Mind Storm

The Use of Theories in Literature Review

Literature review is probably one of the most important chapter in a thesis.  However, it should be known that the importance may be very much dependent on the type of research you intend to conduct.

If you are looking at a qualitative research, where you are ‘attempting to discover a theory’, your literature will likely be used to develop a conceptual model which will then through your research be developed into a ‘theoretical model’ for further testing.  However, if you are looking at a quantitative research where you are ‘attempting to test a theory’, you literature review needs to be adequately discussed to develop a theoretical model and relevant hypothesis.

Nevertheless the important part here is the use of theories when developing your literature review

Many times as we evaluated the theories in the literature review of the thesis of students who we supervised, we find some commonality:-

  • The use of wrong substantive theories to support the argument
  • The mis-match of theories use
  • The missing gaps between theories used
  • The incomplete use of theories to support argument.

Let me try to articulate the role of theories in a literature review:-

Theories are used to justify and support your arguments, variables and the phenomena that is being studied.  In developing your literature review, it will be helpful to identify an underpinning theory on which you can start developing your arguments and show the gaps of research being examined.  Additional theories can be used to supplement your literature review.

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists.

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study.  The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature . You must review course readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

  • An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
  • The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
  • Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
  • Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

Interested to know more?

  • No 2-2, Jalan 10/18B, Sutera Damansara, 47830 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
  • [email protected]
  • Mon-Fri: 9am to 6pm

© 2019 Mindstorm Asia all rights reserved.

| terms and conditions.

what is theory in literature review

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what is theory in literature review

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

what is theory in literature review

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Dissertation
  • What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

  • Search for relevant literature
  • Evaluate sources
  • Identify themes, debates and gaps
  • Outline the structure
  • Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

  • Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
  • Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
  • Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
  • Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Literature review guide

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

  • Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
  • Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
  • Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
  • Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

  • Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
  • Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
  • Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

  • Your university’s library catalogue
  • Google Scholar
  • Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
  • Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
  • EconLit (economics)
  • Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

  • What question or problem is the author addressing?
  • What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
  • What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
  • What are the results and conclusions of the study?
  • How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
  • How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

  • Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
  • Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
  • Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
  • Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
  • Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

  • Most research has focused on young women.
  • There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
  • But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

  • Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

  • Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
  • Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
  • Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
  • Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

  • To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
  • To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
  • To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
  • To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
  • To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 February 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Research paper

What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Published on October 14, 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Tegan George.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your paper or dissertation topic is relevant and grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualizes your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis , or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Table of contents

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarize yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalizations .

  • In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyze The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
  • In psychology , a behaviorist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
  • In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

  • Identifying your key concepts
  • Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
  • Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarizing and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

  • Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
  • Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
  • Critique or challenge a theory
  • Combine different theories in a new or unique way

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation. As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

  • Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
  • Organize by theory cluster
  • Organize by date

It’s important that the information in your theoretical framework is clear for your reader. Make sure to ask a friend to read this section for you, or use a professional proofreading service .

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis , or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

  • Survivorship bias
  • Self-serving bias
  • Availability heuristic
  • Halo effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Deep learning
  • Generative AI
  • Machine learning
  • Reinforcement learning
  • Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

  • Grammar Checker
  • Paraphrasing Tool
  • Text Summarizer
  • AI Detector
  • Plagiarism Checker
  • Citation Generator

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing. Scribbr. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah Vinz

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

Other students also liked

What is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

  • Subject List
  • Take a Tour
  • For Authors
  • Subscriber Services
  • Publications
  • African American Studies
  • African Studies
  • American Literature
  • Anthropology
  • Architecture Planning and Preservation
  • Art History
  • Atlantic History
  • Biblical Studies
  • British and Irish Literature
  • Childhood Studies
  • Chinese Studies
  • Cinema and Media Studies
  • Communication
  • Criminology
  • Environmental Science
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • International Law
  • International Relations
  • Islamic Studies
  • Jewish Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • Latino Studies
  • Linguistics
  • Literary and Critical Theory
  • Medieval Studies
  • Military History
  • Political Science
  • Public Health
  • Renaissance and Reformation
  • Social Work
  • Urban Studies
  • Victorian Literature
  • Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

  • Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

  • Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
  • Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
  • Purposes of a Literature Review
  • Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
  • Identifying the Research Topic
  • The Persuasive Argument
  • Searching the Literature
  • Creating a Synthesis
  • Critiquing the Literature
  • Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
  • Presenting the Literature Review

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

  • Higher Education Research
  • Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
  • Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
  • Mixed Methods Research
  • Philosophy of Education
  • Politics of Education
  • Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

  • Gender, Power, and Politics in the Academy
  • Non-Formal & Informal Environmental Education
  • Motherscholars
  • Find more forthcoming articles...
  • Export Citations
  • Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 21 April 2021 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

  • About Education »
  • Meet the Editorial Board »
  • Academic Achievement
  • Academic Audit for Universities
  • Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
  • Action Research in Education
  • Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
  • Administrator Preparation
  • Adolescence
  • Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
  • Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
  • African American Racial Identity and Learning
  • Alaska Native Education
  • Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
  • Alternative Schools
  • American Indian Education
  • Animals in Environmental Education
  • Art Education
  • Artificial Intelligence and Learning
  • Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
  • Assessment, Behavioral
  • Assessment, Educational
  • Assessment in Early Childhood Education
  • Assistive Technology
  • Augmented Reality in Education
  • Beginning-Teacher Induction
  • Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
  • Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
  • Blended Learning
  • Case Study in Education Research
  • Changing Professional and Academic Identities
  • Character Education
  • Children’s and Young Adult Literature
  • Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
  • Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
  • Citizenship Education
  • Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
  • Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
  • Classroom Management
  • Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
  • College Admissions in the United States
  • College Athletics in the United States
  • Community Relations
  • Comparative Education
  • Computer-Assisted Language Learning
  • Computer-Based Testing
  • Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
  • Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
  • Counseling in Schools
  • Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
  • Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
  • Critical Race Theory
  • Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
  • Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
  • Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
  • Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
  • Culturally Responsive Leadership
  • Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
  • Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
  • Curriculum Design
  • Data Collection in Educational Research
  • Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
  • Deaf Education
  • Desegregation and Integration
  • Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
  • Development, Moral
  • Dialogic Pedagogy
  • Digital Age Teacher, The
  • Digital Citizenship
  • Digital Divides
  • Disabilities
  • Distance Learning
  • Distributed Leadership
  • Doctoral Education and Training
  • Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
  • Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
  • Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Early Childhood Education in Australia
  • Early Childhood Education in China
  • Early Childhood Education in Europe
  • Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Early Childhood Education in Sweden
  • Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
  • Early Childhood Education Policy
  • Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
  • Early Childhood Mathematics
  • Early Childhood Science
  • Early Childhood Teacher Education
  • Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
  • Economics of Education
  • Education For Children with Autism
  • Education for Sustainable Development
  • Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
  • Education of Native Hawaiian Students
  • Education Reform and School Change
  • Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
  • Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
  • Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
  • Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
  • Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
  • Environmental Education
  • Environmental Education in Brazil
  • Epistemic Beliefs
  • Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
  • Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
  • Ethical Research with Young Children
  • Ethics and Education
  • Ethics of Teaching
  • Ethnic Studies
  • Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
  • Family and Community Partnerships in Education
  • Family Day Care
  • Federal Government Programs and Issues
  • Feminization of Labor in Academia
  • Finance, Education
  • Financial Aid
  • Formative Assessment
  • Future-Focused Education
  • Gender and Achievement
  • Gender and Alternative Education
  • Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
  • Gifted Education
  • Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
  • Global University Rankings
  • Governance, Education
  • Grounded Theory
  • Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
  • Higher Education and Globalization
  • Higher Education and the Developing World
  • Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
  • Higher Education Finance
  • Higher Education Governance
  • Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
  • Higher Education in Africa
  • Higher Education in China
  • Higher Education in Latin America
  • Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
  • Higher Education, International Issues in
  • Higher Education Management
  • Higher Education Policy
  • Higher Education Student Assessment
  • High-stakes Testing
  • History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
  • History of Education in the United States
  • History of Technology Integration in Education
  • Homeschooling
  • Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
  • Inclusive Education
  • Indigenous Education in a Global Context
  • Indigenous Learning Environments
  • Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
  • Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
  • Inservice Teacher Education
  • Integrating Art across the Curriculum
  • Intelligence
  • Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
  • International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
  • Intersectionality and Education
  • Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
  • Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
  • Leadership in Early Childhood Education
  • Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
  • Learning Analytics in Higher Education
  • Learning Difficulties
  • Learning, Lifelong
  • Learning, Multimedia
  • Learning Strategies
  • Legal Matters and Education Law
  • LGBT Youth in Schools
  • Linguistic Diversity
  • Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
  • Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
  • Literature Reviews
  • Mathematics Identity
  • Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
  • Mathematics Teacher Education
  • Measurement for Improvement in Education
  • Measurement in Education in the United States
  • Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
  • Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
  • Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
  • Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
  • Multivariate Research Methodology
  • Museums, Education, and Curriculum
  • Music Education
  • Narrative Research in Education
  • Native American Studies
  • Note-Taking
  • Numeracy Education
  • One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
  • Online Education
  • Open Education
  • Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
  • Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
  • Outdoor Play and Learning
  • Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
  • Pedagogical Leadership
  • Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
  • Performance Objectives and Measurement
  • Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
  • Performance-based Research Funding
  • Phenomenology in Educational Research
  • Physical Education
  • Podcasts in Education
  • Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
  • Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
  • Post-humanism and Environmental Education
  • Pre-Service Teacher Education
  • Problem Solving
  • Productivity and Higher Education
  • Professional Development
  • Professional Learning Communities
  • Program Evaluation
  • Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
  • Psychology Learning and Teaching
  • Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
  • Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
  • Qualitative Research Design
  • Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
  • Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
  • Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
  • Reading Education
  • Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
  • Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
  • Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
  • Reliability in Educational Assessments
  • Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
  • Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
  • Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
  • Response to Intervention
  • Restorative Practices
  • Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
  • Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
  • Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
  • School Accreditation
  • School Choice
  • School Culture
  • School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
  • School Improvement through Inclusive Education
  • School Reform
  • Schools, Private and Independent
  • School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
  • Science Education
  • Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
  • Self-Regulated Learning
  • Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
  • Service-Learning
  • Severe Disabilities
  • Single Salary Schedule
  • Single-sex Education
  • Single-Subject Research Design
  • Social Context of Education
  • Social Justice
  • Social Network Analysis
  • Social Pedagogy
  • Social Science and Education Research
  • Social Studies Education
  • Sociology of Education
  • Standards-Based Education
  • Statistical Assumptions
  • Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
  • Student Assignment Policy
  • Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
  • Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
  • Student Participation
  • Student Voice in Teacher Development
  • Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
  • Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
  • Sustainability in Higher Education
  • Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
  • Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
  • Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
  • Teacher Preparation
  • Teacher Training and Development
  • Teacher Unions and Associations
  • Teacher-Student Relationships
  • Teaching Critical Thinking
  • Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
  • Technology Education in Early Childhood
  • Technology, Educational
  • Technology-based Assessment
  • The Bologna Process
  • The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
  • Theories of Educational Leadership
  • Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
  • Tracking and Detracking
  • Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
  • Transformative Learning
  • Transitions in Early Childhood Education
  • Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
  • Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
  • University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
  • Using Ethnography in Educational Research
  • Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
  • Virtual Learning Environments
  • Vocational and Technical Education
  • Wellness and Well-Being in Education
  • Women's and Gender Studies
  • Young Children and Spirituality
  • Young Children's Learning Dispositions
  • Young Children's Working Theories
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Accessibility

Powered by:

  • [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
  • 162.248.224.4

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • UConn Library
  • Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
  • Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

  • Getting Started
  • How to Pick a Topic
  • Strategies to Find Sources
  • Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
  • Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
  • Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
  • Citation Resources
  • Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

  • To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
  • To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
  • Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

  • A research paper assigned in a course
  • A thesis or dissertation
  • A grant proposal
  • An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

  • Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

  • Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

  • Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

  • Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

  • UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
  • << Previous: Getting Started
  • Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
  • Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Creative Commons

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

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.

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

Make a Gift

  • USC Libraries
  • Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

  • << Previous: Theoretical Framework
  • Next: Citation Tracking >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

  • Collections
  • Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

  • Biomedical Databases
  • Global (Public Health) Databases
  • Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
  • Grey Literature
  • Trials Registers
  • Data and Statistics
  • Public Policy
  • Google Tips
  • Recommended Books
  • Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

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

APA7 Style resources

Cover Art

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

  • Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
  • Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
  • If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

  • This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

  • use the tabs on this guide
  • Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
  • More on the Medical Library web page
  • ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

  • Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
  • Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
  • Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
  • Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
  • Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
  • Ask your librarian for help at any time.
  • Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

  • What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
  • Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
  • What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
  • Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
  • If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
  • How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

  • Review the abstracts carefully.  
  • Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
  • Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
  • << Previous: Recommended Books
  • Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
  • URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the application of theory in literature reviews – illustrated with examples from supply chain management.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

ISSN : 0144-3577

Article publication date: 13 November 2020

Issue publication date: 24 December 2020

Literature review articles have become a frequently applied research approach in operations and supply chain management (SCM). The purpose of this paper aims to elaborate on four approaches for developing or employing theory in systematic literature reviews (SLRs).

Design/methodology/approach

The paper uses conceptual arguments and illustrates them by pointing to recent examples. In SLRs, the material collection is usually based on keywords and searching databases, which is comparatively well documented. Data analysis, however, often falls short in documentation and, consequently, is neither well explained nor replicable. Therefore, the focus of this paper is the elaboration of the data analysis and sense-making stage in the research process of SLRs.

The paper presents four different approaches, which are characterized as theory (1) building, (2) modification, (3) refinement and (4) extension, based on whether new concepts are formed or extant concepts within SCM or other fields of management theory are adopted.

Research limitations/implications

The limitation of this research is that literature reviews could be conducted and presented in many ways. Since the focus of this research is on systematic literature reviews, only a limited number of approaches can be discussed and presented here.

Originality/value

The paper contributes to explaining the process and expected outcomes of a literature review and, therefore, aids in further developing the related methodological approaches. This is relevant as literature review publications now often replace conceptual or theoretical pieces but still have to deliver concerning demands of theory building.

  • Supply chain management
  • Systematic literature review
  • Theory development
  • Research process

Seuring, S. , Yawar, S.A. , Land, A. , Khalid, R.U. and Sauer, P.C. (2021), "The application of theory in literature reviews – illustrated with examples from supply chain management", International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2020-0247

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

University of Texas

  • 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

Creative Commons License

Duke University Libraries

Literature Reviews

  • Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

  • Types of reviews
  • 1. Define your research question
  • 2. Plan your search
  • 3. Search the literature
  • 4. Organize your results
  • 5. Synthesize your findings
  • 6. Write the review
  • Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
  • Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

what is theory in literature review

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

what is theory in literature review

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

what is theory in literature review

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

what is theory in literature review

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

what is theory in literature review

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

what is theory in literature review

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

what is theory in literature review

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

what is theory in literature review

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

what is theory in literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

what is theory in literature review

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

what is theory in literature review

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

  • Next: Types of reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:45 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Duke University Libraries

Services for...

  • Faculty & Instructors
  • Graduate Students
  • Undergraduate Students
  • International Students
  • Patrons with Disabilities

Twitter

  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Support the Libraries

Creative Commons License

Pediaa.Com

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

Literature review and theoretical framework are two indispensable components of research . Both are equally important for the foundation of a research study.

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is Literature Review       – Definition, Features 2.  What is Theoretical Framework      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework      – Comparison of Key Differences

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework - Comparison Summary

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a vital component of a research study. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In other words, a literature review is a review of the literature in the related subject area. A literature review makes a case for the research study. It analyzes the existing literature in order to identify and highlight a gap in the literature.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Moreover, a good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge of relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

  • Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
  • Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
  • Group researchers who have similar conclusions
  • Criticize the  methodology
  • Highlight exemplary studies
  • Highlight gaps in research
  • Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
  • Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
  • Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

Furthermore, the structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay . Overall, literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, identify a gap in the research area, place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the research component that introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It is also the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill the research gap identified by the literature review. Moreover, it is the structure that holds the structure of the research theory.

The researcher may not easily find the theoretical framework within the literature. Therefore, he or she may have to go through many research studies and course readings for theories and models relevant to the research problem under investigation. In addition, the theory must be selected based on its relevance, ease of application, and explanatory power.

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A literature review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area, while a theoretical framework is a component in research that introduces and describes the theory behind the research problem.

Moreover, the literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under investigation in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap. Therefore, a literature review is backwards-looking while theory framework is forward-looking.

In conclusion, the main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

1. Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.” La Trobe University: Bundoora (1992). 2. “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework .” Research Guide.

Image Courtesy:

' src=

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

USF Libraries Hours by campus

Libraries locations.

  • Libraries Hours
  • Outages & Maintenance Alerts

RESEARCH TOOLS

  • Subject & Course Guides
  • USF Libraries Catalog
  • Quicksearch All-in-one-search
  • Citing Sources
  • Find my Librarian

GUIDES / HOW-TO

  • Tutorials & Workshops
  • Finding Books and Articles
  • Finding Reserves
  • Checking Out & Renewing
  • Reserve a Study Room
  • Additional Help Topics
  • star Other Services
  • For Faculty
  • For Graduate Students
  • For Undergrads
  • Requesting Books & Articles (ILL)
  • Textbook Affordability (TAP)
  • Library Instruction
  • Laptop Checkout
  • Schedule Research Help
  • Geographic Information Systems
  • Data Management Planning
  • Copyright & Intellectual Property
  • Scholarly Publishing
  • Other Services

COLLECTIONS

  • What are Collections?
  • Special Collections
  • Digital Collections
  • Digital Heritage & Humanities
  • Digital Commons @ USF
  • Oral Histories
  • Online Exhibitions
  • Printing in the Library
  • IT Help Desk
  • Digital Media Commons (DMC)
  • Writing Studio
  • Office of Development
  • Office for Undergraduate Research
  • Directions to the Library
  • Library Info & Floor Maps
  • Connect From Off Campus
  • Renew Materials Online
  • Check UBorrow Status
  • Printing Help
  • Report a Problem
  • About the USF Libraries
  • University of South Florida Libraries
  • Course Guides

WST 6001: Feminist Research Methodology

  • What is a Literature Review
  • Research Basics: Tutorials
  • Databases for Articles
  • Webpages : Feminist Theory
  • Lit-Review How to Websites
  • Research Methodology: Books
  • Finding Books
  • Primary Resources
  • Statistical Sources

Literature Review Basics

What is a Literature Review?

Literature reviews are designed to do two things:

1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea

2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study.

1) Decide on a topic and identify the literature base you will review

-Become familiar with the relevant databases for that subject

-Identify search terms that capture your subject

-Start with general search terms and experiment with different terms noting which work

-Identify the important studies on the topic

-Redefine your topic if necessary. Try to narrow it to a specific interest area with the broad area

2)  Analyze the literature (Your role is to evaluate what you’ve read.)

-Usually a review covers the last 5 years of literature on a topic

-Skim the articles to get an idea of the purpose and content.

-Group the articles into categories and sub-categories

-Take notes: Define key terms, key statistics, identify useful quotes

-Note strengths, weaknesses and emphases

-Identify trends or patterns

-Identify gaps in the literature

-Identify relationships between studies, which led to others etc.

-Stay focused on your topic

3) Synthesis

-Identify your area of focus and say why it is relevant or important to the topic

-summarize the contributions of important studies/articles to the topic

-evaluate the current “state of the art” point out gaps or inconsistencies in research or theories     point out areas of possible future research

-provide some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study

-write a conclusion that clarifies how the material in the review has supported your proposition in the introduction

  • << Previous: Webpages : Feminist Theory
  • Next: Lit-Review How to Websites >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 8:25 AM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.usf.edu/wst6001

U.S. flag

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
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

  • formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
  • searching the extant literature,
  • screening for inclusion,
  • assessing the quality of primary studies,
  • extracting data, and
  • analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

  • Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
  • Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
  • Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
  • Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
  • Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
  • Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

  • Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
  • Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
  • Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
  • A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
  • Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
  • Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
  • Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
  • Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
  • Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
  • Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
  • Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
  • Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
  • Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
  • Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
  • Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
  • Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
  • Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
  • Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
  • Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
  • Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
  • Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
  • King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
  • Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
  • Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
  • Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
  • Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
  • Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
  • Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
  • Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
  • Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
  • Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
  • Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
  • Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
  • Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
  • Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
  • Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
  • Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
  • Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
  • Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
  • Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
  • Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
  • Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
  • Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
  • Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
  • Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
  • Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
  • Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
  • Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
  • Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
  • Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
  • Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
  • Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

  • Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
  • PDF version of this title (4.5M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

  • Introduction
  • Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
  • Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
  • Concluding Remarks

Related information

  • PMC PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

  • Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

Using positioning theory to think about mathematics classroom talk

  • Open access
  • Published: 20 February 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Ove Gunnar Drageset   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4723-7932 1 &
  • Fiona Ell 2  

161 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This article aims to connect two research areas by using positioning theory to review the literature on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns in mathematics education. First, a conceptual review identified 44 articles with 94 concepts describing interactions and discourse patterns. Similar concepts were grouped in a process that developed five categories, each describing one teacher position (a teacher who tells, a teacher who supports, a teacher who uses students’ ideas to create learning, a teacher who orchestrates, and a teacher who participates). Related to each position, we describe rights, duties, and communication acts. We suggest that these five teacher positions represent three transcendent storylines (teachers are providers of insight, teachers are facilitators of learning, and teachers are participants in learning). Using positioning theory enables us to understand the underlying powers that shape the classroom in relation to transcendent storylines, rights, and duties. We use this to explore what the implications are of these storylines and positions for equity and access to important mathematical ideas. This article contributes to our understanding of the complexity of classroom interactions and how transcendent storylines might play a role in subverting or promoting particular classroom communication patterns.

Similar content being viewed by others

what is theory in literature review

Unpacking discourses about the transition from school to university mathematics: an intensive reading

Alex Montecino & Melissa Andrade-Molina

what is theory in literature review

General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Autism, Inclusive Practices, and Relationship Building Strategies

Yasamin Bolourian, Ainsley Losh, … Jan Blacher

what is theory in literature review

Classroom Management Scripts: a Theoretical Model Contrasting Expert and Novice Teachers’ Knowledge and Awareness of Classroom Events

Charlotte E. Wolff, Halszka Jarodzka & Henny P. A. Boshuizen

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The mathematics classroom is at the heart of mathematics education research, and for many, discourse is the most central element of the mathematics classroom (Erath et al., 2021 ; Krummheuer, 2011 ; Sfard, 2008 ). Thus, a large body of research on mathematics classroom discourse has emerged over the recent decades (Erath et al., 2021 ; Xu & Clarke, 2019 ). Mathematics classroom discourse is, of course, inextricably entwined with mathematics itself. The nature of what is to be learned in a mathematics classroom shapes how it might be approached and how it might be spoken about.

For some mathematics education researchers, classroom discourse is the students’ learning (e.g., Lavie et al., 2019 ; Sfard, 2008 ); for others, discourse enables learning (e.g., da Ponte & Quaresma, 2016 ; Drageset, 2014b ) or opens a window on students’ thinking (e.g., Stein et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, changing discourse is seen as a way to improve learning, moving from the ‘chalk and talk’ stereotype to a more participatory model where learners share ideas and talk to each other about their thinking (Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ). However, despite a growing consensus, over a period of many years, on the importance of shifting classroom interaction patterns so that students talk more and talk about mathematical concepts and problems (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2004 ; Chapin et al., 2013 ; Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ; Mercer & Littleton, 2007 ; Stein et al., 2008 ), change in classrooms seems slow and difficult to sustain (Heyd-Metzuyanim et al., 2016 ; Xu & Clarke, 2019 ).

When discourse is centered as a critical mechanism for learning mathematics, access to discourse becomes an equity issue (Erath et al., 2021 ; Gutiérrez, 2009 ; Hunter, 2010 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ; Vogler et al., 2018 ). Mathematics classroom discourse occurs at the intersection of personal factors, wider social structures, and the discipline of mathematics. These influences shape what is said, how it is said, and by whom (Yackel & Cobb, 1996 ). If access to discourse is access to learning, it is essential to understand who participates and how they do so (Krummheuer, 2011 ). Patterns of classroom discourse are held in place by the views of rights and responsibilities held by the discourse participants (Barwell, 2013 ; Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ). Understanding how this works increases the possibility of changing towards more equitable and inclusive practice. Learning mathematics in classrooms can be seen as learning the content of mathematics and how to participate in that learning (Barwell, 2013 ; Erath et al., 2021 ; Krummheuer, 2011 ). Researchers have used close analysis of classroom discourse to reveal patterns of participation and inequities that might arise from not knowing how to participate, or participating in nonroutine ways, in the mathematics classroom (Davies & Hunt, 1994 ; Krummheuer, 2011 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ). As well as shaping what is learned and how it is learned, classroom discourse can also be seen as a means of establishing and perpetuating relationships that frame what is possible to learn (Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ). A theoretical framework that foregrounds how discourse emerges from, and shapes relations between people in particular situations could therefore help mathematics educators to consider how discourse patterns might empower or marginalize learners in the mathematics classroom (Hunter, 2010 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ). One framework that might do this is positioning theory (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ). This conceptual review considers whether thinking about classroom interaction patterns highlighted in recent mathematics education research through the lens of positioning theory can help us think about the relationships among teachers, students, and mathematics and the implications of these for equity in mathematics learning.

The purpose of this review, therefore, is to re-examine work on discourse in mathematics classrooms using positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990 ). Positioning theory is interested in understanding social phenomena by considering the positions and associated storylines created as people interact with each other (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ). These positions and storylines can help us to see how discourse patterns in mathematics classrooms might impact participation and opportunities to learn (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007 ). Thus, equity of access to mathematical ideas considers what mathematics is available to learners as they take up or reject the positions offered in mathematics classroom discourse.

1.1 Positioning theory

Positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990 ) was developed to explain the dynamic nature of evolving social relationships and the fact that the roles people adopt are not fixed; rather, they emerge through interaction with others. This focus on the immanent nature of positioning through discourse is helpful in considering the mathematics education literature on discourse patterns because positioning theory pays attention to the same things as these analyses do: the way that discourse unfolds and the consequences of that unfolding (Wagner & Herbel-Eisenmann, 2009 ). This is not unproblematic, in part because of the multilayered complexity of classroom discourse, which emerges moment by moment but is also shaped by longer-term forces that intersect classrooms—for example, common tropes about what it is to teach and learn mathematics (Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2015 ). Acknowledging the difficulty of combining an immanent view of positioning and the existence of important transcendent discourses (of learning and of mathematics), positioning theory nevertheless offers a way to consider work on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns in a common frame.

In its original form, positioning theory proposes a three-part framework for understanding discourse, comprising positions, speech acts, and storylines (Davies & Harré, 1999 ). The three parts function to assign rights and responsibilities among the participants. Positions are “the cluster of rights and duties to perform certain actions with a certain significance” (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 , p. 5). For example, if you are positioned as the teacher in the traditional sense, you have the right to lead the classroom, but you also have the duty to help students learn.

Storylines are the “loose cluster of narrative conventions” (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 , p. 6) that emerge as the participants interact. These storylines are about the positions that are being created in the interaction, but in the case of classroom interactions, they are also about learning and about mathematics itself. Storylines are created jointly by participants, although past experience and longer-term storylines might mean that rather than creating a joint storyline, participants are simultaneously in different storylines but do not realize this (Wagner & Herbel-Eisenmann, 2009 ).

Speech acts are “the socially significant actions, movements or speech” (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 , p. 6) that comprise the interaction. The idea of speech acts has been extended to include all forms of communicating (Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2015 ), so the term ‘communication acts’ is often used instead. Communication acts build storylines as they proceed, and reciprocally, storylines invoke rights and duties, shaping communication acts, positioning the participants in interaction relative to one another, and, in the case of classroom interaction, relative to the subject matter and how it is learned.

At any time, multiple storylines can be evoked by communication acts and their associated positionings. Davies and Harré ( 1990 ) describe this as the “braided development of several storylines” (p. 50). Things that happen at the moment in a mathematics classroom are about what is happening and simultaneously invoke wider storylines. Herbel-Eisenmann et al.’s ( 2015 ) model uses the idea of scale to show how narrative layers are nested in each other, with broader storylines shaping more local ones. In this way, broader discourses about capability, access, and equity enter moment-by-moment classroom interactions. Using positioning theory to think about discourse patterns as communication acts allow us to think about the rights and duties, and storylines, that come with different ways of communicating in mathematics classrooms.

A final layer of positioning theory is a three-part framework to explain the differences in taking up positions through interaction: willingness, capability, and power (Davies & Harré, 1999 ; Huang & Wang, 2021 ). This framework is highly relevant to teacher–student interactions, where long-established dynamics shape discourse patterns. ‘Willingness’ describes whether or to what extent participants are prepared to position others and be positioned themselves. ‘Capability’ describes the extent to which participants are able to take up the positions offered, which is bounded by their temperament and personal experiences. Finally, and significantly for classroom processes, ‘power’ is defined as how “individuals are permitted, allowed or encouraged to perform positions” (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 , p. 125).

Taken together, the three aspects of positioning theory (positions as rights and duties, storylines, and communication acts), coupled with the consideration of willingness, capability, and power, provide a way to consider work on discourse patterns in mathematics classrooms and to connect what is said in micro-interactions to longer-term storylines about mathematics teaching and learning (Anderson, 2009 ; Tait-McCutcheon & Loveridge, 2016 ), thereby enhancing our ability to understand how power is working through interaction, and what this means for access to mathematical ideas and recognition of learner identity (Gutiérrez, 2009 ).

This review looks across an indicative range of typologies, descriptions, and labels used in exploring mathematics classroom talk to see whether thinking about what positions are established through assigning rights and duties, what storylines are enacted, and how power is used or shared, can provide insights into this literature that are otherwise implicit or underexplored. It seeks to answer the question: What storylines and associated positions can be identified in mathematics education literature on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns, and what are the implications of these for equity in mathematics learning?

Figure  1  maps this research question onto the positioning theory triangle of communication acts, storylines, and positions (Van Langenhove & Harré, 1993 ). The triangle shows how the three aspects of positioning theory interrelate and co-determine each other (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ). Beginning at the bottom left, the figure shows how the questions that guide this review arise from the relationships in the positioning triangle. The three research questions are bold and marked ‘RQ’. Taking a body of research on classroom interaction and discourse, we consider whether there are recurring patterns. For these recurring patterns we ask: What positions and storylines might arise from these patterns? The answers to these questions form the findings of the study. The two evaluative questions about equity and access to ideas form the basis of the discussion and are bold and marked ‘D’ in Fig.  1 . The remaining two questions (in plain text) are beyond the scope of this analysis because data about the mutual constitution of storylines and how interaction proceeds were not available in all the studies we reviewed.

figure 1

How the conceptual review questions arise from positioning theory

This conceptual review of 44 articles centers on a body of work that has a family resemblance conceptual structure (Podsakoff et al., 2016 ). Works on classroom discourse, interactions, and talk moves use different terms but share key ‘family’ characteristics: a focus on the centrality of talk to learning in the mathematics classroom, with concepts describing interactions and discourse patterns as the unit of analysis. The 44 articles are not intended to provide a comprehensive survey of the field of work on classroom discourse, interactions, and talk moves, rather they form an indicative body of work that is used to explore the question of whether using positioning theory to consider their findings can reveal patterns in positions and storylines that help us think about equity in mathematics learning. Thus, this study is searching for ways with which to organize and understand our shared knowledge rather than describing a current state of the art, thus being explorative and not offering a fully representative review of the research literature.

2.1 How the articles were selected and analyzed

There were two phases to the article selection. First, a hand search of articles published from 2010 to 2020 was undertaken in two prominent mathematics education journals: Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education and Educational Studies in Mathematics . The keywords ‘talk moves,’ ‘teacher interactions,’ and ‘discourse patterns’ were used to identify relevant work. The articles were read in full by the first author using the rules for inclusion presented in Table  1 . The Table  1 list of inclusion rules reveals that we chose to use teacher interactions as a starting point as there were few student interactions (partly caused by the keywords). Second, references from these works were followed, searching for concepts describing talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns. This also included using Google Scholar to find articles that cited the articles already selected. This process continued until new concepts describing discourse no longer appeared and data saturation was reached. This process yielded 29 additional articles, resulting in a total of 44 articles and 94 concepts (see Appendices 1 and 2).

There were two main steps to the analysis. First, the definitions were compared to identify clusters of related concepts. Clusters were determined by the function of the communication acts, which was thought of as assigning positions. This process yielded five clusters describing the positions of teachers and students in relation to each other and the mathematics they were working on. An example of cluster formation is given in the paragraph below:

The concept of inviting (Da Ponte & Quaresma, 2016 ) was grouped with the concepts of probing for facts and probing for understanding (Bennett, 2010 ), probing students to explain their thinking (Boaler & Brodie, 2004 , eliciting student thinking (Fraivillig et al., 1999 ) and teacher as elicitor (Lobato et al., 2005 ) as they all described interactions where the teacher seeks to access student thinking. This group was first called access , but seeing concepts like providing students’ opportunities to share their solutions (Teuscher et al., 2016 ), we found that accessing student thinking related to sharing , particularly during the plenary discourse. Gradually adding more concepts, this formed a group that was named Access and share . Further, the latter was then set with two other groups to define a teacher position called A teacher who uses students’ ideas to create learning (see teacher Position 3 and Appendix 1 for further detail). An important part of this process was to constantly review the groups, regrouping concepts, and redefining group names and definitions based on the included concepts.

Second, both authors considered the clusters and their associated positions as a group to identify overarching storylines (as described by Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2015 ). Three storylines encompassed the five positions identified through clustering the communication acts. Positioning theory was used to consider the results of the analysis in terms of rights and duties assigned through the communication acts, and the implications of the teacher’s positioning for student positioning. This connection between teacher positions, student positions, and rights, duties, and communication acts is summarized in one table for each teacher position, presented in Tables  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 in the Findings Sect. 2.2 below. As the analysis is based on teacher interactions, it focuses on describing the positions and storylines arising from the literature about teacher interactions, and the consequences these might have for student positioning. Since positioning clearly goes both ways, is an ongoing negotiation, and positions are not always accepted, this complexity is addressed in the discussion. Thus, the findings describe teacher positions and the possible consequential positioning of students. A final iteration was done by compiling a table as summary (Appendix 1) and using this as a validity check that all concepts correspond to their communication acts, positions, and storylines.

2.2 Findings: teacher positions in the classroom

This section presents the storylines, teacher and student positions within these storylines, and the interactions and discourse patterns that illustrate both the positions and the storylines, found in 94 interaction types in the 44 reviewed articles. Our unit of analysis is not the data or examples from these articles. Rather, it is the concepts authors developed to describe interactions in the classroom. Examples of these concepts can be found in each reference (Appendix 2).

Central to considering these findings is the nature of positions, communication acts and storylines. While they are presented here in tables in order to describe the patterns that emerged from our analysis, they are not fixed. As described above, positions, communication acts, and storylines are constantly emerging as discourse unfolds and are contingent on what has come before. Positions may shift utterance by utterance, and certainly, over longer periods of time, positions will be negotiated through communication acts, accepted and rejected, and create storylines that will change and evolve. Although we present our findings as contrasts in order to make the patterns clear, this should not be taken as ascribing permanence or dichotomizing. We aim to illustrate the potential of different positions and communication acts for providing access to ideas and developing willingness, capability, and power in participation. Moment-by-moment choices by teachers and students are immanent and contingent, while at the same time, they connect to, and reproduce, storylines that come from beyond that particular moment in time. Our analysis seeks to capture that idea to help us think about the link between discourse and wider storylines about teaching and learning mathematics while not suggesting that one teacher holds one position in any permanent sense.

As we considered the rights and duties, communication acts, and storylines in the identified collection of research, we recognized the role that mathematics itself played in shaping the positioning triangle in mathematics classrooms. There are many ways to view what it is to learn mathematics, and these views shape how you might communicate about it. Discourse is shaped not only by the interlocutors but also by the nature of what is to be communicated. Thus, we added inferred descriptions of the nature of mathematics for each storyline to Tables 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , and this idea is taken up further in the discussion.

Table 2  provides an introductory overview of the storylines, positions, and communication acts found in the review. The findings are then presented by suggested storyline, and by teacher position within these storylines. Evidence from the reviewed research is presented and then summarised in a table for each teacher position (Tables  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ). The tables include the position, associated communication acts, storylines, rights, and duties, and inferred positions for students for each proposed teacher position.

2.3 Storyline 1: Teachers as providers of insight

The ‘teachers as providers of insight’ storyline is based on the idea of someone learning from another who knows. This might be connected to several ways of learning, such as transfer of knowledge, apprentice and master, or Vygotsky’s et al. ( 1978 ) zone of proximal development with the teacher as the main support. Two main teacher positions are related to this storyline: a teacher who tells and a teacher who supports. Both teacher positions are based on a teacher who claims power and consequently positions students as subordinate.

2.3.1 Teacher Position 1: A teacher who tells

Teachers typically know more mathematics than students and might position themselves as someone who knows more than others. The communication act that makes this position visible is the teacher sharing the knowledge by telling students about mathematics. But teacher telling has acquired a bad reputation and is often seen as negative. Lobato et al. ( 2005 ) suggest that teaching as telling is undesirable when it minimizes the opportunity to learn about students’ ideas, focuses only on procedural aspects, emphasizes the teacher’s power and students as subordinate rather than developing students’ judgment, minimizes cognitive engagement, communicates only one solution path, and prematurely closes mathematical exploration. To avoid these drawbacks, Lobato et al. ( 2005 ) suggest reformulating telling in three ways: focusing on the function rather than the form, the conceptual rather than the procedural, and connection rather than isolated actions. In this framework, it is not the telling that is significant, it is what one tells.

In addition, Lobato et al. ( 2005 ) reformulate telling by connecting it to more student-centered interactions such as initiation, defined as stimulating students’ mathematical construction, and eliciting, which occurs when the teacher’s actions draw out students’ ideas and reasoning. One main observation is that there is qualitative variation in telling related to differences between how the telling relates to procedures versus concepts and isolated actions versus interrelated actions (Lobato et al., 2005 ).

Looking at the concepts describing interactions and discourse patterns in research literature that describes teacher telling, these fall into three types. The first type of telling is telling to initiate student work, as described above by Lobato et al. ( 2005 ), but da Ponte and Quaresma ( 2016 ) also emphasize telling as initiation by describing how teachers inform and suggest. This is also visible in the discourse pattern described as setting the scene (Haavold & Blomhøj, 2019 ), which describes how the teacher engages and inspires students to start out on a mathematical inquiry.

The second type of telling is telling how to do, either by explaining (Henning et al., 2012 ), demonstrating how to solve a task or use a method (Drageset, 2014b ), advising a new strategy (Drageset, 2014b ), or modeling how an expert thinks (Fukawa-Connelly, 2012 ). The list of drawbacks to telling (Lobato et al., 2005 ) is mainly connected to telling how to do, which is where the teacher might claim the power to focus on procedures and consequently limits student participation. Telling how to do is also typical of discourse patterns such as unidirectional communication (Brendefur & Frykholm, 2000 ), where the teacher dominates the discussion by lecturing and asking closed questions, and conventional textbook culture (Wood et al., 2006 ), where the major interaction pattern is ‘initiation–response–evaluation (IRE)’ (Cazden, 1988 ; Mehan, 1979 ). However, telling what to do might also be a vital part of introducing new methods and explaining, and cannot always be related to procedural thinking and lack of student participation.

A third type is telling about connections between methods or concepts, as both Lobato et al. ( 2005 ) and Rowland et al. ( 2005 ) illustrate. This type is closely related to what it means to understand the logic of mathematics. During a dialogue, this is often seen when the teacher points out or emphasizes important aspects.

A ‘teacher who tells’ positions students as listeners, either as passive listeners or as active listeners with requests for clarifications and elaborations. Table 3  uses the positioning theory constructs of rights and duties (positions) and communication acts to summarize the findings about a teacher who tells and a student who listens.

2.3.2 Teacher Position 2: A teacher who supports

A teacher might take a position as a supporter of students’ learning, which still maintains the teacher’s power and the students as subordinate. A vast number of concepts describe different communication acts in supporting students’ work with mathematics, including both interactions and discourse patterns. Based on the organization of these concepts into groups, three types of teacher-supporting students are suggested.

The first type of teacher support is reduction of complexity, which is about making it easier for students to reach an answer by what Boston and Smith ( 2009 ) called ‘lowering cognitive demand’. This is achieved by either adding information or asking one question for each step until the answer is reached. Adding information can be done by giving cues (Henning et al., 2012 ), hints and highlights (Conner et al., 2014 ), or direct contributions to arguments (Conner et al., 2014 ). Such added information might also be called ‘simplification’ (Drageset, 2014b ) due to its effect. On some occasions, when the added information changes the entire task, it is referred to as a ‘Topaze effect’ (Brousseau & Balacheff, 1997 ). When making it easier by asking one question for each step, it is about breaking problems down into smaller parts by directed guidance (Warshauer, 2015 ); the questions are typically closed (Drageset, 2014b ), and the discourse pattern might be called ‘guided algorithmic reasoning’ (Lithner, 2008 ). Such patterns are also related to the proceduralization (Stein et al., 1996 ) and routinization (Boston & Smith, 2009 ) of mathematics by emphasizing that knowing mathematics is knowing methods and rules, step by step. Reduction of complexity is visible in several discourse patterns, such as the conventional problem-solving culture (Wood et al., 2006 ) where the main interaction pattern is the teacher giving hints, and funneling (Steinbring, 1989 ; Wood, 1998 ), where one specific method or answer is wanted and all other answers are rejected or funneled into the ‘right’ path. A strong emphasis on reduction of complexity might be the foundation for what Lavie et al. ( 2019 ) called “ritual student participation,” where the learner is satisfied with completing routines without independent decision making or coherence between subroutines, or what Lithner ( 2008 ) called imitative reasoning, where students search for examples to copy or rules to follow. While reduction of complexity might sound like something that affects student learning negatively, this depends on the balance with other types of interaction. After all, a teacher who never adds information to help students who are stuck and never guides them through a new method would probably end up with frustrated students. Such a balance is visible when da Ponte and Quaresma ( 2016 ) describe actions in task solving that support and guide students, both explicitly and implicitly, towards a path that they can follow. Similarly, Drageset ( 2014a ) suggests that teacher guidance might include advice, corrections, and pointing out.

The second type of teacher support is the assessing of students’ work. One way to do this is by verifying and validating (Conner et al., 2014 ) the correctness of a contribution or by confirming (Henning et al., 2012 ) that the student is on the right track. Naturally, such positive support is an important part of motivating or helping students move forward toward solutions or understanding. But at other times, the teachers might reject (Henning et al., 2012 ), correct directly (Conner et al., 2014 ), or correct through questions (Drageset, 2014b ). Arguably, these corrections are as important as the positive support, as they help students change direction or might even enable thinking and new understanding.

The third type of teacher support is to progress students’ thinking to reach an answer or understanding. At its core, progressing students’ thinking is about supporting the development of students’ ideas for how to solve a task without providing teacher hints or assessment. This can be done by promoting and encouraging (Conner et al., 2014 ), by asking open questions that do not simplify or direct students (open progress initiatives; see Drageset, 2014b ), or by probing guidance (Warshauer, 2015 ), asking for reasons and justifications, seeking explanations, and asking for written work showing students’ thinking. Fraivillig et al. ( 1999 ) also describe how a teacher progresses students’ thinking by reminding them of conceptually similar situations, providing background knowledge, and encouraging them to request assistance.

These three types of teacher support—reduction of complexity, assessing, and progressing students’ thinking—suggest three ways of enacting the teacher as taking a supporting position. A danger of only using reduction of complexity is that students may become reliant on teacher support and we might see what Lavie et al. ( 2019 ) call “ritual student participation.” As reliance on a teacher is a natural part of student development, such as described in Vygotsky’s et al. ( 1978 ) zone of proximal development, the ultimate goal of any education is empowerment; and even if different ways to reduce complexity might be important tools for a teacher to use, other types of interaction are also needed to be able to empower students, perhaps most importantly by progressing their thinking until they are independent of teacher support .

A teacher who supports positions a student as someone who is receptive to help and feedback and who engages in the development of one’s own thinking. Table 4  uses the positioning theory constructs of rights and duties (positions) and communication acts to summarize the findings about a teacher who supports and a student who is receptive to help and feedback.

2.4 Storyline 2: Teachers as facilitators of learning

The ‘teachers as facilitators of learning’ storyline is based on the idea that to create learning, one needs to facilitate others’ learning through reflection and communication. This might be based on personal reflection, social learning, or a combination of these. The core of this storyline is that it is the students’ ideas that are the content of the learning process.

2.4.1 Teacher Position 3: A teacher who uses students’ ideas to create learning

The third position, which is based on the largest number of communication acts from the literature, describes a position where the learning should start with the student’s ideas.

The first type of teachers’ use of students’ ideas describes different ways to access and share students’ ideas. Sometimes, getting access to their ideas and sharing them are separate processes, such as in five practices (Stein et al., 2008 ), where teachers monitor and select ideas during the students’ work and then ask them to share the intentionally picked ideas afterward. In the articles that are the basis of our analysis, most concepts describe this as one process, where accessing students’ ideas in a plenary is at the same time the sharing of these. Naturally, most interactions are based on questions. Gaspard and Gainsburg ( 2020 ) separate questions that anticipate predictable responses from those that anticipate unpredictable responses. Most concepts related to accessing students’ ideas seem to be related to the latter, such as probing for facts or understanding (Bennett, 2010 ) or for students to explain their thinking (Boaler & Brodie, 2004 ), or requesting more details or justification (Drageset, 2014b ). Also, eliciting or enlightening students’ thinking in different ways (Conner et al., 2014 ; Fraivillig et al., 1999 ; Henning et al., 2012 ; Lobato et al., 2005 ) and generally inviting students or providing students with opportunities to share their solutions (da Ponte & Quaresma, 2016 ; Teuscher et al., 2016 ) seem to be about asking questions where the responses are difficult to anticipate.

The second way of using students’ ideas is by pointing out students’ thinking that the teacher wants to emphasize for the other students. Several authors describe how teachers reformulate, repeat, revoice, and clarify (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002 ; Conner et al., 2014 ; Henning et al., 2012 ; Kooloos et al., 2020 ; O’Connor & Michaels, 1993 ), all of which are interactions where the function is to point out something important by emphasizing it or making the students’ thinking clearer or more accurate. Also, summing up or recapitulating (Henning et al., 2012 ) uses the teacher’s voice to point out what was important in an explanation or discussion. In addition, such pointing out might be done by orientating and focusing (Boaler & Brodie, 2004 ; Drageset, 2021 ; Wood, 1998 ) students before a task or by refocusing them (Conner et al., 2014 ) during work or discussions.

The third way of using students’ thinking goes one step further, from sharing and pointing out to what Correnti et al. ( 2015 ) call “uptake,” which is to take up students’ ideas in the collective (Staples, 2007 ) for discussion and to develop them. In this process, accessing and sharing play an important part, but the teacher might start by giving time to develop ideas to be shared (or allow time for students to work; see Warshauer, 2015 ), and the teacher does not limit her/himself to pointing out but instead continues to work on selected student ideas. Researchers have described key parts of this process as elaborating (Henning et al., 2012 ), encouraging reflection, reasoning, and going beyond the initial method by pushing for alternatives (Cengiz et al., 2011 ), extending student thinking (Boaler & Brodie, 2004 ; Fraivillig et al., 1999 ), and exploring mathematical meanings and relationships (Boaler & Brodie, 2004 ). Uptake means that a student’s idea is the core element of the discourse, used for learning in the classroom by discussing, comparing, and exploring the idea. While it is still the teacher that decides which ideas should be worked on or taken up for discussion, uptake is clearly distinct from pointing out, where the teacher’s comments are the core element. Stockero et al. ( 2020 ) studied who is publicly given the opportunity to consider students’ mathematical thinking (the teacher, the same student, other students, or the whole class) and what they do or are allowed to do with that opportunity (such as clarify, develop, dismiss, evaluate, justify). In this way, it is possible to achieve a deeper understanding of who contributes in what way when uptake occurs.

While accessing and sharing clearly have value by letting students share ideas and listen to each other, access and sharing without uptake might create a discourse pattern without depth and development and instead become what Ball ( 2001 ) calls “show and tell,” meaning that as many as possible must be allowed to speak with no subsequent pointing out or extension or discussion. Mercer ( 1995 ) describes a similar pattern as “cumulative talk,” in which speakers respond positively but uncritically to each other. Instead, uptake can be connected to a number of seemingly productive discourse patterns, such as making students a source of mathematical ideas (Hufferd-Ackles et al., 2004 ), building the discussion on students’ thinking (Kooloos et al., 2020 ), and all five targeted discussions suggested by Kazemi and Hintz ( 2014 ). The distinction between accessing and sharing and uptake is the difference between just telling and using this telling as a springboard to develop the thinking together.

A teacher who uses students’ ideas to create learning positions students as owners of ideas that they are willing to share, and as being willing to engage in the joint development of their own or others’ thinking. Table 5  uses the positioning theory constructs of rights and duties (positions) and communication acts to summarize the findings about a teacher who uses students’ ideas to create learning and a student who owns the ideas and is willing to share them.

2.4.2 Teacher Position 4: A teacher who orchestrates

The fourth position describes where the teacher refrains from discussing the actual mathematics and instead orchestrates student discourse about the mathematics, much like the conductor of an orchestra who does not play an instrument. Refraining from discussion of the content is what separates Position 4 from Position 3, where the teachers engage in the mathematics by pointing out, suggesting, challenging, and taking up ideas for further development. Based on the literature review, there are three rather distinct communicative acts that characterize three ways to orchestrate a discourse without directly participating in the mathematical content.

The first type of orchestration is basic management, such as choosing who should speak and moderating the discourse (Drageset, 2019 ; Drageset & Allern, 2017 ). But management also includes what Drageset ( 2019 ) calls “guiding participation and norms,” such as allowing questions focusing on understanding and not assessment, or telling students that it is the process that should be focused on and not the answer.

The second type of orchestration is when the teacher orchestrates with a focus on developing ideas. This can be done by giving the students time to think (or “wait time,” as Chapin et al., 2013 call it), or using turn-and-talk (Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ), where two students are given time to develop an idea. A third way is to request alternative methods (Drageset, 2019 ), and combine this with either waiting time or turn-and-talk if necessary.

The third type of orchestration is to help students focus on peer thinking. Ing et al. ( 2015 ) have described teacher responses that encourage students to engage with each other, such as asking students to respond to each other’s strategies or to use another student’s strategy, focusing on contrasts by asking students to discuss differences among shared strategies, and focusing on connections by asking students to make connections among ideas. In addition, following a student sharing an idea or a solution, the teacher might invite fellow students to ask questions or to evaluate the suggestion (Conner et al., 2014 ). A focus on peer thinking can be limited to a single evaluation, but might also create discourses of several turns between students, perhaps consisting of questions, answers, clarifications, and challenges.

A teacher who orchestrates in a classroom positions students as people who contribute, making space for students to share ideas, ask questions, suggest new approaches, and assess ideas. As the teacher does not interfere with the content (does not assess, suggest, point out), arguably the students are the actual teachers of content by asking questions, explaining, and evaluating. Table 6 uses the positioning theory constructs of rights and duties (positions) and communication acts to summarize the findings about a teacher who orchestrates and a student who contributes.

2.5 Storyline 3: Teachers as participants in learning

The ‘teachers as participants in learning’ storyline is based on the idea that learning can be created by participants exploring a challenge together, where no participant has the power to just state right or wrong, but must argue and explain to convince others.

2.5.1 Teacher Position 5: A teacher who participates

The fifth teacher position describes teachers that participate in the solving of problems together with students. Based on the literature review, we suggest that there are two types of this position.

The first type is seen when the teacher collaborates with the students. Staples ( 2007 ) defines collaboration as a joint building of mathematical ideas, which is distinguished from cooperation that is limited to sharing. In more detail, Mueller et al. ( 2012 ) suggest three types of collaboration. The first, the co-construction of arguments, describes a joint construction of arguments from the ground upward. The second, the integration of arguments, describes a process of integrating peers’ arguments into one’s own, in which reformulation (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002 , 2004 ; Skovsmose, 2001 ) will be an important part. The third, the modification of arguments, describes a process where students use what Skovsmose (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002 , 2004 ; Skovsmose, 2001 ) calls “evaluations and challenges.” These three types of collaboration describe ways students either construct understanding together or enhance one another’s. An important part of such learning through collaboration would be what Wegerif and Mercer ( 1997 ) call “explorative talk,” while the less productive pattern of disagreeing without enhancing one another’s understanding (disputational talk; see Wegerif & Mercer, 1997 ) would be a sign that collaboration as the joint building of mathematical ideas is not taking place. However, all research on collaboration in this review is based on students working together, with the teacher either as supporter or facilitator.

Some concepts point to a possible position where the teacher collaborates with students in cases where none of them knows how to progress. One such model is the inquiry–cooperation model (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002 , 2004 ), which describes eight communicative features that do not distinguish between student and teacher, indicating a situation where the power lies in the arguments and not in the position. Another model is a description of landscapes of investigation, where Skovsmose ( 2001 ) describes situations where students explore mathematics together with the teacher. In such landscapes of investigation, it seems possible for teachers to take a position as a collaborator, particularly if the teacher does not know the method or solution. It should be possible for the teacher to work together with the students in all three types of collaboration suggested by Mueller et al. ( 2012 ) (co-construction, integration, and modification), using different communicative features as a participant and not as one who knows more and leads.

The second type of teacher who participates is seen when the teacher is acting as a teacher-in-role. It might be challenging for a teacher to collaborate on equal terms with the students, as the teacher often knows more, the students have certain expectations, and the teacher has certain habits related to claiming power. Drageset and Allern ( 2017 ) describe how teachers taking a role can contribute by sidestepping these expectations and habits and thus make space for students to participate in new ways. Furthermore, the teacher can invite the students to fill this space by asking questions in response to fellow students’ ideas and requesting alternative methods. While teacher-in-role (O’Neill, 1995 ) is a widely used method in the field of drama, Drageset and Allern ( 2017 ) develop the method, using teacher-in-role to change the mathematical discourse by deliberately inviting students into new positions and thereby creating a different discourse in which students explain, argue, and decide. This method can be used to create a teacher position that fully and equally participates with the students in solving mathematical problems, as the teacher-in-role might know as much as or less than the students. In this way, using teacher-in-role might also be a strong tool to use to position students.

A teacher who participates positions students as participators on equal terms through collaboration or role-play. Table 7  uses the positioning theory constructs of rights and duties (positions) and communication acts to summarize the findings about a teacher who participates and a student who participates.

3 Discussion

Although the positions of teacher and student can be deconstructed, they are commonly recognized positions in society, and each is defined by the other, with the teacher usually positioned as powerful and the student as subordinate (Davies & Hunt, 1994 ). Most people have experience of schooling that perpetuates this view of teachers’ and students’ rights and duties. For many, rights and duties in learning mathematics are particularly clear, perpetuating particular storylines about how mathematics teaching should be done (Xu & Clarke,  2019 ). Attempts to change these perceptions often center on changing classroom discourse patterns (Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ; Mercer & Littleton,  2007 ), but this is not easily done (Heyd-Metzuyanim et al., 2016 , Xu & Clarke, 2019 ). Therefore, this review posed the question: What storylines and associated positions can be identified in mathematics education literature on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns, and what are the implications of these for equity and access to important mathematical ideas? The findings of five positions nested into three broad storylines has implications for equity and access to mathematical ideas, offers some explanation for why it is hard to change classroom interaction patterns, and even has implications for school mathematics itself.

3.1 Equity and access to mathematical ideas

Each of the five positions yielded from the analysis has associated rights and duties that distinguish it from the other positions, and the use of positioning theory revealed the potential consequences of these rights and duties for students, whose responses did not always feature in the reviewed articles. In each of these scenarios, the opportunity for students to learn is shaped by the position taken up by the teacher, and whether or not the students decide to take up the position they are offered by the teacher’s attempts to position them. For example, if students are positioned as a contributor or collaborator who has the right to have their ideas considered, and the duty to discuss and debate ideas, they have the opportunity to learn (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007 ) the tools and warrants of mathematical argumentation. But the opportunity to learn is only one aspect—some students may consider that the duty of discussion and debate is too taxing and sit quietly waiting for the lesson to end. If all the students do this, it will shape the teacher’s positioning, placing the teacher back in the storyline of providing insight by telling (Position 1) or supporting (Position 2).

Thus, what is made possible to learn is shaped by communication acts that ascribe positions. With multiple people in the classroom, different students can be in different storylines. To the extent that some storylines yield better access to important ideas, some students will be disadvantaged by being in a storyline that is less helpful. Storylines and positions in the classroom are intersected by broader social discourses, such as ‘mathematics is not for people like me.’ In this way groups of learners can be marginalised by perpetuation of harmful storylines. Speakers of languages other than the language of instruction can additionally be marginalised in classroom interaction by not recognising the position they are offered or the storyline they are in (Hunter, 2010 ).

However, there are equity issues that go beyond whether everyone can access the ideas and discourse in the classroom. Gutiérrez ( 2009 ) describes two axes for thinking about inequity in mathematics education: one between achievement and access, and one between identity and power. Her argument is that most discussion of inequity focuses on access and achievement, while identity and power remain under-considered. Research on classroom interaction is often focused on increasing access to ideas and raising achievement (Hiebert & Grouws  2007 ). Using positioning theory to group types of interaction from the literature reveals how communication acts build, and are built by, positions and storylines that bring with them ideas of identity and power. The relationship between identity and positioning is complex (Anderson, 2009 ; Langer-Osuna & Nasir, 2016 ) and beyond the scope of this discussion, but the way that students experience mathematics teaching and learning impacts the development of their mathematics learner identity (Langer-Osuna & Nasir, 2016 ), and the multiple identities that students bring to mathematics impact their willingness to take up positions in mathematics classes (Darragh, 2016 ). In the analyses presented here, the amount of power held by students increases from teacher Position 1 to teacher Position 5 in two ways. First, from being positioned as a listener in Position 1, to being an equal participant in Position 5, students have increasing space in interaction for their ideas to be taken up and genuinely considered. Second, if students resist taking up the position offered by the teacher’s communication acts, then they have the power to subvert the storyline and bring positions back to a storyline in which they are comfortable. Some of this resistance may originate in student identity (Darragh, 2016 ). Power resides both in the opening up of space for the student voice (a handover of power from teacher to students), and in the ability of students, as participants in storylines, to control whether or not this can happen. It is important to recognize that because of intersecting marginalizing storylines, power is not evenly distributed amongst students, nor is the willingness and capability to assert power in a mathematics classroom (Langer-Osuna & Nasir, 2016 ). Of the five positions outlined above, the fourth and fifth provide the most potential for students to have power in relation to ideas in the mathematics classroom, to focus on the mathematics that concerns them, and to bring their language, culture, and identity to bear on the positions they accept. These may also be the hardest positions to establish and maintain because they are the furthest away from the traditional mathematics teaching and learning storyline, Position 1.

The paragraphs above consider students as one group, impacted in the same way by teachers’ communication acts. In practice, students are a diverse group of people for whom teachers’ communication acts will have differential impacts. Identity, language, and culture, for example, will shape how students interpret communication acts, what storylines they are prepared to participate in, and what positions they will take up. A dominant culture and confident mathematics students with positive mathematics identities will be impacted by changes in classroom interaction and teacher–student positions in different ways from students of nondominant groups, or those who do not speak the language of instruction. Teachers’ attempts to share power with students by opening up space for student talk and thinking may inadvertently exacerbate inequity in mathematics classrooms. This issue has been taken up by authors, such as Hunter ( 2010 ), who use a change in storylines and position through interaction patterns to deliberately enhance the learning experience of marginalized learners.

3.2 Making change in classroom interaction patterns

Position 1, a teacher who tells and a student who listens, is a pervasive storyline in mathematics teaching and learning (Brendefur & Frykholm, 2000 ; Wood et al., 2006 ). Teachers and students seem to reproduce, in the moment, storylines about teaching and learning that are recurrent and persistent (Wagner & Herbel-Eisenmann, 2009 ). Teachers, students, and communities may not recognize other storylines and positions as legitimate. Changing this storyline is not easy (Ing et al., 2015 ). Even the most open question can be turned back by a student who is working in a ‘teacher tells’ storyline and is not willing to take up the position offered by a ‘teacher facilitates’ storyline (Bennett, 2010 ). For many years, researchers have outlined how changing classroom interaction patterns might improve the learning of mathematics (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2004 ; Chapin et al., 2013 ; Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ; Mercer & Littleton, 2007 ; Stein et al., 2008 ). Positioning theory helps us to see this challenge as shaped by longer-term, transcendent storylines that intersect classrooms because teachers and students position one another through their communication acts. Positioning theory implies that without considering the positioning functions of discourse as well as the learning functions, meaningful shifts in discourse will be hard to establish (Anderson, 2009 ).

Positioning theory suggests that participants in communication have to be willing and capable of taking up the positions they are offered and have the power to do so (Davies & Harré, 1999 ; Huang & Wang, 2021 ). Students can be unwilling to take up positions offered by their teacher’s communication, or not have the capability to do so; or teachers may offer a position through their communication, but not structure the situation so that students have the power to pick up on what is offered. Explicitly discussing roles and responsibilities has been shown to support change in discourse patterns (Hunter, 2010 ). Observation of classroom discourse (e.g., Conner et al., 2014 ) and interventions intended to change classroom communication (Hunter, 2010 ; Kazemi & Hintz, 2014 ) describe emergent communication patterns that our analysis suggests draw from transcendent storylines about mathematics teaching and learning (Wagner & Herbel-Eisenmann, 2009 ).

Considering findings about classroom interaction as describing communication acts, which function as positioning tools, gives us a productive way to understand the difficulties inherent in trying to change classroom discourse patterns. Furthermore, positioning theory with rights and duties can explain why some classrooms are stuck in one storyline and the teacher in one position while other classrooms seem to change fast between positions and storylines (Anderson, 2009 ). This insight also gives us the power to develop classroom teaching and learning by attending to rights and duties, by developing capabilities to take on new positions, and by facilitating students’ changes of position.

3.3 The position of mathematics

As well as suggesting positions for teachers and students, each storyline from the positioning analysis suggests a position for mathematics. Mathematics is part of the teaching–learning dynamic because it brings with it disciplinary structures and norms of communication, warrants for knowledge, and ideas about what is valuable to know. In school mathematics, these ideas have been contested in research and policy (Skovsmose, 2001 ). Learning mathematics brings with it particular storylines about mathematics itself, for example: that it is hard to learn; that only some people can do it; that it is abstract; that it has a logical order and hierarchy of ideas; that it requires memorization and practice. In addition, the mathematics that is valued also creates a storyline. Depending on jurisdiction, school mathematics might be constructed on Western principles, ignore Indigenous knowledge, or perpetuate dominant cultural narratives (Meaney & Trinick, 2020 ). This becomes another way that power is held and exercised through mathematics teaching and learning.

In Tables  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , we suggest the storylines about mathematics implied by each of the teacher positions found in the review process. In each of the three storylines, we suggest mathematics has a different character, and learning mathematics a different emphasis. Using positioning theory to think about this literature on communication acts, shows that the positions taken up by teachers and students might have consequences for the mathematics available to learners and consequently their opportunities to learn (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007 ). Positioning theory suggests that by assigning rights and duties to participants through mathematics classroom discourse, communication acts also shape storylines about the mathematics to be studied. To the extent that some of these storylines are inclusive of all students, they are helpful for promoting equity; to the extent that they exclude groups of learners, they are risky. Dichotomized thinking about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ teaching of mathematics is prevalent in many jurisdictions (Lobato et al., 2005 ), but misses the moment-by-moment subtleties of positioning and the negotiation of storylines that emerge in particular contexts. Understanding that there are consequences for mathematics itself in the way teachers and learners position themselves highlights the importance of communication acts in the classroom (Cobb, 2000 ).

4 Conclusion

To answer the first part of our research question, we explored what storylines and associated positions can be identified in mathematics education literature on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns. A conceptual review identified 44 articles and 94 concepts describing interactions and used these to develop five positions and three storylines (Table  2 provided an overview, Tables  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 more detail).

To answer the second part of our research question, we explored what the implications are of these storylines and positions for equity and access to important mathematical ideas. Positioning theory helps us understand moment-by-moment interactions in complex mathematics classrooms, and how these arise from, build, and maintain broader stories about what it is to teach and learn mathematics, who mathematics is for, and what mathematics is. For equity in mathematics teaching and learning, we need to recognize that classroom interaction is simultaneously of-the-moment and of-the-wider-context. Recognizing that teacher–student communication acts draw on transcendent storylines and intersect with broader narratives as participants both offer, and accept or reject, positions through communication, makes it clear why shifting classroom interaction patterns is a difficult task. Taking a view informed by positioning theory, if we are to realize the potential of different teacher and student communication acts outlined in classroom interaction studies such as those in this review, we need to explicitly deal with the forces that hold current practices in place. These forces can be characterized as storylines, and once they are seen in this way, we can think about how to change the storylines through communication acts and associated positions, being explicit with teachers and students about what is coming into play as they work together in classrooms, and working together to develop storylines where everyone can participate and succeed. The ability of this review to fully consider storylines is limited by the nature of the studies we included. As we are working from studies that were conducted in a range of theoretical frames, we can only build from the observed discourse patterns to potential storylines as implications of the patterns we saw in our analysis. A future work, conducted within a framework of positioning, could explicitly consider and chart storyline emergence and construction through discourse to further develop these ideas and to examine the impact and role of storylines on identity, power, participation, and success.

While a limitation to the study is its somewhat narrow scope (starting with two journals, three keywords, and focusing the analysis on teacher interactions), the study has illustrated the potential of using positioning theory to review the literature on classroom interactions in mathematics education and developed possible storylines, positions, and communication acts. A wider scope might identify additional or alternative storylines and positions that can be useful tools to use to deepen our understanding of how these affect equity and access, and also enable or hinder change.

Data availability

The data used in this article are other articles, and all articles used is included in the reference list.

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention, reflection, critique . Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogic learning in collaborative investigation. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 2 , 39–62.

Anderson, K. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20 , 291–310.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L. (2001). Teaching, with respect to mathematics and students. In T. L. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 11–22). L. Erlbaum Associates.

Barwell, R. (2013). Discursive psychology as an alternative perspective on mathematics teacher knowledge. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 45 , 595–606.

Bennett, C. A. (2010). “It’s hard getting kids to talk about math”: Helping new teachers improve mathematical discourse. Action in Teacher Education, 32 (3), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463561

Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature, and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 774–782).

Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 40 (2), 119–156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539329 . Accessed 23 Oct 2020.

Brendefur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3 (2), 125–153. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009947032694

Brousseau, G., & Balacheff, N. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics . Kluwer.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning . Heinemann.

Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. (2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15 (5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9179-7

Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2013). Classroom discussions in math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the common core and more, Grades K-6 . Math Solutions.

Cobb, P. (2000). The importance of a situated view of a learning to the design of research and instruction. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 527–548). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86 (3), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8

Correnti, R., Stein, M., Smith, M., Scherrer, J., McKeown, M., Greeno, J., & Ashley, K. (2015). Improving teaching at scale: Design for the scientific measurement and learning of discourse practice (pp. 315–332). https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_25

da Ponte, J. P., & Quaresma, M. (2016). Teachers’ professional practice conducting mathematical discussions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93 (1), 51–66.

Darragh, L. (2016). Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93 , 19–33.

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (1), 43–63.

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 32–52). Blackwell.

Davies, B., & Hunt, R. (1994). Classroom competencies and marginal positionings. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15 (3), 389–408.

Drageset, O. G. (2014a). Knowledge used when orchestrating mathematical discourses: Doing, guiding and requesting. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 19 (3–4), 151–168.

Drageset, O. G. (2014b). Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions: A framework for describing how teachers use students’ comments to work with mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 85 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9515-1

Drageset, O. G., & Allern, T. H. (2017). Using drama to change classroom discourse. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3049–3056). European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

Drageset, O. G. (2019). How teachers use interactions to craft different types of student participation during whole-class mathematical work. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3622–3629). European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

Drageset, O. G. (2021). Exploring student explanations. What types can be observed, and how do teachers initiate and respond to them? Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education , 26 (1), 53–72.

Erath, K., Ingram, J., Moschkovich, J., & Prediger, S. (2021). Designing and enacting instruction that enhances language for mathematics learning: A review of the state of development and research. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53 , 245–262.

Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 30 (2), 148. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=1655007&site=ehost-live . Accessed 15 Nov 2020.

Fukawa-Connelly, T. P. (2012). A case study of one instructor’s lecture-based teaching of proof in abstract algebra: Making sense of her pedagogical moves. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81 (3), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9407-9

Gaspard, C., & Gainsburg, J. (2020). Abandoning questions with unpredictable answers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23 (6), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09440-5

Gutiérrez, R. (2009). Framing equity: Helping students ‘play the game’ and ‘change the game.’ Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 1 (1), 5–7.

Haavold, P. Ø., & Blomhøj, M. (2019). Coherence through inquiry-based mathematics education. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 4389–4396). European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

Harré, R., & Moghaddam, F. (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts . Greenwood Publishing Group.

Henning, J. E., McKeny, T., Foley, G. D., & Balong, M. (2012). Mathematics discussions by design: Creating opportunities for purposeful participation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15 (6), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9224-1

Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Wagner, D., Johnson, K. R., Suh, H., & Figueras, H. (2015). Positioning in mathematics education: Revelations on an imported theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89 (2), 185–204.

Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Opportunities for learning given to prospective mathematics teachers: Between ritual and explorative instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19 , 547–574.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effect of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning.  Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning ,  1 (1), 371–404.

Huang, X., & Wang, C. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ identity transformation: A positioning theory perspective. Professional Development in Education , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1942143

Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35 (2), 81–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933

Hunter, R. (2010). Changing roles and identities in the construction of a community of mathematical inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13 (5), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9152-x

Ing, M., Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C. H. (2015). Student participation in elementary mathematics classrooms: The missing link between teacher practices and student achievement? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90 (3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9625-z

Kazemi, E., & Hintz, A. (2014). Intentional talk: How to structure and lead productive mathematical discussions . Stenhouse Publishers.

Kooloos, C., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Kaenders, R., & Heckman, G. (2020). Orchestrating mathematical classroom discourse about various solution methods: Case study of a teacher’s development. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 41 (2), 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-019-00150-2

Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion ‘learning as participation’ in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 43 , 81–90.

Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Nasir, N. I. S. (2016). Rehumanizing the “other”: Race, culture, and identity in education research. Review of Research in Education, 40 (1), 723–743.

Lavie, I., Steiner, A., & Sfard, A. (2019). Routines we live by: From ritual to exploration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101 (2), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9817-4

Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67 (3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36 (2), 101–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034827

Meaney, T., & Trinick, T. (2020). Indigenous students in mathematics education. In S.Lerman (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Mathematics Education . Springer.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom . Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach . Routledge.

Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2012). A framework for analyzing the collaborative construction of arguments and its interplay with agency. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80 (3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9354-x

O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic tasks and participation through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24 (4), 318–335.

O’Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama . Heinemann Drama.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organisational, behavioural and social sciences. Organisational Research Methods, 19 (2), 159–203.

Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8 (3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-005-0853-5

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Skovsmose, O. (2001). Landscapes of investigation. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33 , 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652747

Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25 (2–3), 161–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701301125

Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10 (4), 313–340.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2), 455–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455

Steinbring, H. (1989). Routine and meaning in the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics , 9 (1), 24–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247942 . Accessed 26 Oct 2020.

Stockero, S. L., van Zoest, L. R., Freeburn, B., Peterson, B. E., & Leatham, K. R. (2020). Teachers’ responses to instances of student mathematical thinking with varied potential to support student learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00334-x

Tait-McCutcheon, S., & Loveridge, J. (2016). Examining equity of opportunities for learning mathematics through positioning theory. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28 , 327–348.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Teuscher, D., Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2016). Decentering: A construct to analyze and explain teacher actions as they relate to student thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19 (5), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9304-0

Van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1993). Positioning and autobiography: Telling your life. In N. Coupland & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Discourse and lifespan identity (pp. 81–99). Sage Publications.

Vogler, A., Prediger, S., Quasthoff, U., & Heller, V. (2018). Students’ and teachers’ focus of attention in classroom interaction: Subtle sources for the reproduction of social disparities. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30 , 299–323.

Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72 (1), 1–15.

Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18 (4), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9286-3

Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 49–64). Multilingual Matters.

Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children’s mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37 (3), 222–255.

Xu, L., & Clarke, D. (2019). Speaking or not speaking as a cultural practice: Analysis of mathematics classroom discourse in Shanghai, Seoul, and Melbourne. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102 (1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09901-x

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 , 458–477.

Download references

Open access funding provided by UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway)

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Ove Gunnar Drageset

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ove Gunnar Drageset .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Appendix 1 Overview of all storylines, positions, communication acts, interaction types, and authors

Appendix 2 overview of the articles identified, 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

Drageset, O.G., Ell, F. Using positioning theory to think about mathematics classroom talk. Educ Stud Math (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10295-0

Download citation

Accepted : 23 December 2023

Published : 20 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10295-0

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

  • Positioning theory
  • Interactions
  • Discourse patterns
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Advertisement

Supported by

How Robots Learned to Write So Well

“Literary Theory for Robots,” by Dennis Yi Tenen, a software engineer turned literature professor, shows how the “intelligence” in artificial intelligence is irreducibly human.

  • Share full article

This illustration features a pixelated hand placing a pair of red lips within a drawing of electronic circuitry on which there is already a pair of big brown eyes — a metaphor for the assignment of human attributes to a computer.

By Jennifer Szalai

  • Apple Books
  • Barnes and Noble
  • Books-A-Million

When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

LITERARY THEORY FOR ROBOTS: How Computers Learned to Write , by Dennis Yi Tenen

In “Literary Theory for Robots,” Dennis Yi Tenen’s playful new book on artificial intelligence and how computers learned to write, one of his most potent examples arrives in the form of a tiny mistake.

Tenen draws links between modern-day chatbots, pulp-fiction plot generators, old-fashioned dictionaries and medieval prophecy wheels. Both the utopians ( the robots will save us! ) and the doomsayers ( the robots will destroy us! ) have it wrong, he argues. There will always be an irreducibly human aspect to language and learning — a crucial core of meaning that emerges not just from syntax but from experience. Without it, you just get the chatter of parrots, who, “according to Descartes in his ‘Mediations,’ merely repeated without understanding,” Tenen writes.

But Descartes didn’t write “Mediations”; Tenen must have meant “Meditations” — the missing “t” will slip past any spell-checker program because both words are perfectly legitimate. (The book’s index lists the title correctly.) This minuscule typo doesn’t have any bearing on Tenen’s argument; if anything, it bolsters the case he wants to make. Machines are becoming stronger and smarter, but we still decide what is meaningful. A human wrote this book. And, despite the robots in the title, it is meant for other humans to read.

Tenen, now a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia, used to be a software engineer at Microsoft. He puts his disparate skill sets to use in a book that is surprising, funny and resolutely unintimidating, even as he smuggles in big questions about art, intelligence, technology and the future of labor. I suspect that the book’s small size — it’s under 160 pages — is part of the point. People are not indefatigable machines, relentlessly ingesting enormous volumes on enormous subjects. Tenen has figured out how to present a web of complex ideas at human scale.

To that end, he tells stories, starting with the 14th-century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun, who chronicled the use of the prophecy wheel, and ending with a chapter on the 20th-century Russian mathematician Andrey Markov, whose probability analysis of letter sequences in Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” constituted a fundamental building block of generative A.I. (Regular players of the game Wordle intuit such probabilities all the time.) Tenen writes knowledgeably about the technological roadblocks that stymied earlier models of computer learning, before “the brute force required to process most everything published in the English language” was so readily available. He urges us to be alert. He also urges us not to panic.

“Intelligence evolves on a spectrum, ranging from ‘partial assistance’ to ‘full automation’,” Tenen writes, offering the example of an automatic transmission in a car. Driving an automatic in the 1960s must have been mind-blowing for people used to manual transmissions. An automatic worked by automating key decisions, downshifting on hills and sending less power to the wheels in bad weather. It removed the option to stall or grind your gears. It was “artificially intelligent,” even if nobody used those words for it. American drivers now take its magic for granted. It has been demystified.

As for the current debates over A.I., this book tries to demystify those, too. Instead of talking about A.I. as if it has a mind of its own, Tenen talks about the collaborative work that went into building it. “We employ a cognitive-linguistic shortcut by condensing and ascribing agency to the technology itself,” he writes. “It’s easier to say, ‘ The phone completes my messages’ instead of ‘ The engineering team behind the autocompletion tool writing software based on the following dozen research papers completes my messages.’”

Our common metaphors for A.I. are therefore misleading. Tenen says we ought to be “suspicious of all metaphors ascribing familiar human cognitive aspects to artificial intelligence. The machine thinks, talks, explains, understands, writes, feels, etc., by analogy only.” This is why so much of his book revolves around questions of language. Language allows us to communicate and to understand one another. But it also allows for deception and misunderstanding. Tenen wants us to “unwind the metaphor” of A.I. — a proposal that might look like an English professor’s hobbyhorse on first glance but turns out to be entirely apt. A metaphor that is too general can make us complacent. Our sense of possibility is shaped by the metaphors we choose.

Text generators, whether in the form of 21st-century chatbots or 14th-century “letter magic,” have always faced the problem of “external validation,” Tenen writes. “Procedurally generated text can make grammatical sense, but might not always make sense sense.” Take Noam Chomsky’s famous example: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Anyone who has lived in the physical world would know that this syntactically flawless sentence is nonsense. Tenen keeps referring to the importance of “lived experience” because that describes our condition.

Tenen doesn’t deny that A.I. threatens much of what we call “knowledge work.” Nor does he deny that automating something also devalues it. But he also puts this another way: “Automation reduces barriers of entry, increasing the supply of goods for all.” Learning is cheaper now, and so having a big vocabulary or repertoire of memorized facts is no longer the competitive advantage it once was. “Today’s scribes and scholars can challenge themselves with more creative tasks,” he suggests. “Tasks that are tedious have been outsourced to the machines.”

I take his point, even if this prospect still seems bad to me, with an ever-shrinking sliver of the populace getting to do challenging, creative work while a once-flourishing ecosystem collapses. But Tenen also argues that we, as social beings, have agency, if only we allow ourselves to accept the responsibility that comes with it. “Individual A.I.s do pose real danger, given the ability to aggregate power in the pursuit of a goal,” he concedes. But the real danger comes “from our inability to hold technology makers responsible for their actions.” What if someone wanted to strap a jet engine to a car and see how it fared on the streets of a crowded city? Tenen says the answer is obvious: “Don’t do that.”

Why “Don’t do that” can seem easy in one realm but not another requires more thinking, more precision, more scrutiny — all qualities that fall by the wayside when we cower before A.I., treating the technology like a singular god instead of a multiplicity of machines built by a multiplicity of humans. Tenen leads by example, bringing his human intelligence to bear on artificial intelligence. By thinking through our collective habits of thought, he offers a meditation all his own.

LITERARY THEORY FOR ROBOTS : How Computers Learned to Write | By Dennis Yi Tenen | Norton | 158 pp. | $22

Jennifer Szalai is the nonfiction book critic for The Times. More about Jennifer Szalai

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

Even in countries where homophobia is pervasive and same-sex relationships are illegal, queer African writers are pushing boundaries , finding an audience and winning awards.

In Lucy Sante’s new memoir, “I Heard Her Call My Name,” the author reflects on her life and embarking on a gender transition  in her late 60s.

For people of all ages in Pasadena, Calif., Vroman’s Bookstore, founded in 1894, has been a mainstay in a world of rapid change. Now, its longtime owner says he’s ready to turn over the reins .

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Theoretical Literature Review: Tracing the Life Cycle of a Theory

    what is theory in literature review

  2. Literature Review vs Theoretical Framework

    what is theory in literature review

  3. PPT

    what is theory in literature review

  4. 15 Literature Review Examples (2024)

    what is theory in literature review

  5. How to Conduct a Systematic Review

    what is theory in literature review

  6. PPT

    what is theory in literature review

VIDEO

  1. What is a Literature Review? Explained with a REAL Example

  2. How to Write a Literature Review

  3. Literature Review 101: SIMPLE Explainer With Examples (+ FREE Template)

  4. Literature Review

  5. How to Write a Literature Review: 3 Minute Step-by-step Guide

  6. How To Write A Literature Review In 3 Simple Steps (FREE Template With Examples)

COMMENTS

  1. The Use of Theories in Literature Review

    Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study.

  2. How to Write a Literature Review

    A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic. There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

  3. Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks

    Abstract 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.

  4. What is the difference between a literature review and a theoretical

    While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You'll likely need both in your dissertation. Frequently asked questions: Dissertation How long is a dissertation? What is a dissertation prospectus? Who typically writes a thesis?

  5. Literature review as a research methodology: An ...

    In addition, a literature review is an excellent way of synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in which more research is needed, which is a critical component of creating theoretical frameworks and building conceptual models.

  6. Literature Review Research

    Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, ... theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to ...

  7. What is a Literature Review?

    A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources.

  8. What Is a Theoretical Framework?

    A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work. Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions.

  9. Literature Reviews

    The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master's and doctoral levels have various definitions.

  10. Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

    A literature review is defined as "a critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." (The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison 2022) A literature review is an integrated analysis, not just a summary of scholarly work on a specific topic.

  11. Writing a Literature Review

    A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis).The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays).

  12. Review of theories and pathways: background and methods

    The purpose of the review of theory is to provide an overview of the theoretical background and of relevant empirical data for the project as a whole. As set out below, a wide range of different fields, types of data and theoretical perspectives are covered in the review of theory.

  13. PDF What is a Literature Review?

    the literature review journey, this chapter is designed to help you understand the process and skills involved in navigating the literature and reaching your ultimate destination. Learning Outcomes By the end of this chapter you should be able to: • explain what a literature review is.

  14. Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide

    What are the goals of creating a Literature Review? A literature could be written to accomplish different aims: To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory; To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic; Identify a problem in a field of research ; Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature ...

  15. Literature Reviews

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

  16. 5. The Literature Review

    Definition A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

  17. Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

  18. The application of theory in literature reviews

    Abstract Purpose Literature review articles have become a frequently applied research approach in operations and supply chain management (SCM). The purpose of this paper aims to elaborate on four approaches for developing or employing theory in systematic literature reviews (SLRs). Design/methodology/approach

  19. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

    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 ...

  20. 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 ...

  21. Getting started

    What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...

  22. What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical

    1. What is Literature Review - Definition, Features 2. What is Theoretical Framework - Definition, Features 3. Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework - Comparison of Key Differences Key Terms Literature Review, Research, Theoretical Framework What is a Literature Review

  23. What is a Literature Review

    2) Analyze the literature (Your role is to evaluate what you've read.)-Usually a review covers the last 5 years of literature on a topic-Skim the articles to get an idea of the purpose and content.-Group the articles into categories and sub-categories-Take notes: Define key terms, key statistics, identify useful quotes

  24. How to Undertake an Impactful Literature Review: Understanding Review

    The literature review is, thus, an important part of academic study which enables the reader to (a) understand the current state-of-the-art from previous research, (b) ... for studying social media influence by reporting the literature based on theory, context, characteristics and methodology. This brings in a better structure and objectivity ...

  25. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews

    Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generat...

  26. Using positioning theory to think about mathematics ...

    This article aims to connect two research areas by using positioning theory to review the literature on talk moves, teacher interactions, and discourse patterns in mathematics education. First, a conceptual review identified 44 articles with 94 concepts describing interactions and discourse patterns. Similar concepts were grouped in a process that developed five categories, each describing one ...

  27. Book Review: 'Literary Theory for Robots,' by Dennis Yi Tenen

    "Literary Theory for Robots," by Dennis Yi Tenen, a software engineer turned literature professor, shows how the "intelligence" in artificial intelligence is irreducibly human.

  28. Model-free adaptive control for unmanned surface vessels: a literature

    Model-Free Adaptive Control (MFAC) is a control strategy that eliminates the need for prior knowledge of the system model by leveraging online data to learn the system dynamics and design controllers. This paper offers a comprehensive exploration of the significance of control theory in unmanned surface vessels (USVs), with a particular focus ...