sample literature review for action research

Archer Library

Action research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• EDFN 504 • Action Research Handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• ebook Collections This link opens in a new window
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Statistics
• Literature Review Resources
• Citation & Reference

Exploring the literature review 

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

AU Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: scholarly & practitioner journals.

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases  A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: EBSCOhost Search Tips
• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A literature review is "a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Recommended Reading

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

• ★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
• Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
• Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
• Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
• Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
• Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
• Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
• << Previous: Research & Statistics
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 17, 2023 7:46 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/action-research

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Improvement of Instruction Through Action Research (61-682/683)

Structure of a research article, how to write a literature review, why and how.

• Books/eBooks
• Citing Practice
• Ask A Librarian
• Descriptions
• Sample Articles
• Agriculture: Determinants of the Farmers' Conversion to Organic and Biodynamic Agriculture
• Dietetics, Nutrition: High Insoluble Fibre Content Increases In Vitro Starch Digestibility in Partially Baked Breads
• Education: Portraits of Middle School Students Constructing Evidence-Based Arguments During Problem-Based Learning
• Mass Media: Corrupt Politicians? Media Priming Effects on Overtly Expressed Stereotypes toward Politicians
• Natural Sciences: Historical Abundance and Spatial Distribution of the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Along the Southeast Coast of the United States
• Physical Education: The Acute Effects of Various Types of Stretching
• Psychology: What is the Best Way to Analyze Less Frequent Forms of Violence? The Case of Sexual Aggression

17 - what is a literature review from Joshua Vossler on Vimeo .

"The purpose of a literature review is to help you explain how the question to be investigated fits into the larger picture and why you have approached the topic the way you have. This section of a scholarly report allows the reader to be brought up to date regarding the state of research in the field and familiarizes him or her to any contrasting perspectives and viewpoints on the topic."

"Summarize and explain what research has been done on the topic, citing the sources as you mention them. Point out the different ways researchers have treated the topic. Point out any connections between the sources especially where one source built upon prior study. Explain how this past work fits together to make your research question significant. Your literature review should present your synthesis of previous research and lay the foundation for understanding your research and appreciating its value."

Washington & Lee University

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 31, 2024 8:30 AM
• URL: https://libguides.nwmissouri.edu/ActResearch

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

Step 3a: Literature Review

Module 2: Action Research Question & Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?

Generally speaking, a literature review would involve an in-depth scan of available material to identify material and gaps in your field of study.

The following videos explain the purpose and steps of a literature review in more detail.

What is a Literature Review? Explained with a REAL Example

Source: Scribbr . YouTube, 25 Mar 2020.

Additional Resources

To further your understanding, view the following video: What is a Literature Review?

The Key Benefits of a Literature Review

Completing a lit review provides numerous benefits to the researcher.

Flash Cards

Using Databases and Keyword Searches to Find Scholarly Research Literature

Keywords/Descriptors: These are specific terms related to your research topic. By searching with these keywords, you will find a list of scholarly articles where these terms appear.

Alternative Search Methods: Beyond keywords, there are other methods to explore, which can be equally effective.

To learn about conducting effective searches in scholarly databases, please review the following booklets and watch the instructional videos provided. These will guide you through the process of keyword searches and introduce other search strategies.

Interactive Book

Finding Scholarly Research Literature

Be sure to view the following booklet, which will help you to search for scholarly articles.

Action Research Handbook Copyright © by Dr. Zabedia Nazim and Dr. Sowmya Venkat-Kishore is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 8 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Internet Res
• v.24(1); 2022 Jan

Best Practices and Lessons Learned for Action Research in eHealth Design and Implementation: Literature Review

Kira oberschmidt.

1 eHealth Cluster, Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands

2 Biomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Christiane Grünloh

Femke nijboer, lex van velsen, associated data.

Full overview of all categories and description of settings for each category.

Full list of categories per setting variable.

Action research (AR) is an established research framework to introduce change in a community following a cyclical approach and involving stakeholders as coresearchers in the process. In recent years, it has also been used for eHealth development. However, little is known about the best practices and lessons learned from using AR for eHealth development.

This literature review aims to provide more knowledge on the best practices and lessons learned from eHealth AR studies. Additionally, an overview of the context in which AR eHealth studies take place is given.

A semisystematic review of 44 papers reporting on 40 different AR projects was conducted to identify the best practices and lessons learned in the research studies while accounting for the particular contextual setting and used AR approach.

Recommendations include paying attention to the training of stakeholders’ academic skills, as well as the various roles and tasks of action researchers. The studies also highlight the need for constant reflection and accessible dissemination suiting the target group.

Conclusions

This literature review identified room for improvements regarding communicating and specifying the particular AR definition and applied approach.

Introduction

The way health care is organized and executed is of great societal concern, as it affects our quality of life. Hence, health care systems and eHealth technologies used to support health care should be designed in a way that meets the needs and expectations of their stakeholders. One way of doing this is through action research (AR). According to Bradbury and Lifvergren [ 1 ], AR in health care “seeks to (1) improve patient experiences and the health of populations, (2) reduce the per capita cost, (3) improve the work life of those who deliver care, and (4) bring health care providers into circumstances that allow for continuous learning together with patients.” AR has been used as a research framework in nursing and health care, for example, to improve the quality of patient care and investigate changes in action [ 2 ]. AR is a collaborative approach, where people affected by the change envisioned in AR become active members of the research team. AR is often used in the design of eHealth systems. However, existing literature reviews of AR in eHealth predominantly focus on the development of new frameworks [ 3 - 5 ] but not on how eHealth AR is currently carried out. Therefore, this literature review outlines the state of the art of AR in eHealth design.

eHealth projects cover a wide variety of topics and technologies and can therefore greatly benefit patients, professionals, and many other health care stakeholders. However, to gain the most from eHealth systems and technologies, it is crucial that they match with what is needed in practice [ 6 ]. To ensure such a match, Van Gemert-Pijnen and colleagues [ 6 ] suggest, among other things, working together with relevant stakeholders in all stages of the project, implementing the study results in practice, and continuously evaluating the process. Similarly, co-design has been mentioned as a useful technique for creating eHealth systems that suit the needs of the end users [ 3 ]. These ideas fit well with the principles of AR, which will be outlined below.

Definitions of AR have changed over the years. AR originated with Kurt Lewin [ 7 ], who described it as several consecutive circles of planning, action, and reflection. These cycles are shown in Figure 1 , developed by Williamson and colleagues [ 2 ]. In later definitions, the cyclical nature of AR remains one of its key features. Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ], who build on Lewin’s work, define AR as research that (1) involves stakeholders not only as participants but also as members of the research team, (2) consists of (at least) 1 cycle of planning, action, and reflection, (3) establishes direct changes, and (4) then evaluates those changes in and with the community. Their work [ 8 ] includes many interesting examples of AR from various fields. Furthermore, Bradbury and colleagues defined 7 “choice points for quality in action research” [ 9 ], criteria that can be used to plan, conduct, report, and assess AR projects .

Action research cycles (adapted from Kurt Lewin [ 7 ] by Williamson and colleagues [ 2 ]).

Within AR, different variations exist, such as action design research (ADR) or participatory action research (PAR). Usually, there is agreement on the main principles of AR explained earlier, but some authors or groups emphasize some aspects over others. For example, as the name suggests, ADR incorporates elements of design research into AR [ 10 ], whereas PAR highlights the involvement of the community [ 11 ]. For a more detailed overview of the similarities and differences between some of these approaches, see Williamson et al [ 2 ] or Coghlan and Brannick [ 11 ].

In general, AR and AR approaches such as ADR are similar to participatory design (PD) approaches that are used in human computer interaction (HCI) research. However, AR emphasizes reflection on and learning from the process that was carried out, whereas the main aim of PD is to create a solution [ 12 ]. AR, as opposed to PD, does not start with a clear goal of what needs to be developed but defines this throughout the process together with stakeholders. Additionally, AR is more immersive and calls for stakeholder involvement for a longer period of time due to its iterative cycles [ 13 ]. Nevertheless, in some cases, studies that are described as PD-related ones also meet Reason and Bradbury’s criteria [ 8 ] for AR [ 14 ]. Hayes [ 12 ] argues that AR and HCI research can supplement each other, as both often provide solutions on a local scale. As Hughes [ 15 ] describes, there is no standard way of implementing AR in health care due to the broadness of the field. Instead, there is a variety regarding the why, how, and with whom AR in health care is carried out [ 15 , 16 ]. For example, levels of stakeholder engagement and the context in which AR takes place can vary [ 16 ]. Other differences among AR studies include the topic, country, project duration, main target group, and methods used. Therefore, these aspects are considered in this review. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of the current literature on eHealth AR and summarize the best practices and points of improvement for future eHealth AR projects. Special attention is paid to the contextual variables of the research (eg, setting, duration, number of stakeholders), as this is expected to influence the outcomes, best practices, and points of improvement of a study. To provide an overview of AR in eHealth, this literature review addresses the following subquestions:

• What is the context of AR eHealth projects?
• How do eHealth AR studies define and operationalize AR?
• What are the best practices for conducting AR in concrete eHealth studies?
• What are the lessons learned from conducting AR in concrete eHealth studies?

Study Selection and Screening

The search was carried out in June 2020. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using combinations of the search terms “action research” or “participatory design” and “eHealth,” “health technology,” “digital health,” or “telemedicine.” PubMed was chosen for its extensive medical database, and Scopus and Google Scholar were chosen as large scientific databases. Searching for “action research” turns up articles that include similar and related keywords like “participatory action research,” “action design research,” or “action-based research.” “Participatory design” was included as a search term because PD has significant overlap with AR, and both are sometimes used to supplement each other. The list of synonyms for “eHealth,” although not exhaustive, is expected to cover the various facets of the field. The initial search yielded 739 results. Articles were included if they (1) used and explicitly mentioned AR and (2) were about eHealth or health technology. Papers were excluded if they (1) were not written in English, (2) only included a study protocol but did not report results, or (3) only included a review of other articles. Full-text screening of the same 15 articles was performed by 2 authors (KO and CG); the authors discussed whether to include the studies until an agreement was reached. Next, the first author screened the full texts of the remaining articles, with some exceptions where a second opinion was necessary. These were again discussed between the first and second authors until an agreement was reached. Ultimately, 44 articles were included, reporting on 40 different projects. Figure 2 shows the flowchart of the inclusion process.

Inclusion flowchart of the literature search and screening process.

Data Extraction

For each study, the definition of AR that was provided by the authors, and the related AR approaches that they cited (if any) were extracted. Additionally, information about contextual variables of the study was derived. Specifically, we identified the topic, country, organizational context, project duration, types of stakeholders involved, the main target group of the research, and methods used. The types of involved stakeholders were grouped according to the framework described by Schiller et al [ 17 ], in which they define the main stakeholder categories as the public, policy makers, and governments, the research community, practitioners and professionals, health and social service providers, civil society organizations, and private businesses. Finally, the best practices and lessons learned were derived. The best practices and lessons learned were activities that could move forward and benefit the AR project, without necessarily being recognized as standard components of AR. The difference between what was seen as a best practice and as a lesson learned was based on the timing and reporting of these actions. An activity was labeled as a best practice if researchers already planned their project with this in mind (eg, mentioning it in the description of the methods). On the other hand, lessons learned were those points that researchers came to know during their project, which were reported mainly in the discussion section. From the first 5 articles, the best practices and lessons learned were extracted by 2 authors (KO and CG), and they compared their results. The remaining data were extracted by 1 author (KO) in consultation with the second author where a second opinion was necessary. Furthermore, 5 authors published not 1 but 2 papers about their project. For these papers, the same study context was described whereas the definition of and approach to AR and the best practices and lessons learned were reported separately, as these sometimes differed between the articles. A reflection on 2 projects was included in 1 article. In this case, each project context was reported separately whereas only 1 AR definition and approach as well as one set of best practices and lessons learned were outlined.

A general overview of all the included studies describing the AR approach, AR definition, and contextual variables was obtained. The contextual variables (topic, location, target group, stakeholders, duration, and methods used) were categorized. Furthermore, the studies were mapped in a matrix based on the study duration and the types and number of different stakeholders that participated in the study. The contextual data were coded and categorized inductively. To identify which AR approach was the most used, the citation frequency of each approach in the included studies was recorded. Furthermore, the cited AR approaches that were available were accessed and checked for cross-referencing. All cited AR definitions were mapped to show the relationship between them. The AR definitions used, best practices, and lessons learned were coded by 1 author (KO). The best practices and lessons learned were coded individually first and then combined for both categories.

The setting of the included studies was described based on 6 categories (topic, location, duration, involved stakeholders, target group, and methods). Multimedia Appendix 1 presents all the categories and the description of the setting for each study. The most common aspects of each category will be discussed below.

We identified 9 broader categories of the research topics in the 44 included studies (see Table 2.1 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list). The most common were home care and telemonitoring, and health promotion and education (both n=8), followed by electronic medical records and health information systems (n=7), and mental health services (n=5).

The studies were set in 21 different countries, Australia being the most common (n=5) followed by the United States (n=4) and Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (all n=3). Some studies from nonwestern countries, like Tanzania or Colombia were included, but no country was represented more than once or twice. Within the different countries, studies took place in various contexts, the most prevalent of which were rural areas (n=6) and hospitals (n=5). All contexts and countries can be found in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 of Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Target Groups

Among the 44 studies, 2 studies explicitly focused on 2 different target groups at the same time, whereas all other studies had 1 main target group. In most cases, the target groups were patients (n=11). Of these, the most common group was patients with cancer (n=3). There were 6 studies each focusing on clinicians as well as children and young adults, and 5 studies targeted older adults (see Table 2.4 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list of target groups).

Stakeholders

In many cases, several stakeholders were included in the study, up to 6 different types of stakeholders included in some cases. In summary, 20 different types of stakeholders were involved (see Table 2.5 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list). Health care workers (n=18) and patients and their representatives (n=12) were involved the most, followed by governmental bodies (n=9) and general nonmedical staff members (n=8). When clustering these stakeholder types according to the framework defined by Schiller and colleagues [ 17 ], the largest group consisted of practitioners and professionals (n=48), followed by members of the public (n=38). Policy makers and government bodies (n=13), the research community (n=10), private businesses (n=6), and civil society organizations (n=3) were represented less often. The only group that was not represented at all included health and social service providers.

Not all of the 44 studies reported the duration of the project (n=7). Studies that did report the duration (n=33) lasted from a few months (n=5) to more than 10 years (n=2). The majority (n=13) of these studies reported a project duration between 2 and 3 years, and the average project duration was 2.7 years. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the 10 most frequently involved types of stakeholders for the different project durations in the 33 projects that reported the project duration. Stakeholder types are shown in the order of how many times they were involved in total; however, because some studies did not report project durations, the numbers in this graph differ from those described above. The 2 biggest stakeholder groups, health care workers and patients, were rarely, or in the case of patients even not at all, involved in long-term studies.

Heat map showing the most commonly involved types of stakeholders against the project duration.

In Figure 4 , the study duration is mapped against the number of different stakeholders that were involved in each of the 33 projects that reported a project duration. Studies that did not report the overall project duration are not included in the figure. Most of the included studies lasted for up to 2 years, including 2 or 3 stakeholder groups. There are some longer studies including more stakeholder groups.

Heat map showing the number of stakeholders involved against the project duration.

Research Methods Used

As mentioned earlier, AR is a framework that does not advise the use of a single methodology, and studies can therefore include a variety of different research methods. Most of the 44 included studies indeed used several methods, with some studies employing up to 6 different methods . Interviews were used most frequently (n=24), followed by focus groups (n=22), workshops (n=14), and surveys (n=13). On average, studies used nearly 3 different methods (average 2.8). All methods can be found in Table 2.6 of Multimedia Appendix 2 .

AR Definitions

The articles contained 44 definitions of AR. They could be grouped according to 4 different aspects that they emphasized. First, 21 studies emphasized that in AR projects, practitioners and other stakeholders become (co)researchers (n=21). Second, AR is a cyclical process that includes different stages (n=19). Third, 14 studies described how AR focuses on solving a practical issue and aims to extend research knowledge. The fourth aspect was that AR takes place in a community setting (n=10). Further, 2 studies included 3 of these aspects in their definitions, and only 2 other studies mentioned all 4 aspects. Most studies included either 1 (n=16) or 2 (n=17) of the aspects, whereas 7 studies included none of these points in their definition or did not at define AR in detail. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of mentions per aspect and the studies mentioning these aspects.

Number of mentions and studies mentioning the aspects of the AR definition.

AR Approaches

Table 2 gives an overview of the AR approaches that were cited at least twice in the included articles. The AR approach was not cited in 4 studies. In some cases, different papers from the same authors were cited; however, as these eventually described the same approach, the citation count was added up. The most commonly cited approach was that proposed by Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ]. As described earlier, the key elements of this approach are that AR (1) involves stakeholders as coresearchers, (2) consists of plan, act, and reflect cycles, (3) makes a change in practice, and (4) evaluates the said changes in and with the community. Overall, most definitions share these main aspects but differ in terms of the aspects that are particularly emphasized. For example, Baskerville and colleagues [ 55 ] highlight the duality of practical work and scientific knowledge, whereas Baum and colleagues [ 56 ] underline the need for reflective practice that includes all stakeholders. Figures 5 and ​ and6 6 depict the cited approaches in more detail. There are 3 independent researchers or groups that are mentioned as being the origin of AR, namely Lewin [ 7 ], Trist and colleagues [ 57 ], and Freire [ 58 ]. Wherever the origin of AR was mentioned, some cases have named 2 of these, as observed in Figure 5 . The cited AR approaches also frequently refer to each other and sometimes authors collaborate with each other, for example on books about AR (see Figure 6 ). There are no very distinct groups conducting their own AR, but the different AR groups are often connected and build upon each other’s work.

Overview of the most cited action research approaches in the included articles per author or research group, including the number of citations.

Overview of the action research approaches referred to in the included articles, indicating those papers that are mentioned as “the origin” of action research. Studies that either name an approach as being the origin of action research, or are being named as such, are highlighted in blue for better readability.

Overview of action research approaches referred to in the included articles. Arrows indicate citations between the action research approach papers. The number of times that the articles included in this review cited each approach is indicated in the box. We have used different arrow thicknesses for better readability. Blue boxes indicate those papers that were available and checked for citations.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

As previously described, an activity was identified as a “best practice” if researchers already planned their project with this in mind (eg, mentioning it in the description of methods). Lessons learned were those points that researchers came to know during their project. These were mostly reported in the discussion section. In total, 85 best practices and 66 lessons learned were identified, which were clustered into 22 categories of best practices and 16 categories of lessons learned. Among the 44 papers, 3 papers did not indicate any best practices that they followed, whereas 12 papers did not include any identifiable lessons learned. There were 8 overlapping categories, identified as best practices in some articles and as lessons learned in others. These will be discussed in more detail below.

Best Practices

The identified best practices in the 44 studies were most often related to the use of a specific method (n=9), namely personas (n=2), world café, journey mapping, role play, scenarios, case studies, design cards, and mixing different types of data collection methods (all n=1). Other best practices were a continuous evaluation of the project and a reflection on the process by the research team (n=8). The importance of establishing active contact between researchers and stakeholders and raising the confidence and skills of stakeholders was emphasized by 7 studies. The improvement of stakeholder skills mainly referred to research and analytical skills, allowing stakeholders to set up their own studies or continue the work after the project was finished. There were several specific suggestions to improve the regular project team meetings, for example, to always use the same agenda or to share a common area (office space) to make contact easier. Some other best practices concern the reporting and presentation of outcomes (n=6). The complete list of best practice categories can be found in Table 3 .

Overview of all best practice categories and number of mentions per category (N=44).

Lessons Learned

Apart from the best practices, the lessons learned from each study were identified. The most common lessons learned were increasing stakeholder knowledge and skills (n=8) and continuous evaluation of the project and reflection on the process (n=6). Both of these had been identified as best practices in other articles (more on this overlap below). Recommendations for the use of specific methods were also common (n=5). Lessons learned regarding reporting, adapting the project to fit the needs of stakeholders, fostering a welcoming environment, and the questionable replicability of the research were each mentioned 4 times. All lessons learned are shown in Table 4 .

Overview of all lessons learned categories and number of mentions per category (N=44).

Overlapping Best Practices and Lessons Learned

As stated earlier, some aspects were identified as best practices in some articles and as lessons learned in others. In total, we identified 7 such overlapping aspects. Overall, the most mentioned aspect was the importance of raising stakeholder skills and confidence (n=15, where best practices= 7 and lessons learned=8). Many articles reported the need for stakeholders to learn new skills, for example related to academic research, or the need to be convinced about their ability to perform these tasks. Almost all the studies that reported this as a best practice or lesson learned involved health care professionals as stakeholders. Other commonly mentioned points were recommendations for specific methods, even though the suggested methods differed (n=14, where best practices=9 and lessons learned=5) and there was continuous reframing and evaluation of the project (n=14, where best practices=8 and lessons learned=6). Continuous reframing often referred to the iterations of planning, action, and evaluation in AR projects. Studies that described this mostly did not include this cyclical nature of AR in their definition of it. In total, there were 10 recommendations regarding the reporting and presentation of results (best practices=6 and lessons learned=4), for example calling for open and accessible publishing of outcomes. The best practices and lessons learned included recommendations about meeting regularly (n=9, where best practices=7 and lessons learned=2), adapting to the needs of stakeholders (n=8, where best practices=3 and lessons learned=5), and investing in the relationship between partners (n=6, where best practices=3 and lessons learned=3).

Chronology of Overlapping Best Practices and Lessons Learned

When observing the publication timeline, most of the overlapping aspects appeared as a lesson learned in earlier publications, and then as a best practice in papers published at a later point in time. This was the case regarding stakeholder skills, appearing as a lesson learned in 1999 [ 33 ] and as a best practice in 2016 [ 25 ]; continuous reframing of the project was a lesson learned in 2003 [ 19 ] and best practice in 2009 [ 42 ]; further, having regular meetings was a lesson learned in 2006 [ 72 ] and a best practice in 2018 [ 27 ], and adapting the research to stakeholder needs was a lesson learned in 2007 [ 32 ] and a best practice in 2016 [ 77 ]. Such a clear timeline could not be seen for accessible reporting, appearing as a lesson learned in 2017 [ 78 ] and a best practice in 2007 [ 45 ], and the relationship between partners appearing as a lesson learned in 2017 [ 36 ] and as a best practice in 2008 [ 38 ].

Principal Results

To identify recommendations on how to conduct AR in eHealth studies, this literature review analyzed the setting, AR description, and best practices and lessons learned in 44 studies. The most important recommendations from this review, which will be discussed in more detail below, are as follows: actively raising stakeholder skills and confidence; fulfilling multiple roles and tasks as a researcher; fostering constant reflection and evaluation; ensuring open and accessible dissemination; reporting in a more structured and comprehensive way.

These recommendations are not exclusively related to eHealth, despite them being derived from a review of eHealth AR studies. Hence, it is possible that the recommendations are also relevant for AR in various other fields. Therefore, where possible, examples from different disciplines are discussed below to explain or supplement a recommendation.

Stakeholder Skills and Confidence

Being involved in a project as coresearcher can potentially increase stakeholders’ confidence, besides teaching them new skills [ 79 ]. However, this does not happen automatically. Similar to our findings, the narrative review conducted by Harrison and colleagues [ 80 ] also identified educating the research team as the most important task when stakeholders are involved in health care research. Nevertheless, there is limited research on how skill training for stakeholders could look like, and this can vary greatly between studies. Stakeholders in some eHealth studies might need to learn content-related information [ 81 ], whereas other studies require methodological or statistical skills [ 54 ]. Researchers should provide adequate training and material for their project and encourage stakeholders to make use of it. The studies included in this review that recommended stakeholder skill training almost exclusively worked with health care professionals. The relationship between recommending skill training and working mainly with health care professionals remains unclear. A possible explanation could be that other stakeholder groups in other studies already had the necessary skills and thus did not require any additional training. Another possibility is that other stakeholders were not given the same roles that health care professionals held, and therefore, they did not need skill training. Finally, as we will discuss later, reporting of AR activities was not always very extensive. Thus, stakeholders outside the health care sector were possibly trained, and these studies did not report on this aspect. Generally, not all participants prefer the same level of engagement in a project, and researchers should respect these preferences [ 82 ].

Tasks and Roles of the Researcher

Different aspects of the role and tasks of the researcher in an AR project are discussed. Brydon-Miller and Aragón describe the many different tasks that action researchers need to fulfil as their “500 hats” [ 83 ]. These are not specific to eHealth studies, but they can occur in any AR study. As researchers and stakeholders have many varied duties, their roles are not fixed and might change over the course of the project [ 19 ]. One main task of the researchers that continues throughout the project is the need to foster a welcoming environment for all stakeholders [ 42 ]. Researchers should also be present and actively involve themselves at a higher level than that needed in non-AR projects [ 38 ]. Additional AR-specific tasks for the researchers include investing in partner relationships [ 35 ] or breaking down power structures [ 28 ]. Generally, AR studies demand more self-reflection and awareness from the researchers than other projects and researchers should keep this in mind when entering an AR project.

Constant Reflection

The importance of continuous reframing and evaluation of the project was emphasized in several studies. Although evaluation is 1 of the AR cycles, studies providing recommendations on this topic rarely included this in their definition of AR. Owing to the lack of reports on AR cycles, which will be discussed below, it is unclear if these studies still followed the AR cycles without reporting on them. However, sometimes, it seems that periodic planned evaluation is not enough. Instead, the participants need to regularly reflect on the current status of the project and their role in it. Therefore, new AR projects should create suitable spaces for evaluation and reflection in ways that fit the projects and stakeholders. This is especially important because reflection can become difficult once a person is in the middle of the project [ 49 ]. Holeman and Kane [ 53 ] emphasize that reflection should not only take place within the project, but it should also be explicitly reported to help other researchers. If action researchers take reflection seriously and include honest evaluations in their publishing, the AR community members can learn from each other. Additionally, researchers and other stakeholders within the project learn and benefit from constant reflection [ 9 ].

Accessible Dissemination

Another important aspect concerns paying attention to open and understandable dissemination of results within the community and among researchers. Action researchers need to communicate findings to the academic world while also finding ways to inform the target group about the project in ways that suit the target users’ needs. An example of open and accessible dissemination can be found in Canto-Farachala and Larrea [ 83 ]. They present the results of their AR project regarding territorial development on an interactive website, allowing others to learn from their work. However, it seems that accessible reporting is still not the norm in AR, as Avison and colleagues [ 62 ] describe that many AR studies are generally “published in books rather than as articles. Action researchers have large and complicated stories to tell.” Future AR projects should attempt to narrate their stories in such a way that others can learn from them.

Comprehensive Reporting

The different way of describing AR studies also leads to another issue, incomplete and elusive reporting. Although most studies did provide at least a short description of what they saw as AR, 7 studies provided no definition at all. Additionally, there were only 4 studies that included 3 or all of the 4 aspects of the AR definition in their description. Even the most mentioned aspects appeared in less than half of the included papers. Even though most papers did cite an AR approach of definition, some did not. In combination with the often-limited descriptions of AR, this makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of how AR is perceived and performed in a particular study. This resonates with what Bradbury and colleagues [ 9 ] describe as 1 of the quality points of AR, namely “action research process and related methods (should be) clearly articulated and illustrated.” The best practices and lessons learned that were extracted from the included studies were seldom mentioned explicitly. Best practices were often hidden in the description of the project, without much reasoning. Similarly, lessons learned were often described as adaptations made during the project or as plans for the future. Although we observed that some lessons learned turned into best practices over time, we think that researchers could benefit more from each other’s work by providing concrete recommendations. This review is a step in that direction. Both aspects show that the reporting of AR studies in eHealth can be improved to show more clearly what eHealth AR projects can look like and help others in setting up such projects with specific recommendations.

Limitations

Approximately a third of the included papers (14 out of 44) were published more than 10 years ago. This also means that some of the technologies that are described in the older papers are now relatively old. However, this literature review focuses mainly on the AR methodology and lessons learned about doing action research. Therefore, there was no exclusion criterium regarding the publication date of the papers.

The search yielded several PD-related papers. These papers could have been included, given that some definitions of PD are very similar to AR. However, as our aim was to provide an overview of how AR is done, these were excluded as the researchers of these studies themselves did not identify their studies as being related to AR (ie, not referring to, mentioning, or describing AR). Although this offers a clearer picture of how researchers conduct AR, it also creates a potential limitation in that best practices and lessons learned could be enriched from PD literature.

This overview of AR approaches focuses mostly on the interconnectedness among the approaches, without a comprehensive comparison of the content. Comparing the approaches with regard to the specific aspects of AR that they describe would be a review in and of itself, going beyond the scope of this current review. Therefore, we decided to focus on the definitions that the authors themselves provided even when they also cited AR approaches, as these are most likely to reflect their own vision of AR.

This review illustrates how AR is conducted in eHealth studies. Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria mainly took place in western countries and lasted for 2 to 3 years. Different stakeholders were involved, but the most commonly involved groups were health care professionals and patients. As for the methods used, most studies opted for focus groups and interviews. Even though many studies cited the AR approach proposed by Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ], their own definitions of AR were often not explicit in terms of how they implemented AR. Future projects should report their AR definition as well as the best practices and lessons learned more clearly. Other recommendations include paying attention toward developing the skill and confidence of the stakeholders, being aware of the changing role of the researcher, frequently evaluating the project, and disseminating results in an understandable manner.

Abbreviations

Multimedia appendix 1, multimedia appendix 2.

Authors' Contributions: KO performed the literature search and analysis and was a major contributor in designing the study and writing the manuscript. CG contributed to the design of the study, assisted with the search and analysis, and made major contributions to the manuscript. FN and LvV contributed to the design of the study and substantially revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant 857188).

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on January 27, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasizes that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualized like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualize systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyze existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilized, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardized test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mold their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalizability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

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

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2024, January 12). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/action-research/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, primary research | definition, types, & examples, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature review on the use of action research in higher education

2016, Educational Action Research

Related Papers

Journal of Further and Higher Education

Educational Action Research

Lily Orland-Barak

Denise Sweeney

Psychology Learning & Teaching

Cathal O'Siochru

Psychology lecturers are well-qualified to carry out action research which would contribute to the theoretical understanding of learning as well as having practical benefits for students. Researchers are urged to collect evidence to influence policy where higher education is facing new challenges, whether from changing economic conditions, technological developments, globalisation, student diversity, or greater expectations for personalised, engaging, and flexible learning. Five specific areas within the teaching of psychology are identified as offering rich opportunities for collaborative action research: study abroad, study skills for transition to university, engaging students with statistics, gamification, and teaching psychology to students from other disciplines. Pedagogical action research demonstrates how knowledge and skills in psychology can be applied to solve practical problems, providing role models of psychological literacy to students, who can also beneficially be involved as participant researchers. Pedagogical research is particularly desirable when students are learning a new way of thinking.

Japie Heydenrych

Pieter Du Toit

Roxanne Greenidge-Waithe

British Educational Research Journal

Juny Montoya

JALT Journal

Jerry Gebhard

In this article I describe three action research projects done by teachers at Teachers College, Columbia University, Tokyo MA TESOL Program. I discuss the benefits of doing action research (how it helps us to make more informed teaching decisions; gain skills at posing and solving teaching problems; expand reflective skills; create a forum to discuss teaching issues and beliefs), as well as its limitations (a focus only on problems; a narrowly defined linear process). I then highlight other avenues to expand awareness, such as &quot;exploring to see what happens&quot; by trying the opposite, exploring &quot;what we actually do&quot; as opposed to &quot;what we think we do,&quot; considering &quot;what we believe in relation to what we do,&quot; and exploring to &quot;gain emotional clarity.&quot; アクションリサーチを使った教育について考える-検証例、利点と限界 本論文では、コロンビア大学ティーチャーズ･カレッジ東京校英語教授法修士課程プログラムで学ぶ教師たちによって行われた３つのアクションリサーチについて語り、アクションリサーチがもたらす利点（教師自身の自律した教育的判断能力、問題提示能力、解決能力、また、反省能力が高まること。教育やその信念について話し合う場が提供さ...

Journal of College Teaching &amp; Learning (TLC)

Sepideh Mahani

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids

Michel Aegerter

DYNA ENERGIA Y SOSTENIBILIDAD

Araceli Hernandez

The Journal of Urology

Andrea Tubaro

Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering

Darko Nakov

Daniela Finco

Asrul Abang

Hilman Syaeful Alam

Sarah Enslin

IV Jornadas de Sociología de la UNLP (La Plata, 23 al 25 de noviembre de 2005)

Claudia M. González

Adrian E Pereira

Journal of Periodontology

wai hin Cheung

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Sirlei Sousa

Thermal Science

Abuzar Ghaffari

Psychiatry Research

Markos Mentzelopoulos

G. Terwindt

Injury Extra

Effie Katsarma

Lazaros Karagiannidis

Journal of Global History

Tirthankar Roy

Phytochemistry

Mostafa Elshobary

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Alexandre Urussov

Communications biology

Valeria Nicolini

Christine Madurski

Paul Cliteur

Journal of sports science & medicine

ALFONSO PENICHET TOMAS

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Advertisement

Implementing Action Research in EFL/ESL Classrooms: a Systematic Review of Literature 2010–2019

• Published: 09 March 2020
• Volume 33 , pages 341–362, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Amira Desouky Ali   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4175-4194 1  

1835 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

Action research studies in education often address learners’ needs and empower practitioners to effectively change instructional practices and school communities. A systematic review of action research (AR) studies undertaken in EFL/ESL setting was conducted in this paper to systematically analyze empirical studies on action research published within a ten-year period (between 2010 and 2019). The review also aimed at investigating the focal themes in teaching the language skills at school level and evaluating the overall quality of AR studies concerning purpose, participants, and methodology. Inclusion criteria were established and 40 studies that fit were finally selected for the systematic review. Garrard’s ( 2007 ) Matrix Method was used to structure and synthesize the literature. Results showed a significant diversity in teaching the language skills and implementation of the AR model. Moreover, findings revealed that (50%) of the studies used a mixed-method approach followed by a qualitative method (37.5%); whereas only (12.5%) employed quantitative methodology. Research gaps for future action research in developing language skills were highlighted and recommendations were offered.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Transforming Educational Practice Through Action Research: Three Australian Examples

Challenges in Teaching Tertiary English: Benefits of Action Research, Professional Reflection and Professional Development

Educational action research in south korea: finding new meanings in practitioner-based research.

Abdallah MS (2016) Towards improving content and instruction of the ‘TESOL/TEFL for special needs’ course: an action research study. Educ Action Res 25(3):420–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1173567

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad S (2012) Pedagogical action research projects to improve the teaching skills of Egyptian EFL student teachers. Proceedings of the ICERI2012, 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (PP.3589-3598). Madrid: Spain

Ahn H (2012) Teaching writing skills based on a genre approach to L2 primary school students: an action research. Engl Lang Teach 5(2):2–16

Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, Booth T, Dyson A (2004) Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools: a collaborative action research network. Int J Incl Educ 8(2):125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311032000158015

Allwright D, Bailey KM (1991) Focus on the language classroom: an introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Alsowat H (2017) A systematic review of research on teaching English language skills for Saudi EFL students. Adv Lang Lit Stud 8(5):30–45

Alvarez CLF (2014) Selective use of the mother tongue to enhance students’ English learning processes…beyond the same assumptions. PROFILE Issues Teach Prof Dev 16(1):137–151. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v16n1.38661

Arteaga-Lara HM (2017) Using the process-genre approach to improve fourth-grade EFL learners’ paragraph writing. Lat Am J Content Lang Integr Learn 10(2):217–244. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2017.10.2.3

Bethany-Saltikov J (2012) How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide. Open University Press, Maidenhead

Burns A (2010) Doing action research in English language teaching: a guide for practitioners. Routledge, New York, p 196 ISBN 978-0-415-99145-2

Campbell E, Cuba M (2015) Analyzing the role of visual cues in developing prediction-making skills of third- and ninth-grade English language learners. CATESOL J 27(1):53–93

Campbell YC, Filimon C (2018) Supporting the argumentative writing of students in linguistically diverse classrooms: an action research study. RMLE Online 41(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2017.1402408

Carolina B, Astrid R (2018) Speaking activities to foster students’ oral performance at a public school. Engl Lang Teach 11(8):65–72

Carr W, Kemmis S (1986) Becoming critical: education. knowledge and action research. Falmer, London

Cerón CN (2014) The effect of story read-alouds on children’s foreign language development. Gist Educ Learn Res J 8:83–98

Chaves O, Fernandez A (2016) A didactic proposal for EFL in a public school in Cali. HOW 23(1):10–29. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.23.1.139

Chen S, Huang F, Zeng W (2018) Comments on systematic methodologies of action research in the new millennium: a review of publications 2000–2014. Action Res 16(4):341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750317691103

Cho Y, Egan TM (2009) Action learning research: a systematic review and conceptual framework. Hum Resour Dev Rev 8(4):431–462 SAGE Publications

Cochrane TD (2014) Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile web 2.0. Br J Educ Technol 45(1):65–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01384.x

Cooper K, White RE (2012) Qualitative research in the postmodern era: contexts of qualitative research. Springer, Dordrecht

Dewi R, Kultsum U, Armadi A (2017) Using communicative games in improving students’ speaking skills. Engl Lang Teach 10(1):63–71

El-Deghaidy H (2012) Education for sustainable development: experiences from action research with science teachers. Discourse Commun Sustain Educ 3(1):23–40

Elliott J (1991) Action research for educational change. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

Fahrurrozi (2017) Improving students’ vocabulary mastery by using Total physical response. Engl Lang Teach 10(3):118–127. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p118

Fischer JC (2001) Action research, rationale and planning: developing a framework for teacher inquiry. In: Burnaford G, Fischer J, Hobson D (eds) Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 29–48

Fullerton S, Clemson A, Robson K (2015) Using a scaffolded multi-component intervention to support the reading and writing development of English learners. i.e. Inq Educ 7(1):1–20 http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=ie

Gámez DY, Cuellar JA (2019) The use of Plotagon to enhance the English writing skill in secondary school students. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev 21(1):139–153. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.71721

Garrard J (2007) Health sciences literature review made easy: the matrix method. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (1998) Introduction to action research: social research for social change. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Gutiérrez KG, Puello MN, Galvis LA (2015) Using pictures series technique to enhance narrative writing among ninth grade students at Institución Educativa Simón Araujo. Engl Lang Teach 8(5):45–71

Halwani N (2017) Visual aids and multimedia in second language acquisition. Engl Lang Teach 10(6):53–59

Hamilton C (2018) The Effects of peer-revision on student writing performance in a middle school ELA classroom (doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina. ProQuest: Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4596

Han L (2017) Analysis of the problems in language teachers’ action research. Int Educ Stud 10(11):123–128

Jaime-Osorio MF, Caicedo-Muñoz MC, Trujillo-Bohórquez IC (2019) A radio program: a strategy to develop students’ speaking and citizenship skills. HOW 26(1):8–33. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.26.1.470

Jones-Jackson B (2015) Supplemental Literacy Instruction: Examining its effects on student learning and achievement outcomes: An action research study (doctoral dissertation). Capella University, ProQuest: Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558987

Juriah J (2015) Implementing controlled composition to improve vocabulary mastery of EFL students. Dinamika Ilmu 15(1):137–162

Kemmis S, McTaggert R (1998) The action research planner. Deakin University Press, Geelong

Kostandy M (2013) Teachers as agents of change: A case study of action research for school improvement in Egypt (unpublished Master’s thesis). American University in Cairo, Graduate School of Education, Cairo, Egypt

Lan Y-J (2015) Action research contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Lang Learn Technol 19(2):16–31

Lavalle PI, Briesmaster M (2017) The study of the use of picture descriptions in enhancing communication skills among the 8th-grade students—learners of English as a foreign language. I.e. Inq Educ 9(1):1–16 Article 4

Lee MW (2018) Translation revisited for low-proficiency EFL writers. ELT J 72(4):365–373

Madriñan MS (2014) The use of first language in the second-language classroom: a support for second language acquisition. Gist Educ Learn Res J 9:50–66

Marenco-Domínguez JM (2017) Peer-tutoring fosters spoken fluency in computer-mediated tasks. Lat Am J Content Lang Integr Learn 10(2):271–296. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2017.10.2.5

McNiff J, Whitehead J (2006) All you need to know about action research. SAGE Publications, London

Mertler CA (2014) Action research: improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed). SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Miles GE (2006) Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher, 3rd edn. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

Montelongo J, Herter RJ, Ansaldo R, Hatter N (2010) A lesson cycle for teaching expository reading and writing. J Adolesc Adult Lit 53(8):656–666. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.8.4

Murillo HA (2013) Adapting features from the SIOP component: lesson delivery to English lessons in a Colombian public school. PROFILE 15(1):171–193

Nair S, Sanai M (2018) Effects of utilizing the STAD method (cooperative learning approach) in enhancing students’ descriptive writing skills. International. J Educ Pract 6(4):239–252

Nasrollahi M, Krishnasamy PN, Noor N (2015) Process of implementing critical Reading strategies in an Iranian EFL classroom: an action research. Int Educ Stud 8(1):9–16

Niño F, Páez M (2018) Building writing skills in English in fifth graders: analysis of strategies based on literature and creativity. Engl Lang Teach 11(9):102–117

Nova J, Chavarro C, Córdoba A (2017) Educational videos: a didactic tool for strengthening English vocabulary through the development of affective learning in kids. Gist Educ Learn Res J 14:68–87

Nurhayati DA (2015) Improving students’ English pronunciation ability through go fish game and maze game. Dinamika Ilmu 15(2):215–233

Ortiz SM, Cuéllar MT (2018) Authentic tasks to foster oral production among English as a foreign language learners. HOW 25(1):51–68. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.25.1.362

Ortiz-Neira RA (2019) The impact of information gap activities on young EFL learners’ oral fluency. Profile: Issues Teach Prof Dev 21(2):113–125. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n2.73385

Samawiyah Z, Saifuddin M (2016) Phonetic symbols through audiolingual method to improve the students’ listening skill. DINAMIKA ILMU 16(1):35–46

Sánchez RA (2017) Reading comprehension course through a genre-oriented approach at a school in Colombia. HOW 24(2):35–62. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.331

Singh G, Hardaker G (2014) Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning. Educ Train 56(2/3):105–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123

Snyder MJ (2012) Reconnecting with your passion: an action research study exploring humanities and professional nursing (doctoral dissertation). ProQuest LLC

Stern T (2014) What is good action research? Considerations about quality criteria. In: Stern T, Townsend A, Rauch F, Schuster A (eds) Action research, innovation and change: international perspectives across disciplines. Routledge, London

Szabo S (2010) Older children need phonemic awareness instruction, too. TESOL J 1(1):130–141

Torres AM, Rodríguez LF (2017) Increasing EFL learners’ oral production at a public school through project-based learning. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev 19(2):57–71. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n2.59889

Townsend A (2013) Action research: the challenges of understanding and researching practice. Open University Press, Maidenhead Berkshire

Triviño PA (2016) Using cooperative learning to foster the development of adolescents’ English writing skills. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev 18(1):21–38. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n1.53079

Urquijo J (2012) Improving oral performance through interactions flashcards (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Centro Colombo Americano, Colombia

Vasileiadou I, Makrina Z (2017) Using online computer games in the ELT classroom: a case study. Engl Lang Teach 10(12):134–150

Vaughan M (2019) The body of literature on action research in education. The Wiley handbook of action research in education, first edition. Edited by Craig a. Mertler, 53-74

Vaughan M, Burnaford G (2015) Action research in graduate teacher education: a review of the literature, 2005-2015. Educ Action Res 24:280–299

Wach A (2014) Action research and teacher development: MA students’ perspective. In Pawlak, Mirosław; Bielak, Jakub; Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Anna (eds.) Classroom-oriented Research. Achievements and Challenges. Heidelberg: Springer, 121–137

Westbrook J (2013) Reading as a hermeneutical Endeavour: whole-class approaches to teaching narrative with low-attaining adolescent readers. Literacy 47(1):42–49

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Languages, Sadat Academy for Management Sciences, 151 Maadi Al Khabiri Al Wasti, Al Maadi, Cairo, 12411, Egypt

Amira Desouky Ali

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amira Desouky Ali .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ali, A.D. Implementing Action Research in EFL/ESL Classrooms: a Systematic Review of Literature 2010–2019. Syst Pract Action Res 33 , 341–362 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09523-y

Download citation

Published : 09 March 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09523-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Action research
• EFL/ESL context
• Language skills
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews

Developing a Research Question

Literature reviews: developing a research question, developing a research question.

Before searching for sources, you need to formulate a Research Question — this is what you are trying to answer using the existing academic literature. The Research Question pinpoints the focus of the review .

Your first step involves choosing, exploring, and focusing a topic. At this stage you might discover that you need to tweak your topic or the scope of your research as you learn more about the topic in the literature.

THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND: 

• The question must be "researchable" — it can be answered with accessible facts and data
• Questions often start with How, Why, What, Which
• The question opens the door for other areas of inquiry — it identifies a gap in existing research
• Questions should be open-ended and focus on cause and effect

TRY TO AVOID: 

• Simple yes/no questions, or questions with an easy answer (what is the radius of the moon?)
• Questions that can only be answered by an opinion (does it smell nice when it rains?)
• Questions that involve secret information (what is the recipe for Coca-Cola?)
• Questions that are too broad or too narrow

REFINING YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION

Two examples of refining research questions that could be considered either too broad or too narrow.

Finding Example Literature Reviews

Using database filter tools.

It can be helpful to read existing literature reviews on your topic to get an idea of major themes, how authors structure their arguments, or what reviews look like in your discipline.

DOCUMENT TYPE FILTERS

Many library databases have the option to highlight just Review Articles after you perform a search. Filters above show what the Document Type filter looks like, with a "Review" option. These examples are from Scopus and ProQuest. The "Review" filter here refers to free-standing, comprehensive Review Articles on a topic, as opposed to a shorter literature review inside a scholarly article.

LIT REVIEWS INSIDE ARTICLES

It is also worth taking a look at the shorter literature reviews inside scholarly articles. These can sometimes be called "Background" or "Background Literature." Look for a section typically following the Introduction that covers the history or gives context on the paper's topic.

EXAMPLE REVIEW ARTICLES

Here are a few examples of Review Articles in different disciplines. Note sometimes an article can be a Review Article without the word "review" in the title.

• HUMANITIES — Art — "Art and Crime: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City" from the journal Geography Compass
• SCIENCES — Climate Change — "Mercury Isotopes in Earth and Environmental Sciences" from the journal Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
• SOCIAL SCIENCES — Psychology — "Structural Competency and the Future of Firearm Research" from the journal Social Science & Medicine

Attribution

Thanks to Librarian Jamie Niehof at the University of Michigan for providing permission to reuse and remix this Literature Reviews guide.

Goldilocker Tool

UM Librarians have developed a quick tool called Goldilocker  to help beginners who are struggling to refine their Research Question. 

• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 4:51 PM
• URL: https://info.library.okstate.edu/literaturereviews