&p=1354272 (Downloaded 17AUG2022)

• << Previous: Creating an Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Resources for Writing Research Proposals >>
• Last Updated: Nov 6, 2023 1:03 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.unk.edu/BIO231
• University of Nebraska Kearney
• Library Policies
• Accessibility
• Research Guides
• Citation Guides
• A to Z Databases
• Open Nebraska
• Interlibrary Loan

2508 11th Avenue, Kearney, NE 68849-2240

Circulation Desk:  308-865-8599 Main Office:  308-865-8535

  Ask A Librarian

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

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

• Julie A. Luft
• Sophia Jeong
• Robert Idsardi
• Grant Gardner

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

Search for more papers by this author

*Address correspondence to: Sophia Jeong ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

FIGURE 1. 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.

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.

• 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. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411 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
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x034006003 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
• 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
• 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 Google Scholar
• Lave, J. ( 1988 ). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 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 Google Scholar
• 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
• Patton, M. Q. ( 2015 ). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Maryrose Weatherton and
• Elisabeth E. Schussler
• Sarah L. Eddy, Monitoring Editor
• A case study of a novel summer bridge program to prepare transfer students for research in biological sciences 20 December 2022 | Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, Vol. 4, No. 1

Submitted: 24 May 2021 Revised: 13 April 2022 Accepted: 26 April 2022

© 2022 J. A. Luft et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2022 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 4.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0).

Graduate Biology: Literature Reviews

• Interlibrary Loan
• Electronic Sources & Databases
• Websites Jump Start
• Science News Feeds
• The Research Process

Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies This link opens in a new window

What is a Literature Review?

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

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 will 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.

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.

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 70'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.

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.

Construct a working thesis statement

Then use the focus you've found to construct a thesis statement. Yes! Literature reviews have thesis statements as well! However, your thesis statement will not necessarily argue for a position or an opinion; rather it will argue for a particular perspective on the material. Some sample thesis statements for literature reviews are as follows:

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 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 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 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 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.

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?

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

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. 

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. 

We consulted these works while writing the original version of 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 the latest publications on this topic. 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. 

Anson, Chris M. and Robert A. Schwegler, The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers. Second edition. New York: Longman, 2000.

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

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

Rosen, Leonard J. and Laurence Behrens. The Allyn and Bacon Handbook. Fourth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Troyka, Lynn Quitman. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002.

Originally written and publised by the The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• << Previous: Citing Your Sources
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Oct 16, 2023 1:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.dominican.edu/science_guide

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

Human Biology: Literature Review

Searching & reviewing the literature.

• Literature Review
• Search Strategy
• Database search tips

A literature review is an evaluation of relevant literature on a topic and is usually the starting point for any undergraduate essay or postgraduate thesis. The focus for a literature review is on scholarly published materials such as books, journal articles and reports.

A search and review of relevant sources may be extensive and form part of a thesis or research project. Postgraduate researchers will normally focus on primary sources such as research studies in journals.

A literature review also provides evidence for an undergraduate assignment. Students new to a discipline may find that starting with an overview or review of relevant research in books and journals, the easiest way to begin researching a topic and obtaining the necessary background information.

Source materials can be categorised as:

Primary source : Original research from journals articles or conference papers, original materials such as historical documents, or creative works.

Secondary source : Evaluations, reviews or syntheses of original work. e.g. review articles in journals.

Tertiary source : Broadly scoped material put together usually from secondary sources to provide an overview, e.g. a book.

The Literature Review Structure : Like a standard academic essay, a literature review is made up of three key components: an introduction, a body and a conclusion. Most literature reviews can follow the following format: • Introduction: Introduce the topic/problem and the context within which it is found. • Body: Examine past research in the area highlighting methodological and/or theoretical developments, areas of agreement, contentious areas, important studies and so forth. Keep the focus on your area of interest and identify gaps in the research that your research/investigation will attempt to fill. State clearly how your work builds on or responds to earlier work. • Conclusion: Summarise what has emerged from the review of literature and reiterate conclusions.

This information has been adapted from the Edith Cowan University Literature review: Academic tip sheet .

Steps in searching and reviewing the literature:

• Define the topic and scope of the assignment. Ensure you understand the question and expectations of the assignment. It's useful to develop a plan and outline, headings, etc.  
• Check terminology. e.g. dictionaries, encyclopedias, thesauruses  
• Identify keywords for searching (include English and American spelling and terminology)  
• Identify types of publications. e.g. books, journal articles, reports.  
• Search relevant databases (refer to the relevant subject guide for key databases and sources)  
• Select and evaluate relevant sources  
• Synthesise the information  
• Write the review following the structure outlined.  
• Save references used. e.g. from the databases save, email, print or download references to EndNote.  
• Reference sources (APA 7th) (see Referencing Library Guide )

When you are writing for an academic purpose such as an essay for an assignment, you need to find evidence to support your ideas. The library is a good place to begin your search for the evidence, as it acquires books and journals to support the disciplines within the University. The following outlines a list of steps to follow when starting to write an academic assignment:

Define your topic and scope of the search

• This will provide the search terms when gathering evidence from the literature to support your arguments.
• Sometimes it is a good idea to concept map key themes.

The scope will advise you:

• How much information is required, often identified by the number of words ie 500 or 3000 words
• What sort of writing you are to do eg essay, report, annotated bibliography
• How many marks are assigned. This may indicate the amount of time to allocate to the task.

Gather the information - Before writing about your topic, you will need to find evidence to support your ideas. 

Books provide a useful starting point for an introduction to the subject. Books also provide an in-depth coverage of a topic.

Journal Articles: For current research or information on a very specific topic, journal articles may be the most useful, as they are published on a regular basis. It is normally expected that you will use some journal articles in your assignment. When using journal articles, check whether they are from a magazine or scholalry publication. Scholarly publications are often peer reviewed, which means that the articles are reviewed by expert/s before being accepted for publication.

Reports : useful information can also be found in free web publications from government or research organizations (e.g. reports). Any web publications should be carefully evaluated. You are also required to view the whole publication, not just the abstract, if using the information in your assignment.

Remember to ensure that you note the citation details for references that you collect, at the time of locating the items. It is often time consuming and impossible to track the required data later.

Analyse the information collected

• Have I collected enough information on the topic?

Synthesise your information

Write the report or essay

• Check the ECU Academic tip sheet: the Academic Essay for some useful pointers
• Remember, in most cases you will need an introduction, body and conclusion
• Record details of references used for referencing. Information on referencing can be located on the ECU Referencing Guide.

Database search tips:

1. Identify main concepts and keywords . Search the main concepts first, then limit further as necessary.

2. Find Synonyms (Boolean  OR broadens the search to include alternative keywords or subject thesaurus terms):

• pediatrics  OR children
• teenagers  OR adolescents

3. AND (Boolean AND  joins concepts and narrows the                search):

• occupational therapy  AND children
• stress  AND (occupation OR job)

4. Be aware of differences in American and English spelling and terminology. Most databases use American spelling and terminology as preferred subject terms.

5. Use Truncation (putting * at the end of a word stem will search all forms of the word):

• disab * (disability, disabilities, disabled)
• child * (child, children, childhood, children's)

6. "...." (inverted commas) use for a phrase

• "mental health"
• "occupational therapy"

7. Wildcard ? will search for any single letter in the space. e.g. wom?n will search women, woman, organi?ation will search organisation, organization.

8. Wildcard * can also be used where alternate spelling may contain an extra character. e.g. p*ediatric, will search paediatric or pediatric, behavio*r, will search behaviour or behavior.

• Search strategy planner
• MEDLINE database guide
• CINAHL database guide
• SPORTDiscus database guide
• Web of Science database guide

Literature review

Academic Writing

Study Skills

• << Previous: Journals/Databases
• Next: Further Assistance >>
• Researching a topic
• Human anatomy & physiology
• Journals/Databases
• Further Assistance

Library Contact

• [email protected]
• (61) 8 6304 5525

Library Links

• Library Workshops
• ECU Library Search
• Borrowing Items
• Room Bookings

Quick Links

• Academic Integrity
• Ask Us @ ECU
• LinkedIn Learning
• Student Guide - My Uni Start

More about ECU

• All Online Courses
• Last Updated: Feb 20, 2024 9:51 AM
• URL: https://ecu.au.libguides.com/human-biology

Edith Cowan University acknowledges and respects the Noongar people, who are the traditional custodians of the land upon which its campuses stand and its programs operate. In particular ECU pays its respects to the Elders, past and present, of the Noongar people, and embrace their culture, wisdom and knowledge.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Chemistry and Chemical Biology Resources

Literature review.

• Getting Started
• Chemistry journals and databases
• Find Dissertations and Theses
• Find Conference Proceedings
• Find Technical Reports
• Managing Citations
• Research Data Management
• Managing Your Academic Identity  
• Helpful Tools

Reviewing the Literature: Why do it?

• Personal: To familiarize yourself with a new area of research, to get an overview of a topic, so you don't want to miss something important, etc.
• Required writing for a journal article, thesis or dissertation, grant application, etc.

Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type, and other factors.

Background:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  - What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? - NCSU Video

Where to get help (there are lots of websites, blogs , articles,  and books on this topic) :

• The Center for writing and Communicating Ideas (CWCI)
• (these are non-STEM examples: dissertation guidance , journal guidelines )
• How to prepare a scientific doctoral dissertation based on research articles (2012)
• Writing a graduate thesis or dissertation (2016)
• The good paper : a handbook for writing papers in higher education (2015)
• Proposals that work : a guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (2014)
• Theses and dissertations : a guide to planning, research, and writing (2008)
• Talk to your professors, advisors, mentors, peers, etc. for advice

READ related material and pay attention to how others write their literature reviews:

• Dissertations
• Journal articles
• Grant proposals
• << Previous: Find Technical Reports
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 2:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/CCB

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

BIOL 356: Microbiology: Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Literature Review
• Key Resources
• Organizing Research
• LibKey Nomad

Books about Literature Reviews

Related Guides

• Writing a Literature Review by Conrad Woxland Last Updated Aug 17, 2023 41 views this year
• Lit Review Guide--University of Pittsburgh

What is a Literature Review?

• A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the principal research about the topic being studied.
• The review helps form the intellectual framework for the study.
• The review need not be exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible.
• However, the review should contain the most pertinent studies and point to important past and current research and practices in the field.

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

What is "the literature"?

You'll often hear "explore the literature" or "what does the literature say?"  So, what is "the literature?"

Most simply put, "the literature" is a collection of scholarly writings on a topic. This includes:

• peer-reviewed journal articles
• conference proceedings
• dissertations

How do you know when you are done researching?

Are you seeing the same articles over and over?

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Key Resources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 5, 2024 11:24 AM
• URL: https://libguides.stthomas.edu/microbiology

© 2023 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

• Literature Review
• Major & Minor
• Primary Sources & Original Research vs. Review Articles
• Find Articles
• Getting Started in Biological Research
• Finding Empirical & Scholarly Articles
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• General Biology
• Environmental Biology
• Zoology & Botany
• Biotechnology
• Cellular & Molecular Biology
• Microbiology
• Health & Medicine
• Anatomy & Physiology

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the principal research about the topic being studied.

The aim of a literature review is to show "that the writer has studied existing work in the field with insight" (Haywood and Wragg, 1982). It is not enough merely to show what others in your field have discovered. You need to view the work of others with insight to review critically. An effective review analyses and synthesizes material, and it should meet the following requirements: (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different authors' views on an issue
• Group authors who draw similar conclusions,
• Criticise aspects of methodology,
• Note areas in which authors are in disagreement,
• Highlight exemplary studies,
• Identify patterns or trends in the literature
• Highlight gaps in and omissions in previous research or questions left unanswered
• Show how your study relates to previous studies,
• Show how your study relates to the literature in general,
• Conclude by summarising what the literature says.

A literature review has a number of purposes. It enables you to:

• Set the background on what has been researched on a topic.
• Show why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discover relationships between ideas.
• Identify major themes & concepts.
• Identify critical gaps & points of disagreement.
• Help the researcher turn a network of articles into a coherent view of the literature.

Source: University of Melbourne's Literature Review Libguide

Organizing the Review

Categorizing the Literature

When categorizing the writings in the review, the researcher might consider

• the methodology employed;
• the quality of the findings or conclusions;
• the document’s major strengths and weaknesses;
• any other pivotal information.

He/She might consider such questions as:

• what beliefs are expressed?
• Is there an ideological stance?
• What is being described? Is it comprehensive or narrow?
• Are the results generalizable?

Remember that you are relating other studies to your study. How do the studies in your lit. review relate to your thesis? How are the other studies related to each other?

From http://libguides.redlands.edu/content.php?pid=32380&sid=239161

Literature Review Samples

• Otterbein's Institutional Repository You can browse by collection and then department and student scholarship. Look up samples of literature reviews in theses and dissertations.
• OhioLink's ETD Browse by institution and look up samples of literature review in the students' theses and dissertations

Planning your Literature Review

While planning your review, in addition to finding and analyzing the reviews in dissertations, you might ask yourself questions such as the following:

What is my central question or issue that the literature can help define?

What is already known about the topic?

Is the scope of the literature being reviewed wide or narrow enough?

Is there a conflict or debate in the literature?

What connections can be made between the texts being reviewed?

What sort of literature should be reviewed? Historical? Theoretical? Methodological? Quantitative? Qualitative?

What criteria should be used to evaluate the literature being reviewed?

How will reviewing the literature justify the topic I plan to investigate?

From: Writing the successful thesis and dissertation: entering the conversation, by Irene L. Clark

source: Kent State University's Literature Reviews Libguide

• << Previous: Major & Minor
• Next: Primary Sources & Original Research vs. Review Articles >>
• Last Updated: Dec 19, 2023 11:10 AM
• URL: https://otterbein.libguides.com/bmb

The role of connection with nature in empirical studies with physiological measurements: a systematic literature review

• Open access
• Published: 18 October 2023
• Volume 74 , pages 281–294, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Vera Gál   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-9504-2734 1 &
• Zsuzsanna Dömötör 1  

1197 Accesses

Explore all metrics

It is well described that exposure to nature reduces physiological stress, and connectedness to nature can have a moderating effect. However, few studies have so far examined the construction of the connection with nature in relation to physiological processes. In this systematic review, we collected studies that used a physiological measure and included a scale to measure connectedness to nature. Our aim was to assess the role of nature relatedness at the level of physiological processes and to summarize the results published so far. Our review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A literature search was conducted in 3 different databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar). As keywords, we used all the different questionnaires that measure connectedness to nature, combined with terms related to physiological measures. After final screening, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. The studies were very diverse in terms of purpose, intervention and methods, so narrative synthesis was conducted without measures of effect. We found evidence for a mediating effect of nature connectedness on the associations between nature exposure and cognitive function, brain activity, blood pressure, cortisol level and mental health. Studies investigating nature relatedness as state-like characteristics have shown that exposure to nature increases the level of connection to nature. Eye-tracking studies have confirmed that this measurement method can be used to investigate nature relatedness at a physiological level, which could be a useful complement to self-report questionnaires in future studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions

Szerena Szabo & Jane Webster

Are women truly “more emotional” than men? Sex differences in an indirect model-based measure of emotional feelings

Ella Givon, Rotem Berkovich, … Nachshon Meiran

Fear of missing out: prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO

Marina Milyavskaya, Mark Saffran, … Richard Koestner

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The benefits of exposure to nature.

A large number of studies have shown that exposure to nature has a positive effect on well-being and physical health (Hartig et al. 2014 ; Keniger et al. 2013 ). Individuals living and interacting green spaces report being more energetic, in better general health and with a greater sense of purpose in life (Sifferlin 2016 )). More than 2500 years ago, Cyrus the Great intuitively created lush green gardens in the crowded Persian capital to improve people’s health and promote a sense of “calm” in the busy city. In the sixteenth century, the Swiss-German physician Paracelsus stated: “The art of healing comes from nature, not from the physician”. Today’s scientific evidence confirms what people have long known intuitively: That nature has great benefits for the human brain, reflected in increased happiness, health/well-being and cognition (Williams 2016 ). The stress-reducing effects of nature are recognized and used in many therapies. The Japanese Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) forest bathing therapy has a long tradition. There are numerous studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of Shinrin-yoku from a physiological and psychological perspective, including studies by Tsunetsugu et al. ( 2007 ) and Park e al. ( 2008 , 2010 ).

These benefits can be explained by various contemporary hypotheses of human–nature interaction (Berto 2014 ), which explains the mechanisms by which spending time in nature can affect human health (Jimenez et al. 2021 ). The biophilia hypothesis (Kellert and Wilson 1995 ) claims that humans have an evolutionarily determined innate tendency to seek connection with nature. The Theory of Attention Restoration (ART) suggests that nature facilitates recovery from the mental fatigue associated with a diminished ability to control attention in modern life. According to this theory, spending time in natural environments allows people to recover from mental fatigue and restore the ability to direct attention (Kaplan 1995 ). Finally, according to the Stress Reduction Theory, physiological symptoms of stress, as measured by cortisol levels and autonomic nervous system activity, are reduced by exposure to nature. Although causal relationships are unclear, these theories complement each other, as attentional restoration has been linked to emotions (Hartig et al. 1997 ): Attentional fatigue may be an aftereffect of stress and a condition that increases emotional/stress vulnerability (Berto 2014 ).

As humans have an innate connection to the natural world, exposure to stimuli from natural sources influences feelings or emotions by activating the parasympathetic nervous system to reduce stress and autonomic arousal (Ulrich et al. 1991 ). Green spaces provide children with opportunities for exploration, creativity, risk-taking, mastery and control, which positively influence various aspects of brain development, according to proponents of the biophilia hypothesis (Kahn and Kellert 2002 ). Adam György has also emphasized the importance of evolutionary thinking in understanding psychological phenomena (Ádám, 1998 ). Koivisto and colleagues ( 2022 ) found that top-down cognitive processes influence the psychophysiological effects of the environment and hypothesized that individual’s associations modulate the innate bottom-up effects of exposure to nature. However, the mechanisms linking nature exposure and health outcomes are diverse, not fully understood, and may act in isolation or synergistically (Kruize et al. 2019 ).

Additionally, it is important to note that only certain natural elements (safe and comfortable for humans) are beneficial. Similarly, phobias of certain natural elements, such as fear of getting lost (Berg and Heijne 2005 ), fear of wild animals/dangerous animals or fear of forest (Skår 2010 ) can be traced back to evolutionary causes.

In this article, nature is defined in a narrow way: As an aspect of modern society, separated from nature. But it is important to realize that nature can also cause stress in the absence of civilisation, which is why people built civilisation. The benefits of interacting with nature are particularly strong in modern, nature deprived societies.

The role of nature relatedness

Despite this obvious attraction towards nature, there is considerable variability in the extent to which individuals are drawn to nature (Nisbet et al. 2009 ). Nature relatedness is a trait that indicates how much an individual feels connected to the natural world. The human–nature relationship depends on a number of other factors. These include values, gender, nationality, the quality of the environment and time spent in nature. Some researchers suggest that positive emotions from exposure to nature lead to a deeper connection with nature (Nisbet & Zelenski 2011 ), while others suggest the opposite, that attachment to nature influences mood changes during outdoor activities (Mayer et al. 2008 ).

Nature connectedness is a possible mediator between nature exposure and well-being and quality of life. A study of 863 participants in China examined the associations between nature exposure, nature connectedness and mental well-being (Liu et al. 2022 ). It found that connection to nature moderated the associations between nature exposure, as measured by the frequency of visitation, amount of nearby green space and parks and mental well-being. Similarly, another recent study found that connection with nature mediated the link between nature exposure and quality of life (Baceviciene and Jankauskiene 2022 ).

On the other hand, it also has to be noted that there are researches, which found additional mediators between nature relatedness and well-being. Different concepts of connection to nature fostered in different cultural and social contexts modulate relation to nature and subsequent well-being outcomes (Cleary et al. 2017 ). In addition, other factors, such as spirituality, may moderate the relationship between nature and well-being (Trigwell et al. 2014 ; Kamitsis and Francis 2013 ). Another mediating factor, which influences the link between well-being and connectedness to nature could be life purpose, which is also a key dimension of eudemonic well-being, according to Howell and colleagues ( 2013 ). Kövi et al. found that gratitude, as a self-transcendent emotion, provides a significant indirect link between nature relatedness, mental health and quality of life (Kövi et al. 2023 ). Similarly, Kryazh et al. confirmed that trust mediates the relationship between connection to nature and both the subjective well-being and eudemonistic well-being (Kryazh 2019 ). Research by Zhang et al. has shown that connectedness to nature predicts well-being only when people are emotionally attuned to the beauty of nature (i.e. they have positive emotional responses to the sight of nature’s beauty) (Zhang et al. 2014 ).

Previous studies of exposure to nature (Kjellgren and Buhrkall 2010 ; McSweeney et al. 2021 ; Ottosson & Grahn 2005 ) suggests that past experiences and interactions with nature influence and possibly enhance the benefits of future exposure. It is also known that higher expression of nature relatedness affects the individual’s stress recovery and restoration through the positive effects of the natural environment (McEwan et al. 2021 ; Mcsweeney et al. 2015 ).

While most studies have focused on the association of nature relatedness with well-being and subjective stress, fewer studies have measured the physiological stress response as indicated by changes in blood cortisol levels, cardiovascular indicators (blood pressure BP), heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV), brain activity or respiratory function. As the natural environment can have a significant impact on the body’s stress-related physiology (Laumann et al. 2003 ), it is important to explore how stress manifests itself physiologically. Stress refers to an individual’s response to mental, social, environmental and/or physical demands (Selye 1956 ). Stress can cause a range of physiological and behavioural changes, most notably affecting the functioning of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which consists of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. Depending on the changes in the ANS, a person may feel relaxed, agitated, stressed or rejuvenated. For example, there is evidence that exposure to nature can immediately stabilize breathing and blood pressure in stressed people (Annerstedt and Währborg 2011 ; Chang and Chen 2005 ).

Concepts and measures of connection with nature

A wide range of scales have been used to measure attitudes towards nature (brief summary in Table 1 ). The convergence and divergence of different questionnaires commitment to nature (COM) (Davis et al. 2009 ), connectedness to nature (CTN) (Mayer and Frantz 2004 ), connectivity with nature (CWN) (Dutcher et al. 2007 ), emotional affinity towards nature (EATN) (Kals et al. 1999 ), environmental identity (EID) (Clayton and Opotow 2003 ), inclusion of nature in self (INS) (Schultz 2001 ) and nature relatedness (NR) (Nisbet et al. 2009 ) were examined in an empirical study (Tam 2013 ). According to the results different measures are closely correlated and converge to a single factor, thus they measure the same construct. They were also similarly correlated with different criterion variables (e.g. big five traits, contact with nature, well-being). The following is a brief description of the characteristics of each questionnaire.

The Nature Relatedness Scale is one of the most commonly used measurement tool. Both single-factor and three-factor structures (self, perspective and experience factors) were shown to be viable by Nisbet and colleagues ( 2009 ). However, the single-factor structure was considered more promising because in the original form many items loaded on multiple factors, which were highly correlated (Nisbet et al. 2009 )). Subsequent studies also consistently favoured a single overall NR factor and found high internal consistency of full-scale items (Howell et al. 2011 ; Nisbet et al. 2011 ). The short form of the questionnaire (NR-6) is particularly useful when an assessment of elements of connectedness rather than environmental attitudes is needed (Nisbet and Zelenski 2013 ).

Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer and Frantz 2004 ) has an original and a modified version. While the former treat connectedness to nature as a trait characteristic, the latter is measuring present feelings about nature connection. Both assess cognitive beliefs instead of affective attitudes (Perrin and Benassi 2009 ).

Environmental Identity Scale (EID) includes several dimensions: Interaction with natural elements, importance of nature, importance of belonging to nature and positive feelings towards nature (Clayton et al. 2021 ). Both the original and the short form of the EID showed good internal consistency (Piskóti 2015 ).

Another concept, Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS), focuses on the cognitive aspect of nature relatedness. Schultz's ( 2001 ) graphical measure was based on Aron, Aron, Tudor and Nelson’s concept of self ( 1991 ). Respondents are shown seven pairs of circles (one is labelled “self” and the other “nature”) with varying degrees of overlap, and they select the pair that best describes their relationship with nature.

The Love and Care of Nature Scale (LCN) is a reliable and valid measurement of an individual’s feelings towards nature. It also showed higher internal consistency than NR-21 and INS scales (Salatto et al. 2021 ). The construct of love and deep caring for nature expresses the individual’s personal and specifically emotional relationship with nature (Perkins 2010 ).

The importance of experiencing nature or preferring urban environments appears to differ between individuals (Korpela et al. 2010 ; Tyrväinen et al. 2007 ). This difference is measured by the Urban-Nature Orientedness Scale (Ojala et al. 2019 ).

Two of the studies included in this review used a single-item question to measure nature relatedness. Lau and colleagues ( 2023 ) used a scale from zero to 100, in Chen’s ( 2022 ) study a 5-point scale was used to measure participants’ current connectedness to nature.

Overall, there are many different ways of measuring the connectedness with nature, and it is quite certain that many subjective and health indicators are related to this construct. However, the objective physiological links have been little studied, so little is known about how individuals’ level of connectedness with nature relates to their different responses to the natural environment. Our aim with this review was to investigate the role of nature relatedness at the level of physiological processes and to summarize the results published so far.

The review was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Liberati et al. 2009 ). As keywords, we used all of the different questionnaires for measuring connectedness with nature combined with terms relating to physiological measures (for details see in Table 2 ). The search engine was set to scan the whole articles (title, abstract and text) for the keywords. Searching was conducted in three databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. We performed the screening in January and February of 2023. Only English articles were included (theses, reviews, meta-analyses, conference papers, books and dissertations were excluded), and no time filter was used. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible in order to maintain the high quality of the articles. Search strategy characteristics and study inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported in Table 2 . All empirical studies were included which (1) used any kind of questionnaire measuring connectedness with nature and (2) assessed associations between the aforementioned construct and an objective physiological variable. No restriction was used with respect to age, health status, gender or nationality of the studied sample. To decide on inclusion the two authors (VG and ZsD) read the titles and abstracts of the papers as a first step. In the next step, both authors read the full text of the selected articles and made the final decision on inclusion. In case of any ambiguity, disagreements were resolved by consensus. Initial search identified 5109 records from the three databases and through additional resources. After screening the titles, the abstracts of the relevant articles were checked by the two authors. Ninety-two percentage of the articles were not relevant. Either no nature-related questionnaire was included, or no physiological measurement tool was used. After removing duplicates, 36 unique citations remained and were screened for eligibility (Fig.  1 ). According to the final screening, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria of the review.

Selection of studies

Of the 28 studies identified, eight measured changes of cortisol (Bakir-Demir et al. 2021 ; Beil & Hanes 2013 ; Geniole et al. 2016 ; Gidlow et al. 2016 ; Jones et al. 2021 ; Niedermeier et al. 2019 ; Souter-Brown et al. 2021 ; Sumner & Goodenough 2020 ), thirteen performed cardiovascular assessments (HR, BP) (Chan et al. 2021 ; Huber et al. 2023 ; Lau et al. 2023 ; Lim et al. 2020 ; McEwan et al. 2021 ; McSweeney et al. 2021 ; Michels et al. 2021 , 2022 ; Morris et al. 2021 ; Ojala et al. 2019 ; Reeves et al. 2019 ; Salatto et al. 2021 ; Schebella et al. 2020 ) and three applied both type of measurements (Gidlow et al. 2016 ; Michels et al. 2021 ; Sumner & Goodenough 2020 ). Of the remaining seven studies, three investigated neurological functions (Bailey & Kang 2022 ; Koivisto et al. 2022 ; Sudimac & Kühn 2022 ), two examined eye movements(Chen et al. 2022 ; Giray et al. 2022 ) and the last two consisted of other measurements (e.g. body composition, faecal serotonin level) (Sobko et al. 2020 ; Teixeira et al. 2021 ). In the following, we briefly describe the relevant studies and summarize their main findings about the connection between nature relatedness and physiological changes.

Neuroendocrine measurements

Eight publications were found that examined the relationship between nature relatedness and changes in cortisol levels due to exposure to nature. While three studies found positive association between the decrease of physiological stress measured by cortisol and nature relatedness (Beil & Hanes 2013 ; Souter-Brown et al. 2021 ; Sumner & Goodenough 2020 ), four studies found no association between them (Bakir-Demir et al. 2021 ; Geniole et al. 2016 ; Gidlow et al. 2016 ; Niedermeier et al. 2019 ). One study used nature relatedness just as a control variable in a walking in natural and urban environment intervention experiment, hence no specific statistical results were presented (Jones et al. 2021 ). The results of each study are discussed in detail below.

All three studies which found association between connectedness and nature and decreasing cortisol level used some kind of nature exposure as an intervention. In Sumner and Goodenough’s ( 2020 ) investigation, participants walked among free-roaming lemurs in a British safari park while salivary cortisol level and heart rate were measured. The aim was to understand whether a short interaction with non-domestic animals might reduce stress and improve well-being of participants and whether nature relatedness might influence these changes. According to the results no changes in heart rate were found, but there was a statistically significant reduction in participants’ salivary cortisol levels following the animal encounters. The decrease of cortisol level was correlated with nature relatedness level of the individuals. Beil and Hanes ( 2013 ) also found a connection between environmental identity and decreasing cortisol level in their cross-over pilot study, where the effect of urban environments on physiological and psychological stress was investigated. Participants were exposed to one of four urban environments settings (very natural, mostly natural, mostly built and very built) in random order for 20 min on separate days. Negative association was found between environmental identity (EID) and changes in salivary cortisol and amylase levels, indicating a possible link between environmental identity and physiological response. The association between personal environmental identification and saliva outcome measures indicates that individuals with higher EID scores may be physiologically more sensitive to their environment. No correlation was found between EID and subjective stress markers, suggesting that physiological sensitivity may be due to sensory-perceptual processing independent of conscious awareness. In a recent study where salutogenic natural design as a stress-reducing health promotion tool was examined (Souter-Brown et al 2021 ), negative association between cortisol level and nature relatedness also was detected. Two intervention groups (30-min pastime in a sensory garden or in an urban plaza) and control group were applied with between-subject design and salivary cortisol (also perceived well-being and stress, productivity) were measured before and after the intervention. To understand whether people with higher nature connectedness are more or less affected by the dose of nature, the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-21) was used. The main findings were that NR increased and cortisol level decreased in the sensory garden group compared to both the urban plaza and control groups. Biodiversity has also been found to increase NR levels.

In contrast to these findings, five studies found no association between cortisol reduction and nature relatedness. In a Turkish questionnaire study (Bakir-Demir et al. 2021 ), the cumulative cortisol level from a segment of hair was examined instead of saliva. The authors investigated whether connectedness to nature helps young adults cope with stress through emotion regulation. According to their hypothesis individuals with higher levels of connectedness to nature would have lower levels of subjective and objective cumulative stress. In contrast, the results showed that only perceived stress and connectedness to nature were correlated, but no association was found for the objective cortisol level. Connectedness to nature predicted adaptive emotion regulation strategies. However, non-adaptive regulatory strategies were not related to NR. These results show the importance of examining the different characteristics of stress separately and confirm the hypothesis that connectedness to nature has restorative powers. This effect is particularly apparent for positive outcomes, such as adaptive regulation skills (Bakir-Demir et al. 2021 ). In the last four studies with cortisol measurements, some form of exercise was used as an intervention. Neither of them found any association between nature relatedness and level of cortisol. Psychological and physiological responses to self-paced 30-min walks in three environments (pleasant urban, natural (green) and natural with water (blue)) were compared in a cross-over field-based trial (Gidlow et al. 2016 ). There was no difference between the three environments in terms of cortisol and mood, all of which had a positive effect on these variables, although greater restoration experiences and cognitive function improvements were observed in green and blue environments. In these cases, no potential relationship linking nature relatedness with restorative experience or cognitive function were observed. Heart rate variability data from baseline to 30-min after the walk did not show consistent patterns, or any differences in environmental response.

Niedermeier et al ( 2019 ) investigated the effects of anthropogenic elements on the physiological response to acute stress during exercise in green environments. A secondary aim of their study was to investigate the possible impact of connectedness to nature on outdoor exercise. The between-subject design consisted of two mountain hiking groups: One encountered fewer anthropogenic elements on the route, the other experienced more of them. Results showed that regardless of the environment in which the tour took place, affective states were positively affected by the intervention, but no association was found between cortisol variation and nature relatedness, nor between affective states and nature relatedness, although the mean nature relatedness level of the participants was high which may have hidden the possible effects of nature connectedness.

Geniole and colleagues ( 2016 ) compared the benefits of an outdoor walk in a restored naturalized landfill site and an urban area. During pre–post measurements testosterone and cortisol concentration (both from saliva), attentional control, mood and arousal were measured. It has been hypothesized that the effects of exposure to nature are more pronounced in people who are more connected to nature. According to the results walking in both environments improved energy and attention regulation and reduced cortisol concentrations, mood improved more in the naturalized area. Connectedness with nature had moderating effects in the case of mood: The mood of men with high nature connectedness improved more after both walks, while the mood of men reporting low nature connectedness improved only after the walk in the natural environment and decreased after the urban interaction. This suggests that being more connected to nature helps to neutralize the negative effects of urbanization. However, this was only true for this subjective variable, with no such link for cortisol.

In the last study (Jones et al. 2021 ) presented here, no specific results on the effect of nature relatedness were reported, it was only used as a control variable. This between-subject, longitudinal study investigated what “dose” of nature is required for health benefits, and whether repeated visits to the same natural or pleasant urban environments are consistently beneficial to health (measured with salivary cortisol, restorative experience, etc.). No significant effects of the natural environment on mood or salivary cortisol were found.

Cardiovascular measurements

Twelve studies were found that examined a physiological indicator related to the cardiovascular system and connectedness of nature. Heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure and oxygen saturation were used as objective variables, and NR, CNS, EID, INS or LCN questionnaires were applied to measure participants’ relationship with nature. Most of these researches did not investigate the association between physiological measurements and nature relatedness, only examined changes in connectedness with nature as a result of an intervention or used this personality trait to detect demographic differences.

McSweeney and colleagues ( 2021 ) examined stress response (i.e. changes in time and frequency domain indices of heart rate variability) associated with indoor environments with and without multi-sensory and immersive natural elements. Also the effect of nature relatedness (NR-6) on HRV outcomes (average NN intervals, HF, LF/HF) was investigated and two attention demanding tasks (Search and Memory test, Digit Span Test) were carried out. According to the results no significant differences between control and exposure groups in heart rate variability were revealed. However, increases in N–N intervals and a significant reduction in LF/HF ratios immediately after attention demanding tasks indicated that indoor nature exposure suppressed the sympathetic nervous system, and provided recovery from stress. Natural elements could facilitate recovery from mental fatigue and stress as a source of stress recovery. Since there was no significant correlation between NR and any HRV markers at any time points, the results also indicated that there is no relationship between physiological stress measured by HRV and connection to nature. It seems to be that nature is physiologically beneficial regardless of an individual’s NR score.

We found seven studies, where connectedness with nature and cardiovascular variables were measured, but the relationship between them was not investigated. They only explored changes in connectedness with nature as a result of different interventions. All but one (Morris et al. 2021 ) found that exposure to nature (even virtually) and exercise significantly increased participants’ affinity to nature (Chan et al. 2021 ; Huber et al. 2023 ; Lau et al. 2023 ; Lim et al. 2020 ; McEwan et al. 2021 ; Salatto et al. 2021 ). As nature connectedness has only been studied to a limited extent, these studies will only be briefly described.

In the study of McEwan et al. ( 2021 ), two stress reducer and well-being enhancer intervention was compared: Forest Bathing and Compassionate Mind Training (CMT). Heart rate variability was measured during each session to see, which aspects of the intervention offered the greatest benefit to participants. The results showed that affinity to nature (INS) improved in all groups, and INS scores improved to a greater extent for participants who also participated in forest bathing. Although at the follow-up measurement (4-month post intervention) nature connection scores had decreased. In the case of physiological (HRV) and subjective variables no significant differences were observed between conditions, showing that Forest Bathing has a similar effect to CMT, an established well-being intervention.

The effectiveness of virtual nature contact was investigated in two research (Lau, Chan). In Lau and colleagues’ ( 2023 ) investigation, increased happiness and relaxation were observed after the nature intervention, also this group had significantly higher level of nature connectedness after the virtual nature exposure. But no significant effects on physiological variables (e.g. cardiovascular responses in BP, HRV and average peripheral oxygen saturation) were detected. The results demonstrated that the heightened nature connectedness of the virtual nature group over the urban group remained during the 2-week follow-up. Also the effects of virtual natural and urban environments on cardiovascular activity (heart rate, HRV), nature connectedness and affect were examined in a Singapore research (Chan et al. 2021 ). Two studies were implemented, one with young adults and one with senior citizens. They found in both studies that nature connectedness was significantly greater after the nature condition. This resulted in reduced negative affectivity and greater parasympathetic activation in the case of the young sample and in increased positive affectivity in the case of the senior sample.

Salatto et al. ( 2021 ) investigated the effect of B-alanine induced painful sensation during outdoor hiking with a double blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. After participants consumed either B-alanine or a placebo, participants immersed themselves in the natural environment for 45 min and then completed a short hike uphill as fast as possible without running. According to the results no significant difference in HR was observed between treatments. Connectedness to nature increased with exercise. Pain induced by B-alanine consumption had no effect on connection to nature, so an increase in painful feelings does not necessarily diminish one’s connectedness to the natural world. The relationship between green exercise and elevated nature connectedness has practical implications: If someone spends time exercising in a green environment then a deeper connection and love for nature can develop, which increases the desire for subsequent green exercises. This can lead to chronic health improvements.

Nature relatedness also increased due to the intervention in a recent experimental study. In a randomized, controlled clinical trial Huber et al. ( 2023 ) studied the effects of two types of 6-day long nature-based therapies (forest therapy and mountain hiking) on sedentary couples. Several physiological (HR, static balance, body composition, aerobic fitness, transepithelial water loss, differential blood counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide) and psychological variables were investigated. According to the results participants benefited physically and mentally from both interventions, but nature connectedness increased only slightly in both intervention groups.

One of the studies found investigated non-healthy population (Morris et al. 2021 ). The aim of this research was to offer psychological and/or physiological benefits for people living with cancer with a ten-week exercise programme including nature intervention. Although many physiological (e.g. blood pressure, aerobic fitness, flexibility) and psychological variables have been measured (e.g. sense of coherence), also the results were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively, but in the case of nature relatedness, the authors only measured its change as a result of the 10-week programme. They found that nature relatedness did not significantly improve over time, but incremental increases were still observed.

In an experimental field study Lim and colleagues ( 2020 ) compared the effectiveness of guided and unguided nature immersion on mood, nature connectedness and heart rate. They found that there were no significant differences between guided and unguided immersion in the change in nature connectedness, mood or heart rate, and nature connectedness and mood improved post-immersion in both groups.

In five studies nature relatedness was only used to explore demographic differences (Reeves et al. 2019 ) or divide participants into groups for statistical analysis (Ojala et al. 2019 ) or to control its potential confounding effect (Michels et al. 2021 , 2022 ; Schebella et al. 2020 )—but no additional analyses with NR were conducted. We have also included these studies in our summary table (see in the Supplement section), but we will not describe them here in detail.

Brain functions, EEG measurements

The neural mechanisms underlying the stress-reducing effects of exposure to nature are still largely unexplored. This is also reflected in the number of articles concerning nature relatedness and brain function. We found three studies where nature relatedness and brain function were examined. One research was based on fMRI measurements (Sudimac and Kühn 2022 ) and two studies used electroencephalography (Bailey and Kang 2022 ; Koivisto et al. 2022 ) and they have all found that connectedness with nature has a relevant effect on specific brain functions during exposure to nature.

Sudimac and Kühn ( 2022 ) examined in their fMRI-study the effect of natural versus urban environment on amygdala activity, and the potential sex differences in amygdala activity change after a one-hour walk in a natural vs. urban environment. Participants underwent the fMRI scanning procedure including two social stress tasks (Montreal Imaging Stress Task and Fearful Faces Task) before and after the walk. According to the results, after the walk in nature stress reaction measured by amygdala activity decreased and cognitive performance improved, but only in women. Men performed better on the arithmetic task after the walk in the urban environment. Interestingly they also found that the stronger connectedness to nature was in women, the decrease in their amygdala activity was greater during the social stress task after the urban walk. Overall the results suggested beneficial effects of nature exposure on the stress-related brain regions and these salutogenic effects were more pronounced in women.

Koivisto et al. ( 2022 ) aimed to test whether top-down cognitive processes (manipulation of stimulus-source attribution of a soundscape) influence the psychophysiological effects of environments. Participants listened to an ambiguous sound that was attributed to either nature (waterfall) or industry (factory). Subjective reports of relaxation and pleasantness, electroencephalography (brain’s alpha band activity 8–13 Hz) and electrodermal activity (EDA) were measured in the experiment with within-participants design. According to the results, the influence of source attribution was reflected both in subjective and objective measures. Subjective experiences were more pleasant, and the power of the brain’s lower alpha band activity was stronger when the sound was attributed to nature. They also found that nature connectedness moderated the effect of source attribution on theta band power and electrodermal activity. The greater was the nature connectedness, the stronger was the theta activity in the waterfall condition. Overall, it supports the influence of top-down cognitive processes on the psychophysiological effects of environments and assumes that the individual’s meanings and associations modulate the innate bottom-up effects of exposure to nature.

The aim of the last intervention study with EEG measurements was to determine the cognitive and neurological effects of 10-min walking or sitting in an outdoor environment (Bailey and Kang 2022 ). Mental speed and acuity with Stroop test and theta ( θ ), alpha ( α ), beta ( β ) and gamma ( γ ) bandwidths were measured before, after and 10 min post intervention. According to the results both sedentary and walking participants showed improvements in cognitive performance after the outdoor session, regardless the type of the intervention. Higher connection to nature (also state mindfulness during the intervention) were related to lower levels of frontal beta amplitudes during the outdoor intervention in both groups. Since elevated frontal beta is an indicator of rumination, a sense of connection with the natural world can enhance one’s ability to be more present in the moment, to get away from everyday stress and enjoy the benefits and mental restoration of the natural environment.

Eye-tracking measurements

Two studies were found that included eye movement tracking and a scale measuring connection to nature, but only one of them investigated the link between nature relatedness and eye movements (Chen et al. 2022 ). Participants were shown a 360-degree virtual reality scene with urban and natural environmental elements while eye movements were monitored. NR Scale questionnaire was collected one week later, and all participants were divided into three groups depending on their NR scores. They found that individuals’ nature relatedness level correlated with their eye movements in the area of interest. Those who scored low on the NR Scale spent less time looking at green plant elements than buildings, and vice versa. For the medium NR group, no clear difference in eye movement was found between trees and buildings. They also found that NR Self subscale was significantly associated with eye movements characteristic of nature interests, but NR Perspective and NR Experience showed no significant relation with eye-movement tracking scores. The results suggest that this physiological measurement is suitable to investigate nature relatedness. Many existing studies have demonstrated a link between NR and behaviour, but most of them used self-report measures of behaviour, such as interviews and questionnaires (Colléony et al. 2017 ; Flowers et al. 2016 ). The study highlights another important aspect, it demonstrates the “top-down” effects of cognition on perception.

In the second study, Giray et al. ( 2022 ) investigated the shopping preferences and motivations behind consumption patterns of women with children. They used eye-tracking methods to examine how connectedness to nature and other subjective factors influenced the purchase of organic products. They also played birdsongs to some participants in order to investigate the effect of this stimulus on mood and connectedness to nature. The results showed that objective and subjective knowledge about the products and visual attention to organic product labels are positively correlated with the purchase of these commodities. However, mood states and connectedness to nature did not show such a correlation with purchase preference. Those who were exposed to birdsongs gave higher CtN and mood scores than respondents who were not listening to bird sounds.

Other measurement methods in nature relatedness research

We found two studies that did not fit into the categories above in terms of physiological variables, because they examined anthropometric and exercise-related physiological factors. Although both of them used connectedness to nature in their analysis, we thought it important to involve them in this review.

In a Portugal study, the relationship among connectedness with nature, physical activity and body composition was investigated (Teixeira et al. 2021 ). Several variables were measured, most of which were anthropometric (e.g. body composition (fat mass, visceral fat, skeletal muscle mass, etc.) and exercise-related (accelerometry). The results did not reveal any differences between men and women regarding connectedness to nature scores, but interestingly women with more children and men with dogs had higher CN scores. The results also showed that women who were more connected to nature had a higher number of steps per day. In the case of bioimpedance data no relevant connection with NR was found.

The only study that examined children investigated the effect of a 10-week outdoor nature-related programme (Play&Grow) on gut microbiota, faecal serotonin and perceived stress (Sobko et al. 2020 ). The results showed that after the environmental programme children in the intervention group were more connected to nature, their perceived general stress levels decreased (particularly anger frequency), the abundance of certain gut microbiota was altered and gut serotonin levels did not decrease (in contrast to the matched control condition). Overall alteration of the gut microbiome may be associated with greater exposure to the natural environment and connectedness to nature, but further mechanistic studies are needed to strengthen the role of gut microbiota in the relationship between connectedness to nature and improved psychosocial behaviour.

Many previous studies have shown that being in connection with nature is associated with a better quality of life, better physical and mental health and also promotes proenvironmental behaviours (Geng et al. 2015 ), which could play an important role in addressing the current environmental crisis. But little research has been done to date on its relationship with objective physiological changes. The purpose of this review was to summarize recent literature on nature relatedness and physiology.

We identified 28 studies, most of them measured cardiovascular variables (13), changes in cortisol level (8), brain functions (3), eye movements (2) and exercise-related or anthropometric variables (2). The most frequently used questionnaire related to nature connection was the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-21 and NR-6 were also used in 7–7 cases). The trait-type CTN-14 was used in 4 studies and the state-type CNS-13 in 3 studies. Also, several researches applied the INS (3) or its short form (1). The remaining studies used either the EID (2), LCN (1), EINS (1) or other form of measures (e.g. urban-nature orientedness scale, adapted for children, one item question).

Summarizing the results, evidence for mediating effect of nature connectedness on the associations between nature exposure and lower level of cortisol, better cognitive function, altered brain activity was found. These results confirm the restorative power of connecting with nature and support the hypothesis of the Theory of Attention Restoration. However, the results also suggest that there are individual differences between people and that nature is not equally beneficial to everyone. These differences may also lead to differences in NR. Nature relatedness may develop in people who experience stress relief in nature and not in people who do not feel the benefits of nature as much. Several studies have found a link between stress reduction (in the term of decreasing cortisol) and high levels of nature relatedness. Also there is some evidence that people who are more connected to nature may be physiologically more sensitive to their environment. However, in a significant proportion of measurements, no association between connectedness to nature and cortisol levels was found. These contradictory results are probably due to the huge methodological heterogeneity: There is considerable variation in the applied questionnaires, interventions, samples and experimental designs, which makes it almost impossible to compare the results. Another factor is that the majority of studies examined nature relatedness in combination with some type of activity whose benefits are well known (i.e. outdoor exercise). Most of the studies that have examined cardiovascular variables have not addressed the role of nature relatedness. However, where this link has been investigated, no association between changes in HRV and connectedness with nature has been found. One explanation could be the idea, often mentioned in György Ádám’s studies, that humans are unable to accurately perceive their internal physiological state (Ádám, 2009 ). It is also possible that, among the physiological markers of stress, cortisol levels could be a more appropriate measure of connection to nature and the effects of NR. This suggests that of the physiological markers associated with stress, cortisol levels may be a more appropriate measure to investigate the effects of exposure to nature and nature relatedness. Besides measuring cortisol, measurements of brain function are also promising of the three studies identified, all three found detectable results for NR-related changes in brain function. Higher connectedness to nature was associated with lower frontal beta amplitude and stronger theta activity during natural interventions and reduced amygdala activity during social stress task. These findings all suggest that nature relatedness might play an important role in the Stress Reduction Theory of nature exposure. Furthermore, because frontal beta activity is associated with rumination and attentional processes, and NR seems to reduce these, it also fits with the idea of Attentional Restoration Theory.

Eye-tracking studies have confirmed that this measurement method can be used to investigate nature relatedness at physiological level, which could be a useful complement to self-report questionnaires in future studies.

In terms of exercise-related measurements, two studies have confirmed that a stronger connection to nature goes hand in hand with more physical activity in nature. This relationship has been described in survey studies with children and young men (Molina-Cando et al. 2021 ; Puhakka et al. 2018 ) but has so far been poorly investigated by objective measurement. The promotion of nature relatedness can lead to chronic health improvements, since if someone spends time exercising in the natural environment then a deeper connection with nature can develop, which increases the desire for subsequent green exercises. Studies investigating nature relatedness as state-like characteristics have shown that being exposed to nature increased the level of connection to nature. This supports Nisbet and Zelenski’s hypothesis ( 2011 ) that positive emotions from exposure to nature lead to a deeper connection to nature.

Implications for future biology

In line with Biologia Futura’s aim to “provide new avenues for future research in biology”, we have summarized below the biological aspects of the paper that are worthy of further study and/or may have practical implications.

In addition, our finding that among physiological markers of stress, changes in cortisol levels appear to be more appropriate than cardiovascular markers in order to examine the relationship between stress and nature raises important questions. Further studies would be needed to explore causal relationships.

It seems promising to include eye tracking in NR studies. This is a less explored area, but from what we have seen so far, it could be an important addition to self-report questionnaires.

Another interesting issue is the question of individual differences. It would be interesting to examine whether different levels of NR also mean that exposure to nature does not have the same beneficial effects on individuals.

The article presents many studies that combine exposure to nature with exercise in nature. As the latter has been shown to have a positive effect on mood and stress reduction, it would be interesting to look at the positive effects of NR in isolation.

Although one of the studies we reviewed (Gidlow 2016 ) compared two different natural environments (blue, green) in terms of stress reduction, no significant difference was found. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to further investigate what kind of natural environment is most beneficial for humans.

Overall, there have been few studies on nature relatedness using physiological measures, and there is considerable heterogeneity in their methodologies. However, the results are promising and there is a strong need for further replication studies using rigorous methodologies to confirm the results so far and to explore causal relationships.

Ádám G (1998) Chapter 3: Historical roots and evolution. Visceral perception: understanding internal cognition. Plenum, New York, pp 17–27

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ádám G (2009) Darwin-Bicentenárium: a személyes tudat evolúciójáról. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 64(3):513–528. https://doi.org/10.1556/MPSzle.64.2009.3.4

Article   Google Scholar  

Annerstedt M, Währborg P (2011) Nature-assisted therapy: systematic review of controlled and observational studies. Scandinavian J Public Health 39(4):371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494810396400

Aron A, Aron EN, Tudor M, Nelson G (1991) Close relationships as including other in the self. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241

Baceviciene M, Jankauskiene R (2022) The mediating effect of nature restorativeness, stress level, and nature connectedness in the association between nature exposure and quality of life. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(4):2098. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042098

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bailey AW, Kang H-K (2022) Walking and sitting outdoors: which is better for cognitive performance and mental states? Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(24):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416638

Bakir-Demir T, Berument SK, Akkaya S (2021) Nature connectedness boosts the bright side of emotion regulation, which in turn reduces stress. J Environ Psychol 76:101642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101642

Beil K, Hanes D (2013) The influence of urban natural and built environments on physiological and psychological measures of stress—A pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10(4):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10041250

Berto R (2014) The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: a literature review on restorativeness. Behav Sci 4(4):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394

Chan SHM, Qiu L, Esposito G, Mai KP, Tam K-P, Cui J (2021) Nature in virtual reality improves mood and reduces stress: Evidence from young adults and senior citizens. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00604-4

Chang C-Y, Chen P-K (2005) Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience 40(5):1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.40.5.1354

Chen B, Gong C, Li S (2022) Looking at buildings or trees? Association of human nature relatedness with eye movements in outdoor space. J Environ Psychol 80:101756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101756

Clayton S, Opotow S (2003) Identity and the natural environment: the psychological significance of nature. MIT Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Clayton S, Czellar S, Nartova-Bochaver S, Skibins JC, Salazar G, Tseng Y-C, Irkhin B, Monge-Rodriguez FS (2021) Cross-cultural validation of a revised environmental identity scale. Sustainability 13(4):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387

Cleary A, Fielding K, Bell SL, Murray Z, Roiko A (2017) Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landsc Urban Plan 158:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003

Colléony A, Prévot A-C, Saint Jalme M, Clayton S (2017) What kind of landscape management can counteract the extinction of experience? Landsc Urban Plan 159:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.010

Davis JL, Green JD, Reed A (2009) Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 29(2):173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001

Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson JB (2007) Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ Behav 39(4):474–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298794

Flowers EP, Freeman P, Gladwell VF (2016) A cross-sectional study examining predictors of visit frequency to local green space and the impact this has on physical activity levels. BMC Public Health 16:420. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3050-9

Geng L, Xu J, Ye L, Zhou W, Zhou K (2015) Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0127247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127247

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Geniole SN, David JPF, Euzébio RFR, Toledo BZS, Neves AIM, McCormick CM (2016) Restoring land and mind: the benefits of an outdoor walk on mood are enhanced in a naturalized landfill area relative to its neighboring urban area. Ecopsychology 8(2):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2016.0005

Gidlow CJ, Jones MV, Hurst G, Masterson D, Clark-Carter D, Tarvainen MP, Smith G, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2016) Where to put your best foot forward: psycho-physiological responses to walking in natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 45:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.003

Giray C, Yon B, Alniacik U, Girisken Y (2022) How does mothers’ mood matter on their choice of organic food? Controlled eye-tracking study. J Bus Res 144:1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.059

Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans G, Garling T (1997) A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Hous Plan Res 14(4):175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435

Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and Health. Annu Rev Public Health 35(1):207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Howell AJ, Dopko RL, Passmore H-A, Buro K (2011) Nature connectedness: associations with well-being and mindfulness. Pers Individ Differ 51(2):166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037

Howell AJ, Passmore HA, Buro K (2013) Meaning in nature: meaning in life as a mediator of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being. J Happiness Stud 14:1681–1696

Huber D, Freidl J, Pichler C, Bischof M, Kiem M, Weisböck-Erdheim R, Squarra G, De Nigris V, Resnyak S, Neberich M, Bordin S, Zechner R, Hartl A (2023) Long-term effects of mountain hiking vs. forest therapy on physical and mental health of couples: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20(2):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021469

Jimenez MP, DeVille NV, Elliott EG, Schiff JE, Wilt GE, Hart JE, James P (2021) Associations between nature exposure and health: a review of the evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(9):4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790

Jones MV, Gidlow CJ, Hurst G, Masterson D, Smith G, Ellis N, Clark-Carter D, Tarvainen MP, Braithwaite EC, Nieuwenhuijsen M (2021) Psycho-physiological responses of repeated exposure to natural and urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan 209:104061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104061

Kahn PHK, Kellert SR (2002) Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press

Kals E, Schumacher D, Montada L (1999) Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ Behav 31(2):178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056

Kamitsis I, Francis AJ (2013) Spirituality mediates the relationship between engagement with nature and psychological wellbeing. J Environ Psychol 36:136–143

Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15(3):169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Kellert SR, Wilson EO (1995) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press

Google Scholar  

Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller RA (2013) What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health 10(3):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913

Kjellgren A, Buhrkall H (2010) A comparison of the restorative effect of a natural environment with that of a simulated natural environment. J Environ Psychol 30(4):464–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.011

Koivisto M, Jalava E, Kuusisto L, Railo H, Grassini S (2022) Top-down processing and nature connectedness predict psychological and physiological effects of nature. Environ Behav 54(5):917–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221107535

Korpela KM, Ylén M, Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H (2010) Favorite green, waterside and urban environments, restorative experiences and perceived health in Finland. Health Promot Int 25(2):200–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daq007

Kövi Z, Kim H, Kamble S, Mészáros V, Lachance D, Nisbet E (2023) Cross-cultural validity of the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6) and links with wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing 13(2):4576. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2841

Kruize H, van der Vliet N, Staatsen B, Bell R, Chiabai A, Muiños G, Higgins S, Quiroga S, Martinez-Juarez P, Aberg Yngwe M, Tsichlas F, Karnaki P, Lima ML, García de Jalón S, Khan M, Morris G, Stegeman I (2019) Urban green space: creating a triple win for environmental sustainability, health, and health equity through behavior change. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(22):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224403

Kryazh I (2019) The positive effect of nature connectedness on psychological wellbeing: the significance of trust as a mediator Psychology. J Higher School Econ 16(1):27–49

Lau SSS, Leung SSK, Wong JWC, Lee TCP, Cartwright SR, Wong JTC, Man J, Cheung E, Choi RPW (2023) Brief repeated virtual nature contact for three weeks boosts university students’ nature connectedness and psychological and physiological health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pilot study. Front Public Health 10:1057020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1057020

Laumann K, Gärling T, Stormark KM (2003) Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 23(2):125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00110-X

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700

Lim PY, Dillon D, Chew PKH (2020) A guide to nature immersion: psychological and physiological benefits. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(16):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165989

Liu H, Nong H, Ren H, Liu K (2022) The effect of nature exposure, nature connectedness on mental well-being and ill-being in a general Chinese population. Landsc Urban Plan 222:104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104397

Martin C, Czellar S (2016) The extended inclusion of nature in self scale. J Environ Psychol 47:181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.006

Mayer FS, Frantz CM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24(4):503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

Mayer FS, Frantz CM, Bruehlman-Senecal E, Dolliver K (2008) Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745

Mayer FS, Frantz CM, Bruehlman-Senecal E, Dolliver K (2009) Why is nature beneficial?: the role of connectedness to nature. Environ Behav 41(5):607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745

McEwan K, Giles D, Clarke FJ, Kotera Y, Evans G, Terebenina O, Minou L, Teeling C, Basran J, Wood W, Weil D (2021) A pragmatic controlled trial of forest bathing compared with compassionate mind training in the UK: impacts on self-reported wellbeing and heart rate variability. Sustainability 13(3):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031380

Mcsweeney J, Rainham D, Johnson SA, Sherry SB, Singleton J (2015) Indoor nature exposure (INE): a health-promotion framework. Health Promot Int 30(1):126–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau081

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McSweeney J, Johnson S, Sherry S, Singleton J, Rainham D (2021) Indoor nature exposure and influence on physiological stress markers. Int J Environ Health Res 31(6):636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2019.1679357

Michels N, De Witte F, Di Bisceglie E, Seynhaeve M, Vandebuerie T (2021) Green nature effect on stress response and stress eating in the lab: color versus environmental content. Environ Res 193:110589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110589

Michels N, Debra G, Mattheeuws L, Hooyberg A (2022) Indoor nature integration for stress recovery and healthy eating: a picture experiment with plants versus green color. Environ Res 212:113643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113643

Molina-Cando MJ, Escandón S, Dyck DV, Cardon G, Salvo D, Fiebelkorn F, Andrade S, Ochoa-Avilés C, García A, Brito J, Alvarez-Alvarez M, Ochoa-Avilés A (2021) Nature relatedness as a potential factor to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in Ecuadorian children. PLoS ONE 16(5):e0251972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251972

Morris SL, Newhouse I, Larocque T, Gillis K-J, Smith L, Nisbet EK (2021) Becoming one with nature: a nature intervention for individuals living with cancer participating in a ten-week group exercise and wellness program. Int J Exerc Sci 14(3):498–518

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Niedermeier M, Grafetstätter C, Kopp M, Huber D, Mayr M, Pichler C, Hartl A (2019) The role of anthropogenic elements in the environment for affective states and cortisol concentration in mountain hiking—a crossover trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(2):290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020290

Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM (2011) Underestimating nearby nature: affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychol Sci 22(9):1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418527

Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM (2013) The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav 41(5):715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748

Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2011) Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud 12:303–322

Ojala A, Korpela K, Tyrväinen L, Tiittanen P, Lanki T (2019) Restorative effects of urban green environments and the role of urban-nature orientedness and noise sensitivity: A field experiment. Health Place 55:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.004

Ottosson J, Grahn P (2005) A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with leisure time spent indoors: on measures of restoration in residents in geriatric care. Landsc Res 30(1):23–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142639042000324758

Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Ishii H, Furuhashi S, Hirano H, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y (2008) Physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) in a mixed forest in Shinano Town. Japan Scandinavian J for Res 23(3):278–283

Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y (2010) The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ Health Prev Med 15:18–26

Perkins HE (2010) Measuring love and care for nature. J Environ Psychol 30(4):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004

Perrin JL, Benassi VA (2009) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of emotional connection to nature? J Environ Psychol 29(4):434–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003

Piskóti M (2015) A Környezeti Identitás szerepe a környezettudatos viselkedés kialakulásában = The Role of Environmental Identity in the Development of Environmentally Conscious Behaviour [Phd, Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem]. https://doi.org/10.14267/phd.2015036

Puhakka S, Pyky R, Lankila T, Kangas M, Rusanen J, Ikäheimo TM, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Korpelainen R (2018) Physical activity, residential environment, and nature relatedness in young men—a population-based MOPO Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(10):2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102322

Reeves JP, Knight AT, Strong EA, Heng V, Neale C, Cromie R, Vercammen A (2019) The application of wearable technology to quantify health and wellbeing co-benefits from urban wetlands. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01840

Salatto RW, McGinnis GR, Davis DW, Carrier B, Manning JW, DeBeliso M, Navalta JW (2021) Effects of acute beta-alanine ingestion and immersion-plus-exercise on connectedness to nature and perceived pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(15):8134. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158134

Schebella MF, Weber D, Schultz L, Weinstein P (2020) The nature of reality: human stress recovery during exposure to biodiverse, multisensory virtual environments. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010056

Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21(4):327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life (Vol. xvi). McGraw-Hill.

Sifferlin A (2016) The healing power of nature. Clean Air. 188:24–26

Skår M (2010) Forest dear and forest fear: dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landsc Urban Plan 98(2):110–116

Sobko T, Jia Z, Brown G (2018) Measuring connectedness to nature in preschool children in an urban setting and its relation to psychological functioning. PLoS ONE 13(11):e0207057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207057

Sobko T, Liang S, Cheng WHG, Tun HM (2020) Impact of outdoor nature-related activities on gut microbiota, fecal serotonin, and perceived stress in preschool children: the Play&Grow randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep 10(1):21993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78642-2

Souter-Brown G, Hinckson E, Duncan S (2021) Effects of a sensory garden on workplace wellbeing: a randomised control trial. Landsc Urban Plan 207:103997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103997

Sudimac S, Kühn S (2022) A one-hour walk in nature reduces amygdala activity in women, but not in men. Front Psychol 13:931905. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931905

Sumner RC, Goodenough AE (2020) A walk on the wild side: how interactions with non-companion animals might help reduce human stress. People and Nature 2(2):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10074

Tam K-P (2013) Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and differences. J Environ Psychol 34:64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004

Teixeira A, Gabriel R, Martinho J, Pinto G, Quaresma L, Faria A, Oliveira I, Moreira H (2021) Connectedness to nature does not explain the variation in physical activity and body composition in adults and older people. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(22):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211951

Trigwell JL, Francis AJ, Bagot KL (2014) Nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: spirituality as a potential mediator. Ecopsychology 6(4):241–251

Tsunetsugu Y, Park BJ, Ishii H, Hirano H, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y (2007) Physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) in an old-growth broadleaf forest in Yamagata prefecture. Japan J Physiol Anthropol 26(2):135–142

Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J (2007) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 79(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003

Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 11(3):201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7

Van den Berg AE, Ter Heijne M (2005) Fear versus fascination: an exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. J Environ Psychol 25(3):261–272

Williams F (2016) This is your brain on nature. Natl Geogr 229(1):48–69

Zhang JW, Howell RT, Iyer R (2014) Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. J Environ Psychol 38:55–63

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Open access funding provided by Eötvös Loránd University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Health Promotion and Sport Sciences, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Vera Gál & Zsuzsanna Dömötör

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Gál .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 KB)

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

Gál, V., Dömötör, Z. The role of connection with nature in empirical studies with physiological measurements: a systematic literature review. BIOLOGIA FUTURA 74 , 281–294 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-023-00185-0

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2023

Accepted : 24 September 2023

Published : 18 October 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-023-00185-0

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

• Nature relatedness
• Connectedness to nature
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Unveiling the Versatile World of Lipids A Comprehensive Literature Review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

27 Literature Reviews

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

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:

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.

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?

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

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 .

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.

LICESNSES AND ATTRIBUTIONS

• Literature Reviews. By: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Located at: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/ Licenses: CC-BY-NC-ND

Writing in Genres Copyright © 2023 by Stephanie Frame is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

share this!

March 12, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Advancing plant biology with breakthroughs in single-cell RNA sequencing

by NanJing Agricultural University

Recent breakthroughs in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA), such as the recently developed "RevGel-seq" method, have revolutionized plant cell analysis. This technique, independent of special instruments, streamlines processes and resolves protoplast isolation challenges.

Now, a multinational team of researchers review this and other recent advances in plant scRNA sequencing with the intention of providing guidance for facilitating the appropriate selection of scRNA methods for different plant samples. Their review article is published in the journal BioDesign Research .

In the world of plant biology, understanding the intricacies of individual plant cells has been a complex challenge, particularly due to the unique structure of these cells encapsulated by rigid cell walls. This challenge has, in turn, hindered the isolation of intact nuclei or protoplasts, which are essential for in-depth analysis.

Now, although traditional RNA sequencing has played an instrumental role in helping researchers understand the intricacies of plant cells, the development of single-cell RNA (scRNA) sequencing has enabled groundbreaking advancements in our understanding and analysis of plant biosystems.

In addition, other technical advancements in scRNA sequencing, such as the development of protocols for cell isolation, library preparation, and sequencing technologies have furthered researchers' ability to overcome plant-specific challenges in analysis. Although past studies have reviewed the utility and practical applicability of scRNA sequencing, not many have attempted to look at the technological developments with regard to scRNA sequencing.

In the recent review article, researchers have comprehensively looked at the recent advances and paradigm shifts in plant systems biology. Plant systems, with their complex cellular architecture, demand innovative approaches to unravel the secrets hidden within plant cells. The review captures these recent developments in scRNA technology, and also discusses the challenges and future potential opportunities in this field.

The review first discusses the methods popularly used in single-cell transcriptomics, which include experimental and computational components, and also elaborates on the general workflow for scRNA sequencing. Given the challenges and limitations of protoplast preparation and nuclei isolation methods, the use of microfluidics platform offers a primary workflow for single-cell isolation, separation, and analysis.

And while the choice between the protoplast and nuclei for plant scRNA sequencing depends on the research objective, the review urges researchers to carefully consider the choice of multiple factors, such as research goal, plant species, and other trade-offs, when determining the most suitable method.

The review then touches upon the advancements in scRNA sequencing library construction and sequencing, highlighting the significant achievements, such as the Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit, the BD Rhapsody system, and Illumina sequencing technologies. Next, the researchers discuss the multiple steps involved in scRNA sequencing, before moving on to discuss the recent developments in scRNA databases.

PlantscRNAdb, for instance, was developed for analyzing scRNA-seq data in plants, and contains 26,326 marker genes. Plant Cell Marker DataBase, on the other hand, contains 81,117 cell marker genes of 263 cell types in 22 tissues across six plant species.

The authors then discuss the improvements made by researchers to address the limitations with plant scRNA databases, such as "scPlantDB," a comprehensive database created by He et al., covering about 2.5 million cells across 17 plant species.

The researchers continue with a discussion of the applications of scRNA sequencing in plant systems biology and elaborate on how scRNA sequencing has been used to study plant biology at the cellular level, shedding light on molecular mechanisms of plant development, plant responses to biotic and abiotic stresses, epigenetic regulation in plants, cell fate determination and organogenesis, among others.

While discussing the challenges and potential for further development of scRNA sequencing, the researchers highlight a recent breakthrough development aimed at optimizing protoplast isolation methods and establishing standardized single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) processes across diverse laboratories.

Employing a multifaceted approach, the development sought to combined innovative scRNA-seq technologies with traditional methods to tackle the intricate world of plant cells. Sample preparation became a meticulous process, focusing on variables like enzyme treatment duration, temperature, and osmotic potential.

Notably, the study explored novel scRNA-seq technologies, including RevGel-seq, originally developed for animal systems but now introduced to the realm of plant research.

Dr. Xiaohan Yang, the lead researcher of this review affiliated with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, explains, "RevGel-seq, a recently developed breakthrough in scRNA-seq methods, is truly a game-changer. Unlike traditional methods that rely on specific single-cell RNA instruments during sample preparation, RevGel-seq operates on cell-barcoded bead complexes.

"This innovation sample preparation for scRNA-seq in human and mouse cell not only convenient but also highly efficient."

RevGel-seq also eliminates the need for specific instruments, providing flexibility in sample collection and processing at different times or locations. Needless to say, the results surpassed expectations, showcasing RevGel-seq's potential to reshape how single-cell RNA sequencing is conducted in plant research.

The recent advancements listed in this review have significant implications for the future of plant biology. While scRNA sequencing has indeed emerged as a groundbreaking technology in the field of plant systems biology and synthetic biology, the review sheds light on the possible path for addressing existing challenges and offers direction for future researchers.

It also highlights the need to integrate scRNA sequencing technologies with other omics technologies and with other computational tools for enhancing the understanding of complex cellular interactions in plants.

In conclusion, the review suggests a positive way forward in the field of plant biology, with single-cell RNA sequencing for plant cells shedding light on their inner workings and opening doors for deeper insights. In addition to addressing current hurdles, it can serve as a guide for researchers working toward a more sustainable future.

Provided by NanJing Agricultural University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Greenland Ice Sheet motion minimally impacted by late-season melting, study finds

Ebola: Scientists reveal a new way it replicates

3 hours ago

Investigating the many flavors of edible ants

4 hours ago

Dune: What the climate of Arrakis can tell us about the hunt for habitable exoplanets

21 hours ago

Saturday Citations: The volcanoes of Mars; Starship launched; 'Try our new menu item,' say Australian researchers

Mar 16, 2024

Researchers take deep dive into how much water is stored in snow

Ultra-flat optics for broadband thermal imaging

Mar 15, 2024

Shark-bitten orcas in the Northeastern Pacific could be a new population of killer whale

Einasto Supercluster: The new heavyweight contender in the universe

Protein fragments ID two new 'extremophile' microbes—and may help find alien life

Relevant physicsforums posts, are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic.

5 hours ago

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the Colorado River

Biological culture and cultural biology.

Mar 14, 2024

Electrical potential difference and charge separation

Nick lanes on sean carroll's podcast.

Mar 11, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 9, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Novel insights into HBV-hepatocellular carcinoma at single-cell sequencing

Dec 14, 2023

Single cell transcriptomics: A new sequencing approach

Apr 9, 2019

Team develops a single-nucleus resolution atlas of white adipose tissue in different depots

Feb 5, 2024

Single-cell RNA-sequencing analysis reveals immune cell heterogeneity in five autoimmune diseases

Sep 20, 2023

New method developed to infer gene regulatory networks from single-cell transcriptomic data

Apr 27, 2023

New single-cell RNA-sequencing method has potential to become universal tool of choice

May 30, 2022

Recommended for you

Snakes: The new, high-protein superfood

Scientists find hundreds of unique species in Africa's newest and most threatened ecoregion

Scientists generate new targeted protein degradation system that tunes a cell's own proteins

Arctic nightlife: Seabird colony bursts with sound at night

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter