related literature example qualitative research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Archer Library

Qualitative research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• Schedule a Reference Appointment This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative 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 & Stats
• 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 & Stats
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 17, 2023 7:46 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/qualitative

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

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Literature

What is a “literature review”.

No researcher ever comes up with a research question that is wholly novel. Someone, somewhere, has asked the same thing. Academic research is part of a larger community of researchers, and it is your responsibility, as a member of this community, to acknowledge others who have asked similar questions and to put your particular research into this greater context. It is not simply a convention or custom to begin your study with a review of previous literature (the “ lit review ”) but an important responsibility you owe the scholarly community.

Too often, new researchers pursue a topic to study and then write something like, “No one has ever studied this before” or “This area is underresearched.” It may be that no one has studied this particular group or setting, but it is highly unlikely no one has studied the foundational phenomenon of interest. And that comment about an area being underresearched? Be careful. The statement may simply signal to others that you haven’t done your homework. Rubin ( 2021 ) refers to this as “free soloing,” and it is not appreciated in academic work:

The truth of the matter is, academics don’t really like when people free solo. It’s really bad form to omit talking about the other people who are doing or have done research in your area. Partly, I mean we need to cite their work, but I also mean we need to respond to it—agree or disagree, clarify for extend. It’s also really bad form to talk about your research in a way that does not make it understandable to other academics.…You have to explain to your readers what your story is really about in terms they care about . This means using certain terminology, referencing debates in the literature, and citing relevant works—that is, in connecting your work to something else. ( 51–52 )

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. It includes both articles and books—and in some cases reports—relevant to a particular area of research. Ideally, one’s research question follows from the reading of what has already been produced. For example, you are interested in studying sports injuries related to female gymnasts. You read everything you can find on sports injuries related to female gymnasts, and you begin to get a sense of what questions remain open. You find that there is a lot of research on how coaches manage sports injuries and much about cultures of silence around treating injuries, but you don’t know what the gymnasts themselves are thinking about these issues. You look specifically for studies about this and find several, which then pushes you to narrow the question further. Your literature review then provides the road map of how you came to your very specific question, and it puts your study in the context of studies of sports injuries. What you eventually find can “speak to” all the related questions as well as your particular one.

In practice, the process is often a bit messier. Many researchers, and not simply those starting out, begin with a particular question and have a clear idea of who they want to study and where they want to conduct their study but don’t really know much about other studies at all. Although backward, we need to recognize this is pretty common. Telling students to “find literature” after the fact can seem like a purposeless task or just another hurdle for completing a thesis or dissertation. It is not! Even if you were not motivated by the literature in the first place, acknowledging similar studies and connecting your own research to those studies are important parts of building knowledge. Acknowledgment of past research is a responsibility you owe the discipline to which you belong.

Literature reviews can also signal theoretical approaches and particular concepts that you will incorporate into your own study. For example, let us say you are doing a study of how people find their first jobs after college, and you want to use the concept of social capital . There are competing definitions of social capital out there (e.g., Bourdieu vs. Burt vs. Putnam). Bourdieu’s notion is of one form of capital, or durable asset, of a “network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” ( 1984:248 ). Burt emphasizes the “brokerage opportunities” in a social network as social capital ( 1997:355 ). Putnam’s social capital is all about “facilitating coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” ( 2001:67 ). Your literature review can adjudicate among these three approaches, or it can simply refer to the one that is animating your own research. If you include Bourdieu in your literature review, readers will know “what kind” of social capital you are talking about as well as what kind of social scientist you yourself are. They will likely understand that you are interested more in how some people are advantaged by their social capital relative to others rather than being interested in the mechanics of how social networks operate.

The literature review thus does two important things for you: firstly, it allows you to acknowledge previous research in your area of interest, thereby situating you within a discipline or body of scholars, and, secondly, it demonstrates that you know what you are talking about. If you present the findings of your research study without including a literature review, it can be like singing into the wind. It sounds nice, but no one really hears it, or if they do catch snippets, they don’t know where it is coming from.

Examples of Literature Reviews

To help you get a grasp of what a good literature review looks like and how it can advance your study, let’s take a look at a few examples.

Reader-Friendly Example: The Power of Peers

The first is by Janice McCabe ( 2016 ) and is from an article on peer networks in the journal Contexts . Contexts presents articles in a relatively reader-friendly format, with the goal of reaching a large audience for interesting sociological research. Read this example carefully and note how easily McCabe is able to convey the relevance of her own work by situating it in the context of previous studies:

Scholars who study education have long acknowledged the importance of peers for students’ well-being and academic achievement. For example, in 1961, James Coleman argued that peer culture within high schools shapes students’ social and academic aspirations and successes. More recently, Judith Rich Harris has drawn on research in a range of areas—from sociological studies of preschool children to primatologists’ studies of chimpanzees and criminologists’ studies of neighborhoods—to argue that peers matter much more than parents in how children “turn out.” Researchers have explored students’ social lives in rich detail, as in Murray Milner’s book about high school students, Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids , and Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton’s look at college students, Paying for the Party . These works consistently show that peers play a very important role in most students’ lives. They tend, however, to prioritize social over academic influence and to use a fuzzy conception of peers rather than focusing directly on friends—the relationships that should matter most for student success. Social scientists have also studied the power of peers through network analysis, which is based on uncovering the web of connections between people. Network analysis involves visually mapping networks and mathematically comparing their structures (such as the density of ties) and the positions of individuals within them (such as how central a given person is within the network). As Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler point out in their book Connected , network structure influences a range of outcomes, including health, happiness, wealth, weight, and emotions. Given that sociologists have long considered network explanations for social phenomena, it’s surprising that we know little about how college students’ friends impact their experiences. In line with this network tradition, I focus on the structure of friendship networks, constructing network maps so that the differences we see across participants are due to the underlying structure, including each participant’s centrality in their friendship group and the density of ties among their friends. ( 23 )

What did you notice? In her very second sentence, McCabe uses “for example” to introduce a study by Coleman, thereby indicating that she is not going to tell you every single study in this area but is going to tell you that (1) there is a lot of research in this area, (2) it has been going on since at least 1961, and (3) it is still relevant (i.e., recent studies are still being done now). She ends her first paragraph by summarizing the body of literature in this area (after giving you a few examples) and then telling you what may have been (so far) left out of this research. In the second paragraph, she shifts to a separate interesting focus that is related to the first but is also quite distinct. Lit reviews very often include two (or three) distinct strands of literature, the combination of which nicely backgrounds this particular study . In the case of our female gymnast study (above), those two strands might be (1) cultures of silence around sports injuries and (2) the importance of coaches. McCabe concludes her short and sweet literature review with one sentence explaining how she is drawing from both strands of the literature she has succinctly presented for her particular study. This example should show you that literature reviews can be readable, helpful, and powerful additions to your final presentation.

Authoritative Academic Journal Example: Working Class Students’ College Expectations

The second example is more typical of academic journal writing. It is an article published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education by Wolfgang Lehmann ( 2009 ):

Although this increase in post-secondary enrolment and the push for university is evident across gender, race, ethnicity, and social class categories, access to university in Canada continues to be significantly constrained for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Finnie, Lascelles, and Sweetman 2005). Rising tuition fees coupled with an overestimation of the cost and an underestimation of the benefits of higher education has put university out of reach for many young people from low-income families (Usher 2005). Financial constraints aside, empirical studies in Canada have shown that the most important predictor of university access is parental educational attainment. Having at least one parent with a university degree significantly increases the likelihood of a young person to attend academic-track courses in high school, have high educational and career aspirations, and ultimately attend university (Andres et al. 1999, 2000; Lehmann 2007a). Drawing on Bourdieu’s various writing on habitus and class-based dispositions (see, for example, Bourdieu 1977, 1990), Hodkinson and Sparkes (1997) explain career decisions as neither determined nor completely rational. Instead, they are based on personal experiences (e.g., through employment or other exposure to occupations) and advice from others. Furthermore, they argue that we have to understand these decisions as pragmatic, rather than rational. They are pragmatic in that they are based on incomplete and filtered information, because of the social context in which the information is obtained and processed. New experiences and information can, however, also be allowed into one’s world, where they gradually or radically transform habitus, which in turn creates the possibility for the formation of new and different dispositions. Encountering a supportive teacher in elementary or secondary school, having ambitious friends, or chance encounters can spark such transformations. Transformations can be confirming or contradictory, they can be evolutionary or dislocating. Working-class students who enter university most certainly encounter such potentially transformative situations. Granfield (1991) has shown how initially dislocating feelings of inadequacy and inferiority of working-class students at an elite US law school were eventually replaced by an evolutionary transformation, in which the students came to dress, speak and act more like their middle-class and upper-class peers. In contrast, Lehmann (2007b) showed how persistent habitus dislocation led working-class university students to drop out of university. Foskett and Hemsley-Brown (1999) argue that young people’s perceptions of careers are a complex mix of their own experiences, images conveyed through adults, and derived images conveyed by the media. Media images of careers, perhaps, are even more important for working-class youth with high ambitions as they offer (generally distorted) windows into a world of professional employment to which they have few other sources of access. It has also been argued that working-class youth who do continue to university still face unique, class-specific challenges, evident in higher levels of uncertainty (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lehmann 2004, 2007a; Quinn 2004), their higher education choices (Ball et al. 2002; Brooks 2003; Reay et al. 2001) and fears of inadequacy because of their cultural outsider status (Aries and Seider 2005; Granfield 1991). Although the number of working-class university students in Canada has slowly increased, that of middle-class students at university has risen far more steeply (Knighton and Mizra 2002). These different enrolment trajectories have actually widened the participation gap, which in tum explains our continued concerns with the potential outsider status Indeed, in a study comparing first-generation working-class and traditional students who left university without graduating, Lehmann (2007b) found that first-generation working-class students were more likely to leave university very early in some cases within the first two months of enrollment. They were also more likely to leave university despite solid academic performance. Not “fitting in,” not “feeling university,” and not being able to “relate to these people” were key reasons for eventually withdrawing from university. From the preceding review of the literature, a number of key research questions arise: How do working-class university students frame their decision to attend university? How do they defy the considerable odds documented in the literature to attend university? What are the sources of information and various images that create dispositions to study at university? What role does their social-class background- or habitus play in their transition dispositions and how does this translate into expectations for university? ( 139 )

What did you notice here? How is this different from (and similar to) the first example? Note that rather than provide you with one or two illustrative examples of similar types of research, Lehmann provides abundant source citations throughout. He includes theory and concepts too. Like McCabe, Lehmann is weaving through multiple literature strands: the class gap in higher education participation in Canada, class-based dispositions, and obstacles facing working-class college students. Note how he concludes the literature review by placing his research questions in context.

Find other articles of interest and read their literature reviews carefully. I’ve included two more for you at the end of this chapter . As you learned how to diagram a sentence in elementary school (hopefully!), try diagramming the literature reviews. What are the “different strands” of research being discussed? How does the author connect these strands to their own research questions? Where is theory in the lit review, and how is it incorporated (e.g., Is it a separate strand of its own or is it inextricably linked with previous research in this area)?

One model of how to structure your literature review can be found in table 9.1. More tips, hints, and practices will be discussed later in the chapter.

Table 9.1. Model of Literature Review, Adopted from Calarco (2020:166)

Embracing Theory

A good research study will, in some form or another, use theory. Depending on your particular study (and possibly the preferences of the members of your committee), theory may be built into your literature review. Or it may form its own section in your research proposal/design (e.g., “literature review” followed by “theoretical framework”). In my own experience, I see a lot of graduate students grappling with the requirement to “include theory” in their research proposals. Things get a little squiggly here because there are different ways of incorporating theory into a study (Are you testing a theory? Are you generating a theory?), and based on these differences, your literature review proper may include works that describe, explain, and otherwise set forth theories, concepts, or frameworks you are interested in, or it may not do this at all. Sometimes a literature review sets forth what we know about a particular group or culture totally independent of what kinds of theoretical framework or particular concepts you want to explore. Indeed, the big point of your study might be to bring together a body of work with a theory that has never been applied to it previously. All this is to say that there is no one correct way to approach the use of theory and the writing about theory in your research proposal.

Students are often scared of embracing theory because they do not exactly understand what it is. Sometimes, it seems like an arbitrary requirement. You’re interested in a topic; maybe you’ve even done some research in the area and you have findings you want to report. And then a committee member reads over what you have and asks, “So what?” This question is a good clue that you are missing theory, the part that connects what you have done to what other researchers have done and are doing. You might stumble upon this rather accidentally and not know you are embracing theory, as in a case where you seek to replicate a prior study under new circumstances and end up finding that a particular correlation between behaviors only happens when mediated by something else. There’s theory in there, if you can pull it out and articulate it. Or it might be that you are motivated to do more research on racial microaggressions because you want to document their frequency in a particular setting, taking for granted the kind of critical race theoretical framework that has done the hard work of defining and conceptualizing “microaggressions” in the first place. In that case, your literature review could be a review of Critical Race Theory, specifically related to this one important concept. That’s the way to bring your study into a broader conversation while also acknowledging (and honoring) the hard work that has preceded you.

Rubin ( 2021 ) classifies ways of incorporating theory into case study research into four categories, each of which might be discussed somewhat differently in a literature review or theoretical framework section. The first, the least theoretical, is where you set out to study a “configurative idiographic case” ( 70 ) This is where you set out to describe a particular case, leaving yourself pretty much open to whatever you find. You are not expecting anything based on previous literature. This is actually pretty weak as far as research design goes, but it is probably the default for novice researchers. Your committee members should probably help you situate this in previous literature in some way or another. If they cannot, and it really does appear you are looking at something fairly new that no one else has bothered to research before, and you really are completely open to discovery, you might try using a Grounded Theory approach, which is a methodological approach that foregrounds the generation of theory. In that case, your “theory” section can be a discussion of “Grounded Theory” methodology (confusing, yes, but if you take some time to ponder, you will see how this works). You will still need a literature review, though. Ideally one that describes other studies that have ever looked at anything remotely like what you are looking at—parallel cases that have been researched.

The second approach is the “disciplined configurative case,” in which theory is applied to explain a particular case or topic. You are not trying to test the theory but rather assuming the theory is correct, as in the case of exploring microaggressions in a particular setting. In this case, you really do need to have a separate theory section in addition to the literature review, one in which you clearly define the theoretical framework, including any of its important concepts. You can use this section to discuss how other researchers have used the concepts and note any discrepancies in definitions or operationalization of those concepts. This way you will be sure to design your study so that it speaks to and with other researchers. If everyone who is writing about microaggressions has a different definition of them, it is hard for others to compare findings or make any judgments about their prevalence (or any number of other important characteristics). Your literature review section may then stand alone and describe previous research in the particular area or setting, irrespective of the kinds of theory underlying those studies.

The third approach is “heuristic,” one in which you seek to identify new variables, hypotheses, mechanisms, or paths not yet explained by a theory or theoretical framework. In a way, you are generating new theory, but it is probably more accurate to say that you are extending or deepening preexisting theory. In this case, having a single literature review that is focused on the theory and the ways the theory has been applied and understood (with all its various mechanisms and pathways) is probably your best option. The focus of the literature reviewed is less on the case and more on the theory you are seeking to extend.

The final approach is “theory testing,” which is much rarer in qualitative studies than in quantitative, where this is the default approach. Theory-testing cases are those where a particular case is used to see if an existing theory is accurate or accurate under particular circumstances. As with the heuristic approach, your literature review will probably draw heavily on previous uses of the theory, but you may end up having a special section specifically about cases very close to your own . In other words, the more your study approaches theory testing, the more likely there is to be a set of similar studies to draw on or even one important key study that you are setting your own study up in parallel to in order to find out if the theory generated there operates here.

If we wanted to get very technical, it might be useful to distinguish theoretical frameworks properly from conceptual frameworks. The latter are a bit looser and, given the nature of qualitative research, often fit exploratory studies. Theoretical frameworks rely on specific theories and are essential for theory-testing studies. Conceptual frameworks can pull in specific concepts or ideas that may or may not be linked to particular theories. Think about it this way: A theory is a story of how the world works. Concepts don’t presume to explain the whole world but instead are ways to approach phenomena to help make sense of them. Microaggressions are concepts that are linked to Critical Race Theory. One could contextualize one’s study within Critical Race Theory and then draw various concepts, such as that of microaggressions from the overall theoretical framework. Or one could bracket out the master theory or framework and employ the concept of microaggression more opportunistically as a phenomenon of interest. If you are unsure of what theory you are using, you might want to frame a more practical conceptual framework in your review of the literature.

Helpful Tips

How to maintain good notes for what your read.

Over the years, I have developed various ways of organizing notes on what I read. At first, I used a single sheet of full-size paper with a preprinted list of questions and points clearly addressed on the front side, leaving the second side for more reflective comments and free-form musings about what I read, why it mattered, and how it might be useful for my research. Later, I developed a system in which I use a single 4″ × 6″ note card for each book I read. I try only to use the front side (and write very small), leaving the back for comments that are about not just this reading but things to do or examine or consider based on the reading. These notes often mean nothing to anyone else picking up the card, but they make sense to me. I encourage you to find an organizing system that works for you. Then when you set out to compose a literature review, instead of staring at five to ten books or a dozen articles, you will have ten neatly printed pages or notecards or files that have distilled what is important to know about your reading.

It is also a good idea to store this data digitally, perhaps through a reference manager. I use RefWorks, but I also recommend EndNote or any other system that allows you to search institutional databases. Your campus library will probably provide access to one of these or another system. Most systems will allow you to export references from another manager if and when you decide to move to another system. Reference managers allow you to sort through all your literature by descriptor, author, year, and so on. Even so, I personally like to have the ability to manually sort through my index cards, recategorizing things I have read as I go. I use RefWorks to keep a record of what I have read, with proper citations, so I can create bibliographies more easily, and I do add in a few “notes” there, but the bulk of my notes are kept in longhand.

What kinds of information should you include from your reading? Here are some bulleted suggestions from Calarco ( 2020:113–114 ), with my own emendations:

• Citation . If you are using a reference manager, you can import the citation and then, when you are ready to create a bibliography, you can use a provided menu of citation styles, which saves a lot of time. If you’ve originally formatted in Chicago Style but the journal you are writing for wants APA style, you can change your entire bibliography in less than a minute. When using a notecard for a book, I include author, title, date as well as the library call number (since most of what I read I pull from the library). This is something RefWorks is not able to do, and it helps when I categorize.

I begin each notecard with an “intro” section, where I record the aims, goals, and general point of the book/article as explained in the introductory sections (which might be the preface, the acknowledgments, or the first two chapters). I then draw a bold line underneath this part of the notecard. Everything after that should be chapter specific. Included in this intro section are things such as the following, recommended by Calarco ( 2020 ):

• Key background . “Two to three short bullet points identifying the theory/prior research on which the authors are building and defining key terms.”
• Data/methods . “One or two short bullet points with information about the source of the data and the method of analysis, with a note if this is a novel or particularly effective example of that method.” I use [M] to signal methodology on my notecard, which might read, “[M] Int[erview]s (n-35), B[lack]/W[hite] voters” (I need shorthand to fit on my notecard!).
• Research question . “Stated as briefly as possible.” I always provide page numbers so I can go back and see exactly how this was stated (sometimes, in qualitative research, there are multiple research questions, and they cannot be stated simply).
• Argument/contributions . “Two to three short bullet points briefly describing the authors’ answer to the central research question and its implication for research, theory, and practice.” I use [ARG] for argument to signify the argument, and I make sure this is prominently visible on my notecard. I also provide page numbers here.

For me, all of this fits in the “intro” section, which, if this is a theoretically rich, methodologically sound book, might take up a third or even half of the front page of my notecard. Beneath the bold underline, I report specific findings or particulars of the book as they emerge chapter by chapter. Calarco’s ( 2020 ) next step is the following:

• Key findings . “Three to four short bullet points identifying key patterns in the data that support the authors’ argument.”

All that remains is writing down thoughts that occur upon finishing the article/book. I use the back of the notecard for these kinds of notes. Often, they reach out to other things I have read (e.g., “Robinson reminds me of Crusoe here in that both are looking at the effects of social isolation, but I think Robinson makes a stronger argument”). Calarco ( 2020 ) concludes similarly with the following:

• Unanswered questions . “Two to three short bullet points that identify key limitations of the research and/or questions the research did not answer that could be answered in future research.”

As I mentioned, when I first began taking notes like this, I preprinted pages with prompts for “research question,” “argument,” and so on. This was a great way to remind myself to look for these things in particular. You can do the same, adding whatever preprinted sections make sense to you, given what you are studying and the important aspects of your discipline. The other nice thing about the preprinted forms is that it keeps your writing to a minimum—you cannot write more than the allotted space, even if you might want to, preventing your notes from spiraling out of control. This can be helpful when we are new to a subject and everything seems worth recording!

After years of discipline, I have finally settled on my notecard approach. I have thousands of notecards, organized in several index card filing boxes stacked in my office. On the top right of each card is a note of the month/day I finished reading the item. I can remind myself what I read in the summer of 2010 if the need or desire ever arose to do so…those invaluable notecards are like a memento of what my brain has been up to!

Where to Start Looking for Literature

Your university library should provide access to one of several searchable databases for academic books and articles. My own preference is JSTOR, a service of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization that works to advance and preserve knowledge and to improve teaching and learning through the use of digital technologies. JSTOR allows you to search by several keywords and to narrow your search by type of material (articles or books). For many disciplines, the “literature” of the literature review is expected to be peer-reviewed “articles,” but some disciplines will also value books and book chapters. JSTOR is particularly useful for article searching. You can submit several keywords and see what is returned, and you can also narrow your search by a particular journal or discipline. If your discipline has one or two key journals (e.g., the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review are key for sociology), you might want to go directly to those journals’ websites and search for your topic area. There is an art to when to cast your net widely and when to refine your search, and you may have to tack back and forth to ensure that you are getting all that is relevant but not getting bogged down in all studies that might have some marginal relevance.

Some articles will carry more weight than others, and you can use applications like Google Scholar to see which articles have made and are continuing to make larger impacts on your discipline. Find these articles and read them carefully; use their literature review and the sources cited in those articles to make sure you are capturing what is relevant. This is actually a really good way of finding relevant books—only the most impactful will make it into the citations of journals. Over time, you will notice that a handful of articles (or books) are cited so often that when you see, say, Armstrong and Hamilton ( 2015 ), you know exactly what book this is without looking at the full cite. This is when you know you are in the conversation.

You might also approach a professor whose work is broadly in the area of your interest and ask them to recommend one or two “important” foundational articles or books. You can then use the references cited in those recommendations to build up your literature. Just be careful: some older professors’ knowledge of the literature (and I reluctantly add myself here) may be a bit outdated! It is best that the article or book whose references and sources you use to build your body of literature be relatively current.

Keep a List of Your Keywords

When using searchable databases, it is a good idea to keep a list of all the keywords you use as you go along so that (1) you do not needlessly duplicate your efforts and (2) you can more easily adjust your search as you get a better sense of what you are looking for. I suggest you keep a separate file or even a small notebook for this and you date your search efforts.

Here’s an example:

Table 9.2. Keep a List of Your Keywords

Think Laterally

How to find the various strands of literature to combine? Don’t get stuck on finding the exact same research topic you think you are interested in. In the female gymnast example, I recommended that my student consider looking for studies of ballerinas, who also suffer sports injuries and around whom there is a similar culture of silence. It turned out that there was in fact research about my student’s particular questions, just not about the subjects she was interested in. You might do something similar. Don’t get stuck looking for too direct literature but think about the broader phenomenon of interest or analogous cases.

Read Outside the Canon

Some scholars’ work gets cited by everyone all the time. To some extent, this is a very good thing, as it helps establish the discipline. For example, there are a lot of “Bourdieu scholars” out there (myself included) who draw ideas, concepts, and quoted passages from Bourdieu. This makes us recognizable to one another and is a way of sharing a common language (e.g., where “cultural capital” has a particular meaning to those versed in Bourdieusian theory). There are empirical studies that get cited over and over again because they are excellent studies but also because there is an “echo chamber effect” going on, where knowing to cite this study marks you as part of the club, in the know, and so on. But here’s the problem with this: there are hundreds if not thousands of excellent studies out there that fail to get appreciated because they are crowded out by the canon. Sometimes this happens because they are published in “lower-ranked” journals and are never read by a lot of scholars who don’t have time to read anything other than the “big three” in their field. Other times this happens because the author falls outside of the dominant social networks in the field and thus is unmentored and fails to get noticed by those who publish a lot in those highly ranked and visible spaces. Scholars who fall outside the dominant social networks and who publish outside of the top-ranked journals are in no way less insightful than their peers, and their studies may be just as rigorous and relevant to your work, so it is important for you to take some time to read outside the canon. Due to how a person’s race, gender, and class operate in the academy, there is also a matter of social justice and ethical responsibility involved here: “When you focus on the most-cited research, you’re more likely to miss relevant research by women and especially women of color, whose research tends to be under-cited in most fields. You’re also more likely to miss new research, research by junior scholars, and research in other disciplines that could inform your work. Essentially, it is important to read and cite responsibly, which means checking that you’re not just reading and citing the same white men and the same old studies that everyone has cited before you” ( Calarco 2020:112 ).

Consider Multiple Uses for Literature

Throughout this chapter, I’ve referred to the literature of interest in a rather abstract way, as what is relevant to your study. But there are many different ways previous research can be relevant to your study. The most basic use of the literature is the “findings”—for example, “So-and-so found that Canadian working-class students were concerned about ‘fitting in’ to the culture of college, and I am going to look at a similar question here in the US.” But the literature may be of interest not for its findings but theoretically—for example, employing concepts that you want to employ in your own study. Bourdieu’s definition of social capital may have emerged in a study of French professors, but it can still be relevant in a study of, say, how parents make choices about what preschools to send their kids to (also a good example of lateral thinking!).

If you are engaged in some novel methodological form of data collection or analysis, you might look for previous literature that has attempted that. I would not recommend this for undergraduate research projects, but for graduate students who are considering “breaking the mold,” find out if anyone has been there before you. Even if their study has absolutely nothing else in common with yours, it is important to acknowledge that previous work.

Describing Gaps in the Literature

First, be careful! Although it is common to explain how your research adds to, builds upon, and fills in gaps in the previous research (see all four literature review examples in this chapter for this), there is a fine line between describing the gaps and misrepresenting previous literature by failing to conduct a thorough review of the literature. A little humility can make a big difference in your presentation. Instead of “This is the first study that has looked at how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season,” say, “I use the previous literature on how working parents juggling childcare and the previous ethnographic studies of firefighters to explore how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season.” You can even add, “To my knowledge, no one has conducted an ethnographic study in this specific area, although what we have learned from X about childcare and from Y about firefighters would lead us to expect Z here.” Read more literature review sections to see how others have described the “gaps” they are filling.

Use Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a helpful tool for getting your thoughts in order and is particularly helpful when thinking about the “literature” foundational to your particular study. Concept maps are also known as mind maps, which is a delightful way to think about them. Your brain is probably abuzz with competing ideas in the early stages of your research design. Write/draw them on paper, and then try to categorize and move the pieces around into “clusters” that make sense to you. Going back to the gymnasts example, my student might have begun by jotting down random words of interest: gymnasts * sports * coaches * female gymnasts * stress * injury * don’t complain * women in sports * bad coaching * anxiety/stress * careers in sports * pain. She could then have begun clustering these into relational categories (bad coaching, don’t complain culture) and simple “event” categories (injury, stress). This might have led her to think about reviewing literature in these two separate aspects and then literature that put them together. There is no correct way to draw a concept map, as they are wonderfully specific to your mind. There are many examples you can find online.

Ask Yourself, “How Is This Sociology (or Political Science or Public Policy, Etc.)?”

Rubin ( 2021:82 ) offers this suggestion instead of asking yourself the “So what?” question to get you thinking about what bridges there are between your study and the body of research in your particular discipline. This is particularly helpful for thinking about theory. Rubin further suggests that if you are really stumped, ask yourself, “What is the really big question that all [fill in your discipline here] care about?” For sociology, it might be “inequality,” which would then help you think about theories of inequality that might be helpful in framing your study on whatever it is you are studying—OnlyFans? Childcare during COVID? Aging in America? I can think of some interesting ways to frame questions about inequality for any of those topics. You can further narrow it by focusing on particular aspects of inequality (Gender oppression? Racial exclusion? Heteronormativity?). If your discipline is public policy, the big questions there might be, How does policy get enacted, and what makes a policy effective? You can then take whatever your particular policy interest is—tax reform, student debt relief, cap-and-trade regulations—and apply those big questions. Doing so would give you a handle on what is otherwise an intolerably vague subject (e.g., What about student debt relief?).

Sometimes finding you are in new territory means you’ve hit the jackpot, and sometimes it means you’ve traveled out of bounds for your discipline. The jackpot scenario is wonderful. You are doing truly innovative research that is combining multiple literatures or is addressing a new or under-examined phenomenon of interest, and your research has the potential to be groundbreaking. Congrats! But that’s really hard to do, and it might be more likely that you’ve traveled out of bounds, by which I mean, you are no longer in your discipline . It might be that no one has written about this thing—at least within your field— because no one in your field actually cares about this topic . ( Rubin 2021:83 ; emphases added)

Don’t Treat This as a Chore

Don’t treat the literature review as a chore that has to be completed, but see it for what it really is—you are building connections to other researchers out there. You want to represent your discipline or area of study fairly and adequately. Demonstrate humility and your knowledge of previous research. Be part of the conversation.

Supplement: Two More Literature Review Examples

Elites by harvey ( 2011 ).

In the last two decades, there has been a small but growing literature on elites. In part, this has been a result of the resurgence of ethnographic research such as interviews, focus groups, case studies, and participant observation but also because scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding the perspectives and behaviors of leaders in business, politics, and society as a whole. Yet until recently, our understanding of some of the methodological challenges of researching elites has lagged behind our rush to interview them.

There is no clear-cut definition of the term elite, and given its broad understanding across the social sciences, scholars have tended to adopt different approaches. Zuckerman (1972) uses the term ultraelites to describe individuals who hold a significant amount of power within a group that is already considered elite. She argues, for example, that US senators constitute part of the country’s political elite but that among them are the ultraelites: a “subset of particularly powerful or prestigious influentials” (160). She suggests that there is a hierarchy of status within elite groups. McDowell (1998) analyses a broader group of “professional elites” who are employees working at different levels for merchant and investment banks in London. She classifies this group as elite because they are “highly skilled, professionally competent, and class-specific” (2135). Parry (1998:2148) uses the term hybrid elites in the context of the international trade of genetic material because she argues that critical knowledge exists not in traditional institutions “but rather as increasingly informal, hybridised, spatially fragmented, and hence largely ‘invisible,’ networks of elite actors.” Given the undertheorization of the term elite, Smith (2006) recognizes why scholars have shaped their definitions to match their respondents . However, she is rightly critical of the underlying assumption that those who hold professional positions necessarily exert as much influence as initially perceived. Indeed, job titles can entirely misrepresent the role of workers and therefore are by no means an indicator of elite status (Harvey 2010).

Many scholars have used the term elite in a relational sense, defining them either in terms of their social position compared to the researcher or compared to the average person in society (Stephens 2007). The problem with this definition is there is no guarantee that an elite subject will necessarily translate this power and authority in an interview setting. Indeed, Smith (2006) found that on the few occasions she experienced respondents wanting to exert their authority over her, it was not from elites but from relatively less senior workers. Furthermore, although business and political elites often receive extensive media training, they are often scrutinized by television and radio journalists and therefore can also feel threatened in an interview, particularly in contexts that are less straightforward to prepare for such as academic interviews. On several occasions, for instance, I have been asked by elite respondents or their personal assistants what they need to prepare for before the interview, which suggests that they consider the interview as some form of challenge or justification for what they do.

In many cases, it is not necessarily the figureheads or leaders of organizations and institutions who have the greatest claim to elite status but those who hold important social networks, social capital, and strategic positions within social structures because they are better able to exert influence (Burt 1992; Parry 1998; Smith 2005; Woods 1998). An elite status can also change, with people both gaining and losing theirs over time. In addition, it is geographically specific, with people holding elite status in some but not all locations. In short, it is clear that the term elite can mean many things in different contexts, which explains the range of definitions. The purpose here is not to critique these other definitions but rather to highlight the variety of perspectives.

When referring to my research, I define elites as those who occupy senior-management- and board-level positions within organizations. This is a similar scope of definition to Zuckerman’s (1972) but focuses on a level immediately below her ultraelite subjects. My definition is narrower than McDowell’s (1998) because it is clear in the context of my research that these people have significant decision-making influence within and outside of the firm and therefore present a unique challenge to interview. I deliberately use the term elite more broadly when drawing on examples from the theoretical literature in order to compare my experiences with those who have researched similar groups.

”Changing Dispositions among the Upwardly Mobile” by Curl, Lareau, and Wu ( 2018 )

There is growing interest in the role of cultural practices in undergirding the social stratification system. For example, Lamont et al. (2014) critically assess the preoccupation with economic dimensions of social stratification and call for more developed cultural models of the transmission of inequality. The importance of cultural factors in the maintenance of social inequality has also received empirical attention from some younger scholars, including Calarco (2011, 2014) and Streib (2015). Yet questions remain regarding the degree to which economic position is tied to cultural sensibilities and the ways in which these cultural sensibilities are imprinted on the self or are subject to change. Although habitus is a core concept in Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction, there is limited empirical attention to the precise areas of the habitus that can be subject to change during upward mobility as well as the ramifications of these changes for family life.

In Bourdieu’s (1984) highly influential work on the importance of class-based cultural dispositions, habitus is defined as a “durable system of dispositions” created in childhood. The habitus provides a “matrix of perceptions” that seems natural while also structuring future actions and pathways. In many of his writings, Bourdieu emphasized the durability of cultural tastes and dispositions and did not consider empirically whether these dispositions might be changed or altered throughout one’s life (Swartz 1997). His theoretical work does permit the possibility of upward mobility and transformation, however, through the ability of the habitus to “improvise” or “change” due to “new experiences” (Friedman 2016:131). Researchers have differed in opinion on the durability of the habitus and its ability to change (King 2000). Based on marital conflict in cross-class marriages, for instance, Streib (2015) argues that cultural dispositions of individuals raised in working-class families are deeply embedded and largely unchanging. In a somewhat different vein, Horvat and Davis (2011:152) argue that young adults enrolled in an alternative educational program undergo important shifts in their self-perception, such as “self-esteem” and their “ability to accomplish something of value.” Others argue there is variability in the degree to which habitus changes dependent on life experience and personality (Christodoulou and Spyridakis 2016). Recently, additional studies have investigated the habitus as it intersects with lifestyle through the lens of meaning making (Ambrasat et al. 2016). There is, therefore, ample discussion of class-based cultural practices in self-perception (Horvat and Davis 2011), lifestyle (Ambrasat et al. 2016), and other forms of taste (Andrews 2012; Bourdieu 1984), yet researchers have not sufficiently delineated which aspects of the habitus might change through upward mobility or which specific dimensions of life prompt moments of class-based conflict.

Bourdieu (1999:511; 2004) acknowledged simmering tensions between the durable aspects of habitus and those aspects that have been transformed—that is, a “fractured” or “cleft” habitus. Others have explored these tensions as a “divided” or “fragmented” habitus (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lee and Kramer 2013). Each of these conceptions of the habitus implies that changes in cultural dispositions are possible but come with costs. Exploration of the specific aspects of one’s habitus that can change and generate conflict contributes to this literature.

Scholars have also studied the costs associated with academic success for working-class undergraduates (Hurst 2010; Lee and Kramer 2013; London 1989; Reay 2017; Rondini 2016; Stuber 2011), but we know little about the lasting effects on adults. For instance, Lee and Kramer (2013) point to cross-class tensions as family and friends criticize upwardly mobile individuals for their newly acquired cultural dispositions. Documenting the tension many working-class students experience with their friends and families of origin, they find that the source of their pain or struggle is “shaped not only by their interactions with non-mobile family and friends but also within their own minds, by their own assessments of their social positions, and by how those positions are interpreted by others” (Lee and Kramer 2013:29). Hurst (2010) also explores the experiences of undergraduates who have been academically successful and the costs associated with that success. She finds that decisions about “class allegiance and identity” are required aspects of what it means to “becom[e] educated” (4) and that working-class students deal with these cultural changes differently. Jack (2014, 2016) also argues that there is diversity among lower-income students, which yields varied college experiences. Naming two groups, the “doubly disadvantaged” and the “privileged poor,” he argues that previous experience with “elite environments” (2014:456) prior to college informs students’ ability to take on dominant cultural practices, particularly around engagement, such as help seeking or meeting with professors (2016). These studies shed light on the role college might play as a “lever for mobility” (2016:15) and discuss the pain and difficulty associated with upward mobility among undergraduates, but the studies do not illuminate how these tensions unfold in adulthood. Neither have they sufficiently addressed potential enduring tensions with extended family members as well as the specific nature of the difficulties.

Some scholars point to the positive outcomes upwardly mobile youth (Lehmann 2009) and adults (Stuber 2005) experience when they maintain a different habitus than their newly acquired class position, although, as Jack (2014, 2016) shows, those experiences may vary depending on one’s experience with elite environments in their youth. Researchers have not sufficiently explored the specific aspects of the habitus that upwardly mobile adults change or the conflicts that emerge with family and childhood friends as they reach adulthood and experience colliding social worlds. We contribute to this scholarship with clear examples of self-reported changes to one’s cultural dispositions in three specific areas: “horizons,” food and health, and communication. We link these changes to enduring tension with family members, friends, and colleagues and explore varied responses to this tension based on race.

Further Readings

Bloomberg, Linda Dale, and Marie F. Volpe. 2012. Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. In keeping with its general approach to qualitative research, includes a “road map” for conducting a literature review.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . London: SAGE. A how-to book dedicated entirely to conducting a literature review from a British perspective. Useful for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2022. The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success . 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. A well-organized guidebook complete with reflection sections to prompt successful thinking about your literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2008. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . London: SAGE. A highly recommended companion to conducting a literature review for doctoral-level students.

The process of systematically searching through pre-existing studies (“literature”) on the subject of research; also, the section of a presentation in which the pre-existing literature is discussed.

Follow-up questions used in a semi-structured interview  to elicit further elaboration.  Suggested prompts can be included in the interview guide  to be used/deployed depending on how the initial question was answered or if the topic of the prompt does not emerge spontaneously.

A tool for identifying relationships among ideas by visually representing them on paper.  Most concept maps depict ideas as boxes or circles (also called nodes), which are structured hierarchically and connected with lines or arrows (also called arcs). These lines are labeled with linking words and phrases to help explain the connections between concepts.  Also known as mind mapping.

The people who are the subjects of an interview-based qualitative study. In general, they are also known as the participants, and for purposes of IRBs they are often referred to as the human subjects of the research.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Introduction

What is a literature review?

What does a literature review look like, how can i conduct a literature review, how do i analyze a literature review, how do i write a literature review.

• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Literature reviews

The literature review might be among the least romantic parts of research. However, the importance of understanding and synthesizing relevant literature in helping establish the research question for your study cannot be overstated.

To emphasize the importance of a literature review, writing a literature review, and incorporating literature reviews in research, let's examine its place in scholarly inquiry.

Foundations of scholarly literature

In mainstream research, a researcher shares their research in a paper that appears in a journal article, book chapter, thesis, or dissertation. Novel and interesting research is more likely to be published as peer-reviewed articles .

A researcher needs to be able to write a literature review that persuades scholars that their work is original and important. Put differently, a literature review is how researchers familiarize themselves with current conversation concerning their research topic and demonstrate that they are contributing something new and interesting to this conversation.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A good literature review can help you critically evaluate current knowledge and key concepts around current knowledge and key concepts within a particular topic. A researcher should provide an overview of relevant research and demonstrate they understand the knowledge surrounding their inquiry to generate new understanding.

Identifying a research gap

Literature reviews can identify which developments occurred and where a gap or puzzle remains that can be informed by further inquiry. For example, current research may assert that a sufficient amount of sleep benefits athletes in sports like basketball and soccer. At the same time, other researchers have reached the same conclusion in tennis and golf. However, if a researcher believes rugby players might have different sleep needs, there is a gap in the literature if no one has conducted a study specific to rugby.

Various gaps can be uncovered in a literature review. Examples include:

• A lack of research in a particular context that cannot be explained by existing theory, such as an unexamined geographical area or group of people
• A focus on certain theories or methodologies while overlooking others that can explain an unresolved puzzle
• An absence of studies after a certain time period or the occurrence of a significant event that challenges existing assumptions or understanding

Summarizing themes and patterns

Literature reviews can help develop theory by synthesizing and building on existing knowledge. This is an approach to knowledge called synthesis. A literature review helps draw connections across various studies and brings insights that individual papers may not be able to provide.

Writing for your audience

To publish in a peer-reviewed journal, you should also consider how reviewers and readers will see your work to ensure your research gets accepted for publication and is read widely by your target audience.

Reviewers for an academic journal want to know if the author of a paper understands the theories and work in his or her field. Thus, a researcher must summarize the key ideas, theories, and knowledge relevant to the theories or knowledge under discussion. A reviewer may not find the author credible if they do not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of certain developments central to the research area.

Students may also be asked to report on relevant literature to demonstrate knowledge of the field and critical analysis skills. Well-structured paragraphs and sections convey that you understand your topic and that your approach makes sense. These skills are fundamental in a thesis or dissertation. Students are often expected to write an entire dissertation chapter providing a summary of the existing research and different aspects that can inform further research.

ATLAS.ti helps you make sense of research.

Download a free trial of our qualitative data analysis software to see how it can work for you.

The shape of your literature review will depend on your research objectives. A written literature review can either be part of a larger research paper or stand alone as its own study.

A literature review section

A typical, original research paper begins with reviewing the literature to justify the novelty and importance of the inquiry being undertaken. For example, imagine that the author wants to examine the study habits of university students heavily engaged in social media. How does the author know other researchers haven't already explored the topic? And if they did, how can the author contribute new and interesting insights to move understanding further?

A background section in a larger paper should summarize the relevant, existing research to answer these questions. By examining studies on study habits and social media use, the author can demonstrate they have thoroughly surveyed the field to determine if and how further research can meaningfully expand understanding.

A stand-alone literature review

A review can also be a full-length paper. As stand-alone papers, they present a secondary analysis of a series of discrete but related studies in which the researcher provides their own interpretations on the overarching topic.

Remember that writing this type of paper is similar to writing a full paper on your own research project, and peer reviewers will evaluate it as such. A full research paper typically requires a description of the research methodology and the author's specific theoretical approach to analyzing the studies . A clear account of how the author conducted the analysis makes the key findings more credible.

You need not read all of the available theoretical and empirical scholarship to identify recurring central themes or important trends. A review merely samples the most relevant studies to generate key insights after summarizing sources.

Put simply, the researcher needs to collect written studies. There is no minimum number of required studies that constitute a good literature search, as it varies depending on the topic, the research question , and the amount of discussion that already exists on your subject.

In general, relevant sources include academic journals and monographs. Journals are easily searchable via library databases and online search engines like Google Scholar, which may even lead you to downloadable PDFs of full articles. Scholars may also make their papers available on websites like Academia.edu and ResearchGate.

Look for scholars who are well-known in their field. One quick way to identify key experts in your area is to search for highly cited papers and researchers. They can provide fundamental theories and findings critical to your review and link to previous, useful literature.

It's also important to emphasize recent studies in your collection. Especially in the social sciences, developments within the last five years may have opened up new insights or approaches that are important to consider. Later studies may have already challenged or refuted older papers, diminishing their potential contribution to your inquiry.

Other sources of research can include conference proceedings, university bulletins, unpublished theses, and any other publication available for other scholars to read. You may also incorporate records from cultural sources, theoretical discussions in presentations, or newspaper articles.

Keep in mind, however, that scholars take peer-reviewed publications like journal articles more seriously. On the other hand, if you are studying an underdeveloped topic with few published studies, you can consider other information sources to demonstrate a need for further research and discussion on your specific topic.

Organize your data all in one place.

Text files, PDFs, videos, and pictures. ATLAS.ti helps you analyze them all. See how with a free trial.

A good analysis should have a deliberate methodological approach. In other words, a review is more than just a report of relevant research from scholarly articles. A researcher writing a literature review needs to synthesize the existing knowledge and key debates from the collected studies.

Thematic review

Simply put, a thematic literature review aims to identify key themes or concepts that frequently appear in the collected studies. If your inquiry revolves around study tools, for example, what tools appear to be studied more often than others? Perhaps technology like computers and tablets appear often in studies, while newer devices such as virtual reality headsets and other wearable technology are given less focus.

Understanding what topics have already been studied in abundance can help you make an argument about what researchers should explore next. Prominent themes provide a helpful guide for identifying important trends and turning points in research.

As a result, your literature review can benefit from an annotated bibliography , which is a systematic organization of the research papers in your analysis. Many bibliographies include summaries of each study and a checklist of data points (e.g., does the study mention computers, handheld devices, or wearable technology?) to provide a visualization of your analysis.

Quantitative analysis

As mentioned earlier, identifying gaps or unresolved puzzles is a common rationale for writing a literature review. Examples of knowledge gaps include underexplored aspects of theory, lack of discussion in particular contexts, and underutilized research methods.

A quantitative analysis of the literature can help illustrate these gaps. For example, you can argue for a methodological gap among your collected studies. In a set of 40 papers, if 25 involve studies based on interviews and another 10 are based on surveys , you can argue that further observational research is necessary.

Writing a literature review involves discussing your collected studies by describing prominent themes, theoretical or empirical aspects that are missing or underexplored, or a combination of both. Remember that a key goal is to demonstrate your knowledge of the most recent and important developments in the field.

Examine the thematic codes in your project to determine which themes are most apparent and which elements remain underexamined. You can use these code frequencies in your written report to explain the extent or absence of theoretical development in the field (e.g., "Bus transportation is mentioned in only 7% (14 times) of the collected literature, demonstrating a lack of research on what people think about using buses for commuting.").

The goal of the writing process is not to exhaustively detail every study but to describe the most apparent trends or missing information. Select 3-5 themes that arise from the codes and describe each in detail, citing studies from the collected literature as key examples.

From a presentation of these themes, you can make an assertion about the need for novel research inquiry. Using the identified themes to represent a coherent whole, analyze and identify the overlooked areas of research that your own work can address.

Ultimately, most scholarly research is published based on whether that research contributes something novel and interesting to the current conversation around the topic. As a result, a rigorous literature review presents multiple sources of significant studies revolving around the same research topic. It presents a compelling argument about what such studies have yet to explore.

From research question to findings, make it happen with ATLAS.ti.

All the tools you need at every step of the research process. Try ATLAS.ti with a free trial.

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 11 October 2016

Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research

• Stephen J. Gentles 1 , 4 ,
• Cathy Charles 1 ,
• David B. Nicholas 2 ,
• Jenny Ploeg 3 &
• K. Ann McKibbon 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  5 , Article number:  172 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

50k Accesses

25 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Overviews of methods are potentially useful means to increase clarity and enhance collective understanding of specific methods topics that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness. This type of review represents a distinct literature synthesis method, although to date, its methodology remains relatively undeveloped despite several aspects that demand unique review procedures. The purpose of this paper is to initiate discussion about what a rigorous systematic approach to reviews of methods, referred to here as systematic methods overviews , might look like by providing tentative suggestions for approaching specific challenges likely to be encountered. The guidance offered here was derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research.

The guidance is organized into several principles that highlight specific objectives for this type of review given the common challenges that must be overcome to achieve them. Optional strategies for achieving each principle are also proposed, along with discussion of how they were successfully implemented in the overview on sampling. We describe seven paired principles and strategies that address the following aspects: delimiting the initial set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology used to describe specific methods topics, and generating rigorous verifiable analytic interpretations. Since a broad aim in systematic methods overviews is to describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms, we suggest that iterative decision making at various stages of the review process, and a rigorous qualitative approach to analysis are necessary features of this review type.

Conclusions

We believe that the principles and strategies provided here will be useful to anyone choosing to undertake a systematic methods overview. This paper represents an initial effort to promote high quality critical evaluations of the literature regarding problematic methods topics, which have the potential to promote clearer, shared understandings, and accelerate advances in research methods. Further work is warranted to develop more definitive guidance.

Peer Review reports

While reviews of methods are not new, they represent a distinct review type whose methodology remains relatively under-addressed in the literature despite the clear implications for unique review procedures. One of few examples to describe it is a chapter containing reflections of two contributing authors in a book of 21 reviews on methodological topics compiled for the British National Health Service, Health Technology Assessment Program [ 1 ]. Notable is their observation of how the differences between the methods reviews and conventional quantitative systematic reviews, specifically attributable to their varying content and purpose, have implications for defining what qualifies as systematic. While the authors describe general aspects of “systematicity” (including rigorous application of a methodical search, abstraction, and analysis), they also describe a high degree of variation within the category of methods reviews itself and so offer little in the way of concrete guidance. In this paper, we present tentative concrete guidance, in the form of a preliminary set of proposed principles and optional strategies, for a rigorous systematic approach to reviewing and evaluating the literature on quantitative or qualitative methods topics. For purposes of this article, we have used the term systematic methods overview to emphasize the notion of a systematic approach to such reviews.

The conventional focus of rigorous literature reviews (i.e., review types for which systematic methods have been codified, including the various approaches to quantitative systematic reviews [ 2 – 4 ], and the numerous forms of qualitative and mixed methods literature synthesis [ 5 – 10 ]) is to synthesize empirical research findings from multiple studies. By contrast, the focus of overviews of methods, including the systematic approach we advocate, is to synthesize guidance on methods topics. The literature consulted for such reviews may include the methods literature, methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports, or both. Thus, this paper adds to previous work published in this journal—namely, recent preliminary guidance for conducting reviews of theory [ 11 ]—that has extended the application of systematic review methods to novel review types that are concerned with subject matter other than empirical research findings.

Published examples of methods overviews illustrate the varying objectives they can have. One objective is to establish methodological standards for appraisal purposes. For example, reviews of existing quality appraisal standards have been used to propose universal standards for appraising the quality of primary qualitative research [ 12 ] or evaluating qualitative research reports [ 13 ]. A second objective is to survey the methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports to establish current practices on methods use and reporting practices, which Moher and colleagues [ 14 ] recommend as a means for establishing the needs to be addressed in reporting guidelines (see, for example [ 15 , 16 ]). A third objective for a methods review is to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness within the available methods literature. An example of this is a overview whose objective was to review the inconsistent definitions of intention-to-treat analysis (the methodologically preferred approach to analyze randomized controlled trial data) that have been offered in the methods literature and propose a solution for improving conceptual clarity [ 17 ]. Such reviews are warranted because students and researchers who must learn or apply research methods typically lack the time to systematically search, retrieve, review, and compare the available literature to develop a thorough and critical sense of the varied approaches regarding certain controversial or ambiguous methods topics.

While systematic methods overviews , as a review type, include both reviews of the methods literature and reviews of methods-relevant sections from empirical study reports, the guidance provided here is primarily applicable to reviews of the methods literature since it was derived from the experience of conducting such a review [ 18 ], described below. To our knowledge, there are no well-developed proposals on how to rigorously conduct such reviews. Such guidance would have the potential to improve the thoroughness and credibility of critical evaluations of the methods literature, which could increase their utility as a tool for generating understandings that advance research methods, both qualitative and quantitative. Our aim in this paper is thus to initiate discussion about what might constitute a rigorous approach to systematic methods overviews. While we hope to promote rigor in the conduct of systematic methods overviews wherever possible, we do not wish to suggest that all methods overviews need be conducted to the same standard. Rather, we believe that the level of rigor may need to be tailored pragmatically to the specific review objectives, which may not always justify the resource requirements of an intensive review process.

The example systematic methods overview on sampling in qualitative research

The principles and strategies we propose in this paper are derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ]. The main objective of that methods overview was to bring clarity and deeper understanding of the prominent concepts related to sampling in qualitative research (purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, etc.). Specifically, we interpreted the available guidance, commenting on areas lacking clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness (without proposing any recommendations on how to do sampling). This was achieved by a comparative and critical analysis of publications representing the most influential (i.e., highly cited) guidance across several methodological traditions in qualitative research.

The specific methods and procedures for the overview on sampling [ 18 ] from which our proposals are derived were developed both after soliciting initial input from local experts in qualitative research and an expert health librarian (KAM) and through ongoing careful deliberation throughout the review process. To summarize, in that review, we employed a transparent and rigorous approach to search the methods literature, selected publications for inclusion according to a purposeful and iterative process, abstracted textual data using structured abstraction forms, and analyzed (synthesized) the data using a systematic multi-step approach featuring abstraction of text, summary of information in matrices, and analytic comparisons.

For this article, we reflected on both the problems and challenges encountered at different stages of the review and our means for selecting justifiable procedures to deal with them. Several principles were then derived by considering the generic nature of these problems, while the generalizable aspects of the procedures used to address them formed the basis of optional strategies. Further details of the specific methods and procedures used in the overview on qualitative sampling are provided below to illustrate both the types of objectives and challenges that reviewers will likely need to consider and our approach to implementing each of the principles and strategies.

Organization of the guidance into principles and strategies

For the purposes of this article, principles are general statements outlining what we propose are important aims or considerations within a particular review process, given the unique objectives or challenges to be overcome with this type of review. These statements follow the general format, “considering the objective or challenge of X, we propose Y to be an important aim or consideration.” Strategies are optional and flexible approaches for implementing the previous principle outlined. Thus, generic challenges give rise to principles, which in turn give rise to strategies.

We organize the principles and strategies below into three sections corresponding to processes characteristic of most systematic literature synthesis approaches: literature identification and selection ; data abstraction from the publications selected for inclusion; and analysis , including critical appraisal and synthesis of the abstracted data. Within each section, we also describe the specific methodological decisions and procedures used in the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ] to illustrate how the principles and strategies for each review process were applied and implemented in a specific case. We expect this guidance and accompanying illustrations will be useful for anyone considering engaging in a methods overview, particularly those who may be familiar with conventional systematic review methods but may not yet appreciate some of the challenges specific to reviewing the methods literature.

Results and discussion

Literature identification and selection.

The identification and selection process includes search and retrieval of publications and the development and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to select the publications that will be abstracted and analyzed in the final review. Literature identification and selection for overviews of the methods literature is challenging and potentially more resource-intensive than for most reviews of empirical research. This is true for several reasons that we describe below, alongside discussion of the potential solutions. Additionally, we suggest in this section how the selection procedures can be chosen to match the specific analytic approach used in methods overviews.

Delimiting a manageable set of publications

One aspect of methods overviews that can make identification and selection challenging is the fact that the universe of literature containing potentially relevant information regarding most methods-related topics is expansive and often unmanageably so. Reviewers are faced with two large categories of literature: the methods literature , where the possible publication types include journal articles, books, and book chapters; and the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports , where the possible publication types include journal articles, monographs, books, theses, and conference proceedings. In our systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, exhaustively searching (including retrieval and first-pass screening) all publication types across both categories of literature for information on a single methods-related topic was too burdensome to be feasible. The following proposed principle follows from the need to delimit a manageable set of literature for the review.

Principle #1:

Considering the broad universe of potentially relevant literature, we propose that an important objective early in the identification and selection stage is to delimit a manageable set of methods-relevant publications in accordance with the objectives of the methods overview.

Strategy #1:

To limit the set of methods-relevant publications that must be managed in the selection process, reviewers have the option to initially review only the methods literature, and exclude the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports, provided this aligns with the review’s particular objectives.

We propose that reviewers are justified in choosing to select only the methods literature when the objective is to map out the range of recognized concepts relevant to a methods topic, to summarize the most authoritative or influential definitions or meanings for methods-related concepts, or to demonstrate a problematic lack of clarity regarding a widely established methods-related concept and potentially make recommendations for a preferred approach to the methods topic in question. For example, in the case of the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ], the primary aim was to define areas lacking in clarity for multiple widely established sampling-related topics. In the review on intention-to-treat in the context of missing outcome data [ 17 ], the authors identified a lack of clarity based on multiple inconsistent definitions in the literature and went on to recommend separating the issue of how to handle missing outcome data from the issue of whether an intention-to-treat analysis can be claimed.

In contrast to strategy #1, it may be appropriate to select the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports when the objective is to illustrate how a methods concept is operationalized in research practice or reported by authors. For example, one could review all the publications in 2 years’ worth of issues of five high-impact field-related journals to answer questions about how researchers describe implementing a particular method or approach, or to quantify how consistently they define or report using it. Such reviews are often used to highlight gaps in the reporting practices regarding specific methods, which may be used to justify items to address in reporting guidelines (for example, [ 14 – 16 ]).

It is worth recognizing that other authors have advocated broader positions regarding the scope of literature to be considered in a review, expanding on our perspective. Suri [ 10 ] (who, like us, emphasizes how different sampling strategies are suitable for different literature synthesis objectives) has, for example, described a two-stage literature sampling procedure (pp. 96–97). First, reviewers use an initial approach to conduct a broad overview of the field—for reviews of methods topics, this would entail an initial review of the research methods literature. This is followed by a second more focused stage in which practical examples are purposefully selected—for methods reviews, this would involve sampling the empirical literature to illustrate key themes and variations. While this approach is seductive in its capacity to generate more in depth and interpretive analytic findings, some reviewers may consider it too resource-intensive to include the second step no matter how selective the purposeful sampling. In the overview on sampling where we stopped after the first stage [ 18 ], we discussed our selective focus on the methods literature as a limitation that left opportunities for further analysis of the literature. We explicitly recommended, for example, that theoretical sampling was a topic for which a future review of the methods sections of empirical reports was justified to answer specific questions identified in the primary review.

Ultimately, reviewers must make pragmatic decisions that balance resource considerations, combined with informed predictions about the depth and complexity of literature available on their topic, with the stated objectives of their review. The remaining principles and strategies apply primarily to overviews that include the methods literature, although some aspects may be relevant to reviews that include empirical study reports.

Searching beyond standard bibliographic databases

An important reality affecting identification and selection in overviews of the methods literature is the increased likelihood for relevant publications to be located in sources other than journal articles (which is usually not the case for overviews of empirical research, where journal articles generally represent the primary publication type). In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], out of 41 full-text publications retrieved and reviewed, only 4 were journal articles, while 37 were books or book chapters. Since many books and book chapters did not exist electronically, their full text had to be physically retrieved in hardcopy, while 11 publications were retrievable only through interlibrary loan or purchase request. The tasks associated with such retrieval are substantially more time-consuming than electronic retrieval. Since a substantial proportion of methods-related guidance may be located in publication types that are less comprehensively indexed in standard bibliographic databases, identification and retrieval thus become complicated processes.

Principle #2:

Considering that important sources of methods guidance can be located in non-journal publication types (e.g., books, book chapters) that tend to be poorly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, it is important to consider alternative search methods for identifying relevant publications to be further screened for inclusion.

Strategy #2:

To identify books, book chapters, and other non-journal publication types not thoroughly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, reviewers may choose to consult one or more of the following less standard sources: Google Scholar, publisher web sites, or expert opinion.

In the case of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], Google Scholar had two advantages over other standard bibliographic databases: it indexes and returns records of books and book chapters likely to contain guidance on qualitative research methods topics; and it has been validated as providing higher citation counts than ISI Web of Science (a producer of numerous bibliographic databases accessible through institutional subscription) for several non-biomedical disciplines including the social sciences where qualitative research methods are prominently used [ 19 – 21 ]. While we identified numerous useful publications by consulting experts, the author publication lists generated through Google Scholar searches were uniquely useful to identify more recent editions of methods books identified by experts.

Searching without relevant metadata

Determining what publications to select for inclusion in the overview on sampling [ 18 ] could only rarely be accomplished by reviewing the publication’s metadata. This was because for the many books and other non-journal type publications we identified as possibly relevant, the potential content of interest would be located in only a subsection of the publication. In this common scenario for reviews of the methods literature (as opposed to methods overviews that include empirical study reports), reviewers will often be unable to employ standard title, abstract, and keyword database searching or screening as a means for selecting publications.

Principle #3:

Considering that the presence of information about the topic of interest may not be indicated in the metadata for books and similar publication types, it is important to consider other means of identifying potentially useful publications for further screening.

Strategy #3:

One approach to identifying potentially useful books and similar publication types is to consider what classes of such publications (e.g., all methods manuals for a certain research approach) are likely to contain relevant content, then identify, retrieve, and review the full text of corresponding publications to determine whether they contain information on the topic of interest.

In the example of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], the topic of interest (sampling) was one of numerous topics covered in the general qualitative research methods manuals. Consequently, examples from this class of publications first had to be identified for retrieval according to non-keyword-dependent criteria. Thus, all methods manuals within the three research traditions reviewed (grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study) that might contain discussion of sampling were sought through Google Scholar and expert opinion, their full text obtained, and hand-searched for relevant content to determine eligibility. We used tables of contents and index sections of books to aid this hand searching.

Purposefully selecting literature on conceptual grounds

A final consideration in methods overviews relates to the type of analysis used to generate the review findings. Unlike quantitative systematic reviews where reviewers aim for accurate or unbiased quantitative estimates—something that requires identifying and selecting the literature exhaustively to obtain all relevant data available (i.e., a complete sample)—in methods overviews, reviewers must describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms to achieve review objectives. In other words, the aim in methods overviews is to seek coverage of the qualitative concepts relevant to the methods topic at hand. For example, in the overview of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], achieving review objectives entailed providing conceptual coverage of eight sampling-related topics that emerged as key domains. The following principle recognizes that literature sampling should therefore support generating qualitative conceptual data as the input to analysis.

Principle #4:

Since the analytic findings of a systematic methods overview are generated through qualitative description and interpretation of the literature on a specified topic, selection of the literature should be guided by a purposeful strategy designed to achieve adequate conceptual coverage (i.e., representing an appropriate degree of variation in relevant ideas) of the topic according to objectives of the review.

Strategy #4:

One strategy for choosing the purposeful approach to use in selecting the literature according to the review objectives is to consider whether those objectives imply exploring concepts either at a broad overview level, in which case combining maximum variation selection with a strategy that limits yield (e.g., critical case, politically important, or sampling for influence—described below) may be appropriate; or in depth, in which case purposeful approaches aimed at revealing innovative cases will likely be necessary.

In the methods overview on sampling, the implied scope was broad since we set out to review publications on sampling across three divergent qualitative research traditions—grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study—to facilitate making informative conceptual comparisons. Such an approach would be analogous to maximum variation sampling.

At the same time, the purpose of that review was to critically interrogate the clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness of literature from these traditions that was “most likely to have widely influenced students’ and researchers’ ideas about sampling” (p. 1774) [ 18 ]. In other words, we explicitly set out to review and critique the most established and influential (and therefore dominant) literature, since this represents a common basis of knowledge among students and researchers seeking understanding or practical guidance on sampling in qualitative research. To achieve this objective, we purposefully sampled publications according to the criterion of influence , which we operationalized as how often an author or publication has been referenced in print or informal discourse. This second sampling approach also limited the literature we needed to consider within our broad scope review to a manageable amount.

To operationalize this strategy of sampling for influence , we sought to identify both the most influential authors within a qualitative research tradition (all of whose citations were subsequently screened) and the most influential publications on the topic of interest by non-influential authors. This involved a flexible approach that combined multiple indicators of influence to avoid the dilemma that any single indicator might provide inadequate coverage. These indicators included bibliometric data (h-index for author influence [ 22 ]; number of cites for publication influence), expert opinion, and cross-references in the literature (i.e., snowball sampling). As a final selection criterion, a publication was included only if it made an original contribution in terms of novel guidance regarding sampling or a related concept; thus, purely secondary sources were excluded. Publish or Perish software (Anne-Wil Harzing; available at http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish ) was used to generate bibliometric data via the Google Scholar database. Figure  1 illustrates how identification and selection in the methods overview on sampling was a multi-faceted and iterative process. The authors selected as influential, and the publications selected for inclusion or exclusion are listed in Additional file 1 (Matrices 1, 2a, 2b).

Literature identification and selection process used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In summary, the strategies of seeking maximum variation and sampling for influence were employed in the sampling overview to meet the specific review objectives described. Reviewers will need to consider the full range of purposeful literature sampling approaches at their disposal in deciding what best matches the specific aims of their own reviews. Suri [ 10 ] has recently retooled Patton’s well-known typology of purposeful sampling strategies (originally intended for primary research) for application to literature synthesis, providing a useful resource in this respect.

Data abstraction

The purpose of data abstraction in rigorous literature reviews is to locate and record all data relevant to the topic of interest from the full text of included publications, making them available for subsequent analysis. Conventionally, a data abstraction form—consisting of numerous distinct conceptually defined fields to which corresponding information from the source publication is recorded—is developed and employed. There are several challenges, however, to the processes of developing the abstraction form and abstracting the data itself when conducting methods overviews, which we address here. Some of these problems and their solutions may be familiar to those who have conducted qualitative literature syntheses, which are similarly conceptual.

Iteratively defining conceptual information to abstract

In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], while we surveyed multiple sources beforehand to develop a list of concepts relevant for abstraction (e.g., purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, sample size), there was no way for us to anticipate some concepts prior to encountering them in the review process. Indeed, in many cases, reviewers are unable to determine the complete set of methods-related concepts that will be the focus of the final review a priori without having systematically reviewed the publications to be included. Thus, defining what information to abstract beforehand may not be feasible.

Principle #5:

Considering the potential impracticality of defining a complete set of relevant methods-related concepts from a body of literature one has not yet systematically read, selecting and defining fields for data abstraction must often be undertaken iteratively. Thus, concepts to be abstracted can be expected to grow and change as data abstraction proceeds.

Strategy #5:

Reviewers can develop an initial form or set of concepts for abstraction purposes according to standard methods (e.g., incorporating expert feedback, pilot testing) and remain attentive to the need to iteratively revise it as concepts are added or modified during the review. Reviewers should document revisions and return to re-abstract data from previously abstracted publications as the new data requirements are determined.

In the sampling overview [ 18 ], we developed and maintained the abstraction form in Microsoft Word. We derived the initial set of abstraction fields from our own knowledge of relevant sampling-related concepts, consultation with local experts, and reviewing a pilot sample of publications. Since the publications in this review included a large proportion of books, the abstraction process often began by flagging the broad sections within a publication containing topic-relevant information for detailed review to identify text to abstract. When reviewing flagged text, the reviewer occasionally encountered an unanticipated concept significant enough to warrant being added as a new field to the abstraction form. For example, a field was added to capture how authors described the timing of sampling decisions, whether before (a priori) or after (ongoing) starting data collection, or whether this was unclear. In these cases, we systematically documented the modification to the form and returned to previously abstracted publications to abstract any information that might be relevant to the new field.

The logic of this strategy is analogous to the logic used in a form of research synthesis called best fit framework synthesis (BFFS) [ 23 – 25 ]. In that method, reviewers initially code evidence using an a priori framework they have selected. When evidence cannot be accommodated by the selected framework, reviewers then develop new themes or concepts from which they construct a new expanded framework. Both the strategy proposed and the BFFS approach to research synthesis are notable for their rigorous and transparent means to adapt a final set of concepts to the content under review.

Accounting for inconsistent terminology

An important complication affecting the abstraction process in methods overviews is that the language used by authors to describe methods-related concepts can easily vary across publications. For example, authors from different qualitative research traditions often use different terms for similar methods-related concepts. Furthermore, as we found in the sampling overview [ 18 ], there may be cases where no identifiable term, phrase, or label for a methods-related concept is used at all, and a description of it is given instead. This can make searching the text for relevant concepts based on keywords unreliable.

Principle #6:

Since accepted terms may not be used consistently to refer to methods concepts, it is necessary to rely on the definitions for concepts, rather than keywords, to identify relevant information in the publication to abstract.

Strategy #6:

An effective means to systematically identify relevant information is to develop and iteratively adjust written definitions for key concepts (corresponding to abstraction fields) that are consistent with and as inclusive of as much of the literature reviewed as possible. Reviewers then seek information that matches these definitions (rather than keywords) when scanning a publication for relevant data to abstract.

In the abstraction process for the sampling overview [ 18 ], we noted the several concepts of interest to the review for which abstraction by keyword was particularly problematic due to inconsistent terminology across publications: sampling , purposeful sampling , sampling strategy , and saturation (for examples, see Additional file 1 , Matrices 3a, 3b, 4). We iteratively developed definitions for these concepts by abstracting text from publications that either provided an explicit definition or from which an implicit definition could be derived, which was recorded in fields dedicated to the concept’s definition. Using a method of constant comparison, we used text from definition fields to inform and modify a centrally maintained definition of the corresponding concept to optimize its fit and inclusiveness with the literature reviewed. Table  1 shows, as an example, the final definition constructed in this way for one of the central concepts of the review, qualitative sampling .

We applied iteratively developed definitions when making decisions about what specific text to abstract for an existing field, which allowed us to abstract concept-relevant data even if no recognized keyword was used. For example, this was the case for the sampling-related concept, saturation , where the relevant text available for abstraction in one publication [ 26 ]—“to continue to collect data until nothing new was being observed or recorded, no matter how long that takes”—was not accompanied by any term or label whatsoever.

This comparative analytic strategy (and our approach to analysis more broadly as described in strategy #7, below) is analogous to the process of reciprocal translation —a technique first introduced for meta-ethnography by Noblit and Hare [ 27 ] that has since been recognized as a common element in a variety of qualitative metasynthesis approaches [ 28 ]. Reciprocal translation, taken broadly, involves making sense of a study’s findings in terms of the findings of the other studies included in the review. In practice, it has been operationalized in different ways. Melendez-Torres and colleagues developed a typology from their review of the metasynthesis literature, describing four overlapping categories of specific operations undertaken in reciprocal translation: visual representation, key paper integration, data reduction and thematic extraction, and line-by-line coding [ 28 ]. The approaches suggested in both strategies #6 and #7, with their emphasis on constant comparison, appear to fall within the line-by-line coding category.

Generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations

The analysis in a systematic methods overview must support its more general objective, which we suggested above is often to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a chosen methods topic. In our experience, this involves describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Furthermore, any interpretative analysis required may entail reaching different levels of abstraction, depending on the more specific objectives of the review. For example, in the overview on sampling [ 18 ], we aimed to produce a comparative analysis of how multiple sampling-related topics were treated differently within and among different qualitative research traditions. To promote credibility of the review, however, not only should one seek a qualitative analytic approach that facilitates reaching varying levels of abstraction but that approach must also ensure that abstract interpretations are supported and justified by the source data and not solely the product of the analyst’s speculative thinking.

Principle #7:

Considering the qualitative nature of the analysis required in systematic methods overviews, it is important to select an analytic method whose interpretations can be verified as being consistent with the literature selected, regardless of the level of abstraction reached.

Strategy #7:

We suggest employing the constant comparative method of analysis [ 29 ] because it supports developing and verifying analytic links to the source data throughout progressively interpretive or abstract levels. In applying this approach, we advise a rigorous approach, documenting how supportive quotes or references to the original texts are carried forward in the successive steps of analysis to allow for easy verification.

The analytic approach used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] comprised four explicit steps, progressing in level of abstraction—data abstraction, matrices, narrative summaries, and final analytic conclusions (Fig.  2 ). While we have positioned data abstraction as the second stage of the generic review process (prior to Analysis), above, we also considered it as an initial step of analysis in the sampling overview for several reasons. First, it involved a process of constant comparisons and iterative decision-making about the fields to add or define during development and modification of the abstraction form, through which we established the range of concepts to be addressed in the review. At the same time, abstraction involved continuous analytic decisions about what textual quotes (ranging in size from short phrases to numerous paragraphs) to record in the fields thus created. This constant comparative process was analogous to open coding in which textual data from publications was compared to conceptual fields (equivalent to codes) or to other instances of data previously abstracted when constructing definitions to optimize their fit with the overall literature as described in strategy #6. Finally, in the data abstraction step, we also recorded our first interpretive thoughts in dedicated fields, providing initial material for the more abstract analytic steps.

Summary of progressive steps of analysis used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In the second step of the analysis, we constructed topic-specific matrices , or tables, by copying relevant quotes from abstraction forms into the appropriate cells of matrices (for the complete set of analytic matrices developed in the sampling review, see Additional file 1 (matrices 3 to 10)). Each matrix ranged from one to five pages; row headings, nested three-deep, identified the methodological tradition, author, and publication, respectively; and column headings identified the concepts, which corresponded to abstraction fields. Matrices thus allowed us to make further comparisons across methodological traditions, and between authors within a tradition. In the third step of analysis, we recorded our comparative observations as narrative summaries , in which we used illustrative quotes more sparingly. In the final step, we developed analytic conclusions based on the narrative summaries about the sampling-related concepts within each methodological tradition for which clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness of the available guidance appeared to be lacking. Higher levels of analysis thus built logically from the lower levels, enabling us to easily verify analytic conclusions by tracing the support for claims by comparing the original text of publications reviewed.

Integrative versus interpretive methods overviews

The analytic product of systematic methods overviews is comparable to qualitative evidence syntheses, since both involve describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Most qualitative synthesis approaches strive to produce new conceptual understandings that vary in level of interpretation. Dixon-Woods and colleagues [ 30 ] elaborate on a useful distinction, originating from Noblit and Hare [ 27 ], between integrative and interpretive reviews. Integrative reviews focus on summarizing available primary data and involve using largely secure and well defined concepts to do so; definitions are used from an early stage to specify categories for abstraction (or coding) of data, which in turn supports their aggregation; they do not seek as their primary focus to develop or specify new concepts, although they may achieve some theoretical or interpretive functions. For interpretive reviews, meanwhile, the main focus is to develop new concepts and theories that integrate them, with the implication that the concepts developed become fully defined towards the end of the analysis. These two forms are not completely distinct, and “every integrative synthesis will include elements of interpretation, and every interpretive synthesis will include elements of aggregation of data” [ 30 ].

The example methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] could be classified as predominantly integrative because its primary goal was to aggregate influential authors’ ideas on sampling-related concepts; there were also, however, elements of interpretive synthesis since it aimed to develop new ideas about where clarity in guidance on certain sampling-related topics is lacking, and definitions for some concepts were flexible and not fixed until late in the review. We suggest that most systematic methods overviews will be classifiable as predominantly integrative (aggregative). Nevertheless, more highly interpretive methods overviews are also quite possible—for example, when the review objective is to provide a highly critical analysis for the purpose of generating new methodological guidance. In such cases, reviewers may need to sample more deeply (see strategy #4), specifically by selecting empirical research reports (i.e., to go beyond dominant or influential ideas in the methods literature) that are likely to feature innovations or instructive lessons in employing a given method.

In this paper, we have outlined tentative guidance in the form of seven principles and strategies on how to conduct systematic methods overviews, a review type in which methods-relevant literature is systematically analyzed with the aim of offering clarity and enhancing collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic. Our proposals include strategies for delimiting the set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology, and generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations. We hope the suggestions proposed will be useful to others undertaking reviews on methods topics in future.

As far as we are aware, this is the first published source of concrete guidance for conducting this type of review. It is important to note that our primary objective was to initiate methodological discussion by stimulating reflection on what rigorous methods for this type of review should look like, leaving the development of more complete guidance to future work. While derived from the experience of reviewing a single qualitative methods topic, we believe the principles and strategies provided are generalizable to overviews of both qualitative and quantitative methods topics alike. However, it is expected that additional challenges and insights for conducting such reviews have yet to be defined. Thus, we propose that next steps for developing more definitive guidance should involve an attempt to collect and integrate other reviewers’ perspectives and experiences in conducting systematic methods overviews on a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methods topics. Formalized guidance and standards would improve the quality of future methods overviews, something we believe has important implications for advancing qualitative and quantitative methodology. When undertaken to a high standard, rigorous critical evaluations of the available methods guidance have significant potential to make implicit controversies explicit, and improve the clarity and precision of our understandings of problematic qualitative or quantitative methods issues.

A review process central to most types of rigorous reviews of empirical studies, which we did not explicitly address in a separate review step above, is quality appraisal . The reason we have not treated this as a separate step stems from the different objectives of the primary publications included in overviews of the methods literature (i.e., providing methodological guidance) compared to the primary publications included in the other established review types (i.e., reporting findings from single empirical studies). This is not to say that appraising quality of the methods literature is not an important concern for systematic methods overviews. Rather, appraisal is much more integral to (and difficult to separate from) the analysis step, in which we advocate appraising clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness—the quality appraisal criteria that we suggest are appropriate for the methods literature. As a second important difference regarding appraisal, we currently advocate appraising the aforementioned aspects at the level of the literature in aggregate rather than at the level of individual publications. One reason for this is that methods guidance from individual publications generally builds on previous literature, and thus we feel that ahistorical judgments about comprehensiveness of single publications lack relevance and utility. Additionally, while different methods authors may express themselves less clearly than others, their guidance can nonetheless be highly influential and useful, and should therefore not be downgraded or ignored based on considerations of clarity—which raises questions about the alternative uses that quality appraisals of individual publications might have. Finally, legitimate variability in the perspectives that methods authors wish to emphasize, and the levels of generality at which they write about methods, makes critiquing individual publications based on the criterion of clarity a complex and potentially problematic endeavor that is beyond the scope of this paper to address. By appraising the current state of the literature at a holistic level, reviewers stand to identify important gaps in understanding that represent valuable opportunities for further methodological development.

To summarize, the principles and strategies provided here may be useful to those seeking to undertake their own systematic methods overview. Additional work is needed, however, to establish guidance that is comprehensive by comparing the experiences from conducting a variety of methods overviews on a range of methods topics. Efforts that further advance standards for systematic methods overviews have the potential to promote high-quality critical evaluations that produce conceptually clear and unified understandings of problematic methods topics, thereby accelerating the advance of research methodology.

Hutton JL, Ashcroft R. What does “systematic” mean for reviews of methods? In: Black N, Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R, Reeves B, editors. Health services research methods: a guide to best practice. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1998. p. 249–54.

Google Scholar  

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S, Version 5.1.0 edn: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care . York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700–0.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):59.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, Welch V, Cogo E, Antony J, Straus SE. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1–1.

Article   Google Scholar  

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. In: Integrate-HTA. 2016.

Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to successful literature review. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2016.

Hannes K, Lockwood C. Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

Suri H. Towards methodologically inclusive research syntheses: expanding possibilities. New York: Routledge; 2014.

Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, Bond L, Popham F, Fenton C, Benzeval M. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):1–11.

Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reportingqualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78.

Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365(9465):1159–62.

Alshurafa M, Briel M, Akl EA, Haines T, Moayyedi P, Gentles SJ, Rios L, Tran C, Bhatnagar N, Lamontagne F, et al. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49163.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gentles SJ, Charles C, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA. Sampling in qualitative research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. Qual Rep. 2015;20(11):1772–89.

Harzing A-W, Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. 2016;106(2):787–804.

Harzing A-WK, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8(1):61–73.

Kousha K, Thelwall M. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: a multi‐discipline exploratory analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(7):1055–65.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–72.

Booth A, Carroll C. How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality Safety. 2015;24(11):700–8.

Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):37.

Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):29.

Cohen MZ, Kahn DL, Steeves DL. Hermeneutic phenomenological research: a practical guide for nurse researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

Book   Google Scholar  

Melendez-Torres GJ, Grant S, Bonell C. A systematic review and critical appraisal of qualitative metasynthetic practice in public health to develop a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation. Res Synthesis Methods. 2015;6(4):357–71.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Glaser BG, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. In: UK National Health Service. 2004. p. 1–44.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

The systematic methods overview used as a worked example in this article (Gentles SJ, Charles C, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA: Sampling in qualitative research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qual Rep 2015, 20(11):1772-1789) is available from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss11/5 .

Authors’ contributions

SJG wrote the first draft of this article, with CC contributing to drafting. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript. All authors except CC (deceased) approved the final draft. SJG, CC, KAB, and JP were involved in developing methods for the systematic methods overview on sampling.

Authors’ information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, author information, authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Stephen J. Gentles, Cathy Charles & K. Ann McKibbon

Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

David B. Nicholas

School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Jenny Ploeg

CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS 408, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

Stephen J. Gentles

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Gentles .

Additional information

Cathy Charles is deceased

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Submitted: Analysis_matrices. (DOC 330 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gentles, S.J., Charles, C., Nicholas, D.B. et al. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev 5 , 172 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2016

Accepted : 14 September 2016

Published : 11 October 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• Literature selection
• Research methods
• Research methodology
• Overview of methods
• Systematic methods overview
• Review methods

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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
• Neurol Res Pract

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto.

1 Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

2 Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Gumbinger

Associated data.

Not applicable.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig.  1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig.  2 .

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig.  3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. ​ Fig.2, 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig.  4 .

Three common mixed methods designs

In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table ​ Table1. 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

World Conference on Qualitative Research

WCQR 2022: Computer Supported Qualitative Research pp 194–210 Cite as

How to Operate Literature Review Through Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Integration?

• Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6058-3883 13 ,
• Isabel Pinho   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1714-8979 14 &
• António Pedro Costa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-5879 14  
• Conference paper
• First Online: 05 May 2022

454 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 466))

Usually, a literature review takes time and becomes a demanding step in any research project. The proposal presented in this article intends to structure this work in an organised and transparent way for all project participants and the structured elaboration of its report. Integrating qualitative and quantitative analysis provides opportunities to carry out a solid, practical, and in-depth literature review. The purpose of this article is to present a guide that explores the potentials of qualitative and quantitative analysis integration to develop a solid and replicable literature review. The paper proposes an integrative approach comprising six steps: 1) research design; 2) Data Collection for bibliometric analysis; 3) Search string refinement; 4) Bibliometric analysis; 5) qualitative analysis; and 6) report and dissemination of research results. These guidelines can facilitate the bibliographic analysis process and relevant article sample selection. Once the sample of publications is defined, it is possible to conduct a deep analysis through Content Analysis. Software tools, such as R Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, Gephi, yEd and webQDA, can be used for practical work during all collection, analysis, and reporting processes. From a large amount of data, selecting a sample of relevant literature is facilitated by interpreting bibliometric results. The specification of the methodology allows the replication and updating of the literature review in an interactive, systematic, and collaborative way giving a more transparent and organised approach to improving the literature review.

• Quantitative analysis
• Qualitative analysis
• Bibliometric analysis
• Science mapping

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Pritchard, A.: Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Doc. 25 (4), 348–349 (1969)

Google Scholar  

Nalimov, V., Mulcjenko, B.: Measurement of Science: Study of the Development of Science as an Information Process. Foreign Technology Division, Washington DC (1971)

Hugar, J.G., Bachlapur, M.M., Gavisiddappa, A.: Research contribution of bibliometric studies as reflected in web of science from 2013 to 2017. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–13 (2019). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2319

Verma, M.K., Shukla, R.: Library herald-2008–2017: a bibliometric study. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 2–12 (2018). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1762

Pandita, R.: Annals of library and information studies (ALIS) journal: a bibliometric study (2002–2012). DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 33 (6), 493–497 (2013)

Article   Google Scholar  

Kannan, P., Thanuskodi, S.: Bibliometric analysis of library philosophy and practice: a study based on scopus database. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–13 (2019). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2300/

Marín-Marín, J.-A., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Dúo-Terrón, P., López-Belmonte, J.: STEAM in education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. Int. J. STEM Educ. 8 (1) (2021). Article number 41

Khalife, M.A., Dunay, A., Illés, C.B.: Bibliometric analysis of articles on project management research. Periodica Polytechnica Soc. Manag. Sci. 29 (1), 70–83 (2021)

Pech, G., Delgado, C.: Screening the most highly cited papers in longitudinal bibliometric studies and systematic literature reviews of a research field or journal: widespread used metrics vs a percentile citation-based approach. J. Informet. 15 (3), 101161 (2021)

Das, D.: Journal of informetrics: a bibliometric study. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–15 (2021). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5495/

Schmidt, F.: Meta-analysis: a constantly evolving research integration tool. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (1), 96–113 (2008)

Zupic, I., Cater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management organisation. Organ. Res. Methods 18 (3), 429–472 (2014)

Noyons, E., Moed, H., Luwel, M.: Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: a bibliometric study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50 , 115–131 (1999)

van Rann, A.: Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Moed, H., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, pp. 19–50. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2004)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Garfield, E.: Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 , 417–479 (1972)

Hirsch, J.: An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, pp. 16569–1657. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC (2005)

Cobo, M., López-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62 , 1382–1402 (2011)

Noyons, E., Moed, H., van Rann, A.: Integrating research perfomance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics 46 , 591–604 (1999)

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W.M.: How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133 , 285–296 (2021)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 11 (4), 959–975 (2017)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: Package ‘bibliometrix’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bibliometrix/bibliometrix.pdf . Accessed 10 July 2021

Börner, K., Chen, C., Boyack, K.: Visualisingg knowledge domains. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 37 , 179–255 (2003)

Morris, S., van der Veer Martens, B.: Mapping research specialities. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42 , 213–295 (2008)

Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., Bassecoulard, E.: Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: from cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 63 (2), 373–401 (2005)

Li, L.L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M.-H., Ho, Y.-S.: Global stem cell research trend: bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics 80 (1), 9–58 (2009)

Ebrahim, A.N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Tanha, F.H., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M.: Visibility and citation impact. Int. Educ. Stud. 7 (4), 120–125 (2014)

Canas-Guerrero, I., Mazarrón, F.R., Calleja-Perucho, C., Pou-Merina, A.: Bibliometric analysis in the international context of the “construction & building technology” category from the web of science database. Constr. Build. Mater. 53 , 13–25 (2014)

Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M., Baier-Fuentes, H.: Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 140 , 194–220 (2019)

Heradio, R., Perez-Morago, H., Fernandez-Amoros, D., Javier Cabrerizo, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A bibliometric analysis of 20 years of research on software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 72 , 1–15 (2016)

Furstenau, L.B., et al.: Link between sustainability and industry 4.0: trends, challenges and new perspectives. IEEE Access 8 , 140079–140096 (2020). Article 9151934

van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden (2021)

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Proceedings of the Third International ICWSM Conference, pp. 361–362. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, San Jose CA (2009)

Chen, C.: How to use CiteSpace. Leanpub, Victoria, British Columbia, CA (2019)

yWorks.: yEd Graph Editor Manual. https://yed.yworks.com/support/manual/index.html . Accessed 13 July 2020

Moresi, E.A.D., Pierozzi Júnior, I.: Representação do conhecimento para ciência e tecnologia: construindo uma sistematização metodológica. In: 16th International Conference on Information Systems and Technology Management, TECSI, São Paulo SP (2019). Article 6275

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I.: Proposta de abordagem para refinamento de pesquisa bibliográfica. New Trends Qual. Res. 9 , 11–20 (2021)

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I.: Como identificar os tópicos emergentes de um tema de investigação? New Trends Qual. Res. 9 , 46–55 (2021)

Chen, Y.H., Chen, C.Y., Lee, S.C.: Technology forecasting of new clean energy: the example of hydrogen energy and fuel cell. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 4 (7), 1372–1380 (2010)

Ernst, H.: The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Bus. Econ. 9 (4), 361–381 (1997)

Chen, C.: Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2 (2), 1–40 (2017)

Prabhakaran, T., Lathabai, H.H., Changat, M.: Detection of paradigm shifts and emerging fields using scientific network: a case study of information technology for engineering. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 91 , 124–145 (2015)

Klavans, R., Boyack, K.W.: Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 57 (2), 251–263 (2006)

Kauffman, J., Kittas, A., Bennett, L., Tsoka, S.: DyCoNet: a Gephi plugin for community detection in dynamic complex networks. PLoS ONE 9 (7), e101357 (2014)

Grant, M.J., Booth, A.: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108 (2009)

Costa, A.P., Soares, C.B., Fornari, L., Pinho, I.: Revisão da Literatura com Apoio de Software - Contribuição da Pesquisa Qualitativa. Ludomedia, Aveiro Portugal (2019)

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222 (2003)

Costa, A.P., Amado, J.: Content Analysis Supported by Software. Ludomedia, Oliveira de Azeméis - Aveiro - Portugal (2018)

Pinho, I., Leite, D.: Doing a literature review using content analysis - research networks review. In: Atas CIAIQ 2014 - Investigação Qualitativa em Ciências Sociais, vol. 3, pp. 377–378. Ludomedia, Aveiro Portugal (2014)

White, M.D., Marsh, E.E.: Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Libr. Trends 55 (1), 22–45 (2006)

Souza, F.N., Neri, D., Costa, A.P.: Asking questions in the qualitative research context. Qual. Rep. 21 (13), 6–18 (2016)

Pinho, I., Pinho, C., Rosa, M.J.: Research evaluation: mapping the field structure. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas) 25 , 546–574 (2020)

Costa, A., Moreira, A. de Souza, F.: webQDA - Qualitative Data Analysis (2019). www.webqda.net

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Catholic University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, 71966-700, Brazil

Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi

University of Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

Isabel Pinho & António Pedro Costa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

António Pedro Costa

António Moreira

Department Didactics, Organization and Research Methods, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Maria Cruz Sánchez‑Gómez

Adventist University of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

Safary Wa-Mbaleka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I., Costa, A.P. (2022). How to Operate Literature Review Through Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Integration?. In: Costa, A.P., Moreira, A., Sánchez‑Gómez, M.C., Wa-Mbaleka, S. (eds) Computer Supported Qualitative Research. WCQR 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 466. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04680-3_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04680-3_13

Published : 05 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-04679-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-04680-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Make a Literature Review in Research (RRL Example)

What is an RRL in a research paper?

A relevant review of the literature (RRL) is an objective, concise, critical summary of published research literature relevant to a topic being researched in an article. In an RRL, you discuss knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your study topic. If there are conflicts or gaps in existing literature, you can also discuss these in your review, as well as how you will confront these missing elements or resolve these issues in your study.

To complete an RRL, you first need to collect relevant literature; this can include online and offline sources. Save all of your applicable resources as you will need to include them in your paper. When looking through these sources, take notes and identify concepts of each source to describe in the review of the literature.

A good RRL does NOT:

A literature review does not simply reference and list all of the material you have cited in your paper.

• Presenting material that is not directly relevant to your study will distract and frustrate the reader and make them lose sight of the purpose of your study.
• Starting a literature review with “A number of scholars have studied the relationship between X and Y” and simply listing who has studied the topic and what each scholar concluded is not going to strengthen your paper.

A good RRL DOES:

• Present a brief typology that orders articles and books into groups to help readers focus on unresolved debates, inconsistencies, tensions, and new questions about a research topic.
• Summarize the most relevant and important aspects of the scientific literature related to your area of research
• Synthesize what has been done in this area of research and by whom, highlight what previous research indicates about a topic, and identify potential gaps and areas of disagreement in the field
• Give the reader an understanding of the background of the field and show which studies are important—and highlight errors in previous studies

How long is a review of the literature for a research paper?

The length of a review of the literature depends on its purpose and target readership and can vary significantly in scope and depth. In a dissertation, thesis, or standalone review of literature, it is usually a full chapter of the text (at least 20 pages). Whereas, a standard research article or school assignment literature review section could only be a few paragraphs in the Introduction section .

Building Your Literature Review Bookshelf

One way to conceive of a literature review is to think about writing it as you would build a bookshelf. You don’t need to cut each piece by yourself from scratch. Rather, you can take the pieces that other researchers have cut out and put them together to build a framework on which to hang your own “books”—that is, your own study methods, results, and conclusions.

What Makes a Good Literature Review?

The contents of a literature review (RRL) are determined by many factors, including its precise purpose in the article, the degree of consensus with a given theory or tension between competing theories, the length of the article, the number of previous studies existing in the given field, etc. The following are some of the most important elements that a literature review provides.

Historical background for your research

Analyze what has been written about your field of research to highlight what is new and significant in your study—or how the analysis itself contributes to the understanding of this field, even in a small way. Providing a historical background also demonstrates to other researchers and journal editors your competency in discussing theoretical concepts. You should also make sure to understand how to paraphrase scientific literature to avoid plagiarism in your work.

The current context of your research

Discuss central (or peripheral) questions, issues, and debates in the field. Because a field is constantly being updated by new work, you can show where your research fits into this context and explain developments and trends in research.

A discussion of relevant theories and concepts

Theories and concepts should provide the foundation for your research. For example, if you are researching the relationship between ecological environments and human populations, provide models and theories that focus on specific aspects of this connection to contextualize your study. If your study asks a question concerning sustainability, mention a theory or model that underpins this concept. If it concerns invasive species, choose material that is focused in this direction.

Definitions of relevant terminology

In the natural sciences, the meaning of terms is relatively straightforward and consistent. But if you present a term that is obscure or context-specific, you should define the meaning of the term in the Introduction section (if you are introducing a study) or in the summary of the literature being reviewed.

Description of related relevant research

Include a description of related research that shows how your work expands or challenges earlier studies or fills in gaps in previous work. You can use your literature review as evidence of what works, what doesn’t, and what is missing in the field.

Supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue your research is addressing that demonstrates its importance: Referencing related research establishes your area of research as reputable and shows you are building upon previous work that other researchers have deemed significant.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can differ in structure, length, amount, and breadth of content included. They can range from selective (a very narrow area of research or only a single work) to comprehensive (a larger amount or range of works). They can also be part of a larger work or stand on their own.

• A course assignment is an example of a selective, stand-alone work. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up an entire work on its own.
• The literature review in a dissertation or thesis is both comprehensive and helps make up a larger work.
• A majority of journal articles start with a selective literature review to provide context for the research reported in the study; such a literature review is usually included in the Introduction section (but it can also follow the presentation of the results in the Discussion section ).
• Some literature reviews are both comprehensive and stand as a separate work—in this case, the entire article analyzes the literature on a given topic.

Literature Reviews Found in Academic Journals

The two types of literature reviews commonly found in journals are those introducing research articles (studies and surveys) and stand-alone literature analyses. They can differ in their scope, length, and specific purpose.

Literature reviews introducing research articles

The literature review found at the beginning of a journal article is used to introduce research related to the specific study and is found in the Introduction section, usually near the end. It is shorter than a stand-alone review because it must be limited to very specific studies and theories that are directly relevant to the current study. Its purpose is to set research precedence and provide support for the study’s theory, methods, results, and/or conclusions. Not all research articles contain an explicit review of the literature, but most do, whether it is a discrete section or indistinguishable from the rest of the Introduction.

How to structure a literature review for an article

When writing a literature review as part of an introduction to a study, simply follow the structure of the Introduction and move from the general to the specific—presenting the broadest background information about a topic first and then moving to specific studies that support your rationale , finally leading to your hypothesis statement. Such a literature review is often indistinguishable from the Introduction itself—the literature is INTRODUCING the background and defining the gaps your study aims to fill.

The stand-alone literature review

The literature review published as a stand-alone article presents and analyzes as many of the important publications in an area of study as possible to provide background information and context for a current area of research or a study. Stand-alone reviews are an excellent resource for researchers when they are first searching for the most relevant information on an area of study.

Such literature reviews are generally a bit broader in scope and can extend further back in time. This means that sometimes a scientific literature review can be highly theoretical, in addition to focusing on specific methods and outcomes of previous studies. In addition, all sections of such a “review article” refer to existing literature rather than describing the results of the authors’ own study.

In addition, this type of literature review is usually much longer than the literature review introducing a study. At the end of the review follows a conclusion that once again explicitly ties all of the cited works together to show how this analysis is itself a contribution to the literature. While not absolutely necessary, such articles often include the terms “Literature Review” or “Review of the Literature” in the title. Whether or not that is necessary or appropriate can also depend on the specific author instructions of the target journal. Have a look at this article for more input on how to compile a stand-alone review article that is insightful and helpful for other researchers in your field.

How to Write a Literature Review in 6 Steps

So how do authors turn a network of articles into a coherent review of relevant literature?

Writing a literature review is not usually a linear process—authors often go back and check the literature while reformulating their ideas or making adjustments to their study. Sometimes new findings are published before a study is completed and need to be incorporated into the current work. This also means you will not be writing the literature review at any one time, but constantly working on it before, during, and after your study is complete.

Here are some steps that will help you begin and follow through on your literature review.

Step 1: Choose a topic to write about—focus on and explore this topic.

Choose a topic that you are familiar with and highly interested in analyzing; a topic your intended readers and researchers will find interesting and useful; and a topic that is current, well-established in the field, and about which there has been sufficient research conducted for a review. This will help you find the “sweet spot” for what to focus on.

Step 2: Research and collect all the scholarly information on the topic that might be pertinent to your study.

This includes scholarly articles, books, conventions, conferences, dissertations, and theses—these and any other academic work related to your area of study is called “the literature.”

Step 3: Analyze the network of information that extends or responds to the major works in your area; select the material that is most useful.

Use thought maps and charts to identify intersections in the research and to outline important categories; select the material that will be most useful to your review.

Step 4: Describe and summarize each article—provide the essential information of the article that pertains to your study.

Determine 2-3 important concepts (depending on the length of your article) that are discussed in the literature; take notes about all of the important aspects of this study relevant to the topic being reviewed.

For example, in a given study, perhaps some of the main concepts are X, Y, and Z. Note these concepts and then write a brief summary about how the article incorporates them. In reviews that introduce a study, these can be relatively short. In stand-alone reviews, there may be significantly more texts and more concepts.

Step 5: Demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed.

In a literature review intro for an article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond to and/or confirm those sections in your own study. For a stand-alone literature review, this may mean highlighting the concepts in each article and showing how they strengthen a hypothesis or show a pattern.

Discuss unaddressed issues in previous studies. These studies that are missing something you address are important to include in your literature review. In addition, those works whose theories and conclusions directly support your findings will be valuable to review here.

Step 6: Identify relationships in the literature and develop and connect your own ideas to them.

This is essentially the same as step 5 but focused on the connections between the literature and the current study or guiding concepts or arguments of the paper, not only on the connections between the works themselves.

Your hypothesis, argument, or guiding concept is the “golden thread” that will ultimately tie the works together and provide readers with specific insights they didn’t have before reading your literature review. Make sure you know where to put the research question , hypothesis, or statement of the problem in your research paper so that you guide your readers logically and naturally from your introduction of earlier work and evidence to the conclusions you want them to draw from the bigger picture.

Your literature review will not only cover publications on your topics but will include your own ideas and contributions. By following these steps you will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research and you can turn a network of related works into a focused review of the literature.

Literature Review (RRL) Examples

Because creating sample literature reviews would take too long and not properly capture the nuances and detailed information needed for a good review, we have included some links to different types of literature reviews below. You can find links to more literature reviews in these categories by visiting the TUS Library’s website . Sample literature reviews as part of an article, dissertation, or thesis:

• Critical Thinking and Transferability: A Review of the Literature (Gwendolyn Reece)
• Building Customer Loyalty: A Customer Experience Based Approach in a Tourism Context (Martina Donnelly)

Sample stand-alone literature reviews

• Literature Review on Attitudes towards Disability (National Disability Authority)
• The Effects of Communication Styles on Marital Satisfaction (Hannah Yager)

Additional Literature Review Format Guidelines

In addition to the content guidelines above, authors also need to check which style guidelines to use ( APA , Chicago, MLA, etc.) and what specific rules the target journal might have for how to structure such articles or how many studies to include—such information can usually be found on the journals’ “Guide for Authors” pages. Additionally, use one of the four Wordvice citation generators below, choosing the citation style needed for your paper:

Wordvice Writing and Academic Editing Resources

Finally, after you have finished drafting your literature review, be sure to receive professional proofreading services , including paper editing for your academic work. A competent proofreader who understands academic writing conventions and the specific style guides used by academic journals will ensure that your paper is ready for publication in your target journal.

See our academic resources for further advice on references in your paper , how to write an abstract , how to write a research paper title, how to impress the editor of your target journal with a perfect cover letter , and dozens of other research writing and publication topics.

Review of Related Literature: Format, Example, & How to Make RRL

A review of related literature is a separate paper or a part of an article that collects and synthesizes discussion on a topic. Its purpose is to show the current state of research on the issue and highlight gaps in existing knowledge. A literature review can be included in a research paper or scholarly article, typically following the introduction and before the research methods section.

This article will clarify the definition, significance, and structure of a review of related literature. You’ll also learn how to organize your literature review and discover ideas for an RRL in different subjects.

🔤 What Is RRL?

• ❗ Significance of Literature Review
• 🔎 How to Search for Literature
• 🧩 Literature Review Structure
• 📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others
• ✍️ How to Write an RRL
• 📚 Examples of RRL

🔗 References

A review of related literature (RRL) is a part of the research report that examines significant studies, theories, and concepts published in scholarly sources on a particular topic. An RRL includes 3 main components:

• A short overview and critique of the previous research.
• Similarities and differences between past studies and the current one.
• An explanation of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the research.

❗ Significance of Review of Related Literature

Although the goal of a review of related literature differs depending on the discipline and its intended use, its significance cannot be overstated. Here are some examples of how a review might be beneficial:

• It helps determine knowledge gaps .
• It saves from duplicating research that has already been conducted.
• It provides an overview of various research areas within the discipline.
• It demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the topic.

🔎 How to Perform a Literature Search

Including a description of your search strategy in the literature review section can significantly increase your grade. You can search sources with the following steps:

🧩 Literature Review Structure Example

The majority of literature reviews follow a standard introduction-body-conclusion structure. Let’s look at the RRL structure in detail.

Introduction of Review of Related Literature: Sample

An introduction should clarify the study topic and the depth of the information to be delivered. It should also explain the types of sources used. If your lit. review is part of a larger research proposal or project, you can combine its introductory paragraph with the introduction of your paper.

Here is a sample introduction to an RRL about cyberbullying:

Bullying has troubled people since the beginning of time. However, with modern technological advancements, especially social media, bullying has evolved into cyberbullying. As a result, nowadays, teenagers and adults cannot flee their bullies, which makes them feel lonely and helpless. This literature review will examine recent studies on cyberbullying.

Sample Review of Related Literature Thesis

A thesis statement should include the central idea of your literature review and the primary supporting elements you discovered in the literature. Thesis statements are typically put at the end of the introductory paragraph.

Look at a sample thesis of a review of related literature:

This literature review shows that scholars have recently covered the issues of bullies’ motivation, the impact of bullying on victims and aggressors, common cyberbullying techniques, and victims’ coping strategies. However, there is still no agreement on the best practices to address cyberbullying.

Literature Review Body Paragraph Example

The main body of a literature review should provide an overview of the existing research on the issue. Body paragraphs should not just summarize each source but analyze them. You can organize your paragraphs with these 3 elements:

• Claim . Start with a topic sentence linked to your literature review purpose.
• Evidence . Cite relevant information from your chosen sources.
• Discussion . Explain how the cited data supports your claim.

Here’s a literature review body paragraph example:

Scholars have examined the link between the aggressor and the victim. Beran et al. (2007) state that students bullied online often become cyberbullies themselves. Faucher et al. (2014) confirm this with their findings: they discovered that male and female students began engaging in cyberbullying after being subject to bullying. Hence, one can conclude that being a victim of bullying increases one’s likelihood of becoming a cyberbully.

Review of Related Literature: Conclusion

A conclusion presents a general consensus on the topic. Depending on your literature review purpose, it might include the following:

• Introduction to further research . If you write a literature review as part of a larger research project, you can present your research question in your conclusion .
• Overview of theories . You can summarize critical theories and concepts to help your reader understand the topic better.
• Discussion of the gap . If you identified a research gap in the reviewed literature, your conclusion could explain why that gap is significant.

Check out a conclusion example that discusses a research gap:

There is extensive research into bullies’ motivation, the consequences of bullying for victims and aggressors, strategies for bullying, and coping with it. Yet, scholars still have not reached a consensus on what to consider the best practices to combat cyberbullying. This question is of great importance because of the significant adverse effects of cyberbullying on victims and bullies.

📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others

In this section, we will discuss how to format an RRL according to the most common citation styles: APA, Chicago, MLA, and Harvard.

Writing a literature review using the APA7 style requires the following text formatting:

• When using APA in-text citations , include the author’s last name and the year of publication in parentheses.
• For direct quotations , you must also add the page number. If you use sources without page numbers, such as websites or e-books, include a paragraph number instead.
• When referring to the author’s name in a sentence , you do not need to repeat it at the end of the sentence. Instead, include the year of publication inside the parentheses after their name.
• The reference list should be included at the end of your literature review. It is always alphabetized by the last name of the author (from A to Z), and the lines are indented one-half inch from the left margin of your paper. Do not forget to invert authors’ names (the last name should come first) and include the full titles of journals instead of their abbreviations. If you use an online source, add its URL.

The RRL format in the Chicago style is as follows:

• Author-date . You place your citations in brackets within the text, indicating the name of the author and the year of publication.
• Notes and bibliography . You place your citations in numbered footnotes or endnotes to connect the citation back to the source in the bibliography.
• The reference list, or bibliography , in Chicago style, is at the end of a literature review. The sources are arranged alphabetically and single-spaced. Each bibliography entry begins with the author’s name and the source’s title, followed by publication information, such as the city of publication, the publisher, and the year of publication.

Writing a literature review using the MLA style requires the following text formatting:

• In the MLA format, you can cite a source in the text by indicating the author’s last name and the page number in parentheses at the end of the citation. If the cited information takes several pages, you need to include all the page numbers.
• The reference list in MLA style is titled “ Works Cited .” In this section, all sources used in the paper should be listed in alphabetical order. Each entry should contain the author, title of the source, title of the journal or a larger volume, other contributors, version, number, publisher, and publication date.

The Harvard style requires you to use the following text formatting for your RRL:

• In-text citations in the Harvard style include the author’s last name and the year of publication. If you are using a direct quote in your literature review, you need to add the page number as well.
• Arrange your list of references alphabetically. Each entry should contain the author’s last name, their initials, the year of publication, the title of the source, and other publication information, like the journal title and issue number or the publisher.

✍️ How to Write Review of Related Literature – Sample

Literature reviews can be organized in many ways depending on what you want to achieve with them. In this section, we will look at 3 examples of how you can write your RRL.

Thematic Literature Review

A thematic literature review is arranged around central themes or issues discussed in the sources. If you have identified some recurring themes in the literature, you can divide your RRL into sections that address various aspects of the topic. For example, if you examine studies on e-learning, you can distinguish such themes as the cost-effectiveness of online learning, the technologies used, and its effectiveness compared to traditional education.

Chronological Literature Review

A chronological literature review is a way to track the development of the topic over time. If you use this method, avoid merely listing and summarizing sources in chronological order. Instead, try to analyze the trends, turning moments, and critical debates that have shaped the field’s path. Also, you can give your interpretation of how and why specific advances occurred.

Methodological Literature Review

A methodological literature review differs from the preceding ones in that it usually doesn’t focus on the sources’ content. Instead, it is concerned with the research methods . So, if your references come from several disciplines or fields employing various research techniques, you can compare the findings and conclusions of different methodologies, for instance:

• empirical vs. theoretical studies;
• qualitative vs. quantitative research.

📚 Examples of Review of Related Literature and Studies

We have prepared a short example of RRL on climate change for you to see how everything works in practice!

Climate change is one of the most important issues nowadays. Based on a variety of facts, it is now clearer than ever that humans are altering the Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, causing sea level rise, a significant loss of Arctic ice, and other climate-related changes. This literature review provides a thorough summary of research on climate change, focusing on climate change fingerprints and evidence of human influence on the Earth's climate system.

Physical Mechanisms and Evidence of Human Influence

Scientists are convinced that climate change is directly influenced by the emission of greenhouse gases. They have carefully analyzed various climate data and evidence, concluding that the majority of the observed global warming over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Instead, there is compelling evidence pointing to a significant contribution of human activities, primarily the emission of greenhouse gases (Walker, 2014). For example, based on simple physics calculations, doubled carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere can lead to a global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius. (Elderfield, 2022). In order to determine the human influence on climate, scientists still have to analyze a lot of natural changes that affect temperature, precipitation, and other components of climate on timeframes ranging from days to decades and beyond.

Fingerprinting Climate Change

Fingerprinting climate change is a useful tool to identify the causes of global warming because different factors leave unique marks on climate records. This is evident when scientists look beyond overall temperature changes and examine how warming is distributed geographically and over time (Watson, 2022). By investigating these climate patterns, scientists can obtain a more complex understanding of the connections between natural climate variability and climate variability caused by human activity.

Modeling Climate Change and Feedback

To accurately predict the consequences of feedback mechanisms, the rate of warming, and regional climate change, scientists can employ sophisticated mathematical models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice (the cryosphere). These models are grounded in well-established physical laws and incorporate the latest scientific understanding of climate-related processes (Shuckburgh, 2013). Although different climate models produce slightly varying projections for future warming, they all will agree that feedback mechanisms play a significant role in amplifying the initial warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (Meehl, 2019).

In conclusion, the literature on global warming indicates that there are well-understood physical processes that link variations in greenhouse gas concentrations to climate change. In addition, it covers the scientific proof that the rates of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and continue to rise fast. According to the sources, the majority of this recent change is almost definitely caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities. Citizens and governments can alter their energy production methods and consumption patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, the magnitude of climate change. By acting now, society can prevent the worst consequences of climate change and build a more resilient and sustainable future for generations to come.

Have you ever struggled with finding the topic for an RRL in different subjects? Read the following paragraphs to get some ideas!

Nursing Literature Review Example

Many topics in the nursing field require research. For example, you can write a review of literature related to dengue fever . Give a general overview of dengue virus infections, including its clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prevention, and therapy.

Another good idea is to review related literature and studies about teenage pregnancy . This review can describe the effectiveness of specific programs for adolescent mothers and their children and summarize recommendations for preventing early pregnancy.

📝 Check out some more valuable examples below:

• Hospital Readmissions: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Lower Sepsis Mortality Rates .
• Breast Cancer: Literature Review .
• Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Literature Review .
• PICO for Pressure Ulcers: Literature Review .
• COVID-19 Spread Prevention: Literature Review .
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Literature Review .
• Hypertension Treatment Adherence: Literature Review .
• Neonatal Sepsis Prevention: Literature Review .
• Healthcare-Associated Infections: Literature Review .
• Understaffing in Nursing: Literature Review .

Psychology Literature Review Example

If you look for an RRL topic in psychology , you can write a review of related literature about stress . Summarize scientific evidence about stress stages, side effects, types, or reduction strategies. Or you can write a review of related literature about computer game addiction . In this case, you may concentrate on the neural mechanisms underlying the internet gaming disorder, compare it to other addictions, or evaluate treatment strategies.

A review of related literature about cyberbullying is another interesting option. You can highlight the impact of cyberbullying on undergraduate students’ academic, social, and emotional development.

📝 Look at the examples that we have prepared for you to come up with some more ideas:

• Mindfulness in Counseling: A Literature Review .
• Team-Building Across Cultures: Literature Review .
• Anxiety and Decision Making: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on Depression .
• Literature Review on Narcissism .
• Effects of Depression Among Adolescents .
• Causes and Effects of Anxiety in Children .

Literature Review — Sociology Example

Sociological research poses critical questions about social structures and phenomena. For example, you can write a review of related literature about child labor , exploring cultural beliefs and social norms that normalize the exploitation of children. Or you can create a review of related literature about social media . It can investigate the impact of social media on relationships between adolescents or the role of social networks on immigrants’ acculturation .

📝 You can find some more ideas below!

• Single Mothers’ Experiences of Relationships with Their Adolescent Sons .
• Teachers and Students’ Gender-Based Interactions .
• Gender Identity: Biological Perspective and Social Cognitive Theory .
• Gender: Culturally-Prescribed Role or Biological Sex .
• The Influence of Opioid Misuse on Academic Achievement of Veteran Students .
• The Importance of Ethics in Research .
• The Role of Family and Social Network Support in Mental Health .

Education Literature Review Example

For your education studies , you can write a review of related literature about academic performance to determine factors that affect student achievement and highlight research gaps. One more idea is to create a review of related literature on study habits , considering their role in the student’s life and academic outcomes.

You can also evaluate a computerized grading system in a review of related literature to single out its advantages and barriers to implementation. Or you can complete a review of related literature on instructional materials to identify their most common types and effects on student achievement.

📝 Find some inspiration in the examples below:

• Literature Review on Online Learning Challenges From COVID-19 .
• Education, Leadership, and Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Standardized Testing Bias .
• Bullying of Disabled Children in School .
• Interventions and Letter & Sound Recognition: A Literature Review .
• Social-Emotional Skills Program for Preschoolers .
• Effectiveness of Educational Leadership Management Skills .

Business Research Literature Review

If you’re a business student, you can focus on customer satisfaction in your review of related literature. Discuss specific customer satisfaction features and how it is affected by service quality and prices. You can also create a theoretical literature review about consumer buying behavior to evaluate theories that have significantly contributed to understanding how consumers make purchasing decisions.

📝 Look at the examples to get more exciting ideas:

• Leadership and Communication: Literature Review .
• Human Resource Development: Literature Review .
• Project Management. Literature Review .
• Strategic HRM: A Literature Review .
• Customer Relationship Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on International Financial Reporting Standards .
• Cultures of Management: Literature Review .

To conclude, a review of related literature is a significant genre of scholarly works that can be applied in various disciplines and for multiple goals. The sources examined in an RRL provide theoretical frameworks for future studies and help create original research questions and hypotheses.

When you finish your outstanding literature review, don’t forget to check whether it sounds logical and coherent. Our text-to-speech tool can help you with that!

• Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review | Purdue Online Writing Lab
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature | University of Wisconsin-Madison
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It | University of Toronto
• Writing a Literature Review | UC San Diego
• Conduct a Literature Review | The University of Arizona
• Methods for Literature Reviews | National Library of Medicine
• Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review | Georgia State University

How to Write an Animal Testing Essay: Tips for Argumentative & Persuasive Papers

Descriptive essay topics: examples, outline, & more.

Literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: challenges and opportunities

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

ISSN : 1176-6093

Article publication date: 28 February 2023

Issue publication date: 4 May 2023

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

Design/methodology/approach

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

• Literature review
• Systematic review
• Systematicity
• Qualitative research
• Accounting research

Hiebl, M.R.W. (2023), "Literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: challenges and opportunities", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 309-336. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-12-2021-0222

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Martin R.W. Hiebl.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode .

1. The increasing relevance of review-centric works in and beyond accounting research

The volume of research published in academic journals and other outlets has significantly increased over the past few decades ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2021 ), and business research, including accounting research, is no exception ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Dyckman and Zeff, 2015 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Zeff, 2019 ). Hence, researchers, especially junior scholars such as PhD students, may find it difficult to stay up-to-date in their area of interest and recognize which relevant and interesting research questions remain to be answered ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ; Kraus et al. , 2021 ). To help master such challenges and avoid “reinventing the wheel”, the importance of sound literature reviews has recently risen ( Massaro et al. , 2016 ).

Methodological advice on how to conduct literature reviews in business-related disciplines has long lagged behind the much faster growth in published reviews ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ). More recently, several works on mastering review methods and generating impactful literature reviews have been published. Such advice includes the general potential of certain kinds of review-centric works ( Aguinis et al. , 2023 ; Antons et al. , 2021 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Jones and Gatrell, 2014 ; Kraus et al. , 2022 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ), theorizing through literature reviews ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Post et al. , 2020 ), involving practitioners in crafting literature reviews ( Sharma and Bansal, 2020 ), the performativity of reviews in shaping and developing academic fields ( Gond et al. , 2020 ) and questions on the individual steps when conducting literature reviews ( Anderson and Lemken, 2023 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Villiger et al. , 2021 ). Most of these works have focused on general business and management research. While the number of published literature reviews in accounting journals has increased in recent years, and entire review-centric special issues have been or are about to be published in these journals (e.g. in the European Accounting Review and Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation ), specific advice on crafting reviews of accounting research remains scarce.

In fact, the most notable exception that has – to the best of my knowledge – received widespread attention is the article by Massaro et al. (2016) on conducting structured reviews of accounting research. However, given the general nature of the work by Massaro et al. (2016) , it cannot delve into all the strands of accounting research. These strands and methodological traditions come with their own peculiarities and informal rules of the game that are often inaccessible to junior scholars ( Brennan, 2019 ; Dai et al. , 2019 ; Humphrey and Lee, 2004 ; Malmi, 2010 ). For this reason, Andiola et al. (2017) highlight specific challenges when reviewing behavioral accounting research.

Likewise, my experience of publishing several review papers in accounting journals tells me that crafting reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research comes with its challenges. For instance, qualitative accounting studies usually feature thick descriptions of accounting phenomena and their embedding in social and organizational contexts ( Lukka and Modell, 2017 ; Messner et al. , 2017 ). In particular, research case studies of accounting phenomena usually feature detailed accounts of the events that took place in the case organization ( Lee and Humphrey, 2017 ). Compared with quantitative research papers, which usually compress accounting and related phenomena into variables that can be included in statistical analyses ( Messner et al. , 2017 ), the findings sections of qualitative accounting studies are often more extensive. Such extensive descriptions in qualitative accounting research come with the challenge that several elements or aspects of their findings might be extracted and included in a literature review. Likewise, the findings of qualitative accounting studies might be read with a different theory than originally intended by the authors ( Huber, 2022 ). The author of a literature review might, thus, reinterpret the original findings ( Hoon, 2013 ). Such reinterpretation is not possible when reviewing quantitative accounting research because the measurement of phenomena in such work is usually tightly linked to the theoretically derived hypotheses ( Smith, 2019 ). At the same time, covering qualitative research in reviews of accounting research is probably more relevant than in many other fields of business research, as quantitative and qualitative methods are applied more evenly in accounting research, especially in Australia, Europe and several emerging countries ( Hopper and Bui, 2016 ; Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Massaro et al. , 2016 ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ).

To help scholars – especially those relatively new to accounting research or reviews thereof – avoid some of the lessons that I have learned through trial and error, I highlight some of the challenges when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research and offer potential solutions to overcome them in this qualitative insights piece. For this purpose, I first distinguish between three potential advantages and three basic use cases of reviews of qualitative accounting research in Section 2. This section aims to highlight important choices, including the extent of an author’s criticism of the literature and the decision on whether to publish the review as a standalone paper. These choices guide the later process of crafting a review of qualitative accounting research, which is detailed in Section 3. Section 3 also discusses the degree of systematicity found in contemporary literature reviews. Along these process steps, I then highlight three important challenges when reviewing qualitative accounting research and offer potential solutions in Section 4. Section 5 concludes with implications for future reviews of qualitative accounting research.

To discuss these choices and challenges in reviews of qualitative accounting research, I draw on related advice from other disciplines and my own experience. Hence, the following advice comes with the limitation that parts of it are subjective. I nevertheless hope that it is useful to account researchers interested in crafting reviews of qualitative accounting research.

2. Three potential advantages and three basic use cases of reviews of qualitative accounting research

Literature reviews can be classified in various ways ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Fan et al. , 2022 ; Kraus et al. , 2022 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Snyder, 2019 ). Many of these classifications include choices on the kind of topic addressed in a literature review and the scholarly advantages to be gained. Importantly, these choices on the topic and desired advantages of a literature review inform the rest of the literature review process ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ), which is why I first discuss three potential advantages of literature reviews in Section 2.1, followed by three use cases in Section 2.2.

2.1 Three potential advantages of literature reviews

Analyzing a certain strand of the literature may result in finding that it is incomplete and has missed several important aspects of the phenomenon. The advantage of such an analysis is pointing out future research avenues worthy of further inquiry ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Many reviews covering qualitative accounting research follow this approach, as their main purpose is to analyze a certain domain of accounting research and suggest aspects of the domain that still need (more) research attention ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ). An advantage of such reviews might also be that they tie together research that has been published in several research fields and outlets ( Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ; Nguyen et al. , 2018 ). Based on such reviews, research on a certain domain of accounting might, thus, be synthesized more comprehensively and missing knowledge on the topic identified.

A strand of the literature may be viewed as inadequate in that certain perspectives, frameworks or theories have been insufficiently incorporated or used in a field. The advantage of such a literature review, thus, lies in suggesting alternative ways to analyze a phenomenon or field of study, which may suggest a different future direction ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Jones and Gatrell, 2014 ). Thus, such reviews tend to carry a more critical stance when analyzing the literature. An example heavily drawing on qualitative accounting research is the review by Hardies and Khalifa (2018) . These authors review gender in accounting research and identify “two persistent pitfalls” (p. 385) in this literature, and thus, portray large parts of it as inadequate . Another example is the review by Wolf et al. (2020) , who review the literature on the roles and identities of management accountants and conclude that this research strand has not yet made sufficient use of the “identity concept” (p. 312).

A literature review may find that a certain strand of the literature is incommensurate in that it has not only overlooked certain perspectives or theories (as in the “inadequate” category above) but also made claims that are just wrong. In this case, a literature review may identify the misguided perspective and try to correct the errors made ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Reviews following this approach are the most critical of the current literature and not as numerous as reviews using the two advantages above. An example of this type of review might be the recent work by Modell (2022b) . Modell (2022b) reviews institutional research on management accounting and concludes that parts of this literature show no progress and even some degenerative tendencies in continuing to draw on one-sided views that predominantly focus on either human agency or structures to explain institutional processes around management accounting. In line with the incommensurate category proposed by Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) , Modell (2022b) also suggests ways in which these shortcomings in institutional research on management accounting can be rectified.

While Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) analytically separate these three advantages of scholarly engagement with the prior literature, it seems fair to assume that a literature review must achieve at least one of these advantages and may pertain to several at the same time.

Regardless of the specific scholarly advantages of a literature review, we can further distinguish two ways in which literature reviews are integrated into the research process: they can result in standalone papers and/or inform a broader research project that may, for instance, be geared toward further empirical, formal/analytical or conceptual work ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ; Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ). In fact, Petticrew and Roberts (2012) argue that a literature review should be conducted at the start of any research project, particularly PhD theses, to avoid overlooking research relevant to the project at hand. In the following, I mostly use examples of literature reviews published as standalone papers, as these examples can be more easily traced by the reader. Reviews informing a broader research project may be less restricted by page count and the usual setup of the review than their counterparts published as standalone papers. However, aside from that, the following issues to be considered when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research should pertain to both types of reviews.

Publishing a literature review as a standalone paper has several advantages. For instance, review articles are appealing to authors and editors of accounting journals because they usually attract higher citation rates than other research articles ( Dechow et al. , 2020 ; Guffey and Harp, 2016 ). In addition, review articles can help sharpen an author’s profile in the research community and associate the author’s name with a specific domain, theory or method.

At the same time, the decision on whether a literature review should or could be published as a standalone paper rests not only on these considerations but also on several additional factors. Among these factors, to be publishable in an academic journal, a literature review needs to cover a field in which “a number of conceptual and empirical articles have amassed without previous review efforts or a synthesis of past works” ( Short, 2009 , p. 1312). We currently lack meta-analytic information on where such a “critical mass” ( Short, 2009 , p. 1316) lies for reviews of (qualitative) accounting research. For reviews of management research that are published in the most-cited specialist journals for such reviews, we know that they cover about 140 articles each on average and 30–50 articles as a minimum ( Hiebl, 2021 ). Compared with reviews of (mostly) qualitative accounting research, we can infer that the standards in the latter field differ little from the above numbers. The critical mass for a standalone review article in accounting journals seems to start at about 30 articles, too ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Modell, 2022a ), but most such works cover larger review samples [ 2 ] of approximately 50–90 articles ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Fiandrino et al. , 2022 ; Hardies and Khalifa, 2018 ; Hiebl, 2018 ; Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ), and some cover over 100 ( Baldvinsdottir et al. , 2011 ; Modell, 2022b ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; van der Stede et al. , 2005 ). Methodological literature reviews of accounting research may even cover several hundred articles; however, at the same time, they usually feature a narrower focus on the applied methodological issues ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ).

Together with the three potential advantages of literature reviews, the right-hand box of Figure 1 includes the two main publication forms of reviews. This figure does not intend to provide a step-by-step guide of how to perform a literature review of qualitative accounting research. In fact, the advantages, use cases and process steps included in Figure 1 do not necessarily only apply to literature reviews of qualitative (accounting) research; but the terminology (e.g. method theory, domain theory) used in this figure and the rest of this paper are mostly taken from the qualitative accounting research literature. I use these steps, use cases and advantages when later highlighting some of the specific challenges of reviews of qualitative accounting research (Section 4). Figure 1 , thus, aims to provide readers with a map to locate the typical issues I discuss when crafting a review of qualitative accounting research and summarize the main use cases and potential advantages of such reviews.

2.2 Three potential use cases for literature reviews

reviews that cover a certain domain within accounting research;

reviews that focus on the application of a certain method theory in accounting research; and

reviews that examine a specific research method as applied in accounting research.

Just like the three potential advantages of literature reviews, these three use cases are summarized in Figure 1 .

The first use case is related to what Lukka and Vinnari (2014 , p. 1309) term the “domain theory” of a field within accounting research: “A domain theory refers to a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area situated in a field or domain”. They contrast a domain theory with a method theory, the latter being defined as “a meta-level conceptual system, or theoretical lens, which originates from another field such as organization studies or sociology” ( Lukka and Vinnari, 2014 , p. 1312) and is more related to the second use case of a literature review sketched above. Lukka and Vinnari (2014) further note that a “method theory offers a vocabulary and syntax, often also substantive propositions, which are, at least with adaptations, applicable to another disciplinary domain” (p. 1312), such as accounting research. To illustrate their argument, they draw on a review of the use of actor network theory (i.e. the method theory in focus) in management accounting research. They conclude that most prior studies in this field have exclusively contributed to the domain of management accounting research, with only a small fraction contributing to actor network theory more generally. However, even if researchers are only aiming to contribute to a particular domain theory of a field within accounting research, they need to know the current state of that domain theory to properly reflect and frame their contribution to prior knowledge. And such prior knowledge can be identified by means of a literature review ( Lukka and Vinnari, 2014 ). Likewise, Mahama and Khalifa (2017 , p. 324) argue that for qualitative accounting research based on interviews, the literature review forms the basis of deriving interview questions and later “determining whether new knowledge is generated from the interview data, thereby paving the way for the researcher to claim empirical contribution”.

Examples for use case (i) that covered a certain domain within accounting research and covered qualitative accounting research include reviews on the role of emotions ( Repenning et al. , 2022 ), gender ( Hardies and Khalifa, 2018 ), technology ( Garanina et al. , 2021 ; Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu, 2018 ) and trust ( Baldvinsdottir et al. , 2011 ); reviews of certain accounting practices and principles ( Fiandrino et al. , 2022 ; Hoque, 2014 ; Nguyen et al. , 2018 ) and the roles of accountants ( Wolf et al. , 2020 ); and reviews of accounting research in certain countries or regions ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), certain industries ( Gooneratne and Hoque, 2013 ; Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ) and types of organizations ( D’Andreamatteo et al. , 2022 ; Kapiyangoda and Gooneratne, 2021 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ). All these reviews have focused on a certain substantive topic within accounting research or, in the words of Lukka and Vinnari (2014) , a certain domain of accounting research. These use case (i) literature reviews may provide authors with the largest set of choices. As detailed below, such domain theory reviews can include either research items from only accounting journals or content from other sources; they may or may not be informed by a guiding theory and may include both qualitative and nonqualitative empirical papers. This, therefore, necessitates the inclusion of papers resting on various methodologies and underlying research paradigms (cf. Modell, 2010 ), which may pose an additional challenge for authors of such reviews.

In turn, other reviews have been less concerned with specific accounting phenomena and more interested in the application of a certain method theory to accounting research. Reviews following use case (ii) are similar to the above example of Lukka and Vinnari (2014) , who use the application of actor network theory in management accounting research to illustrate the differences between domain and method theory. Further examples of use case (ii) that have mostly focused on qualitative accounting research are reviews of the use of Gidden’s structuration theory in accounting research ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ) and reviews of accounting research drawing on the concepts of institutional work ( Modell, 2022a ), institutional theory ( Modell, 2022b ) and institutional logics ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ). These reviews all critically analyze how a certain method theory has been applied in and has contributed to the development of accounting research. To provide such a critical analysis, the researcher usually needs to have a very good understanding of the current state of this theory, not just within accounting research, but ideally across all relevant fields to compare the application of a method theory in accounting research with the more general state-of-the-art on this theory.

In contrast to use case (i) reviews, use case (ii) reviews usually only include research from accounting journals in their sample and clearly focus on a specific theory. Hence, authors have less variability in use case (ii) reviews than in use case (i) reviews. This lower variability also pertains to the papers to be included in use case (ii) reviews. While empirical accounting research papers that adopt the same kind of theory may be based on various research methods, many use case (ii) literature reviews ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) are exclusively based on qualitative empirical accounting research, which does not come with the potential challenge of bridging the underlying research paradigms of the research items in the review sample.

In addition to focusing on a certain domain or method theory, Aguinis et al. (2023) highlight that many impactful literature reviews of management research focus on methodological issues – just as the present paper does [ 3 ]. Systematic “methodological literature reviews”, and thus, use case (iii) for literature reviews, typically examine a specific research method applied to a certain field, systematically identify the challenges and shortcomings in its current application and often end with suggestions or best practices on how these methods should be used in the future ( Aguinis et al. , 2023 ; Kreamer et al. , 2021 ). While not yet frequent, some methodological literature reviews of accounting research are available ( Bedford and Speklé, 2018 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Nitzl, 2016 ; van der Stede et al. , 2005 ), and a small number of systematic reviews of qualitative methods in accounting research also exist ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ) [ 4 ]. Such reviews may be specifically helpful and impactful if researchers have seen relatively new methods or noticed shortcomings or open questions with existing research methods applied in qualitative accounting research. Methodological reviews may, thus, chart ways in which researchers can use new methods and avoid methodological pitfalls.

Similar to use case (ii) reviews, these use case (iii) reviews usually focus solely on the accounting literature and typically only include research published in accounting journals in their review samples. Unlike the first two use cases, use case (iii) reviews are rarely informed by a specific theory and are naturally bound to the specific method adopted by the research items in the review sample. Unlike the other two use cases, the methodological choices taken are often more of interest to the review authors than the findings of the papers for use case (iii) reviews. Such reviews may, therefore, predominantly extract the necessary information from the methods sections of the research items in the review sample ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ).

The decision on which of the three use cases to pursue in a literature review is driven by several factors, including personal interest in certain domains, theories and research methods in accounting research. Nevertheless, from my personal observations, some tendencies can be identified. The literature review sections of doctoral theses are often geared toward the domain of accounting research in which the thesis is positioned, and thus, use case (i) ( Batt, 2020 ; Braumann, 2017 ; Löhlein, 2015 ; Weigel, 2020 ), although exceptions do exist, including those more geared toward the method theories applied in accounting research, and thus, use case (ii) ( Janka, 2019 ). By contrast, all the examples of use case (ii) reviews noted above ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) are (co-)authored by senior scholars. In addition, these reviews often portray the current application of certain method theories in accounting research as inadequate or even incommensurate and are, thus, critical. While not relying on a full analysis of all available use case (ii) reviews, this observation may imply that this type of literature review rests on extended experience with a certain theory, and thus, having deep insights into the strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings of its application in accounting research. Similarly, the available examples of methodological reviews of accounting research (see above), and thus, use case (iii) have mostly been (co-)authored by experienced scholars. Just as with use case (ii), this observation may indicate that to conduct such methodology-oriented reviews, authors might benefit from having practical experience of a certain method to provide authentic recommendations for its future application in accounting research. However, less experienced researchers need not necessarily shy away from use cases (ii) and (iii). As some of the aforementioned examples show ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ), junior researchers can still collaborate with more experienced researchers to conduct impactful reviews according to the latter two use cases.

Regardless of which use case is pursued, my experience of crafting, supervising and reviewing literature reviews is that authors usually decide upfront which use case to follow because all three use cases usually lead authors in different directions. Put differently, the choice of the use case and central topic of the literature review shapes the remainder of the review process ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). This process is detailed next.

3. Process and systematicity of literature reviews

identify a review topic;

search for and select the relevant literature;

analyze the relevant literature; and

report the review findings.

Traditionally, literature reviews published in accounting journals, but also those in other social science disciplines, have often been opaque in terms of the second and third steps; they only motivated a topic and reported their findings. That is, they provided a critique of the literature and suggestions on how to move on without disclosing which methodological steps they had taken to select and analyze the literature. Such reviews are now often referred to as “traditional reviews” and contrasted with “systematic reviews” ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ; Knoll et al. , 2018 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ).

The main [ 5 ] differences between these two types of reviews are summarized in Table 1 , along with the four process steps of reviews mentioned above. The most significant difference between traditional and systematic reviews could be that systematic reviews follow a clear review protocol that defines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the research items to be included in the review and transparently report how the literature was searched and selected. Thus, just like empirical research papers, systematic reviews usually carry a method section, too, where the researcher discloses the steps taken to arrive at and analyze a review sample ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). This way, it should become clear on what basis – and, in particular, on which selected research items – the review’s findings were created. Ideally, readers – and journal editors and reviewers before them – should be able to fully trace the methodological steps taken by the literature review’s authors to arrive at their findings ( Hiebl, 2021 ). It is then possible to assess whether the review sample may be biased or important parts of the literature uncovered. Hence, just as with empirical articles, methodological transparency is usually the key ingredient for systematic reviews ( Aguinis et al. , 2018 ). In turn, the main criticism of traditional reviews is that their selection and analysis of the reviewed literature is opaque and may be selective and biased ( Knoll et al. , 2018 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ).

At least for review articles published in premier management journals, systematic reviews have become the new norm ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ). Hence, there are a few strong reasons for authors to produce a methodologically opaque traditional review. Indeed, methodological reviews in accounting research [i.e. those following use case (iii)] have long been more transparent in their focus, search and selection of research items ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Nitzl, 2016 ; Van der Stede et al. , 2005 ). Likewise, more recently published literature reviews strongly relying on qualitative accounting research mostly feature at least a short section on the main search strategies and sampling criteria ( Modell , 2022a, 2022b ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; Wolf et al. , 2020 ). Hence, authors of reviews of qualitative accounting may be advised to present some of the methodological details on how they identified the research items and selected the inclusion and exclusion criteria for crafting their final review sample. If reporting these details would take up too much space in the main review article, many publishers nowadays offer online appendices where additional and more technical details can be reported (for examples, see Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Tank and Farrell, 2022 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ).

To be able to report these details of the literature search, authors of literature reviews are advised to establish a clear search strategy with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and document their search in detail. Some recent advice on sample selection as part of literature reviews presents details on the choices that can be rendered and documented when searching the literature ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ). In the accounting literature, some recent literature reviews also report in detail on their search procedures and provide examples of the choices to think about and data to document during the search process (see the online supplemental materials published along with Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Tank and Farrell, 2022 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ).

When it comes to specific literature reviews of qualitative empirical research, several names for such literature reviews have been coined, such as “meta-syntheses” ( Hoon, 2013 ), “qualitative research synthesis” ( Denyer and Tranfield, 2006 ), “critical interpretive synthesis”, “meta-ethnography” and “meta-narrative mapping” ( Dixon-Woods, 2011 ; Dixon-Woods et al. , 2006 ). While the features of these techniques differ (slightly), Dixon-Woods (2011 , p. 337) argues that these approaches are “all, practically, very similar, but have different names and slightly different variants”. She further notes that they can all be organized on a spectrum from more traditional literature reviews to more systematic reviews ( Dixon-Woods, 2011 ). We can, thus, broadly conclude that techniques to cover qualitative research in literature reviews show different degrees of “systematicity” ( Simsek et al. , 2021 ; see also Rojon et al. , 2021 ) and range from less to more systematic approaches (see the left-hand box in Figure 1 ). I return to this issue as one of the challenges in reviews covering qualitative accounting research, which is discussed in more detail in the next section. Figure 1 summarizes the three typical use cases discussed in Section 2.2, the typical process steps presented in this section, and the typical advantages of literature reviews explained in Section 2.1.

4. Challenges, potential solutions and opportunities for reviews of qualitative accounting research

As indicated above, I now detail three specific challenges pertinent to literature reviews of qualitative accounting research – from my own experience. In this qualitative insights piece, I cannot cover all the potential challenges when conducting and publishing literature reviews more generally [ 6 ]. The following should, thus, not be read as an exhaustive list of such challenges and potential solutions but rather as a subjective list of those challenges specific to literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, especially when trying to publish such reviews as standalone papers in well-regarded accounting journals. I discuss these challenges as they typically occur during the process of conducting literature reviews, as displayed in Figure 1 . Section 4.1 addresses the general setup and chosen research question(s) to be addressed by a literature review (process Step 1), Section 4.2 addresses the search for and selection of relevant research items (process Step 2) and Section 4.3 addresses teasing out an original contribution from such reviews (process Steps 3 and 4).

4.1 Skepticism about evidence-based reviews

theory discovery;

theory refinement; and

theory testing.

Theory refinement and theory testing studies start from one or several existing theoretical ideas and test and refine them by drawing on data ( Hoon, 2013 ; Keating, 1995 ; Sutton and Staw, 1995 ). Such data can be empirical data or a body of published work, as is typical in literature reviews ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Post et al. , 2020 ). By contrast, theory discovery studies “map novel, dynamic, and/or complex phenomena ignored or inadequately explained by existing theories” ( Keating, 1995 , p. 69). Hence, such studies do not adopt a certain theoretical lens to start with but rather develop theory inductively based on the available data. Again, such data could be empirical or extracted from a review sample ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ).

In the management literature, such inductive theory discovery reviews are often rooted in evidence-based thinking, and they focus on analyzing empirical research items without a particular informing theory ( Leuz, 2018 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). Because such evidence-based reviews focus on a phenomenon observed in organizational practice or a related question, they would mostly apply to use case (i) reviews of a certain domain of accounting research. Authors of evidence-based reviews usually collect all relevant research items that can shed light on the phenomenon ( Kunisch et al. , 2023 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ) – without defining in advance on which theoretical basis the research items must rest to qualify for inclusion in the review sample. Researchers may then inductively – and thus, without a predefined theoretical framework in mind – analyze the review sample. The theoretical contribution of such theory discovery or evidence-based literature reviews could be, for instance, to identify emerging themes that are later developed into a more formal theory, to create a new perspective of the phenomenon in question or to propose a framework that identifies so-far unexamined relationships from a cross-analysis of a review sample ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ). Take, for example, Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) review of the corporate social responsibility literature. While Aguinis and Glavas (2012) do not cite “evidence-based thinking” as their guiding paradigm, they also do not commit to a particular theory a priori but rather incorporate research findings from different areas of management to inductively develop a theoretical framework that can guide future research. Through this evidence-based approach, they have been able to synthesize research findings from different levels of analysis (i.e. institutional, organizational and individual) that were previously largely disconnected.

However, my experience is that accounting scholars are skeptical about literature reviews of accounting research that follow such an evidence-based route without starting from a predefined theory. Put in Keating’s (1995) theory development categories, qualitative accounting researchers seem to prefer theory refinement and, potentially to a lesser degree, theory testing reviews of the literature but are rarely open to theory discovery reviews. This may be problematic, as theory-led reviews may reinforce existing theory and be less open to alternative and novel theoretical explanations of phenomena that do not fit existing theories [ 7 ]. As argued by Adams et al. (2017) , this may be less problematic for phenomena that have been intensively researched and existing theories tested extensively. However, for less mature and more emerging phenomena, theoretical explanations may be unavailable. In such situations, evidence-based reviews that are not (mis-)guided by existing theory may help discover theory ( Adams et al. , 2017 ). The integration of different strands of the literature resting on different theoretical paradigms may, however, be hampered if the review examines the phenomenon in question from a predefined theoretical viewpoint only, a practice sometimes observed in qualitative accounting research.

For instance, in the first two versions of a recently published review paper I co-authored ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), we tried to convince the reviewers that we followed evidence-based thinking in the paper and would, thus, rather not use a predefined theoretical lens to analyze our review sample. In our view, such an evidence-based approach was warranted because we sought to integrate largely disjointed research findings that were originally based on very different theoretical assumptions. In addition, we did not originally intend this review to analyze whether these existing research findings fit into predefined theoretical categories. However, we could not convince the editor or the reviewers with this approach. Only when we changed this argument and identified two opposing theoretical positions as being dominant in our review sample and letting these guide the analysis of our results were the reviewers more convinced and recommended minor revisions or acceptance right away. This is not to say that the reviewers or we were wrong; we just started from different epistemological positions. Similar to many systematic reviews of management research, our starting position could be coined as “empiricist” or “evidence-based”, whereas the reviewers were probably more focused on the broader theoretical threads and explanations behind our review findings (cf. Modell, 2017 ). The latter, more theory-led view may have the advantage that the underlying theory can be used as an organizing framework to analyze the findings gathered in the review sample, which may be especially useful for junior scholars because an informing theory provides them with a basic template of the relationships to be analyzed based on a specific theory. Another potential benefit of this theory-led approach is that an alternative theory may be suggested, and the current state of the field may be portrayed as inadequate or even incommensurate, as detailed in Section 2.

While most experienced qualitative accounting researchers may be aware of the latter benefits of theory-led use case (i) reviews, few, in my experience, are open to more inductive, evidence-based reviews of a certain domain of accounting research. Thus, most qualitatively oriented literature reviews of accounting research that are published in well-regarded journals rather adopt a guiding theory and try to distill how the reviewed research items may confirm or challenge prior work that has adopted the same or a similar theoretical lens. This is different to my experience of quantitatively oriented literature reviews of accounting research ( Hiebl, 2014 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Lavia López and Hiebl, 2015 ; Plöckinger et al. , 2016 ) in which fellow accounting researchers seem more open to evidence-based reviews.

Thus, after several failures and my apparent inability to convince qualitatively oriented reviewers of the value of evidence-based reviews and inductively generated review findings, I have concluded that – for the time being – I could either not try publishing review articles covering qualitative accounting research or just submit to the conventions of the field [ 8 ]. I concede that this position may come across as overly instrumental and as blindly submitting to the rules of the current publish-or-perish culture ( Becker and Lukka, 2022 ; van Dalen and Henkens, 2012 ; Weigel and Müller, 2020 ). However, since I had a non-tenured co-author on board in the above example ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), to submit to the conventions of the field, as I did not want my beliefs to get in the way of my co-author’s career prospects.

Just as the short history of this published review paper ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ) shows, the final literature review (e.g. as published in a standalone paper or PhD thesis) may differ significantly from earlier versions. The published paper appears to have followed a straightforward linear process: select a topic to review, focus on one or two central theories, analyze the underlying literature with these theories in mind, and then report on the results. However, junior scholars should not let themselves be blinded by the published paper: the underlying engagement with the literature and theory is often much less straightforward. That is, just as with empirical qualitative research papers, researchers often play around with different theoretical angles to make sense of data – the review sample in the case of a literature review – and then select the theory that seems most promising for making a certain argument and getting this argument published ( Ahrens, 2022 ; Huber, 2022 ). Alternatively, if authors have analyzed a review sample and concluded that available theories may be inadequate for fully grasping the phenomenon in question, they could then opt for a more evidence-based or theory discovery type of review ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ). In any case, it seems hard to decide whether a literature review should be more theory-led or more evidence-based before a full analysis of the review sample. Only after this analysis has generated sufficient knowledge of the available literature can authors decide how to frame and present their review results.

As indicated above, the observations shared in this section especially relate to use case (i), namely, literature reviews that cover a certain domain of accounting research leaning heavily toward qualitative research methods. That is, I have not experienced such theory issues for the use case (iii), namely, methodological literature reviews ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ), including one focusing on qualitative accounting research ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ). The reason is probably that reviewers do not expect much theory guidance in methodologically oriented reviews, although we did present some underlying theory in the mentioned methodological review paper, too ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ). By contrast, for the use case (ii), the application of a method theory is at the core of the review, and thus, focusing on a predefined theoretical lens to analyze the review sample is an inherent ingredient of such reviews.

4.2 Sample selection and comprehensiveness of review samples

4.2.1 comprehensiveness of review samples..

A further challenge for literature reviews of the qualitative accounting literature lies in the identification of relevant research items. Given the different ways, a qualitative piece of accounting research can be read or (re)interpreted (see above), a truly comprehensive review sample may be unattainable, as whether a research item is related to the review’s research question lies in the literal eye of the beholder. Thus, in my experience, published reviews of qualitative accounting research and their handling editors rarely focus on a comprehensive review sample and rather zone in on the (theoretical) implications arising from the analysis as long as the most relevant and most cited work is included in the review sample. That is, if we consider a comprehensive review sample as the cornerstone of systematic reviews ( Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ), reviews of qualitative accounting research may be more relaxed in terms of systematicity than reviews covering more quantitative research. This may be related to several qualitative accounting research items being case studies and including rich empirical material and in-depth explanations of the examined phenomena ( Ahrens and Dent, 1998 ; Lukka and Modell, 2010 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ; Parker, 2017 ). Such material may be read in several ways. Hence, there is often no clear-cut or objective criterion of whether a research item should be included in or excluded from a review sample. Relatedly, accounting researchers may discuss the same or a similar empirical phenomenon using a set of different terms and language. A mere search in electronic databases that rests on a predefined and potentially narrow set of keywords is, thus, unlikely to identify all the research items that could be relevant to such a literature review’s research question(s). Extensive snowballing and exchange with experienced authors in the field ( Hiebl, 2021 ) might, thus, be especially relevant to reviews of qualitative accounting research.

To illustrate this point, the first version of a review article I authored ( Hiebl, 2018 ) was built on a review sample of only 22 articles. According to the editors and reviewers, several important and well-cited articles were missing from this sample owing to the restrictions of my keyword search. Thanks to the feedback and advice from the reviewers and editors on additional, potentially relevant articles and ways to identify them, the sample was gradually enlarged to 43 articles (first revision) and finally 64 articles (second and later revisions). The expansion of the review sample was mostly due to relaxing my search terms and making more extensive use of snowballing. Still, I acknowledge in the paper that these 64 articles may not represent a comprehensive list of relevant articles to the phenomenon under focus, but they were certainly more comprehensive than the 22 articles included in the initial version. Despite potentially resting on an incomplete review sample, I still managed to tease out novel contributions.

Hence, for researchers reviewing mainly qualitative accounting research, the standard criterion of a truly comprehensive review sample known from the methodological literature on systematic reviews ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ) may not fully apply. Instead, following the advice of the editors of some of the review papers I have (co-)authored ( Hiebl, 2018 ; Lavia López and Hiebl, 2015 ) [ 9 ], it may not be necessary to present a truly comprehensive review sample, but rather one that includes the most relevant and cited research items in a field and that enables the author to address the literature review’s central research question in sufficient depth.

Still, keyword searches and sufficient snowballing techniques may help identify further relevant research items published in nonaccounting journals that may enrich the literature review and domain with new insights (cf. Greenhalgh and Peacock, 2005 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Webster and Watson, 2002 ). Not least, such research relevant to the chosen research question but that may be less well known to the accounting research community than other included research items may enable the author to tease out new insights or anomalies from the review sample (cf. Dixon-Woods, 2011 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ). Such insights may, in turn, provide the basis for creating an original contribution from a standalone review paper, which is an important challenge discussed in Section 4.3.

4.2.2 Inclusion of research items from accounting journals and other fields.

In some of the review articles I have submitted to accounting journals, the reviewers voiced skepticism about why we included articles published in nonaccounting journals in our review sample. Just as with other methodological choices, the authors of literature reviews are free to frame their central research questions more narrowly or widely, and thus, have discretion about what should be included in or excluded from the review sample ( Hiebl, 2021 ). Apart from such discretion, the most important meta-criterion is a good fit between the literature review’s research question and inclusion criteria. However, this argument has not always convinced qualitatively oriented reviewers I have faced during peer review. Indeed, some reviewers and editors recommended only using articles published in accounting journals even though the literature review’s guiding research questions or objectives did not include any focus on research only published in accounting journals. To be clear, such reviewer and editor opposition to research items from other fields has been the exception in the numerous review processes of literature reviews in which I have participated. However, I am afraid that in such cases, the authors of literature reviews must also make a judgment call as to whether they submit to the reviewer and editor’s recommendations or try to publish their reviews elsewhere.

In my view, there are usually no logically compelling reasons as to why rigorous and relevant research from other disciplines should be excluded from literature reviews submitted to accounting journals – except, of course, for research questions that exclusively focus on accounting research, such as the application of certain method theories ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) and methodological issues in accounting research ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ). For instance, in one of our review papers heavily leaning on qualitative research ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), more than half of the research items in the review sample were published in non-accounting journals, including general management, finance and economics journals. We discovered these research items by running a keyword-based search in several electronic databases such as EBSCO and Google Scholar, as well as extensive snowballing, as indicated above. This search was not restricted to accounting journals and helped identify many research items relevant to our research topic, resulting in a more comprehensive review of the focused domain of accounting. Hence, going forward, I hope that the small number of editors and reviewers at accounting journals that believe in the usefulness of disciplinary borders and only include articles published in accounting journals in accounting-focused review papers will eventually lift these restrictions.

An alternative – and probably less conflict-riddled – route for authors of review articles is to use a journal-focused approach when searching for potentially relevant research items. In this approach, authors specify ex ante a selected group of journals and then search only these journals ( Hiebl, 2021 ). When applied to reviews of qualitative accounting research, this has the advantage that authors only need to consider research published in a predefined group of accounting journals. A few literature reviews of mainly qualitative research published in accounting journals have followed this strategy ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ); however, as detailed above, such a search approach may come with the limitation that relevant research from other fields is just ignored despite enriching the review sample and potentially paving the way to creating an original contribution with a standalone review paper (see also Section 4.3).

Only including research items from accounting journals in the review sample does not necessarily mean that the findings of the literature review could not later be discussed using arguments taken from non-accounting fields. In fact, many literature reviews that have exclusively taken research items from accounting journals ( Modell , 2022a, 2022b ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ) have drawn on more general advances in the respective theory or topic from other fields. For example, in his review of accounting research drawing on the concept of institutional work, Modell (2022a) mobilizes recent advances in institutional work in management research and sociology to discuss this perspective’s current application in accounting research and chart the way forward.

4.2.3 Narrowing an overly long list of potentially relevant research items.

After having chosen the inclusion criteria and searched for relevant research items, the review author is usually left with a long list of potentially relevant research items that may include several hundred or even thousands of search hits ( Hiebl, 2021 ). While this list can be narrowed further, one clear problem may be that the sample of relevant research items is too large to be covered in a single literature review. This problem may be rooted in the initially chosen topic for review or the research question(s), which may simply be too broad to be answered by the literature review, especially if the authors want to publish it as a standalone paper, and thus, need to comply with typical page length restrictions for journal articles. Therefore, although cumbersome, authors may need to narrow the initial scope of the review, refine their research question(s) and re-run their search for literature.

In the final version of a literature review, the central topic and research question of the review must align with the search methods ( Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). Therefore, after having motivated – and potentially adjusted and narrowed – the overall theme of the literature review, some published literature reviews ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu, 2018 ) offer detailed definitions of what should and should not be covered in the review. For instance, Repenning et al. (2022 , p. 243) detail that they aim to focus their review on the role of emotions in accounting research, and thus, exclude research items focusing on “other affective states, such as moods, sentiments, and attitudes”. Keeping the review sample manageable in this way may also be achieved by limiting potentially relevant research items according to their publication date. An example is the paper by Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu (2018) , who limit their review on business intelligence and business analytics in management accounting to a specific timeframe (2005–2015) and two research fields (accounting, information systems/technology) to identify the latest research results in this fast-moving topic in accounting research.

As these examples show, and similar to the search for research items, there is room for discretion in the final selection of articles to be included in the review sample, given the abovementioned subjectivity in judging whether a research item touches upon the phenomenon in question and discretion on the detailed definitions of the research topic and timeframe to be covered. Despite such discretion, a general quality criterion of literature reviews remains in place: that all methodological choices are well explained and justified and do not contradict the review’s central objectives and research question(s) ( Hiebl, 2021 ). If this quality criterion of literature reviews is met, the review sample is ready for analysis, which usually needs to result in original observations that warrant publication as a standalone review article; this is discussed next as the third challenge of such reviews.

4.3 What is the contribution?

Probably the most challenging issue I have encountered when crafting literature reviews that heavily lean on qualitative accounting research has been the question of a literature review’s contribution. This is particularly relevant for standalone review papers. Just as for empirical papers, accounting journals typically require from a review article a “contribution in its own right”. Indeed, given the important role of theory in qualitative accounting research (see Section 4.1; Lukka et al. , 2022 ; Pfister et al. , 2022 ), in my experience, this should preferably be a theoretical contribution and most often a contribution toward theory refinement (cf. Keating, 1995 ; Sutton and Staw, 1995 ). Junior scholars, thus, often face a paradox: if I only review existing research, how should I tease out something novel and original that makes my review paper worth publishing in an esteemed accounting journal? In other words, where could the potential contributions of literature reviews lie?

To make matters worse, at least for junior scholars entering the field, the hurdle rate for publishing standalone review papers in accounting journals has risen recently. The accounting research community produces more review articles today than a few years ago, and many of them in a more systematic and rigorous manner. For instance, the European Accounting Review , a well-regarded accounting journal according to most rankings, has recently published a special review issue. This special issue has received a record 103 submissions ( García Osma and Stolowy, 2020 ), of which only nine were published (including some covering qualitative accounting research: Modell, 2022a ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ). Given this recent popularity in the submission of literature reviews – not only to the mentioned special issue but also to accounting research journals generally – the requirements for literature reviews have certainly risen. Journal expectations now typically go beyond a summary and synthesis of prior research on a topic, as suggested in the definition of literature reviews presented earlier by Andiola et al. (2017) . This is not to criticize this definition but only to pinpoint that for a standalone review article to be published in a well-regarded accounting journal, it now needs more than a sound summary and synthesis.

A related problem I often encounter when discussing literature reviews authored by junior scholars such as PhD students is that they heavily focus on the rigor and systematicity of such reviews ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ). Such scholars sometimes concentrate on identifying a comprehensive list of research items and providing extensive descriptive information on the items covered in their reviews ( Snyder, 2019 ). Thus, junior scholars sometimes focus more on the technicalities of reviews and less on what we can learn from the analysis of the review sample. The result is often that such reviews tend to appear overly descriptive and do not generate substantive implications for further accounting research. In other words, junior scholars need to keep in mind that getting the technicalities of a review right (e.g. a systematic sample selection process) is usually not the reason why a review is published as a standalone paper ( Hulland and Houston, 2020 ; Palmatier et al. , 2018 ); more importantly, the “primary value resulting from […] reviews is often the usefulness of the insights generated” ( Hiebl, 2021 , p. 25).

Probably to the disappointment of the reader, I have yet to find a standard formula to tease out original contributions from review samples. Nonetheless, thanks to many supportive editors and reviewers, I think that I have a better understanding now than some years ago. One specific way to consider the contribution of a review paper is to step into the shoes of a well-read scholar in the domain, theory or method covered by the literature review. Such a scholar can be expected to have read the vast majority of the research items included in a review sample. Hence, the mere synthesis of the individual findings brings a few fresh insights. This is not to say that only established scholars can move beyond a mere synthesis of individual findings. I mention this “well-read scholar” aphorism to pinpoint that to create an original contribution with a review article, the author must tease out something that cannot be read from all the individual research items but that only emerges from a thorough cross-reading and analysis of the entire review sample. Such a cross-analysis can also be performed by less experienced scholars and might then result in novel observations that might convince even a well-read scholar (who could end up serving as the reviewer of this review article at the same time) that the literature review is worth publishing as a standalone paper [ 10 ]. For instance, such fresh insights might stem from identifying some form of inadequacy or even incommensurability in the current state of the field, as detailed in Section 2. Another insight might be to identify some irregularity in the specifics of the review sample (cf. Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ) compared with other strands of accounting research.

To illustrate this kind of thinking, I refer to one of the review articles I have co-authored ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ). We observed that quantitative accounting research was actually in the minority in the domain we covered, and that qualitative accounting research was much more common. We could, thus, tease out that the dominant epistemological position in that domain was not positivist as in “mainstream accounting research” ( Chua, 1986 ; Hopwood, 2008 ; Merchant, 2010 ) but rather critical ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ). What follows from our review results is that in the domain we covered, the available evidence could paint an overly critical picture of accounting, which may need to be complemented by more research resting on mainstream quantitative methods. Hence, for the domain we covered, the argument put forward by more critically oriented accounting scholars that many mainstream accounting scholars tend to ignore qualitative and critical research ( Ahrens et al. , 2008 ) was flipped on its head.

Of course, not all review articles need to focus on mainstream versus minority research. However, this example illustrates the kinds of observations that can emerge from a cross-reading of all the research items in a review sample that would not emerge from just knowing the individual results of each item. Put more formally, as detailed in Section 2, literature may be portrayed as incomplete, inadequate or incommensurable. Another way to think about the original findings provided by a literature review has recently been coined by Hoon and Baluch (2020) . These authors suggest that for reviews of management research, the contributions – including theoretical contributions – of review articles primarily arise from observing similarities or observing anomalies. My above example ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ) probably falls into the anomalies camp, as large parts of the literature we covered shared epistemological positions that clearly differed from what is usually considered to be mainstream accounting research (i.e. quantitative research primarily based on archival data and carrying a positivist worldview), rendering most research in the domain we covered as featuring abnormal epistemological positions compared with mainstream accounting research. Independent of this example, another way to tease out anomalies from a review sample could be providing counter instances on a theory that has become dominant in a research domain ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ), and thus, portray the literature – at least in parts – as inadequate or even incommensurable ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Therefore, review articles may challenge the dominant assumptions in the field and ignite further debate and research ( Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007 ).

By contrast, as illustrated by Hoon and Baluch (2020) , the second route for creating a contribution from a literature review lies in the identification of similar theoretical thinking within a domain, even if the important parts of that strand of the literature would not have identified or exploited such similarities before. The recent review paper by Repenning et al. (2022) illustrates this sort of contribution. Repenning et al. (2022) focus on the role of emotions in accounting research and find that the paradigmatic boundaries between accounting research resting on more positivist paradigms and those with a more constructivist spirit have much in common and show several similarities in the phenomena they examine. At the same time, Repenning et al. (2022) reveal that while each paradigmatic camp acknowledges the existence of the other camp, contributions are regularly framed compared with existing research within the own camp. That is, Repenning et al. (2022) argue that there is much potential for more interparadigmatic exchange in accounting research on the role of emotions.

A related opportunity for qualitatively oriented accounting scholars may lie in the richness and depth of the explanations provided in many published research articles. I used this richness in one of my review articles ( Hiebl, 2018 ). In this paper, I reanalyzed the empirical parts of published qualitative accounting research articles with a so-far underused theoretical paradigm in mind (i.e. embedded agency). My argument was that we could learn much from published case studies for the theory under focus, even if most of the papers I analyzed originally featured a (slightly) different theoretical framing. From a cross-analysis of the research items included in my review sample, I produced three ways in which management accounting instruments may play a role in the theoretical paradox in question. That is, from this cross-analysis, I could identify three roles for management accounting practices – and thus, the similarities between individual papers – that may not have been obvious from reading the individual papers only and without that alternative theoretical framing in mind [ 11 ]. As a limitation of this strategy, it may be infeasible for phenomena and theoretical perspectives that deviate too much from the theory adopted in the qualitative research items to be included in the review sample. In my paper, most of the research items rested on other strands of institutional theory, and thus, shared similarities in terms of terminology and focal phenomena with the theoretical paradigm on which I focused (i.e. embedded agency). Still, even when the originally adopted theories and “new” theory adopted for reexamining the selected research items are sufficiently close, this strategy still comes with the risk of misinterpreting earlier research findings. This risk cannot be avoided unless the authors of such a literature review were to seek feedback on their reinterpretation from the authors of all the research items included in the review sample. In lieu of such comprehensive feedback, however, it seems all the more important for such “reanalysis” literature reviews to seek feedback from the research community when presenting to workshops, conferences and research seminars.

Seeking feedback from the qualitative accounting research community not only pertains to the last strategy for teasing out contributions from literature reviews but also relates to reviews of qualitative accounting research generally. As indicated in the Introduction, qualitative accounting research offers rich qualitative data that can be analyzed using different theoretical paradigms and be read and interpreted differently by scholars ( Huber, 2022 ). To stress test the interpretations, conclusions and contributions from a review of qualitative accounting research, it, therefore, seems prudent to not only conduct the review and submit it as a “virgin paper” to an academic journal but also use the opportunity to present the literature review at seminars, workshops and conferences ( Scapens and Bromwich, 2010 ). These presentations not only provide an ideal opportunity to discuss and develop empirical qualitative accounting research ( Ahrens, 2022 ) but also to discuss the conclusions and contributions drawn from a literature review of qualitative accounting research.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative insights piece provides an overview of the typical advantages, use cases, process steps and outputs of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. While excellent books on conducting literature reviews in general have been written ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ), including some that emphasize the social sciences ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ), in this paper I tried to highlight several important choices that authors can make when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. First, I discuss how review authors may generally approach the existing literature and portray it as incomplete, inadequate or incommensurate ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). This general stance toward the literature can be applied in all three use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: reviews of a domain of accounting research, reviews of a method theory applied in accounting research and methodological reviews of accounting research. As visually summarized in Figure 1 , all these choices inform the remainder of the review process, which is portrayed in general terms in Section 3. Importantly, as summarized in Table 1 , this process can be organized more or less systematically, the latter often being referred to as more “traditional” ( Jesson et al. , 2011 ). Section 4 then details three specific challenges faced when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research and potential ways to overcome these barriers based on my personal experience.

In particular, I hope the discussion of these challenges may contribute to increased awareness of the dominance of theory refinement and, to a lesser extent, theory testing literature reviews of certain domains of accounting research and encourage more estimation of evidence-based, and thus, theory discovery reviews. I tried to point out that the comprehensiveness of review samples in reviews of qualitative accounting research cannot be definitively judged in most cases; rather, such reviews may benefit from an openness toward relevant research conducted and published in other research disciplines. In addition, I offered ideas for reducing overly long lists of potentially relevant research items to a manageable review sample. Finally, I discussed examples of how original contributions to the literature can be rendered from literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. While, in the final version of a literature review, all these choices may be presented as resulting from a straightforward process, I also tried to highlight in Section 4 that just like most empirical research papers, literature reviews include a great deal of discretion on the authors’ side. They often require “playing around” with theories and the construction of the review sample as well as discussing the potential contributions of a literature review at conferences and through other avenues.

In conclusion, I hope that this paper offers food for thought and guidance, especially for less experienced accounting researchers, and can, thus, complement existing methodological advice for conducting literature reviews of accounting research ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Massaro et al. , 2016 ) for the specific case of reviewing qualitative accounting research. Considering the ever-rising volumes of accounting research, I suspect that demand for such reviews will remain high in the future. However, given the increasing number of high-quality reviews by accounting researchers, the expectations for literature reviews are rising, too. Researchers must, thus, not only stay abreast of their own substantive focus domains within accounting research but also be aware of what is expected from state-of-the-art literature reviews, particularly when coaching junior scholars or crafting such literature reviews on their own. I hope that this paper will at least offer some assistance in these endeavors.

At the same time, given the lack of systematically generated advice in the literature, the challenges and potential solutions I discuss in this qualitative insights piece rest on my own experience and are, thus, subjective. Similar to business and management research, where advice on conducting impactful literature reviews has long been scarce ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ), advice resting on more systematic analyses of past practices of reviewing the accounting literature may be needed for accounting research, too. For the time being, I hope that the challenges and potential solutions discussed in this paper will help researchers, particularly early-career researchers, better understand some of the unwritten conventions when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

Typical use cases, process steps and advantages of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research

Main differences between traditional and systematic reviews

Source: Based on Booth et al. (2021) , Hiebl (2021) , Jesson et al. (2011) , Knoll et al. (2018) , Kraus et al. (2020) , Simsek et al. (2021) , Snyder (2019)

Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) focus on ways of building a contribution in management research as well as how authors can engage with the present body of the literature to make such contributions. Since this engagement with the existing literature lies at the heart of most literature reviews, I include their findings when discussing the potential advantages of literature reviews.

I refer to the “review sample” as the group of research items selected for closer analysis in a literature review. The results of analyzing research items in the review sample are usually considered to be the review findings.

However, this paper is based on personal experience that usually does not end up being published in academic journals rather than being built on a systematic review of prior reviews.

I acknowledge that several further articles in the accounting literature include valuable advice for qualitatively oriented researchers (e.g. Ahrens, 2022 ; Ahrens and Chapman, 2006 ; Bruesch and Quinn, 2022 ; Lillis and Mundy, 2005 ; Grafton et al. , 2011 ; Qu and Dumay, 2011 ). These pieces are not viewed as methodological literature reviews here, as they do not disclose any details of a formal or systematic review of the prior literature as the basis for their methodological advice. The latter aspect, however, is a defining feature of best practice methodological literature reviews, as framed by Aguinis et al. (2023) .

For more details on systematic and traditional review approaches, see the excellent and detailed guidance offered by Booth et al. (2021) and Jesson et al. (2011).

For general advice on conducting up-to-date literature reviews of business-related research topics, see the references mentioned in the Introduction.

A related problem is that some accounting researchers seem to dislike integrating research from other research fields in literature reviews geared toward an accounting readership (see Section 4.2.2). This limited openness to research from other disciplines and skepticism toward evidence-based reviews may be related, as theory discovery via literature reviews often occurs when confronting research from different disciplines on the same phenomenon ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ).

Alternatively, another route of action would be to submit such review articles to (accounting) journals that do not (yet) enjoy comparably high esteem in the field and high rankings. However, given the growing prevalence of the “an A is an A” mentality in business schools ( Aguinis et al. , 2020 ) and perceived need to produce A-level journal “hits” to gain tenure ( Alvesson et al. , 2017 ), such action may not be advisable to junior accounting researchers interested in literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

In particular, I am grateful to Hans Englund, Jonas Gerdin and Michael Williamson for this advice.

I am indebted to Hans Englund and Jonas Gerdin for having shared this analogy with me. This analogy has been instructive in writing and revising some of my reviews that were later published as review papers in accounting journals.

This review paper was motivated by a theoretical question and a certain theory to begin with; thus, it followed the conventions for reviews of qualitative accounting research described in Section 4.1.

Adams , R.J. , Smart , P. and Huff , A.S. ( 2017 ), “ Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 432 - 454 .

Aguinis , H. and Glavas , A. ( 2012 ), “ What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 38 No. 4 , pp. 932 - 968 .

Aguinis , H. , Cummings , C. , Ramani , R.S. and Cummings , T.G. ( 2020 ), “‘ An a is an a’: the new bottom line for valuing academic research ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 135 - 154 .

Aguinis , H. , Ramani , R.S. and Alabduljader , N. ( 2018 ), “ What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 110 .

Aguinis , H. , Ramani , R.S. and Alabduljader , N. ( 2023 ), “ Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 46 - 76 .

Ahrens , T. ( 2022 ), “ Paper development in qualitative accounting research: bringing social contexts to life ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 17 .

Ahrens , T. and Chapman , C.S. ( 2006 ), “ Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 31 No. 8 , pp. 819 - 841 .

Ahrens , T. and Dent , J.F. ( 1998 ), “ Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 10 , pp. 1 - 39 .

Ahrens , T. , Becker , A. , Burns , J. , Chapman , C.S. , Granlund , M. , Habersam , M. , Hansen , A. , Khalifa , R. , Malmi , T. , Mennicken , A. , Mikes , A. , Panozzo , F. , Piber , M. , Quattrone , P. and Scheytt , T. ( 2008 ), “ The future of interpretive accounting research – a polyphonic debate ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 19 No. 6 , pp. 840 - 866 .

Alvesson , M. and Kärreman , D. ( 2007 ), “ Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 1265 - 1281 .

Alvesson , M. , Gabriel , Y. and Paulsen , R. ( 2017 ), Return to Meaning: A Social Science with Something to Say , Oxford University Press , Oxford, New York, NY .

Anderson , M.H. and Lemken , R.K. ( 2023 ), “ Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 77 - 106 .

Andiola , L.M. , Bedard , J.C. and Hux , C.T. ( 2017 ), “ Writing a literature review in behavioural accounting research ”, in Libby , T. and Thorne , L. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Behavioural Accounting Research , Routledge , Abingdon , pp. 473 - 483 .

Antons , D. , Breidbach , C.F. , Joshi , A.M. and Salge , T.O. ( 2021 ), “ Computational literature reviews: method, algorithms, and roadmap ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 138 .

Baldvinsdottir , G. , Hagberg , A. , Johansson , I. , Jonäll , K. and Marton , J. ( 2011 ), “ Accounting research and trust: a literature review ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 382 - 424 .

Batt , C.E. ( 2020 ), “ Budgeting and the impact of context: developments and perspectives ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Reykjavik University , Reykjavik .

Becker , A. and Lukka , K. ( 2022 ), “ Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102436 .

Bedford , D.S. and Speklé , R.F. ( 2018 ), “ Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 23 - 58 .

Booth , A. , Sutton , A. , Clowes , M. and Martyn-St James , M. ( 2021 ), Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review , 3rd ed. , Sage , London .

Braumann , E.C. ( 2017 ), “ On enterprise risk management implementation in non-financial firms ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Vienna University of Economics and Business , Vienna .

Brennan , N.M. ( 2019 ), “ 100 Research rules of the game ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 691 - 706 .

Breslin , D. and Gatrell , C. ( 2023 ), “ Theorizing through literature reviews: the miner-prospector continuum ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 139 - 167 .

Breslin , D. , Callahan , J. and Iszatt‐White , M. ( 2021 ), “ Future‐proofing IJMR as a leading management journal: reach, relevance and reputation ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 431 - 442 .

Bruesch , A. and Quinn , M. ( 2022 ), “ Concept maps and visualisation as a means of triangulation in management accounting and control research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 217 - 230 .

Chua , W.F. ( 1986 ), “ Radical developments in accounting thought ”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 61 No. 4 , pp. 601 - 632 .

Cronin , M.A. and George , E. ( 2023 ), “ The why and how of the integrative review ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 168 - 192 .

D’Andreamatteo , A. , Grossi , G. , Mattei , G. and Sargiacomo , M. ( 2022 ), “ The intersection between ‘the audit society’ and public sector corruption and fraud – a literature review and future research agenda ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-01-2022-0012 .

Dai , N.T. , Free , C. and Gendron , Y. ( 2019 ), “ Interview-based research in accounting 2000–2014: informal norms, translation and vibrancy ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 42 No. 8 , pp. 26 - 38 .

Damayanthi , S. and Gooneratne , T. ( 2017 ), “ Institutional logics perspective in management control research ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 520 - 547 .

Dechow , P.M. , Sloan , R.G. and Zeng , J. (. ( 2020 ), “ Is it a home run? Measuring relative citation rates in accounting research ”, Accounting Horizons , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 91 .

Denyer , D. and Tranfield , D. ( 2006 ), “ Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base ”, Management Decision , Vol. 44 No. 2 , pp. 213 - 227 .

Dixon-Woods , M. ( 2011 ), “ Systematic reviews and qualitative methods ”, in Silverman , D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice , Sage , Los Angeles , pp. 331 - 346 .

Dixon-Woods , M. , Bonas , S. , Booth , A. , Jones , D.R. , Miller , T. , Sutton , A.J. , Shaw , R.L. , Smith , J.A. and Young , B. ( 2006 ), “ How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 44 .

Dyckman , T.R. and Zeff , S.A. ( 2015 ), “ Accounting research: past, present, and future ”, Abacus , Vol. 51 No. 4 , pp. 511 - 524 .

Englund , H. and Gerdin , J. ( 2014 ), “ Structuration theory in accounting research: applications and applicability ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 162 - 180 .

Englund , H. , Gerdin , J. and Burns , J. ( 2011 ), “ 25 Years of giddens in accounting research: achievements, limitations and the future ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 36 No. 8 , pp. 494 - 513 .

Fan , D. , Breslin , D. , Callahan , J.L. and Iszatt‐White , M. ( 2022 ), “ Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 171 - 180 .

Feldermann , S.K. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2020 ), “ Using quotations from non-English interviews in accounting research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 229 - 262 .

Fiandrino , S. , Tonelli , A. and Devalle , A. ( 2022 ), “ Sustainability materiality research: a systematic literature review of methods, theories and academic themes ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 5 , pp. 665 - 695 .

Garanina , T. , Ranta , M. and Dumay , J. ( 2021 ), “ Blockchain in accounting research: current trends and emerging topics ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 35 No. 7 , pp. 1507 - 1533 .

García Osma , B. and Stolowy , H. ( 2020 ), “ European accounting review: editor’s report on the year 2019 ”, Veröffentlicht im Internet unter , available at: www.eaa-online.org/UserFiles/Item%204.1%20-%20EAR_2019_Editorial_report_EAR.pdf

Gond , J.-P. , Mena , S. and Mosonyi , S. ( 2020 ), “ The performativity of literature reviewing: constituting the corporate social responsibility literature through re-presentation and intervention ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120935494 .

Gooneratne , T.N. and Hoque , Z. ( 2013 ), “ Management control research in the banking sector ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 144 - 171 .

Grafton , J. , Lillis , A.M. and Mahama , H. ( 2011 ), “ Mixed methods research in accounting ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 5 - 21 .

Greenhalgh , T. and Peacock , R. ( 2005 ), “ Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources ”, BMJ , Vol. 331 No. 7524 , pp. 1064 - 1065 .

Guffey , D.M. and Harp , N.L. ( 2016 ), “ The journal of management accounting research: a content and citation analysis of the first 25 years ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 93 - 110 .

Hardies , K. and Khalifa , R. ( 2018 ), “ Gender is not ‘a dummy variable’: a discussion of current gender research in accounting ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 385 - 407 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2014 ), “ Upper echelons theory in management accounting and control research ”, Journal of Management Control , Vol. 24 No. 3 , pp. 223 - 240 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2018 ), “ Management accounting as a political resource for enabling embedded agency ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 38 , pp. 22 - 38 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2021 ), “ Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120986851 .

Hiebl , M.R. and Richter , J.F. ( 2018 ), “ Response rates in management accounting survey research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 59 - 79 .

Hoon , C. ( 2013 ), “ Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 522 - 556 .

Hoon , C. and Baluch , A.M. ( 2020 ), “ The role of dialectical interrogation in review studies: theorizing from what We see rather than what We have already seen ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 57 No. 6 , pp. 1246 - 1271 .

Hopper , T. and Bui , B. ( 2016 ), “ Has management accounting research been critical? ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 31 , pp. 10 - 30 .

Hopper , T. , Tsamenyi , M. , Uddin , S. and Wickramasinghe , D. ( 2009 ), “ Management accounting in less developed countries: what is known and needs knowing’, accounting ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 469 - 514 .

Hopwood , A.G. ( 2008 ), “ Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 87 - 96 .

Hoque , Z. ( 2014 ), “ 20 Years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research ”, The British Accounting Review , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 59 .

Huber , C. ( 2022 ), “ Whereof one cannot speak … a comment on vollmer (2019) ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-11-2021-0206 .

Hulland , J. and Houston , M.B. ( 2020 ), “ Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: an introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 351 - 359 .

Humphrey , C. and Lee , B. ( 2004 ), “ Section one: the meaning of research ”, in Humphrey , C. and Lee , B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research: A behind-the-Scenes View of Using Qualitative Research Methods , Elsevier , Amsterdam, Boston , pp. 1 - 4 .

Janka , M. ( 2019 ), “ Management control in the context of innovation: three essays on the design and use ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden , Dresden .

Jesson , J.K. , Matheson , L. and Lacey , F.M. ( 2011 ), Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques , Sage , London .

Jones , O. and Gatrell , C. ( 2014 ), “ The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 249 - 264 .

Kapiyangoda , K. and Gooneratne , T. ( 2021 ), “ Management accounting research in family businesses: a review of the status quo and future agenda ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 17 No. 3 , pp. 352 - 372 .

Keating , P.J. ( 1995 ), “ A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 7 , pp. 66 - 86 .

Knoll , T. , Omar , M.I. , Maclennan , S. , Hernandez , V. , Canfield , S. , Yuan , Y. , Bruins , M. , Marconi , L. , Van Poppel , H. , N’Dow , J. and Sylvester , R. , EAU Guidelines Office Senior Associates Group Authorship ( 2018 ), “ Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the european association of urology ”, European Urology , Vol. 73 No. 2 , pp. 290 - 300 .

Kraus , S. , Breier , M. and Dasí-Rodríguez , S. ( 2020 ), “ The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 1023 - 1042 .

Kraus , S. , Breier , M. , Lim , W.M. , Dabić , M. , Kumar , S. , Kanbach , D. , Mukherjee , D. , Corvello , V. , Piñeiro-Chouse , J. , Liguori , E.W. , Marqués , D.P. , Schiavone , F. , Ferraris , A. , Fernandes , C. and Ferreira , J.J. ( 2022 ), “ Literature reviews as independent studies in business and management: guidelines for academic practice ”, Review of Managerial Science , Vol. 16 No. 8 , pp. 2577 - 2595 .

Kraus , S. , Mahto , R.V. and Walsh , S.T. ( 2021 ), “ The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 64 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Kreamer , L.M. , Albritton , B.H. , Tonidandel , S. and Rogelberg , S.G. ( 2021 ), “ The use and misuse of organizational research methods ‘best practice’ articles ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211060706 .

Kunisch , S. , Denyer , D. , Bartunek , J.M. , Menz , M. and Cardinal , L.B. ( 2023 ), “ Review research as scientific inquiry ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 45 .

Kunisch , S. , Menz , M. , Bartunek , J.M. , Cardinal , L.B. and Denyer , D. ( 2018 ), “ Feature topic at organizational research methods ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 21 No. 3 , pp. 519 - 523 .

Lavia López , O. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2015 ), “ Management accounting in small and medium-sized enterprises: current knowledge and avenues for further research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 81 - 119 .

Lee , B. and Humphrey , C. ( 2017 ), “ Case studies in accounting research ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 163 - 183 .

Leuz , C. ( 2018 ), “ Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research ”, Accounting and Business Research , Vol. 48 No. 5 , pp. 582 - 608 .

Lillis , A.M. and Mundy , J. ( 2005 ), “ Cross-Sectional field studies in management accounting research: closing the gaps between surveys and case studies ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 119 - 141 .

Locke , K. and Golden-Biddle , K. ( 1997 ), “ Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 40 No. 5 , pp. 1023 - 1062 .

Löhlein , L. ( 2015 ), “ Guarding the guardians: essays on audit regulation ”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Luxembourg , Luxembourg .

Lukka , K. and Modell , S. ( 2010 ), “ Validation in interpretive management accounting research’, accounting ”, Organizations and Society , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 462 - 477 .

Lukka , K. and Modell , S. ( 2017 ), “ Interpretive research in accounting: past, present and future ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 36 - 54 .

Lukka , K. and Vinnari , E. ( 2014 ), “ Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 27 No. 8 , pp. 1308 - 1338 .

Lukka , K. , Modell , S. and Vinnari , E. ( 2022 ), “ Exploring the ‘theory is king’ thesis in accounting research: the case of actor-network theory ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 35 No. 9 , pp. 136 - 167 .

Mahama , H. and Khalifa , R. ( 2017 ), “ Field interviews: process and analysis ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 321 - 338 .

Malmi , T. ( 2010 ), “ Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 121 - 123 .

Massaro , M. , Dumay , J. and Guthrie , J. ( 2016 ), “ On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting’, accounting ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 29 No. 5 , pp. 767 - 801 .

Merchant , K.A. ( 2010 ), “ Paradigms in accounting research: a view from North america ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 116 - 120 .

Messner , M. , Moll , J. and Strömsten , T. ( 2017 ), “ Credibility and authenticity in qualitative accounting research ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 432 - 443 .

Modell , S. ( 2010 ), “ Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: the role of mixed methods approaches ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 124 - 129 .

Modell , S. ( 2017 ), “ Critical realist accounting research: in search of its emancipatory potential ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 42 No. 4 , pp. 20 - 35 .

Modell , S. ( 2022a ), “ Accounting for institutional work: a critical review ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 58 .

Modell , S. ( 2022b ), “ Is institutional research on management accounting degenerating or progressing? A lakatosian analysis ”, Contemporary Accounting Research , Vol. 39 No. 4 , pp. 2560 - 2595 .

Moher , D. , Liberati , A. , Tetzlaff , J. and Altman , D.G. ( 2009 ), “ Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement ”, PLoS Medicine , Vol. 6 No. 7 , p. e1000097 .

Ndemewah , S.R. and Hiebl , M.R.W. ( 2022 ), “ Management accounting research on africa ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 1029 - 1057 .

Ndemewah , S.R. , Menges , K. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2019 ), “ Management accounting research on farms: what is known and what needs knowing? ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 58 - 86 .

Nguyen , D.H. , Weigel , C. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2018 ), “ Beyond budgeting, review and research agenda ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 314 - 337 .

Nitzl , C. ( 2016 ), “ The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: directions for future theory development ”, Journal of Accounting Literature , Vol. 37 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 35 .

Palmatier , R.W. , Houston , M.B. and Hulland , J. ( 2018 ), “ Review articles: purpose, process, and structure ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 5 .

Parker , L.D. ( 2017 ), “ Participant observation at the coalface ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 339 - 353 .

Parker , L.D. and Northcott , D. ( 2016 ), “ Qualitative generalising in accounting research: concepts and strategies ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 1100 - 1131 .

Paul , J. and Criado , A.R. ( 2020 ), “ The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? ”, International Business Review , Vol. 29 No. 4 , p. 101717 .

Petticrew , M. and Roberts , H. ( 2012 ), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 12th ed ., Blackwell Publishing , Malden .

Pfister , J.A. , Peda , P. and Otley , D. ( 2022 ), “ A methodological framework for theoretical explanation in performance management and management control systems research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-10-2021-0193 .

Plöckinger , M. , Aschauer , E. , Hiebl , M.R. and Rohatschek , R. ( 2016 ), “ The influence of individual executives on corporate financial reporting: a review and outlook from the perspective of upper echelons theory ”, Journal of Accounting Literature , Vol. 37 No. 1 , pp. 55 - 75 .

Post , C. , Sarala , R. , Gatrell , C. and Prescott , J.E. ( 2020 ), “ Advancing theory with review articles ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 57 No. 2 , pp. 351 - 376 .

Qu , S.Q. and Dumay , J. ( 2011 ), “ The qualitative research interview ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 238 - 264 .

Repenning , N. , Löhlein , L. and Schäffer , U. ( 2022 ), “ Emotions in accounting: a review to bridge the paradigmatic divide ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 241 - 267 .

Rikhardsson , P. and Yigitbasioglu , O. ( 2018 ), “ Business intelligence and analytics in management accounting research: status and future focus ”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems , Vol. 29 , pp. 37 - 58 .

Rojon , C. , Okupe , A. and McDowall , A. ( 2021 ), “ Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: what do we know and where do we go from here? ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 23 No. 2 , pp. 191 - 223 .

Rousseau , D.M. , Manning , J. and Denyer , D. ( 2008 ), “ Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 475 - 515 .

Scapens , R.W. and Bromwich , M. ( 2010 ), “ Management accounting research: 20 years on ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 4 , pp. 278 - 284 .

Sharma , G. and Bansal , P. ( 2020 ), “ Partnering up: including managers as research partners in systematic reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120965706 .

Short , J. ( 2009 ), “ The art of writing a review article ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 35 No. 6 , pp. 1312 - 1317 .

Simsek , Z. , Fox , B. and Heavey , C. ( 2021 ), “ Systematicity in organizational research literature reviews: a framework and assessment ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211008652 .

Smith , M. ( 2019 ), Research Methods in Accounting , 5th ed ., Sage , London .

Snyder , H. ( 2019 ), “ Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 104 No. 5 , pp. 333 - 339 .

Sutton , R.I. and Staw , B.M. ( 1995 ), “ What theory is not ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 371 - 384 .

Tank , A.K. and Farrell , A.M. ( 2022 ), “ Is neuroaccounting taking a place on the stage? A review of the influence of neuroscience on accounting research ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 173 - 207 .

Tranfield , D. , Denyer , D. and Smart , P. ( 2003 ), “ Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review ”, British Journal of Management , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 207 - 222 .

van Dalen , H.P. and Henkens , K. ( 2012 ), “ Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: a worldwide survey ”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , Vol. 63 No. 7 , pp. 1282 - 1293 .

van der Stede , W.A. , Young , S.M. and Chen , C.X. ( 2005 ), “ Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: the case of survey studies ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 30 Nos 7/8 , pp. 655 - 684 .

Villiger , J. , Schweiger , S.A. and Baldauf , A. ( 2021 ), “ Making the invisible visible: guidelines for the coding process in meta-analyses ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211046312 .

Webster , J. and Watson , R.T. ( 2002 ), “ Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 13 - 23 .

Weigel , C. ( 2020 ), “ Essays on the role and impact of accountants in mittelstand firms ”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Siegen , Siegen .

Weigel , C. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2022 ), “ Accountants and small businesses: toward a resource-based view ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , doi: 10.1108/JAOC-03-2022-0044 .

Weigel , C. and Müller , A. ( 2020 ), “ Living under the restrictions of a publish or perish culture ”, in Welter , F. and Urbano , D. (Eds), How to Make Your Doctoral Research Relevant , Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham , pp. 119 - 129 .

Wolf , T. , Kuttner , M. , Feldbauer-Durstmüller , B. and Mitter , C. ( 2020 ), “ What we know about management accountants’ changing identities and roles – a systematic literature review ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 311 - 347 .

Zeff , S.A. ( 2019 ), “ A personal view of the evolution of the accounting professoriate ”, Accounting Perspectives , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 159 - 185 .

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Thomas Ahrens and Lukas Goretzki for giving him the idea and the opportunity to create this qualitative insights piece for QRAM and to two anonymous reviewers for their highly constructive and cogent comments on earlier versions of this paper. In addition, the author is indebted to the numerous editors and referees who have reviewed his own review papers over the years. Their insights and constructive comments are reflected in this paper, but given the blind review process, the author can only name a few of them here. Thus, special thanks go to Jean Bartunek, Laura Cardinal, David Denyer, Hans Englund, Ralf Ewert, Jonas Gerdin, Lukas Goretzki, Thomas Günther, Zahirul Hoque, Steven Kachelmeier, Sven Kunisch, Bill Lee, Markus Menz, Utz Schäffer, Roland Speklé and Michael Williamson for smooth editing and sharing insights on crafting literature reviews with the author.

Corresponding author

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

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

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

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here