conceptual literature vs research literature

• Licensing Information
• Contributing Authors
• 1. Let's Get Writing
• 1.1. The 5 C Guidelines
• 1.2. How to Write Articles Quickly and Expertly
• 2. Critical Thinking
• 2.1. Critical Thinking in the Classroom
• 2.2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
• 2.3. Good Logic
• 3. APA for Novices
• 3.1. Hoops and Barriers
• 3.2. Crafts and Puzzles
• 3.3. The Papers Trail
• 3.4. The Fine Art of Sentencing
• 3.5. Hurdles
• 3.6. Small Stressors
• 4. Literature Reviews
• 4.1. Introduction to Literature Reviews
• 4.2. What is a Literature Review?
• 4.3. How to Get Started
• 4.4. Where to Find the Literature
• 4.5. Evaluating Sources
• 4.6. Documenting Sources
• 4.7. Synthesizing Sources
• 4.8. Writing the Literature Review
• 4.9. Concluding Thoughts on Literature Reviews
• Technical Tutorials
• Constructing an Annotated Bibliography with Zotero
• Extracting Resource Metadata from a Citation List with AnyStyle.io
• Exporting Zotero to a Spreadsheet
• APA 7 Job Aid
• Index of Topics
• Translations

Introduction to Literature Reviews

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process;
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews.

What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews do the following:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] )

In the context of a research study, the purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features that all share.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology, the writer of a conceptual literature review is looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to the study or topic and outline a relationship between them, including relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review ( Dohn, 2010 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Exploratory

The purpose of an exploratory review is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a more comprehensive one (e.g., synoptic).

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• University research management: An exploratory literature review ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This type of literature review is limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature ( Stainton, 1992 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Integrative

An integrative review critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. As such, it reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews may require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005) [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] .

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Meta-analysis

A subset of a systematic review, a meta-analysis takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. As such, it integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. By gathering data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures, data can be combined and re-analyzed, providing greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991 ( Weinburgh, 1995 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Narrative/Traditional

A narrative or traditional review provides an overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus, these reviews select and synthesize relevant past research into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. This requires a sufficiently focused research question, and the process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This specific type of literature review is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

This type of review tends to be a non-systematic approach that focuses on breadth of coverage rather than depth. It utilizes a wide range of materials and may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. Thus, it aims to identify the nature and extent of research in an area by providing a preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research and may also include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

In contrast to an exploratory review, the purpose of a synoptic review is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative as it summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review ( Ghaicha, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future ( Cuttance, 1981 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed, systematic reviews are undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature, these reviews seek to produce transparent and reproducible results that report details of time frame and methods to minimize bias.  Generally, these reviews must include teams of at least 2-3 to allow for the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review [https://edtechbooks.org/-oF] “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).
• The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

An umbrella review compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. It therefore focuses on broad conditions or problems for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects, thereby allowing for recommendations for practice. For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same [https://edtechbooks.org/-xZ] ” (Thomson, 2013).

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review ( Fragknos, 2016 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

First – It’s part of the whole.

Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of a critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

Third – It’s good for your reader.

Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

So, why should you do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! [https://edtechbooks.org/-GUc] ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepting another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Ignoring contrary findings and alternative interpretations
• Providing findings that are not clearly related to one’s own study or that are too general
• Allowing insufficient time to defining best search strategies and writing
• Reporting rather than synthesizing isolated statistical results
• Choosing problematic or irrelevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relying too heavily on secondary sources
• Failing to transparently report search methods
• Summarizing rather than synthesizing articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
• to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
• to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Test Yourself

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 [https://edtechbooks.org/-EaoJ] ).

Linda Frederiksen is the Head of Access Services at Washington State University Vancouver.  She has a Master of Library Science degree from Emporia State University in Kansas. Linda is active in local, regional and national organizations, projects and initiatives advancing open educational resources and equitable access to information.

Sue F. Phelps is the Health Sciences and Outreach Services Librarian at Washington State University Vancouver. Her research interests include information literacy, accessibility of learning materials for students who use adaptive technology, diversity and equity in higher education, and evidence based practice in the health sciences

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/rapidwriting/lit_rev_intro .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize 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 thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

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.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Conceptual Vs. Empirical Research: Which Is Better?

Scientific research is often divided into two classes: conceptual research and empirical research. There used to be distinct ways of doing research and a researcher would proudly claim to be one or the other, praising his method and scorning the alternative. Today the distinction is not so clear.

What is Conceptual Research?

Conceptual research focuses on the concept or theory that explains or describes the phenomenon being studied. What causes disease? How can we describe the motions of the planets? What are the building blocks of matter? The conceptual researcher sits at his desk with pen in hand and tries to solve these problems by thinking about them. He does no experiments but may make use of observations by others, since this is the mass of data that he is trying to make sense of. Until fairly recently, conceptual research methodology was considered the most honorable form of research—it required using the brain, not the hands. Researchers such as the alchemists who did experiments were considered little better than blacksmiths—“filthy empiricists.”

What is Empirical Research?

For all of their lofty status, conceptual researchers regularly produced theories that were wrong. Aristotle taught that large cannonballs fell to earth faster than small ones, and many generations of professors repeated his teachings until Galileo proved them wrong. Galileo was an empiricist of the best sort, one who performed original experiments not merely to destroy old theories but to provide the basis for new theories. A reaction against the ivory tower theoreticians culminated in those who claimed to have no use for theory, arguing that empirical acquisition of knowledge was the only way to the truth. A pure empiricist would simply graph data and see if he got a straight line relation between variables. If so, he had a good “empirical” relationship that would make useful predictions. The theory behind the correlation was irrelevant.

The Scientific Method: A Bit of Both

The modern scientific method is really a combination of empirical and conceptual research. Using known experimental data a scientist formulates a working hypothesis to explain some aspect of nature. He then performs new experiments designed to test predictions of the theory, to support it or disprove it. Einstein is often cited as an example of a conceptual researcher, but he based his theories on experimental observations and proposed experiments, real and thought, which would test his theories. On the other hand, Edison is often considered an empiricist, the “Edisonian method” being a by-word for trial and error. But Edison appreciated the work of theorists and hired some of the best. Random screening of myriad possibilities is still valuable: pharmaceutical companies looking for new drugs do this, sometimes with great success. Personally, I tend to be a semi-empiricist. In graduate school I used the Hammett linear free-energy relation (a semi-empirical equation) to gain insight into chemical transition states. So I don’t debate on “conceptual vs. empirical research.” There is a range of possibilities between both the forms, all of which have their uses.

Excellent explanations in a simple language.

Greeting from Enago Academy! Thank you for your positive comment. We are glad to know that you found our resources useful. Your feedback is very valuable to us. Happy reading!

Thanks for this article,really helpful university of zambia

Albert Einstein did theoretical work–he had no laboratory, Put simply, through new conceptual models, he re-interpreted the findings of others and expressed them mathematically.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Beyond Spellcheck: How copyediting guarantees error-free submission

Submitting a manuscript is a complex and often an emotional experience for researchers. Whether it’s…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

How to Find the Right Journal and Fix Your Manuscript Before Submission

Selection of right journal Meets journal standards Plagiarism free manuscripts Rated from reviewer's POV

• Manuscripts & Grants

Research Aims and Objectives: The dynamic duo for successful research

Picture yourself on a road trip without a destination in mind — driving aimlessly, not…

How Academic Editors Can Enhance the Quality of Your Manuscript

Avoiding desk rejection Detecting language errors Conveying your ideas clearly Following technical requirements

Effective Data Presentation for Submission in Top-tier Journals

Importance of presenting research data effectively How to create tables and figures How to avoid…

Top 4 Guidelines for Health and Clinical Research Report

Top 10 Questions for a Complete Literature Review

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

What is conceptual literature?  

Conceptual literature refers to a type of literature that focuses on the theoretical aspects and ideas related to a specific topic or concept. It involves the examination and analysis of existing literature to develop a deeper understanding of the concept being studied. This type of literature review is commonly found in empirical articles, both qualitative and quantitative, and provides support for the development of concepts and hypotheses in research papers . Conceptual literature can also involve the exploration of relationships between different concepts by mapping them to a multidimensional space using co-occurrence data . It can address the definition and relevance of a concept, as well as its interaction with other fields such as historiography . Overall, conceptual literature plays a crucial role in expanding knowledge and understanding of various concepts in different disciplines.

Answers from top 5 papers

Citation Count

Related Questions

See what other people are reading.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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: Apr 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters & Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing & Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

The Concept of Literature: a Description and an Evaluation

Cite this chapter.

• Anders Pettersson  

80 Accesses

2 Citations

There is a long-standing discussion about the concept of literature and its definition (or abolition, or revision) among students of literature and of literary aesthetics. Though I have profited much from following these debates over the years, I have also felt a growing dissatisfaction with the premises which underlie the arguments both of the concept’s advocates and of its critics.

• Nobel Prize
• Literary Work
• Literary Theory
• Literary History
• Ordinary Language

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2005 Stein Haugom Olsen and Anders Pettersson

About this chapter

Pettersson, A. (2005). The Concept of Literature: a Description and an Evaluation. In: Olsen, S.H., Pettersson, A. (eds) From Text to Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524170_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524170_6

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-54391-5

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-52417-0

eBook Packages : Palgrave Religion & Philosophy Collection Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home » Education » Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research

Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research

The main difference between conceptual and empirical research is that conceptual research involves abstract ideas and concepts, whereas empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments and verifiable evidence.

Conceptual research and empirical research are two ways of doing scientific research. These are two opposing types of research frameworks since conceptual research doesn’t involve any experiments and empirical research does.

Key Areas Covered

1. What is Empirical Research     – Definition, Characteristics, Uses 2. What is Empirical Research     – Definition, Characteristics, Uses 3. What is the Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research     – Comparison of Key Differences

Conceptual Research, Empirical Research, Research

What is Conceptual Research?

Conceptual research is a type of research that is generally related to abstract ideas or concepts. It doesn’t particularly involve any practical experimentation. However, this type of research typically involves observing and analyzing information already present on a given topic. Philosophical research is a generally good example for conceptual research.

Conceptual research can be used to solve real-world problems. Conceptual frameworks, which are analytical tools researchers use in their studies, are based on conceptual research. Furthermore, these frameworks help to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas researchers need for research purposes.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

In simple words, a conceptual framework is the researcher’s synthesis of the literature (previous research studies) on how to explain a particular phenomenon. It explains the actions required in the course of the study based on the researcher’s observations on the subject of research as well as the knowledge gathered from previous studies.

What is Empirical Research?

Empirical research is basically a research that uses empirical evidence. Empirical evidence refers to evidence verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Thus, empirical research is research studies with conclusions based on empirical evidence. Moreover, empirical research studies are observable and measurable.

Empirical evidence can be gathered through qualitative research studies or quantitative research studies . Qualitative research methods gather non-numerical or non-statistical data. Thus, this type of studies helps to understand the underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations behind something as well as to uncover trends in thought and opinions. Quantitative research studies, on the other hand, gather statistical data. These have the ability to quantify behaviours, opinions, or other defined variables. Moreover, a researcher can even use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to find answers to his research questions .

Figure 2: Empirical Research Cycle

A.D. de Groot, a famous psychologist, came up with a cycle (figure 2) to explain the process of the empirical research process. Moreover, this cycle has five steps, each as important as the other. These steps include observation, induction, deduction, testing and evaluation.

Conceptual research is a type of research that is generally related to abstract ideas or concepts whereas empirical research is any research study where conclusions of the study are drawn from evidence verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Conceptual research involves abstract idea and concepts; however, it doesn’t involve any practical experiments. Empirical research, on the other hand, involves phenomena that are observable and measurable.

Type of Studies

Philosophical research studies are examples of conceptual research studies, whereas empirical research includes both quantitative and qualitative studies.

The main difference between conceptual and empirical research is that conceptual research involves abstract ideas and concepts whereas empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments and verifiable evidence.

1.“Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples.” QuestionPro, 14 Dec. 2018, Available here . 2. “Empirical Research.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Sept. 2019, Available here . 3.“Conceptual Research: Definition, Framework, Example and Advantages.” QuestionPro, 18 Sept. 2018, Available here. 4. Patrick. “Conceptual Framework: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Make One.” SimplyEducate.Me, 4 Dec. 2018, Available here .

Image Courtesy:

1. “APM Conceptual Framework” By LarryDragich – Created for a Technical Management Counsel meeting Previously published: First published in APM Digest in March (CC BY-SA 3.0) via Commons Wikimedia 2. “Empirical Cycle” By Empirical_Cycle.png: TesseUndDaanderivative work: Beao (talk) – Empirical_Cycle.png (CC BY 3.0) via Commons Wikimedia

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.

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.

Davies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.27.)

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study.

Chapter 3 mapping the conceptual literature.

• Introduction

An early part of the initial desk research for this project involved a ‘review of reviews’ in the area of knowledge mobilisation. Our aim here was to identify and understand the main knowledge mobilisation models, theories and frameworks in health care, education and social care. Further, we also wanted to develop some accounts of the conceptual thinking that lay behind these framings. The search strategy used to uncover and select the relevant reviews is described in Chapter 2 , and led to 71 reviews being included. These are listed in Appendix 2 .

In reviewing this substantial set of reviews our aims were pragmatic and twofold. Our first was to develop a set of understandings that could be used for analytic purposes in exploring the data gathered in other parts of the study (websites review; depth interviews; web-based survey). This related to RQ 2a, which explores the logic(s) underpinning agency activities:

What models, theories or frameworks have been used explicitly – or can be discerned as implicit underpinning logics – in the development of the knowledge mobilisation strategies reviewed?

The second goal of the review work was to develop a mapping that might have utility to the agencies as they sought to find ways into the complex and growing conceptual literature, something that might be useful to them in developing their knowledge mobilisation strategies. This second goal will receive further development as part of our ongoing collaboration with agencies.

Having uncovered the 71 reviews, we used an inductive, iterative, dialogical process within the research team (and subsequently, with the advice of the advisory board) to distil the key domains (see Chapter 2 ). As the domains surfaced and were fleshed out (six in total), repeated reading of the reviews was used to provide an account of issues within each of the domains. This chapter provides an integrated account of these domains alongside a visual map.

Understanding the academic literature that links knowledge, knowing and change is a challenging and boundary-less task: relevant literatures sit in a wide range of disciplines (psychology, sociology, organisation studies, political science and more) and ideas appear and reappear within and across these disciplines in sometimes chaotic fashion. In making sense of these conceptualisations it is abundantly clear that debates have not proceeded in a wholly linear, cumulative or convergent manner. While there are some areas of widespread agreement, there are also areas where contestation, problematisation and conflict are evident.

In developing this review we have been guided by a number of framing choices:

• We have concentrated on that literature which has itself attempted to review the field rather than seeking to collate and synthesise across primary work whether theoretical or empirical (i.e. this is a review of reviews).
• We have focused on reviews in the three key areas of application of health care, social care and education.
• We have sought to review work that specifically addresses the creation, collation, communication, implementation and impact of research-based knowledge (albeit that such knowledge is often seen in the context of other forms of knowledge/knowing).
• We have provided an account that speaks to the action-oriented concerns of the agencies at the heart of this study (i.e. funders, major research producers and intermediaries); that is, we have kept in focus the agencies’ needs to develop practical knowledge mobilisation strategies and portfolios of specific activities.
• We have sought to lay out the key fault-lines of debate rather than forcing order and convergence where the literature does not readily support this.

Reading across these reviews we first identify a wide range of models, theories and frameworks that have been used to describe and inform knowledge mobilisation. Looking at these models and the empirical work that has been carried out to explore and (occasionally) evaluate them, we can discern a number of insights for the effectiveness of particular approaches. We then read across these models and the wider conceptual literature to create a conceptual map that surfaces key issues, debates and conceptualisations. These are discussed under the six domains that emerged inductively from the set of reviews (see account in Chapter 2 ). Finally, we note the limited literature that has explored the roles that the public and service users can play in mobilising knowledge.

• Models, theories and frameworks, and associated evaluative work

The review papers document a bewildering variety of models, theories and frameworks. Even within individual review papers, 60 or more distinct models are sometimes considered (e.g. Ward et al. ; 19 Graham et al. 1 ), but the actual set included varied significantly between review papers. From this review of reviews, we extracted the key models that seemed to have potential for use in knowledge mobilisation work in the kinds of agencies that we were considering. Additional checking of this list with our advisory board and other knowledgeable experts in the field reassured us that we were capturing the main models of interest. The set of distinct models and frameworks are listed in Box 1 and are elaborated on further in Table 3 . These formed the basis of some of our discussions with agencies (see Chapter 4 ) and the development of the web-based survey (see Chapter 5 ).

Models and frameworks (listed in chronological order of publication) The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Model for Improvement (Langley 1996).

Synthesis of the main knowledge mobilisation models and frameworks from the review of reviews

• Major models, and the testing of these

The models listed are set out in chronological order of publication (see Box 1 ). They have diverse underpinnings and assumptions, and draw on distinct disciplinary concepts from psychology, sociology, organisation development, implementation science and political science. They vary in the extent to which they draw narrow or more inclusive boundaries around what counts as knowledge, and some differ in their primary areas of application (e.g. being either policy or practice focused).

Many of these models are primarily descriptive of the processes around knowledge creation/flow/application, and they tend not to be explicit about the necessary configurations, actions or resources that will underpin successful knowledge mobilisation. That is, they do not readily provide prescriptions for knowledge mobilisation strategy or operations. 80 In addition, with a few notable exceptions, the models have received only limited empirical testing. We briefly discuss here five of the frameworks from Box 1 that have been tested empirically to some degree: the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) Framework; 52 the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework; 1 the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU); 51 the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 65 and the conceptual framework of the knowledge transfer process developed by Ward et al . 19

The PARIHS Framework does draw attention to important components of research use (such as the availability of credible evidence; or the presence of effective facilitation) but again, like other models, it is less specific about how these concerns translate into planned actions. It has, however, been subject to more evaluation than most of the frameworks we considered. A paper by Helfrich et al . 81 reviews 24 articles on this framework (six core concept articles from the original PARIHS authors and 18 empirical articles). The authors note that no studies used the framework prospectively to design implementation studies and suggest that this is an important omission in relation to this and other frameworks. The papers reviewed suggested a number of improvements to the framework, for example that the subelements could be specified more clearly. A paper published the following year 82 builds on the critical synthesis of the literature 81 and suggests revisions and a set of tools that researchers can use to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively.

A later research paper 83 provides a rare example of the prospective use of the framework: the framework was prospectively applied to guide decisions about intervention design, data collection and analysis processes in an implementation trial focused on reducing perioperative fasting times. In evaluating this use of the framework, the authors concluded that, although individuals are implicitly included in the three elements of evidence, context and facilitation, the role of individuals needed to be explicitly added to the framework. They noted that the past decade has seen a shift away from a focus on individuals to a greater focus on context and how that affects implementation, but suggest that this risks downplaying the many individual level factors (e.g. beliefs, attitudes, values, motivations, etc.) that can have an impact on the behaviour of individuals and groups/teams. In their study using the framework, they found that the interaction between the three elements of evidence, context and facilitation was influenced by both individual and team behaviour.

The KTA framework developed by Graham et al. 1 is one of the few that has been evaluated as a model for planning and evaluating knowledge mobilisation strategies. For example, published studies describe the use of the model for the development and implementation of interprofessional protocols 84 for the development of a children’s health participatory action project 85 and for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a strategy for mentorship in academic medicine. 86 However, although these studies pointed to some benefits from using the KTA framework, its theoretical basis (planned action theories) has not been separately evaluated for its adequacy as an explanation of underlying mechanisms, and so the model as a whole – like most others – remains not yet fully substantiated. 19

The OMRU has featured in some empirical studies. For example, a comparative case study of technology adoption in hospital settings 87 used parts of OMRU (characteristics of innovation, characteristics of potential adopters, characteristics of environment) to guide question and topic selection for interviews and for data coding. The study explored discrepancies between awareness and adoption, highlighting the role of champions, resources, ways of reaching consensus and willingness to take risks, but did not explicitly attempt to validate OMRU. A study the following year 85 initially tried to use OMRU in a children’s health participatory action project but found it to be difficult to apply in participatory action research and in a community setting.

Another of the frameworks that has been empirically tested is the CFIR, 65 which was tested using a post hoc, deductive analysis of 11 narrative accounts of innovation in health-care services and practice in England. 88 The authors suggest that their study may be one of the first evaluations of the framework. They developed a matrix comprising the five domains and 39 constructs of the framework to examine the coherence of the terminology, to compare results across contexts and to identify new theoretical developments. They comment that some concepts (in particular leadership) seem underdeveloped in the framework and that important elements are missing from it, including scale-up, spread and sustainability, and the engagement of patients and members of the public.

Finally, the conceptual framework of the knowledge transfer process developed by Ward et al. 19 from 28 different models of the knowledge transfer process was evaluated in use by the authors through a study of a knowledge broker intervention in a large UK mental health service. 37 The knowledge broker intervention included three types of knowledge exchange activity: information management; linkage and exchange; and capacity building. Data from the fieldwork were then used to revise the original framework. Revisions to the framework included the following: tighter definitions of each of the five components; noting that all five components occurred on multiple occasions within each team and that at times multiple components were relevant simultaneously; placing greater emphasis on actively exploring the influence of contextual characteristics; and noting that an exclusive focus on one type of knowledge use (e.g. instrumental only and not instrumental and political) seemed to constrain the spread and sustainability of knowledge. A revised diagram of the framework was created illustrating the point that the five components could occur separately or simultaneously and not in any set order and illustrating some of the possible connections between them.

Looking across these empirical studies, we can see that they provide useful accounts of these five models in use. However, none of the models have been comprehensively evaluated, and the majority of the other models in the literature have been subject to even less empirical testing. Indeed, given their descriptive rather than prescriptive orientations, verification and validation may be more realistic prospects than evaluative testing.

• The challenges of evaluation

Models apart, what of the evaluative work around specific actions, interventions and mechanism for knowledge mobilisation? One observation that runs deep throughout the literature is that measuring knowledge use 89 and assessing what interventions promote that knowledge use are in their infancy. 13 There are only a small number of implementation studies of specific knowledge mobilisation mechanisms, and many of these are of poor quality. 18 For example, many studies fail to define what they mean by research use or to define outcome measures clearly; 13 the validity and reliability of the outcome measures are rarely reported; 90 subjective measures of research use are commonly used; and many studies are retrospective, thus risking recall bias and incomplete data. There is, therefore, a lack of practical guidance or robust empirical evidence on many of the likely components of knowledge mobilisation strategies. 18 , 21 , 91 , 92

Box 2 lists a number of areas where reviews have established that there is little in the way of an empirical support base; Box 3 draws on the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group to list some types of intervention aimed specifically at professional behaviour change for which there is a growing body of evidence; and Table 24 in Appendix 8 augments these by reading across the major reviews to summarise the key observations made on evaluating knowledge mobilisation work.

Areas where the evidence base is currently limited Use of systematic reviews in policy-making.

Interventions aimed at professional behaviour change which EPOC systematic reviews suggest have some effect Printed educational materials.

Despite such evidence gaps, many knowledge mobilisation interventions are promoted even when they have not yet been properly evaluated. 10 , 99 Indeed, the literature often promotes singular techniques relating to linear processes despite the emerging agreement about the limitations of such models in knowledge mobilisation. 21 Even where systematic reviews are available that point to discrete interventions aimed at professional behaviour change that do appear to have some effect (see Box 3 ), the key role played by the interaction between the intervention provider and the context means that it may be difficult to use interventions with confidence in other contexts: 100

Externally valid evidence pertaining to the efficacy of specific knowledge exchange strategies is unlikely to be forthcoming . . . the best available . . . advice for someone designing a knowledge exchange intervention will probably be found in empirically sound conceptual frameworks that can be used as field guides to decode the context. Contandriopoulos et al ., p. 468 21

Thus, a sound conceptual understanding of the various issues at play – and their dynamic interaction with context – becomes central to the design of effective knowledge mobilisation strategies. In the end, this may be more important than evaluative efforts in the knowledge mobilisation field that seek to isolate the impact of discrete interventions in an attempt to create a menu of ‘proven’ approaches. What may be as important is equipping agencies with the resources that enable them to conduct robust evaluations-in-context of knowledge mobilisation activities that are designed according to the ‘best available’ evidence. Our review of the literature identified some of the key papers and reports that can help agencies to consider how to measure research use and evaluate the impact of their knowledge mobilisation activities, and these are listed and summarised in Table 4 .

Selected key papers and reports on measuring research use and evaluating impact

In sum, then, despite the lack of focused and cumulative evaluation work (and the difficulties associated with so doing), a collective reading of what the reviews say about the models and about the wider conceptual literature does allow some insights to be gathered which can inform the development of knowledge mobilisation approaches by agencies. These form the basis of the conceptual mapping, to which we now turn.

• Six domains of interest

Discussion within the team of the key issues emerging from the reviews, and iterative attempts to group these, led to the emergence of six broad domains (or conceptual groupings). These were:

• purpose(s) and goals (implicit or explicit)
• knowledge (of all kinds)
• connections and configurations (between people; between organisations)
• people, roles and positions
• actions and resources available and
• context of operation (different in kind from the other five domains, but influential and interactive with each of them).

A simple schematic representation of these domains is shown in Figure 1 .

The conceptual map.

Each of these six domains is now discussed to mark out the contours of debate covered in the reviews within the purview of that domain. We present these domains as practical ways into a complex and sprawling literature rather than as definitive accounts of the complexities covered. As part of our ongoing work with knowledge mobilisation agencies, we will be considering what tools they would find useful to enable them to explore these domains and to build on these insights in developing their knowledge mobilisation strategies.

Purpose(s) and goals

In developing knowledge mobilisation strategies, a central concern is to what end is the knowledge being mobilised? Agencies of different kinds will have different views on what they are trying to achieve (and how), and such concerns are central in the literature. While clearly closely related to the second domain (knowledge types and sources) and the fifth domain (actions and resources), a consideration of the purpose and goals of a knowledge mobilising agency can be informed by a wide array of literature.

There are multiple definitions of knowledge use in the literature, with no one definition dominating. 21 Underneath some of these disputes is a concern to tease out the extent to which research-based information is dominant in the aims of knowledge mobilisation efforts. That is, do we wish to see evidence- based actions, evidence- informed actions or just activities that are evidence- congruent or evidence- aware ? The centrality or otherwise of research is a key consideration for agencies, then, and this is an issue picked up further when we consider types of knowledge.

Given a central and somewhat privileged position for research-based knowledge, one common and recurring typology 55 , 90 , 113 suggests that there are three main types of research use: instrumental, conceptual and symbolic.

• Instrumental/direct use: applying research findings in specific and direct ways to influence decision choices.
• Conceptual/indirect use: using research results for changing understanding or attitudes, including introducing new conceptual categories, terminology or theories (sometimes called ‘enlightenment’ uses). 114
• Symbolic/political/persuasive use: using research findings to legitimise and maintain predetermined positions, including the ‘tactical use’ of research, for example justifying inaction while awaiting further study.

These different types of use may be affected by many different factors. For example, direct use is associated with well-defined decision-taking; conceptual use may be longer term and more percolative in style; and symbolic use may be closely associated with political argument and the use of mass media. It is likely, however, that all three will be seen simultaneously in some settings (e.g. in government agencies).

Categorisations such as that above can be further refined by additional analysis within each category. For example, instrumental use may be concerned with decisions that impact on professional processes, individual patient outcomes or aggregate economic outcomes, 115 and each of these can become targets or goals of agency activities. An alternative view 55 might look for impacts on knowledge-use processes (such as knowledge being seen, discussed and cited), intermediate outcomes (such as key actors’ awareness and attitudes) and decision outcomes (evidence-supported change). Combinations and hybrids of these typologies of use and impact are, of course, possible, and a consideration of these may help to sharpen agencies’ strategic goals.

The categorisations above are related to, and have some overlap with, the influential typology produced earlier by Weiss. 114 Although based on seven ‘meanings’ of research use, these models could also be interpreted as types of use in themselves. While Weiss’ typology emerged from empirical work on policy-makers, it has also influenced thinking on research use in practice contexts. 15

Weiss argued that there were seven different categories in the way that research-based knowledge was used (adapted and extended from the original):

• Knowledge driven: where research produces knowledge that might be relevant to public policy decisions. This is closely aligned with the direct and instrumental use noted above (and is central to strategies of research ‘push’) but can also encompass more conceptual uses of research where the knowledge shared is more theoretical or conceptual in nature.
• Problem-solving: where research is sought out that can provide empirical evidence to help solve contemporary policy problems. This again is most often associated with an instrumental approach (and with notions of research ‘pull’), but can also encompass some conceptual rethinking.
• Interactive: those engaged in policy or practice seek information from a variety of sources to help make sense of their problems and develop solutions; associated with ‘linkage and exchange’ approaches to knowledge mobilisation; may encompass both direct and indirect uses of research.
• Political/symbolic: policy-makers and others search for knowledge to help justify their positions, and so research-based information becomes ammunition for whichever side finds it most useful. Intermediary agencies with well-defined value sets may seek to exploit such opportunities.
• Tactical: where those who could be (and perhaps should be) research users fund or require new research to avoid taking action. Funders and research producers may each see opportunities here for longer-term gains in research-based knowledge.
• Enlightenment: where research has gradual influence over time in shaping conceptualisations of the issues and framings of the policy agenda. Recognition of these slower percolative processes may lead agencies into planning for the longer term by focusing on social processes.
• Societal: where policy interest, public concern and professional interests are meshed and stimulated by new research findings. Such a broader view enlarges the scope of agencies to encompass much broader sets of stakeholders.

Other commentators have sought to expose and critique the limited areas of application for research-based knowledge. Drawing on Habermas’ framework of ‘knowledge-constitutive interests’, Murphy and Fafard 97 define three types of knowledge use:

• instrumental, that is, problem-solving (using research to make decisions)
• hermeneutic, that is, explanatory (facilitating greater understanding of the social world)
• emancipatory, that is, equity-seeking (critically analysing institutional forces as a means of advancing social justice).

While having overlaps with other categorisations of use, the authors here suggest that most conventional knowledge mobilisation approaches focus on instrumental, problem-solving use. They suggest that social research has, or should have, other goals that are aimed at hermeneutic and emancipatory objectives. Such a reading brings to the fore political considerations whether an agency seeks to work with the grain of existing policy and practice presumptions, or to challenge these from a values-based position. 15 , 29 , 116

Moving into more practice-based models of research use, Walter et al. 60 propose three models. These are described as inductively derived archetypes, and actual practices often combine more than one model:

• The research-based practitioner model of research use: in this model it is largely the responsibility of the individual practitioner to keep abreast of research and ensure that it is used to inform their practice.
• The embedded research model of research use: in this model research use is largely achieved by embedding research in the systems and processes of practice (e.g. via standards, policies, procedures and tools).
• The organisational excellence model of research use: in this model, the key to successful research use largely rests with the leadership, management and organisational arrangements of service delivery organisations and with their promotion of a ‘research minded’ organisational culture.

The models are not seen as prescriptions for action but may be useful at different times and in different service settings. 117 Understanding of these archetypes of use may help agencies direct activities supporting the uptake of research in practice.

So, for agencies developing knowledge mobilisation work, it may be important to consider the types of ‘use’ they are aiming to influence and to what end. Such considerations do not stand alone, but are interconnected with the other domains mapped in Figure 1 , most especially that concerned with understanding the nature of knowledge and the role played by research within that.

Although at first sight it might seem obvious what knowledge mobilising agencies are seeking to mobilise – that is, research-based knowledge – in fact the reviews we explored reveal considerable complexity and nuance to the nature of that knowledge. Both descriptive and prescriptive models see unpacking what is meant by knowledge as a central concern. For example, one well-known framework 55 sets out five questions for research organisations to consider in relation to knowledge mobilisation. The first question in this framework concerns what should be translated, transferred or exchanged: the knowledge of knowledge mobilisation.

There is no clear dominant definition of knowledge in the literature. 21 The different philosophical paradigms on which the knowledge mobilisation models draw (explicitly or implicitly) make different assumptions about the nature of knowledge. For example, positivism assumes that knowledge can be uncovered and expressed in generalisable laws, constructivism holds that knowledge is socially constructed and that there are multiple truths, and critical theory analyses the relationship between knowledge and power.

A range of types of knowledge are identified in the literature, and these can be grouped in various ways. For example, types of knowledge can be grouped according to the source: does the knowledge arise from structured data gathering (empirical knowledge), from practical experience (experiential knowledge) or from abstract discourse and debate (theoretical knowledge)? Another grouping in the knowledge mobilisation literature contrasts explicit knowledge (such as can be set down in guidelines) and the tacit knowledge held by individuals and groups. 118 Tacit knowledge may be used to inform decisions in the practice setting but may not be susceptible to defining and describing explicitly. Amalgamations of explicit and tacit knowledge in clinical contexts have been referred to as ‘mindlines’. 57

One theory of knowledge creation 119 holds that there is a close relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge. It suggests that new knowledge is created most rapidly when conversion between different forms of knowledge occurs continually (e.g. from tacit to explicit and from explicit to tacit). Given this, Oborn et al. 30 suggest that the negotiation and exchange of tacit knowledge in practice settings has been largely overlooked by knowledge mobilisation researchers so far. A related categorisation, drawing on work by Aristotle, distinguishes between episteme (scientific knowledge), techne (craft knowledge) and phronesis (situation-specific practical wisdom and the ability to apply generic knowledge to the current case). 24

In another framing, institutional knowledge is differentiated from individual knowledge, and local knowledge from external knowledge. Such distinctions are made based on whether the knowledge arises from individual or shared experience, and whether the knowledge is created in situ or is imported from elsewhere. A further stream distinguishes between knowledge as data and knowledge as ideas, asserting that data, information and knowledge lie on a continuum and differ in the extent to which human processing and judgement are needed. 120 Such literature also considers the extent to which knowledge has been processed, synthesised, ‘recycled’, reinterpreted or adapted; and if the knowledge is specific to a particular issue and context, or whether or not it is more general. Similar notions underpin the ‘knowledge to action’ framework. 1 Here, knowledge creation is composed of three phases, each involving a greater degree of processing: knowledge enquiry (first-generation knowledge), knowledge synthesis (second-generation knowledge) and the creation of knowledge tools such as practice guidelines and algorithms (third-generation knowledge).

Methodological categorisations of research-based knowledge also abound. 121 This is not just a distinction between quantitative and qualitative findings, but there exist a variety of more-or-less hierarchical distinctions, often with implicit or explicit endorsements as to their validity. 122 , 123 More prosaically, there is debate about whether or not single studies should be disseminated at all, rather than synthesised accumulations across portfolios of work. 55 , 124

Knowledge, or knowing?

But should we even be talking of knowledge as a separate isolatable ‘thing’? If knowledge is seen as socially embedded then separating ‘it’ from its context begins to look problematic. Perhaps, instead, we need to think more of knowledge-in-context – or ‘knowledge-in-practice-in-context’, as Gabbay and le May describe ‘mindlines’. 57 Such considerations lead to a series of challenging questions: who is (or should be) involved in setting the research agenda and in deciding what issues warrant the production or collation of research-based knowledge? Who is involved in producing that knowledge and what are the power dynamics around what is defined as knowledge? 92 , 125 Who defines who are the relevant stakeholders and by what processes are they involved? Is such knowledge produced by research ‘experts’? Or is knowledge co-produced by potential users and researchers, and what are the benefits and disadvantages of this? Many of these issues link to those explored in the domains of ‘people and roles’ and ‘context’.

Several authors 21 , 30 , 56 , 57 argue strongly from empirical study that research-based knowledge does not occupy a privileged position. Instead, it sits alongside and competes with other forms of existing, structured and contextualised knowledge (e.g. professional knowledge and professional judgement). It follows, then, that there is not a direct correlation between attributes of the knowledge (e.g. the internal validity of the research-based knowledge) and the likelihood of subsequent use. 21 For example, professional consensus-based guidelines may be valued more than research-based guidelines, despite having a weaker evidence base. There is, thus, an ecology of knowledge, where research-based knowledge must compete with other ways of knowing for influence.

Taken together then, these observations have a number of implications for knowledge mobilising agencies. First, they suggest that agencies may need to develop mixed portfolios of activities that are heavily shaped by the types of knowledge under consideration. Second, actionable messages for decision-makers may more properly be seen to come from syntheses and systematic reviews rather than from single studies. 55 , 124 This would suggest that research organisations should focus their research mobilisation efforts on bodies of research-based knowledge. Third, agencies may need to consider the difference between information or data and knowledge; 126 these may require different kinds of interaction between researchers and users and hence different kinds of knowledge translation training and support. More challengingly, knowledge mobilisation agencies may need to consider how they can support the interaction and integration of different types of knowledge, including perhaps deliberative processes that seek to surface hidden assumptions and tacit knowledge.

Finally, although there may be no absolute correlation between the attributes of research-based knowledge and its subsequent use (as it competes with other forms of knowing in the local context), it is still important to consider the attributes of research that help to make it more conducive to uptake: for example, if the research-based knowledge is perceived by the potential users to be credible, accessible, relevant, based on strong evidence, legitimate and endorsed by respected opinion leaders. 93 Tailoring the format and presentation method of knowledge products to the intended users can also make the knowledge that they contain more accessible to potential users. 80 , 127

Connections and configurations

Mobilising knowledge is about making connections. Our agency-based view of activities brings to the fore the need for agencies to connect and communicate in sometimes new and innovative ways. This may mean capitalising on existing networks or building anew. The reviews we uncovered offer insights into what and how such strategies might be developed.

Much of the literature we uncovered discusses the complex institutional, professional and social environment within which knowledge is created, flows (or gets stuck) and is applied. While some of these discussions lay heavy emphasis on ‘context’ as a mediator (which we discuss later in this chapter), there is also more specific consideration of the role of specific networks of interests or the practical configurations of agencies, organisations and relationships. As such connections and configurations are amenable to planned intervention or influence by agencies, it seemed important to tease out literature preoccupations here.

A framework that is increasingly well known (and resonant with other framings) is the ‘three generations’ framework. 20 This proposes that there have been three stages or generations of thinking about knowledge to action processes: linear approaches, relationship approaches and systems approaches. The authors set out the characteristics of each of these approaches and suggest conditions under which such approaches might be more or less appropriate. While these approaches are often linked to historical developments, with ideas of progression of thinking from ‘simple’ linear models to ‘complex’ systems thinking, it may be more helpful to think of these as parallel models of the knowledge mobilisation system with contingent application and different strengths and weaknesses.

Linear models of research flow

Linear models of connectivity have dominated the literature, and such thinking can be seen underpinning many of the models and frameworks in use. The research-based practitioner model 60 and the embedded research model 60 (discussed in the ‘purpose and goals’ domain) are examples of linear models; many other models with ‘rational, linear’ assumptions can be found in the literature. 128 Sitting within the linear conception (and, to a lesser extent, within the relational view) is the ‘two communities’ perspective: the idea that there are two separate social worlds of knowledge production and knowledge application, and that there is limited interconnectivity between these. However, more expansive views of knowledge (as discussed earlier; see Knowledge ) contribute to a weakening and in some cases a demolition of such neat categorisations.

Despite being very widely used in health care and elsewhere, 20 , 128 linear models have received significant critique: they tend to see ‘knowledge’ as a transferable product; they place much emphasis on individuals and their rational cognitions; and they fail to address notions that knowledge is translated into practice in a social, collective and situated manner. 15 , 30 , 32 An additional concern is that the evaluative research around knowledge mobilisation has tended to evaluate linear approaches rather than more complex forms, 30 providing both symbolic and practical encouragement to organisations to continue to use these approaches.

Relationship models

A shift from linear approaches to more relational approaches has been observed in the health sector and generic management literatures after 2000. 16 One of the underlying premises of relationship models is that learning is a social and situated process. Relational models then tend to see knowledge mobilisation as having a political dynamic in which there is negotiation around competing meanings of ‘knowledge’ and ‘evidence’, and around issue framing and problem definitions.

In relationship models, the emphasis is on ‘linkage and exchange’, 53 suggesting a greater degree of engagement with potential users than is implied with ‘push’ or ‘pull’ approaches. 11 The degree of engagement ranges from dialogue between researchers and practitioners through to collaborative engagement in producing research evidence (co-production) and in working together to implement evidence (e.g. in action research approaches or quality collaboratives). 129 A recent study, 130 which may be the first to map the work of knowledge brokering organisations, found that the organisations carried out a wide range of brokering functions, including building partnerships, raising awareness, capacity building, implementation support and policy influence. Relational approaches emphasise ongoing, interactive processes of collaboration between research producers and research users around formulation of RQs, production of research evidence and sharing of research findings. 18 , 80 Relationship approaches draw on a range of theories, including principal–agent theory; communities of practice; social capital; organisational learning; sociocultural learning; and resource-dependence. 131 Key features of relationship approaches to knowledge mobilisation are an emphasis on accountability, reciprocity and respect for the other party’s knowledge.

A common critique of relationship approaches 32 is that many models and approaches fail to fully acknowledge the implications of conflict over what constitutes knowledge, and give insufficient attention to meaning/power negotiations. Ferlie et al. 16 suggest that postmodern accounts that emphasise power are a further stage on from relational models. A further concern is that the relationships that are possible will depend on the skill sets and personalities of those involved; many researchers may feel most confident in talking about research findings to their academic peers. Such relationships are also affected by organisational turbulence: if there is high turnover in policy or practice (or academic) settings then it will be more difficult to develop ongoing relationships. 132 Some of these issues reappear when we discuss the domain of ‘people, roles and positions’.

Systems thinking

There is no consistent use of the term ‘systems thinking’, encapsulated by Best et al. 64 as an approach that ‘recognises that relationships are shaped, embedded and organised through structures that mediate the types of interactions that occur among multiple agents with unique rhythms and dynamics, worldviews, priorities and processes, language, time scales, means of communication and expectations’ (p. 628). There is, however, increasing support for the idea that health systems need to be seen as complex assemblages of interlocking networks that cannot be understood in terms of linear and ‘rational’ relationships but are instead conditional, contextual and relational. 133 Reviews suggest that, although the knowledge mobilisation literature is now beginning to embrace systems thinking, practical tools and strategies have yet to emerge. 64 , 133 In addition, reviewers suggest that there are many key aspects of a systems approach to knowledge that have not yet had sufficient attention, including the nature of evidence and knowledge, the role of leadership and the role of networks. 20 Exploring this further, Contandriopoulos et al. 21 suggest that there are three core aspects of systems that influence knowledge use within that system: polarisation (the extent to which the potential users share similar opinions and preferences); cost-sharing (the distribution between research producers, intermediaries and users of the resource costs associated with knowledge use); and social structures (e.g. formal and informal communication networks).

The evolution of thinking around connections and configurations has highlighted the limitations of ‘two communities’ thinking, suggesting that standard push approaches are unlikely to result in practice or policy change. Agencies that take a relational view, and that work within and through existing networks, or that seek to build new networks, can draw on a wide array of concepts and theories to help shape their actions. In doing so, they will need a nuanced understanding of the role of power, and insights from political science may be of some help here. Although there is increasing support for a systems approach in principle, a lack of practical tools and detailed guidance means that it has been difficult to operationalise these ideas into innovative knowledge mobilisation strategies.

As agencies devise new knowledge mobilisation strategies that capitalise on these insights, we can expect to see them work more within and through networks of interested parties. Sometimes these approaches will capitalise on, and aim to shape, existing networks (e.g. naturally occurring communities of practice); at other times agencies will seek to create and support new networks to further their goals. Fully exploiting the potential of a systems-based view of the world is currently hampered by a lack of operational models and convincing case examples. 20 , 27 , 134

People, roles and positions

Agencies interested in mobilising knowledge will act through co-ordinating the actions of their own people and through co-opting the skills and resources of others. In part, this is about the configurations and networks created or utilised as previously discussed, but within these we can discern distinct roles that are performed, by agencies and by individuals.

In this project, we have conceived of a threefold role-based typology of knowledge mobilising agencies: funders; research producers; and research intermediaries (of course, some actual agencies take on multiple roles and many exist in hybrid forms). To this we can add various types of ‘audiences’ for research: 58 other researchers; members of the public and service users; practitioners; managers; and policy-makers. Several authors (e.g. Contandriopoulos et al. 21 ) point out that none of these are discrete categories and that individuals may belong to more than one group; this fact of multiple identities may constrain or facilitate an individual’s actions around knowledge mobilisation. A further categorisation of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ (e.g. researchers within government departments or external researchers from universities working with government departments) highlights the potential for individuals’ actions to be determined in part by their status in the social context. For example, studies have shown that internal researchers within government departments have greater access to ministers than do external researchers. 135

Moving on from this broad categorisation of audiences or stakeholder groups, Lavis et al. 58 suggest two key questions in defining a narrower group of stakeholders in a given situation: who can act on the basis of the research knowledge and who can influence those who can act? These questions helpfully give prominence to the issue of power, which many authors 16 , 32 suggest has been neglected in relation to understanding of knowledge mobilisation.

There has been little empirical work on the actual or potential roles and responsibilities of different knowledge mobilisation actors. 11 There is, however, a strong focus in the literature on ‘knowledge brokers’ and other ‘mediator’ roles, and a growing number of empirical studies 136 – 140 have investigated these roles. A range of functions has been suggested, including problem definition; research synthesis; facilitating access to research knowledge; developing outputs that are more accessible to users; and developing and brokering networks and other connections. 135 , 141 Linking and mediator roles have been promoted in many organisational settings and are perceived by health organisations to be an important component of the organisational infrastructure to encourage evidence use. 142 However, one review 21 suggests that the structural position of brokers within organisations may mean that they have most scope to intervene in contexts where there is low polarisation of views (i.e. where actors already share similar views on key issues) and significant user investment in knowledge exchange, and that they may have limited ability to have an impact on the many existing networks that exist outside formal communication channels.

Conceptual uncertainty remains around who should perform knowledge broking and what activities should be encompassed by the role. 81 , 135 For example, it is unclear whether or not and in what ways knowledge broker roles are different from other roles such as opinion leaders, facilitators, champions, change agents or linking agents. 143 There are, nonetheless, some different theoretical assumptions behind the use of such terms: opinion leaders are typically seen as long-term ‘insiders’, whereas change agents are typically seen as ‘outsiders’ who have a short-term role in facilitating action around implementation. Knowledge brokers may come from diverse backgrounds, which then suggests roles that link or span different communities.

Many research funding agencies now make stipulations about what their funded researchers have to do in terms of knowledge mobilisation but these requirements are often limited to more traditional activities (e.g. engagement with potential research users, formal reporting and perhaps some ‘translation’ and dissemination). There is rarely any evaluation as to the effectiveness or impact of these requirements. 11 Indeed, some caution that researchers may not be the most appropriate people to undertake knowledge mobilising roles 133 and that it is unrealistic to expect researchers to develop the broad range of skills required for effective knowledge sharing. 126

Leadership (including endorsement of the evidence from expert and peer opinion leaders) is regarded in the literature as important in knowledge mobilisation, 93 but the requirements of roles here remain underspecified. Although leadership has been addressed in other literatures, the precise nature of leadership and its defining qualities have not been fully addressed in the knowledge mobilisation literature. 20

While roles matter, some authors argue that there has been disproportionate emphasis on individuals and their roles in relation to knowledge mobilisation. They argue that this focus ignores three key issues: that it is unrealistic to expect researchers to develop the broad range of skills required; 126 that sustainable knowledge mobilisation requires multilevel systemic changes 80 alongside appropriate technological and organisational infrastructures; 78 and that greater attention needs to be paid to the organisational systems in which individuals work and which strongly affect what they are able to do. 77 Such critiques draw attention to other domains of our conceptual map.

One group that has largely been absent from the knowledge mobilisation literature is the public or service users. While patient and public involvement (PPI) has been strongly encouraged in research, the literature has been largely silent on the potential knowledge mobilisation role of these groups. One exception here is more recent work that has considered the evidence base on patient-direct and patient-mediated knowledge mobilisation interventions. 78 , 144 The gaps, challenges and opportunities of greater involvement of the public, patients, other service users, clients and parents is discussed in a subsequent section, but suffice to say that their role is not widely considered in the knowledge mobilisation literature.

In sum, agencies may find it useful to map their audiences or groups of stakeholders using the broad categories outlined above, differentiating between those who can take action directly (act on the evidence) and those who can influence those who can act, or those who can shape the context within which that action occurs. Moreover, intermediary roles need further elaboration and analysis that takes account of the other domains of the conceptual map (e.g. knowledge types; purpose and goals; existing networks and configurations; and local context). Currently, there is insufficient empirical evidence on the impact of knowledge brokers and other mediating roles, but early findings suggest that they are most likely to have impact when they are working to bring together previously isolated groups and are credible, skilled and well supported.

Actions and resources

To further their goals, agencies need not only to find partners and identify audiences, but also to develop action plans and deploy resources. The actions taken will depend on the underlying model of knowledge mobilisation being used (explicitly or implicitly), and the resource requirements differ for different models of knowledge mobilisation. The wide variety of models uncovered in this review have largely not yet been tested as prescriptions for practice, so it is not clear how suitable they are for planning and evaluating knowledge mobilisation strategies. 19 Many models provide a quite general overview of knowledge mobilisation rather than analysing the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge mobilisation interventions. 96 They thus leave unaddressed the specific actions required and the resources needed. Indeed, many models seem more descriptive of how change occurs rather than directly addressing the planning of change initiatives. 75

Some sets of activities have been identified in the literature that might form the first step in the operationalising of a knowledge mobilisation strategy. For example, Walter et al. 145 highlight the key underlying mechanisms that can be used to build research impact: dissemination; interaction; social influence; facilitation; and incentives and reinforcements. In practice, many strategies will involve a judicious mix of these, and selecting the appropriate mix and emphases remains to be addressed.

Taking a holistic view of encouraging research use, one review in social care 60 sets out a collection of imperatives, each of which might suggest collections of (resourced) activities that need to be planned. These include ensuring a relevant research base; ensuring access to research; making research comprehensible; drawing out the practice implications of research; developing best practice models (e.g. pilot or demo projects); requiring research-informed practice (e.g. through regulatory influence); and developing a culture that supports research use (multifaceted). Again, these broad categorisations leave much detail that needs to be fleshed out by agencies in their local context and given their resource constraints.

Agencies wishing specifically to advance the field of knowledge mobilisation may draw on the five functional areas outlined by Holmes et al. 126 These include advancing the science of knowledge mobilisation; building capacity; managing specific projects; funding knowledge mobilisation activities; and advocating for greater knowledge use. Again, such categorisations may provide a starting point for agency strategy development.

Holmes et al. 126 drew on work by Kitson and Bisby to set out nine actions that funding agencies could take to support knowledge mobilisation:

• require the involvement of research users throughout the research cycle
• support activities to increase the ability of researchers to communicate with users
• provide forums for knowledge users and researchers
• require a knowledge mobilisation action plan for all funded projects
• provide training and support to granting panels for the assessment of knowledge mobilisation plans
• include knowledge mobilisation costs as eligible expenditures
• fund activities that facilitate easier access to research data by knowledge users
• require open-access publishing
• fund rapid response programmes to address urgent policy and practice issues.

Agencies could use this list of imperatives to help set priorities for action. 126

The narrative synthesis of conceptual frameworks by Wilson et al. 146 reviewed 33 knowledge translation frameworks, of which 20 were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination approaches. Twenty-eight of the frameworks reviewed were underpinned (at least in part) by one or more of three theoretical approaches: persuasive communication; diffusion of innovations theory; and social marketing. The authors noted that, although 10 UK funders of health services or public health research made reference to dissemination in their research funding application guides, only one [the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)] specifically provided a dissemination framework for use by funding applicants and grant holders. The authors suggested that, as a first step, funding agencies could specifically encourage the adoption of a theoretically informed approach to dissemination activities for their grant holders (e.g. by requiring the use of one of the theoretically informed frameworks). Another narrative review 147 reviews 61 dissemination and implementation models and discusses key considerations around model selection and adaptation.

Other reviewers have noted 79 that many organisations are increasingly developing practices (such as portals, websites and online interactive spaces) despite the limited evidence in support of such initiatives. Thus, many of the practical actions taken by agencies may have more to do with their face validity, stakeholder acceptability and the availability of local expertise than coherent strategy or supportive literature. 11

All of the above suggest that there are actions required by agencies across a number of spheres. This draws attention to the potential for balanced and multifaceted activities. While some reviews suggest that multifaceted approaches are more effective than single interventions, 148 some authors suggest that multifaceted approaches may not always be appropriate: there is a risk of a ‘scattergun’ approach, and the effectiveness of multicomponent approaches will depend on the interaction of the different mechanisms within particular contexts. 117 One review of strategies used in public health 149 found that simple or single strategies were in some cases as effective as complex multicomponent interventions, and suggested that this was because key messages might be diluted or harder to comprehend in complex multiple interventions. Multifaceted approaches are also likely to be more costly than single interventions and consideration needs to be given to how the different components might interact. 76

Disaggregating some of the above broad categories, a major review in 2012 150 collated 68 specific implementation actions, grouped according to six key implementation processes: planning, educating, financing, restructuring, managing quality and attending to the policy context. The authors differentiated between discrete, multifaceted and blended implementation actions (blended was defined as the use of a number of discrete approaches, addressing multiple levels and barriers, interwoven and packaged as an implementation intervention with a brand or protocol). The review challenged the notion that there are only a limited number of strategic actions available, but as it was a narrative review no attempt was made to assess the methodological quality of sources or the empirical evidence for the actions listed. The resourcing of these strategies was also left unaddressed by this review.

An empirical study of research funding agencies in a range of countries, including Canada and the UK, 11 found that many had minimal resources for knowledge mobilisation. Similarly, studies in academic institutions suggest that the majority lack the infrastructure resources to support knowledge use in policy and practice. 135 Yet, one of the key lessons from cross-sector review is that knowledge mobilisation requires financial, technical, organisational and emotional resources. 93 A widely shared assumption in the literature is that producers, intermediaries and users will invest and cost-share in knowledge mobilisation to the extent that they perceive such investment to be advantageous. 21 Yet, how such shared plans can be negotiated, or the basis on which they are founded, are rarely properly explored. One review of knowledge mobilisation approaches found that where there was no viable cost-sharing mechanism or where most of the burden fell on producers or intermediaries, significant research use (with the exception of political uses) was unlikely. 21

This account of the actions and resources needed for effective knowledge mobilisation has many implications for agencies. It draws attention to the wide array of actions needed, the breadth and diversity of actions available, the complex and vexed issue of resourcing these, and the need for coherent, interlocking and mutually reinforcing actions within and across agencies. It also draws attention to the significant gap between the articulation of a process of knowledge mobilisation (seen in many of the models, theories and frameworks) and the translation of those accounts into workable, practicable, properly resourced strategies. That is, much of the conceptual background reviewed in this chapter does not readily lend itself to the creation of action plans for agencies. At the heart of these difficulties lies an uncertainty about whose role it is to facilitate knowledge mobilisation. In some senses, effective knowledge mobilisation is a system property , and yet individual actors and agencies have to operate independently and are uncertain in co-ordination. Creating the conditions for shared goals, co-investment and co-ordinated actions remains a major challenge.

Knowledge mobilising agencies are usually alert to the potentially facilitating or (more usually) inhibiting effects of the local environment on their efforts. While some see context as a ‘given’ that simply needs to be taken into account (‘context dictates the realm of the possible’), 21 for others it is an active ‘ingredient’ in any successful knowledge mobilisation strategy. As Greenhalgh et al. assert: ‘the multiple (and often unpredictable) interactions that arise in particular contexts and settings are precisely what determine the success or failure of a dissemination initiative’. 31

The ‘context is important’ strand in the knowledge mobilisation literature has a long history in organisational research. 151 The processual-contextual perspective (e.g. the content, context and process framework) 152 , 153 has informed a number of studies in the change literature in recent decades. 154 It is reflected in Pawson and Tilley’s well-known ‘CMO’ (context–mechanism–outcome) configuration in realist evaluation 155 and in the PARIHS Framework, 52 which was developed in part to address the lack of attention to context in earlier models. 72 The importance of context in quality improvement in health care and the key empirical findings from the literature have recently been explored in a publication for the Health Foundation. 151

In relation to influencing policy, a recent review 156 also emphasises the importance of an analysis of context and refers to two frameworks: the ‘three Is’ of political science (institutions, interests and ideas) and to the framework proposed by Contandriopoulos et al. , 21 which considers issues in terms of their polarisation, salience and familiarity. Similar frameworks are available when looking at the uptake of policy interventions. For example, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework 20 emphasises that it is the broader contextual factors that influence adoption, implementation and maintenance and so decision-makers need to balance evidence on effectiveness against these factors.

Analytic approaches to context typically divide it into inner/internal and outer/external, although many authors emphasise that the interaction between these adds to the challenges of assessing and addressing context. Among the aspects of internal context that authors have suggested are relevant to knowledge mobilisation are organisational structures and processes (e.g. the impact of modes of governance on research use, conditions that affect the facilitation and prioritisation of research activity, including incentives and levers, the degree to which service user preferences are accurately known and prioritised); organisational cultures (e.g. the distribution of power between different groups, perspectives on whose responsibility it is to encourage evidence use, current norms and practices, the climate for innovation); and organisational facilities and resources (e.g. time, equipment). In relation to external context, the knowledge mobilisation literature emphasises three key related aspects: the social and political climate/culture; the degree of environmental stability; and the extent of interorganisational communication and norm-setting. In relation to social and political culture, authors have highlighted a range of issues, including the general climate for research production and use (e.g. how those who fund research, universities, researchers and research users support and value knowledge mobilisation efforts) and the influence of policy directives (e.g. the increasing requirement that schools attend to evidence about effective practice as part of continuing professional development leading to an increase in the number of school leaders taking on knowledge broker roles). 127

There is broad agreement, therefore, 33 , 75 , 157 that context is an important (if poorly understood) mediator. It is a feature of many models of barriers to knowledge uptake, 100 and analysis of context is one of the five common components shared by the majority of models of the knowledge mobilisation process. 19 Indeed, a large proportion of the knowledge mobilisation literature is made up of analyses of ‘barriers and facilitators’. 18 For example, there is strong evidence for a wide range of generic barriers to effective research impact, including, for researchers, a lack of resources, a lack of skills and an absence of professional reward for research impact activities and, for research users, competing organisational pressures, an organisational culture that does not value research, a preference for other sources of evidence and a suspicion that research may displace professional skills and experience. 145 In a similar vein, the Cochrane EPOC group classifies barriers to change into nine categories (information management, clinical uncertainty, sense of competence, perceptions of liability, patient expectations, standards of practice, financial disincentives, administrative constraints and a miscellaneous category). 76

Although identifying and addressing key barriers is recommended in many knowledge mobilisation models as an important consideration when choosing a strategy, many important barriers affecting knowledge use (e.g. difficulties arising from working in multiprofessional teams) are long-standing and complex, and are not actually easily addressed. 76 Moreover, this marked emphasis in the literature on understanding barriers and facilitators has been critiqued for leading to a narrow ‘technicist’ understanding of knowledge mobilisation rather than one that is attentive to knowledge mobilisation as an interactive and deeply situated process. 37

In contrast, the contextual approach taken by Ward et al. 37 proposes that a detailed understanding of local interpersonal interactions, shared experiences and networks may be particularly useful in considering how opportunities for knowledge mobilisation emerge or are constrained within an organisational setting. Thus, they see context as playing a dynamic and interactive role with local actions, not simply existing as a passive and inhibiting backdrop. This perspective emphasises the importance of assessing the existing ‘naturalistic’ knowledge exchange processes that are already occurring (e.g. in relation to other innovations or change programmes), and of building on these when planning formal knowledge mobilisation interventions.

It has also been noted that contexts are multiple rather than singular. Levin’s model of knowledge mobilisation 75 refers to three types of contexts for the use of research: the context in which it is produced; the context in which it is used; and all of the mediating processes between these two contexts. Emphasis is thus placed on the multiple dynamics at play within each context. Other authors (e.g. Nicolini et al. 158 ) emphasise the extent to which any one sector (e.g. health care) will have different subsectors within it (e.g. clinical research, health services research, health policy) that may require different approaches to knowledge mobilisation. In that sense, contexts are not just multiple, parallel and perhaps overlapping, but are also nested. Indeed, the ‘complex adaptive systems’ perspective 20 , 27 , 78 emphasises how the different levels of the system affect each other: interventions at one level are affected by, and affect, factors at other system levels. 35

There are differing views about the extent to which and how contextual factors can be managed or even influenced. Many authors (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 31 ) emphasise that while context is important, it is also unpredictable and not easily controlled. Knowledge mobilisation activities are embedded within a system and changes will be sustained only if attention is paid to the factors that influence that system. 64 This rules out simple prescriptions for approaches which will apply in a range of contexts and points to the need to design, tailor, refine and evaluate any knowledge mobilisation approach with reference to the particular setting and alongside those who will be responsible for implementing the changes. 31 , 64 Advocates for an integrated knowledge mobilisation research approach (i.e. collaboration between researchers and knowledge users) emphasise that research knowledge has to be integrated with contextual knowledge (e.g. population data, local expertise, knowledge of the characteristics of the local setting) and that this integration is more likely to happen if the potential users are involved in the research process from the outset. 159

For agencies seeking to develop knowledge mobilisation strategies, then, a thoroughgoing and realistic evaluation of context remains central. However, while ‘context’ is a key heading in many models and frameworks of the knowledge mobilisation process, it is variably conceptualised and differentially understood. Moreover, there is divergence of view whether context is a passive (usually inhibitory) backdrop or a potentially modifiable and co-optable ‘resource’ for the knowledge mobilisation effort. What is clear is that it is inadequate to treat context as merely a catch-all term for all that is not modelled: such an approach will disguise vital issues such as goal misalignment, power disparities and political practices. As yet, however, tools to assess and disentangle the role of context in knowledge mobilisation are insufficiently developed.

In developing our conceptual map from the review of reviews we were struck by how little attention was given in the knowledge mobilisation literature to the ultimate recipients of public services: service users, their carers and families. It is to this element that we now turn.

• Involving the public and service users in knowledge mobilisation

Although there has been increasing emphasis over the last two decades on the involvement of patients and members of the public in carrying out research rather than their being involved as only research subjects, 102 , 160 the evidence base on the impact of such involvement is currently limited. 102 , 161 Specific consideration of these groups as one of the potential audiences for knowledge mobilisation interventions is not a strong feature of much of the research literature on knowledge mobilisation. This may be unsurprising given that it has been argued that PPI in health research in the UK at least has been relatively ‘invisible’ despite the clear policy driver. 162

Public deliberation methods (e.g. citizens’ juries) are increasingly being used in health policy and in health priority setting in the UK, the USA and Canada, but more research is needed to understand and measure their use and impact. 163 Some authors (e.g. Oxman et al. 164 ) have made suggestions for interventions to engage the public in evidence-informed policy-making through the mass media, through civil society groups (e.g. patient and carer organisations and statutory organisations) and as consumers, and for measures to enable them to have greater influence in these settings. 165 They note, however, that there is little evidence to date about the effects of public engagement in health policy.

In thinking about patients and members of the public as an audience for knowledge mobilisation interventions in the practice field, a recent review 144 grouped these interventions into two categories. The first category is patient-direct knowledge translation interventions, which aim to influence patient outcomes directly (by improving patients’ knowledge and potentially thereby improving their health behaviours, their use of health services, etc.). This includes interventions such as mass media campaigns, patient decision aids or self-help groups. The second category is patient-mediated interventions in which the aim is to change the behaviour of health professionals and thereby affect patient outcomes indirectly; interventions in this category include coaching to enable patients to communicate more effectively with health professionals and question cards to prompt patients to ask specific questions during consultations with health professionals. The Cochrane EPOC group defines patient-mediated interventions as those involving the collection by patients of new clinical data (e.g. blood pressure readings) which are given to health professionals. Stacey and Hill 144 have expanded this definition in the knowledge mobilisation context to include interventions targeted at patients that aim to improve knowledge use by health professionals; these are mainly interventions directed at improving patient–health professional communication.

Current evidence suggests that patient-direct interventions to improve patients’ health literacy have the most consistent positive effects on patients’ knowledge and to a lesser extent on their experience and use of health services. For example, question prompts and coaching have been shown to increase patients’ knowledge of their condition and their participation in clinical decision-making, while the use of patient decision aids can increase patients’ participation in decision-making, their awareness of the available treatment options and their perception that the subsequent decision about treatment was in accord with their values. 144 There is insufficient evidence as yet to show whether or not patient-mediated knowledge mobilisation interventions have an impact on health professionals’ behaviour. The substantive knowledge base used for any of these interventions (e.g. the evidence underpinning a decision aid or question prompts) is clearly critical to their being a mechanism for increasing knowledge use.

A systematic review of PPI in health and social care research 166 found that, although the evidence base is limited, it is possible to identify a number of impacts that PPI has had on research and the research process, including on aspects that may contribute to subsequent knowledge use (e.g. the identification and prioritisation of research topics, improving the feasibility of research designs, better recruitment to studies and increased dissemination of results). The authors comment that there has been relatively little theoretical development or conceptualisation in this field and suggest that one of the priorities is to develop a comprehensive theoretical model and instruments that could be used to measure the impact of PPI. They note that there have been positive and negative impacts from PPI and suggest that PPI should be regarded as a complex intervention that requires due account to be taken of ‘what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why’. 155 Two HSDR programme-funded studies using a realist evaluation approach to assess the nature, processes and impacts of public involvement in research are currently in progress in the UK ( www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr ; study reference numbers 10/2001/36 and 10/2001/41).

Further progress has been made since that review was carried out. A recent large multiphase study on the impacts of user involvement in health and social care research has reviewed the evidence and conducted new empirical work on the values and impacts associated with public involvement. 161 The study has resulted in a framework to assist researchers in developing public involvement plans and assessing the impact of public involvement: the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF). 102

Our conclusion from the knowledge mobilisation literature is that the potential for involvement of the public and service users is currently underdeveloped in the field. Where attention has been given, this has largely been addressed at engaging the public and service users with the research production process – not with the communication, reinterpretation and actioning of any knowledge so created.

• Concluding remarks

Taken together, the six domains of our conceptual map, the elaborations of arguments within each, and – most importantly – the interactions between them provide a dynamic account of knowledge creation, communication and action. Our subsequent empirical work (see Chapters 4 and 5 ) shows that different agencies are differently focused on the various domains, with varying assumptions and framings. Our suggestion is that more systematic investigation by agencies of all of the domains (and their interactions) may help them to surface assumptions, highlight tensions and create greater coherence.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Davies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.27.) Chapter 3, Mapping the conceptual literature.
• PDF version of this title (1.6M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Mapping the conceptual literature - Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health ca... Mapping the conceptual literature - Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

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