Literature Review Guide

A literature review surveys scholarly sources on a specific topic, synthesizing what researchers have found and identifying where further research is needed. Unlike an annotated bibliography that summarizes sources individually, a literature review weaves sources together to tell a coherent story about the state of knowledge.

Literature reviews serve multiple purposes: they demonstrate your knowledge of the field, establish the context for your research, identify gaps your work will address, and prevent you from duplicating existing research. They're required components of theses, dissertations, and many research papers.

The key difference between good and mediocre literature reviews is synthesis. Summary describes what individual sources say; synthesis shows how sources relate to each other and to your research question. Think of yourself as creating a conversation among researchers, not just a list of their findings.

Look for patterns: Do most researchers agree on certain points? Where do they disagree? What methods do they use? What assumptions do they share? How have ideas evolved over time? These patterns form the substance of your synthesis.

Your analytical voice should guide the review. Rather than "Smith found X. Jones found Y," try "While Smith found X, subsequent research by Jones challenged this conclusion by demonstrating Y." This approach creates a narrative of scholarly inquiry.

A critical function of literature reviews is identifying what we don't yet know. As you read, note questions that remain unanswered, populations that haven't been studied, methods that haven't been applied, or contradictions that need resolution.

These gaps become the justification for your research. Your literature review should build toward a conclusion that positions your work as filling an important gap. The reader should finish your review understanding exactly why your research is needed.

Common gaps include: unstudied populations or contexts, methodological limitations in existing studies, outdated research needing updating, conflicting findings needing resolution, and theoretical frameworks not yet applied to the topic.

Start with a clear thesis that frames what your review will demonstrate about the current state of knowledge. Each paragraph should make a point, with sources serving as evidence. Don't let your review become a parade of source summaries—maintain your analytical thread throughout.

Use signposting language to guide readers: "While early research focused on X, recent studies have shifted to Y" or "Three theoretical frameworks dominate this literature." These transitions help readers follow your synthesis.

Revise for balance and flow. Ensure you've given appropriate attention to major perspectives and haven't over-relied on a few sources. Check that your review logically builds toward your research question or thesis.