literature reviews in philosophy

• Recommended Databases
• Recommended Journals
• Recommended Books
• Reference Resources
• Open and Accessible Materials
• Faculty Resources
• Navigate Philosopher's Index
• Navigate the Religion & Philosophy Collection
• Navigate Project Muse
• Navigate JSTOR
• Use Philpapers
• Evaluate Articles
• Source Management Tools
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Useful Links
• Religious Studies Books
• Religious Studies Journals
• Religious Studies Reference

Introduction

What's on this page.

This page is meant to help you create a literature review for academic projects and publications. Each tab outlines a different aspect of what a literature review is and how to build one. If you need help finding sources for your literature reviews, check out How To or General Search Strategies pages.

How to Build a Literature Review

• What is a Lit Review?
• Why Write a Lit Review?
• Building a Lit Review
• Prepping for a Lit Review
• Basic Example
• Other Resources/Examples

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a comprehensive summary and analysis of previously published research on a particular topic. Literature reviews should give the reader an overview of the important theories and themes that have previously been discussed on the topic, as well as any important researchers who have contributed to the discourse. This review should connect the established conclusions to the hypothesis being presented in the rest of the paper.

What a Literature Review Is Not:

• Annotated Bibliography: An annotated bibliography summarizes and assesses each resource individually and separately. A literature review explores the connections between different articles to illustrate important themes/theories/research trends within a larger research area. 
• Timeline: While a literature review can be organized chronologically, they are not simple timelines of previous events. They should not be a list of any kind. Individual examples or events should be combined to illustrate larger ideas or concepts.
• Argumentative Paper: Literature reviews are not meant to be making an argument. They are explorations of a concept to give the audience an understanding of what has already been written and researched about an idea. As many perspectives as possible should be included in a literature review in order to give the reader as comprehensive understanding of a topic as possible.

Why Write a Literature Review?

After reading the literature review, the reader should have a basic understanding of the topic. A reader should be able to come into your paper without really knowing anything about an idea, and after reading the literature, feel more confident about the important points.

A literature review should also help the reader understand the focus the rest of the paper will take within the larger topic. If the reader knows what has already been studied, they will be better prepared for the novel argument that is about to be made.

A literature review should help the reader understand the important history, themes, events, and ideas about a particular topic. Connections between ideas/themes should also explored. Part of the importance of a literature review is to prove to experts who do read your paper that you are knowledgeable enough to contribute to the academic discussion. You have to have done your homework.

A literature review should also identify the gaps in research to show the reader what hasn't yet been explored. Your thesis should ideally address one of the gaps identified in the research. Scholarly articles are meant to push academic conversations forward with new ideas and arguments. Before knowing where the gaps are in a topic, you need to have read what others have written.

What does a literature review look like?

As mentioned in other tabs, literature reviews should discuss the big ideas that make up a topic. Each literature review should be broken up into different subtopics. Each subtopic should use groups of articles as evidence to support the ideas. There are several different ways of organizing a literature review. It will depend on the patterns one sees in the groups of articles as to which strategy should be used. Here are a few examples of how to organize your review:

Chronological

If there are clear trends that change over time, a chronological approach could be used to organize a literature review. For example, one might argue that in the 1970s, the predominant theories and themes argued something. However, in the 1980s, the theories evolved to something else. Then, in the 1990s, theories evolved further. Each decade is a subtopic, and articles should be used as examples. 

Themes/Theories

There may also be clear distinctions between schools of thought within a topic, a theoretical breakdown may be most appropriate. Each theory could be a subtopic, and articles supporting the theme should be included as evidence for each one. 

If researchers mainly differ in the way they went about conducting research, literature reviews can be organized by methodology. Each type of method could be a subtopic,  and articles using the method should be included as evidence for each one.

Preliminary Steps for Literature Review

• Define your research question
• Compile a list of initial keywords to use for searching based on question
• Search for literature that discusses the topics surrounding your research question
• Assess and organize your literature into logical groups
• Identify gaps in research and conduct secondary searches (if necessary)
• Reassess and reorganize literature again (if necessary)
• Write review

Here is an example of a literature review, taken from the beginning of a research article. You can find other examples within most scholarly research articles. The majority of published scholarship includes a literature review section, and you can use those to become more familiar with these reviews.

Source:  Perceptions of the Police by LGBT Communities

• ISU Writing Assistance The Julia N. Visor Academic Center provides one-on-one writing assistance for any course or need. By focusing on the writing process instead of merely on grammar and editing, we are committed to making you a better writer.
• University of Toronto: The Literature Review Written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre
• Purdue OWL - Writing a Lit Review Goes over the basic steps
• UW Madison Writing Center - Review of Literature A description of what each piece of a literature review should entail.
• USC Libraries - Literature Reviews Offers detailed guidance on how to develop, organize, and write a college-level research paper in the social and behavioral sciences.
• Creating the literature review: integrating research questions and arguments Blog post with very helpful overview for how to organize and build/integrate arguments in a literature review
• Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House” Article focusing on constructing a literature review for a dissertation. Still very relevant for literature reviews in other types of content.

A note that many of these examples will be far longer and in-depth than what's required for your assignment. However, they will give you an idea of the general structure and components of a literature review. Additionally, most scholarly articles will include a literature review section. Looking over the articles you have been assigned in classes will also help you.

• Sample Literature Review (Univ. of Florida) This guide will provide research and writing tips to help students complete a literature review assignment.
• Sociology Literature Review (Univ. of Hawaii) Written in ASA citation style - don't follow this format.
• Sample Lit Review - Univ. of Vermont Includes an example with tips in the footnotes.
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Useful Links >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 8:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.illinoisstate.edu/philosophy

Additional Links

• Directions and Parking
• Accessibility Services
• Library Spaces
• Staff Directory

• Get it Done Guide! This link opens in a new window
• Databases & Articles This link opens in a new window
• Dictionaries & Encyclopedias
• Citing Tools
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Top Textbooks Program This link opens in a new window
• How to Write a Literature Review

Resources for writing a literature review

• Baumeister and Leary, Writing a Narrative Literature Review

• Silke Higgins's Guide to Writing Literature Reviews

Generally speaking, a literature review  is an analysis of existing scholarly publications that directly relate to your research question.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide background information on a topic
• Give a sense of the overall status of the research conducted
• Inform on the historical and current argument
• Establish connections between previous research and your own

It may sometimes be more helpful to think about what a literature review is not:

• Listing of vaguely or entirely unrelated resources
• Listing of every piece of research ever conducted on a topic (vital)
• A deep dive into a specific area of work
• Criticism of what has been already written (unless this is important in the development of your ideas)

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews are most often included in research papers but they can also be stand-alone works. Lit reviews types vary, so it is important for you to know and follow the guidelines for your assignment.

Here are the most common types of Literature Reviews:

• Traditional (narrative)
• Meta analysis
• Meta synthesis

Developing a Literature review

Road map to YOUR research

Mostly developed from secondary literature to demonstrate how the thinking around a topic has developed 

Typically not used –as such– in humanities research, but there are very close analogues like historiography, reviews of literature in literary studies, and in philosophy –esp in the subarea of history of philosophy/intellectual history

Think of an introductory chapter and the background information, but organized a little differently 

Shift in nature, however, as science lit reviews cluster by type

Some scientific statement relevant to the research, typically some finding that leads to an important threshold concept (Smith 1997, Otelle 1999, Callahan 2001, Fong, 2019) 

In humanities, we tend to be a little more verbose for the same thing: as Otelle said in her 1999 work Title of Important Work, the important concept is indeed important.

Social sciences like Psychology would be a very close fitting of the two notions as it has historically been grounded in both theory and practice 

Computer science is an area that will have more of the ‘hard science’ lit review methods 

NOT a comprehensive dive into the subject, but a map of the important work that gets to where your work comes in. You don’t have to teach people all about Hegel, but the idea is to demonstrate the development of an aspect of Hegel studies by looking at, for example Marxist interpretations down to today’s more materialist studies and more.

• << Previous: Top Textbooks Program
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 10:03 AM
• URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/philosophy

MERRIMACK COLLEGE MCQUADE LIBRARY

• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Get Started
• Reference Sources
• Developing a Research Question
• Find Books / E-Books / DVDs
• Find Articles
• Find Images / Art
• Find Video / Film
• Database Search Strategies
• Types of Resources

Writing a Literature Review (University Library, UC Santa Cruz)

"the literature" and "the review" (virginia commonwealth university).

• Evaluate Sources
• Cite Sources
• Annotated Bibliography
• PHL Websites
• PHL Organizations

Additional Online Resources

• How to: Literature reviews The Writing Center, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• The Literature Review A basic overview of the literature review process. (Courtesy of Virginia Commonwealth University)
• The Process: Search, Assess, Summarize, Synthesize Getting Started: Assessing Sources/Creating a Matrix/Writing a Literature Review (Courtesy of Virginia Commonwealth University)
• Review of Literature The Writing Center @ Univeristy of Wisconsin - Madison
• Tools for Preparing Literature Reviews George Washington University
• Write a Literature Review University Library, UC Santa Cruz

Your PHL Librarian

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a  literature review  surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• 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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

  3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new  primary  scholarship.

• << Previous: Types of Resources
• Next: Evaluate Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 12:15 PM
• URL: https://libguides.merrimack.edu/philosophy

• Macquarie University Library
• Subject and Research Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Ethics & Applied Ethics
• Gender & Philosophy
• Mind & Metaphysics
• Social & Modern European Philosophy
• Referencing
• Search, Select & Evaluate

Getting started with your Literature Review

• Introduction
• What is a good literature review?
• Future proofing

A literature review is a  comprehensive  and  critical  review of literature that provides the theoretical foundation of your chosen topic.

A review will demonstrate that an exhaustive search for literature has been undertaken. It might be used for a thesis, a report, a research essay or a study. 

A good literature review is a critical component of academic research, providing a comprehensive and systematic analysis of existing scholarly works on a specific topic. Here are the key elements that make up a good literature review:

Focus and clarity: A good literature review has a clear and well-defined research question or objective. It focuses on a specific topic and provides a coherent and structured analysis of the relevant literature.

I n-depth research: A comprehensive literature review involves an extensive search of relevant sources, including academic journals, books, and reputable online databases. It ensures that a wide range of perspectives and findings are considered.

Critical evaluatio n: A good literature review involves a critical assessment of the quality, credibility, and relevance of the selected sources. It evaluates the methodologies, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of each study to determine their impact on the overall research.

Synthesis and analysis : A literature review should go beyond summarizing individual studies. It involves synthesizing and analyzing the findings, identifying patterns, themes, and gaps in the existing literature, and presenting a coherent narrative that connects different works.

Contribution to knowledg e: A good literature review not only summarizes existing research but also contributes to the knowledge base. It identifies gaps, inconsistencies, or unresolved debates in the field and suggests avenues for further research.

Clear and concise writing : A well-written literature review presents complex ideas in a clear, concise, and organized manner. It uses appropriate language, avoids jargon, and maintains a logical flow of information.

Proper citation and referencing: Accurate citation and referencing of the reviewed sources are crucial for maintaining academic integrity. Following the appropriate referencing style guidelines ensures consistency and allows readers to access the cited works.

In summary, a good literature review demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic, critically engages with existing literature, and offers valuable insights for future research.

Where should you search?

The Library uses MultiSearch as an access point to our subscriptions and resources. Using MultiSearch is a good place to start. 

You can also search directly in databases. Every discipline has specialist databases and there are also good multidisciplinary databases such as Scopus . Check the Databases page on this guide or ask your Faculty Librarian for advice.

You might also like to consider statistics, government publications or conference proceedings. This will depend on the question you're researching.

What should you read?

Not everything! 

• Skim the title, the keywords, the abstract ... know when to pass on something and move on. 
• Also know when to stop your literature review. When you start seeing the same material repeated in searches, or no new ideas or perspectives, maybe you have it covered. 

Evaluating Literature

You will need to read critically when assessing material for inclusion in your literature review. Each piece of information you look at (whether a journal article, a book, a video, or something else) should be assessed. 

• Is the material current?
• Does it have a bias (why was is published)?
• Is the author authoritative?
• Is the journal well regarded in the field (peer reviewed journals are  the gold standard but other journals are worthy too). 
• Does it provide enough coverage of the topic, or is it basic?
• Will books or journal articles be most useful for your interest area - or do you need to find other materials like government publications, or primary sources?

Analyse the Literature 

Once you've read widely on your subject, stop to consider what new insights this knowledge has provided. 

• Can you see any ideas emerging more strongly than others?
• Have you changed your position since starting your reading? Perhaps the evidence has made you reconsider your starting viewpoint - or it might have made you more committed to it. However, you should read with an open mind, and be prepared to change your thinking if the evidence points that way.
• Make note of a few points every time you read something. Key arguments or themes. Perhaps a note of ideas you'd like to explore more. You might want to attach this information in the same file we've mentioned in the 'future proofing' tab. 

Keep a search diary

Set up a document or spreadsheet to record where you've searched, and also the search strategies you've used. Record the search terms and also the places which have served you well. For instance, is there a particular database which had good coverage?

You may need to repeat searches in the future and this information will help. It might also be requested by your supervisor. 

Saving alerts

There are many options for setting up alerts which will help you keep track of new publications by a journal, or an author who is key in your research area, or even when other people cite the papers you have noted (maybe their work will be of interest to you).

These include: 

• Table of contents (TOC)
• Citation alerts
• Topic or subject alerts
• Author alert

Developing a comprehensive search strategy

• Before you start

1. Consider the guidance in the "getting started" box above before starting your search. 

2. Develop your research question or need.

3. Set up your search diary to record your progress and as a reference guide to come back to. 

1. Identify the  major concepts  from your  research question or topic.

Let's say that our topic is:  How do alternative energy sources play a role in climate change?   

The major concepts will be

• a lternative energy sources
• climate change

2. List  synonyms or alternative terms  for each concept and organise them in a table like the one below - using a column for each major concept. Use as many columns as you have major concepts.

Tools and tips to assist with this process:   

• Run  scoping searches  for your topic in your favourite database or databases such as Google Scholar or Scopus to identify how the literature can express your concepts. Scan titles, subject headings (if any) and abstracts for words describing the same things as your major concepts.
• Text mining tools  including  PubMed Reminer  especially if you are using a database with MeSH such as Medline or Cochrane. There are many others however.
• As you find something new,  add it to the appropriate column on your list  to incorporate later in your search.

Create your search strategy from the concepts, synonyms, phrases etc in your Concept Grid 

Identify the best databases for your topic. Check the databases tab  in the left menu on this Guide.

N.B.The syntax/search tools for your search may depend on the particular database you are searching in. Most databases have a Help screen to assist.  

However, the majority of databases will use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT)  and other commonly used search tools :

• Use "OR" to connect each of your synonyms (eg "climate change" OR "global warming")
• Use "AND" to connect each of your concepts.
• (Use "NOT" to exclude terms - but these should be used sparingly as they can knock out useful results.)
• Use the Truncation symbol * at the end of word roots which might have alternative endings eg: manag* will retrieve: manage; management; managing, managerial etc.
• Use quotes to keep together words of phrases (eg "climate change")
• Group your concepts algebraically using parentheses. 
• Consider, is your term alternatively expressed as two words? (eg hydro electricity or hydroelectricity (you should include both!))

So with our question/topic:  How do alternative energy sources play a role in climate change?

After identifying our major concepts and synonyms for each and employing some of the tools mentioned above, our constructed search strategy might look something like this:

("alternative energ*" OR "wind power" OR "Solar power" OR "Solar energy" OR Renewabl* OR geothermal OR hydroelectricity OR "hydro electricity") AND ("climate change" OR "global* warm*" or "greenhouse gas*" or "green house gas*")

3. Be prepared to revise, reassess and refine  your search strategies after you have run your initial searches to ensure you get the best possible results. If you retrieve too many false results or "noise", try to analyse why. For example, you may have used a word which has alternative meanings.

If you have too many results, you can either add another concept or remove some synonyms

If you have too few results, try searching with fewer concepts (identify the least most important to omit) or add more synonyms.

Your  Faculty or Clinical Librarian  will be able to assist with this process.

Further reading

• Other sources
• Journal Articles
• Books and Chapters

Related Guides

• Systematic Reviews
• Using MultiSearch

We have guidance on  Literature Reviews in StudyWISE .  This guides focuses on the writing skills associated with Literature Reviews.  

You'll find it  on iLearn (Macquarie University's learning portal)

• << Previous: Search, Select & Evaluate
• Next: Contact us >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 11:30 AM
• URL: https://libguides.mq.edu.au/philosophy

Philosophy and Literature

Garry L. Hagberg, Bard College

Journal Details

Submissions:.

Articles should be submitted as email attachments. Please include a 100-word abstract (required for articles only; instructions below).                Address submissions to: [email protected]                Submissions may be emailed in any bibliographical, footnoting, or end-noting style or format; if accepted, we will ask you to bring your article into conformity with the Style Guide below.

We welcome submissions in these categories:

• Articles of between 6000 and 8000 words;
• shorter pieces for our Notes and Fragments section column of between 1500 and 4000 words;
• Critical Discussions (review essays) of approximately 3000-4500 words;
• Book Reviews of approximately 800-1200 words;
• Creative Directions , which we have published at lengths between one page and 7000 words;
• Lines of Thought, multiple-book review essays, assessing an intellectual trend or development, of 4000-5500 words; and
• Coda articles of any length up to 6500 words, discussing a broad cultural issue.

In the subject line of your submission, please include the category of submission, with your last name placed first, e.g., “Werthamer, Article submission,” or “Hagberg, Notes and Fragments submission,” etc. All submissions of any length go through editorial review.

In addition, the editor will on occasion bring articles together into either Symposia , a set of four or five articles that speak to each other on a given topic or author, or In Focus columns, with two or three articles on a specific and narrowly defined topic.

PLEASE NOTE: Address all correspondence concerning Philosophy and Literature to [email protected] only : using other email addresses at Bard College or Johns Hopkins University Press will only complicate and delay matters. We receive an extraordinary number of submissions and emails from around the world, and we try to reply as quickly as humanly possible. Patience is a virtue—one that we particularly appreciate. If a delay is longer than what you regard as reasonable, please resend your email.

Style Guide

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: This Style Guide is relevant ONLY for ACCEPTED submissions; you are welcome to submit your piece in any format.  

Philosophy and Literature follows the specifications of the most recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. Authors who are unable to locate this valuable book should carefully study the bibliographic style of previous issues of the journal. Among the most important aspects to note: The journal uses endnotes rather than footnotes, and does not use Works Cited lists.

We urge authors to cooperate in careful manuscript preparation and adherence to this guide and the Chicago Manual . Such assistance will expedite the appearance of your manuscript.

***********

Your abstract: some friendly advice . We like to see abstracts, of 100 words or fewer , with submitted papers (though some sections of P&L do not include abstracts). Please give us an abstract that entices, or intrigues, or even exerts a special conceptual magnetism. We want an abstract that people will read and think of your article, “I simply cannot go on without reading this!”

(1) Quotation . Please check and double check all quotations. In general, avoid very long block quotations; readers come to your article because they want to know what you have to say. Never begin an article with a quotation of longer than one sentence. Quotations of up to seven lines in typescript should be run in as part of the main text. Quotations of more than seven lines should be set as block quotations.

(2) References . Where the same book is to be referred to more than once in your article, use an endnote for the first citation (with all relevant bibliographic information, including principal city of publication). Subsequent citations should appear in the text in a shortened form, using either the name of the author or (preferably) an abbreviated form of the book title. Here is an example, complete with references to two books by the same author.

1. E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967); hereafter abbreviated VI .

2. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969), p. 60.

3. One should also consult Jesse Kalin, “John Barth and Moral Nihilism,” Philosophy and Literature 1 (1977): 170–82.

4. One of the most interesting criticisms of Hirsch is that of Monroe Beardsley in The Possibility of Criticism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), esp. pp. 24–31. Joseph Margolis criticizes Beardsley’s ideas in “Robust Relativism,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (1976): 37–46; hereafter abbreviated “RR.”

5. E. D. Hirsch Jr., The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976); hereafter abbreviated AI .

And here is how the references appear in the main text:

He calls this “the only practical norm for a cognitive discipline of interpretation” ( AI , p. 7). Again, “the object of interpretation is no automatic given, but a task that the interpreter sets himself” ( VI , p. 25). For Margolis, on the other hand, “a relativistic conception of interpretation . . . may well be required” (“RR,” p. 44).

When only a single book is being discussed in your text, the bibliographic endnote should say “hereafter cited by page number,” and used thus in the text:

Critical modes are treated “not as positions to be defended but as locations or openings to be explored” (p. 339). Whatever you do, don’t rule your opponent out of the community (p. 28); follow Booth in his “simple effort to be a good citizen in the republic of criticism” (p. 34).

Be careful that the quotation “is followed by the page number in parentheses before the period” (pp. 23–24), except following a block quotation, where the period precedes the citation. Don’t pepper your page with numbers: if you have many separate quotations from a one- or two-page stretch of text, a single reference at the end of the paragraph will suffice. When citing the same book multiple times in a single paragraph, use the shortened form in the first reference, then page number only for subsequent references in that paragraph.

(3) Bibliographic style . Again, the aim is simplicity and clarity, consistent with Chicago style. Avoid “ibid.” and never use “op. cit.” or “loc. cit.” Here are some examples of bibliographic citations:

Single-author book .

6. Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 115–28.

Translated book . Note volume number in arabic, not roman, numerals:

7. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis , vol. 1, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1961), p. 69.

8. Letter to Witold Hulewicz, the Polish translator of Duino Elegies , November 13, 1925.  R. M. Rilke, Briefe (Wiesbaden: Insel, 1950), p. 480 (my translation).

9. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness , trans. Hazel Barnes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1966), p. 42.

10. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel , ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967).

Same article in journal and book . Note that journal references use a colon before page numbers; books use “pp.”:

11. For an excellent discussion of this ode, see C. P. Segal, “Sophocles’s Praise of Man and the Conflicts of the Antigone ,” Arion 3 (1964): 46–66; reprinted in Sophocles: A Collection of Critical Essays , ed. T. Woodard (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1966), pp. 62–85.

Mixed references with one author . Note again use of colon and “pp.”:

12. See W. T. Jones, “Philosophical Disagreements and World View,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 43 (1969–70): 461–83; “World Views: Their Nature and Their Function,” Current Anthropology 13, no. 1 (Feb. 1972): 79–109; “Talking about Art and Primitive Society,” in The Study of Primitive Art , ed. A. Forge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 256–77; “World Views and Asian Medical Systems,” in Towards a Comparative Study of Asian Medical Systems , ed. C. Leslie (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 383–404.

Reference to a daily or monthly . Use date of issue instead of standard journal citation:

13. Since I developed this interpretation of Descartes’s work I have read Frances Yates’s review of Brian P. Copenhaver’s Symphorien Champier in the New York Review of Books (Nov. 22, 1979).

(4) Reference to a webpage . We request that authors only cite URLs when absolutely necessary, since URLs can change. An adequate solution is simply to say that an article already identified and quoted is on the internet. Readers can then go and find it for themselves.

(5) Miscellaneous matters.

Section headings within the text are simple roman numerals (I, II, III), not titles. We trust you will make your point without needing spotlights.

Wherever possible, avoid passive subject/verb phrases such as “there were” or “it is.” The sentence in (4) above holds more immediacy by stating, “An adequate solution is simply to say. . .” than “It should be enough simply to say. . .”

The editors have noticed the increasing misuse of “cf.” “Cf.” stands for “confer,” and it means “compare with.” It is never italicized. Do not use “cf.” when you mean “see also.” “See” and “see also” are perfectly acceptable. We also do not use “ff.”; please indicate full range of page references.

All commas and periods “fall within quotation marks.” The only exception is where a page reference is given “at the end of the sentence” (pp. 463–64). (Note en-dash instead of hyphen in page citation.)

When you cite an article or a book for the first time in a numbered endnote, do not supply only partial information about the source, even if you repeat some of what is already given in the main text. Provide complete information, including author’s full name and the work’s full title, in the citation’s first endnote appearance. In other words, we do not want a reference to Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to take the reader to an endnote that reads: “17. (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958), pp. 132–33.” Give all the normal information about author and title in the note.

Avert the need to place a capital or lower-case letter in brackets. “[T]edious, academic bracket-mongering must be avoided!” A way around such nonsense is almost always available, as for example quoting in mid-sentence the editor proclaiming that “tedious, academic bracket-mongering must be avoided!” Rarely in the history of this journal have we been driven to this pedantic fussiness—and in those cases only because we didn’t have the original source material to accurately recast the quotation ourselves.

Also, please note that Chicago Manual of Style allows for insertion of capital or lower-case letters in quotations if warranted in the context.

If possible, avoid references to current political or other fleeting contemporary events that would tend to date your article in a way that might obscure its broader relevance and longer-range significance.

Provide English translations of all but the most obvious quotations in foreign languages; of course, cite the source, and if the translations are your own, please say so.

Finally—and a matter definitive of the spirit of this journal: jargon . The natural home for jargon is the natural sciences, where the need for technical language is undisputed. But the farther we move into the humanities, the more does a reliance on jargon become a matter of trying to attain prestige by using big words, or big phrases borrowed from what some regard as a social science. “Mutually interactive dyadic postdictive social interaction processes” can be translated into untortured English as “two people talking to each other.”

Of course, specialized language does have a place in humanistic studies—in the history of grammar, rhetoric, linguistics, and philosophy generally, to name some instances. Where necessary, use it and explain it. In some quarters of literary theory, however, within recent decades the reliance on it became a form of what our much-missed founding editor called intellectual kitsch and, whatever its name, a replacement for hard thinking. Since Philosophy and Literature deals with technical philosophers from Aristotle and Kant to Husserl and Heidegger, we do not “outlaw” jargon as some popular publications might. On the other hand, we do not appreciate where it is used to obscure and mystify. In our opinion, the most erudite, sophisticated, interesting, elegant, and intellectually disciplined writers in humanistic studies find fresh ways to articulate their views in voices that are their own. Conceptual clarity remains central among our ideals.

A remark that the elderly Kant made about jargon is as good today as it was when he wrote it, about 1790: “One doesn’t know whether to laugh harder at the charlatan who spreads all this fog . . . or at the audience which naively imagines the reason it cannot clearly recognize and grasp the masterpiece of insight is that new masses of truth are being hurled at it” ( Critique of Judgment , section 47). Our readers are not the audience to which Kant is referring, and the editors of this journal ask authors to keep this in mind when preparing their final drafts for submission.

The Hopkins Press Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found at the ethics-and-malpractice  page.

PHL  Peer Review

All submissions are read initially by the editor; some are declined at that stage as inappropriate or unacceptable in their present form. A larger number of submissions move to a second stage of closer and more detailed review by the editor, often but not invariably in consultation with members of the editorial board or, in some cases, other experts. Following this second-phase consideration, the editor makes the final decision. Intellectual depth, conceptual power and clarity, quality of writing, insightfulness, and sense of serious humane engagement are the only criteria allowed to enter into the consideration of a given submission; no external considerations of stature, academic affiliation, reputation, or of political, social, or religious identity ever come into play. We try to get answers back to authors within approximately four months of the date of submission; while we do send letters in response to all submissions, we regret that we cannot provide readers’ reports. All authors of accepted pieces are first sent a set of requests by the editor, and following authors’ revisions according to those requests, all pieces of every category are then worked through carefully and in detail with our managing editor in preparation for publication. Our acceptance rate varies depending on the number of submissions, but ranges between 6 percent and 9 percent.

Garry L. Hagberg,  Bard College

Founding Editor

Denis Dutton (1944–2010),  University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Editor Emeritus

Patrick Henry,  Whitman College

Managing Editor

Cynthia Werthamer,  Bard College

Editorial Advisory Board

Garry L. Hagberg, Bard College (ex officio), Chair   Cynthia Werthamer, Bard College (ex officio), Vice Chair

Robert Alter, University of California, Berkeley    Eva T. H. Brann, St. John’s College, Annapolis    Anthony J. Cascardi, University of California, Berkeley    Nancy Easterlin, University of New Orleans    Richard Eldridge, Swarthmore College    Kathleen M. Higgins, University of Texas    Walter Jost, University of Virginia    Deborah Knight, Queen's University, Canada    Joshua Landy, Stanford University  ​   Ray Monk, University of Southampton    Alexander Nehamas, Princeton University    Alex Neill, University of Southampton    Martha Nussbaum, University of Chicago    Thomas Pavel,  University of Chicago ​   Marjorie Perloff, Stanford University    Steven Pinker, Harvard University    Gerald Prince, University of Pennsylvania    Martin Puchner, Harvard University   Wang Ning,  Tsinghua University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University    

Journal editor Garry Hagberg has joined JHUP for both a video and a podcast about the journal's importance in the field. 

Send books for review to: Prof. Garry Hagberg Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000

Email:  [email protected]

Please send book review copies to the contact above. Review copies received by the Johns Hopkins University Press office will be discarded.

Abstracting & Indexing Databases

• Arts & Humanities Citation Index
• Current Contents
• Web of Science
• Dietrich's Index Philosophicus
• IBZ - Internationale Bibliographie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur
• Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur
• Academic Search Alumni Edition, 4/1/2005-
• Academic Search Complete, 4/1/2005-
• Academic Search Elite, 4/1/2005-
• Academic Search Premier, 4/1/2005-
• Current Abstracts, 4/1/2005-
• Humanities International Complete, 4/1/2005-
• Humanities International Index, 4/1/2005-
• Humanities Source, 4/1/2005-
• Humanities Source Ultimate, 4/1/2005-
• International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text, 4/1/2005-
• MLA International Bibliography (Modern Language Association)
• Poetry & Short Story Reference Center, 4/1/2005-
• Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies
• The Philosopher's Index
• TOC Premier (Table of Contents), 4/1/2005-
• Scopus, 2002-
• Book Review Index Plus
• ArticleFirst, vol.14, no.1, 1990-vol.34, no.2, 2010
• Electronic Collections Online, vol.19, no.1, 1995-vol.34, no.2, 2010
• Periodical Abstracts, v.24, n.1, 2000-v.34, n.1, 2010
• Repertoire Bibliographique de la Philosophie (Online)
• Personal Alert (E-mail)
• Art, Design & Architecture Collection, 04/01/1996-
• Arts & Humanities Database, 04/01/1996-
• Arts Premium Collection, 4/1/1996-
• Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (Online), Selective
• Literary Journals Index Full Text
• Periodicals Index Online
• Philosophy Collection, 04/01/1996-
• Professional ProQuest Central, 04/01/1996-
• ProQuest 5000, 04/01/1996-
• ProQuest 5000 International, 04/01/1996-
• ProQuest Central, 04/01/1996-
• Religion Database, 04/01/1996-
• Research Library, 04/01/1996-
• The Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (ABELL)

Abstracting & Indexing Sources

• Children's Book Review Index   (Active)  (Print)
• Abstracts of English Studies   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Index to Book Reviews in the Humanities   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Literary Criticism Register   (Ceased)  (Print)
• MLA Abstracts of Articles in Scholarly Journals   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Social Planning - Policy & Development Abstracts   (Ceased)  (Print)

Source: Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory.

0.2 (2022) 0.1 (Five-Year Impact Factor) 0.00021 (Eigenfactor™ Score) Rank in Category (by Journal Impact Factor): 19 of 53 journals, in “Literary Theory & Criticism” 53 of 204 journals, in “Literature”

© Clarivate Analytics 2023

Published twice a year, in April and October; each issue is approximately 250 pages. 

Readers include: literature scholars, teachers, and students; academics throughout the humanities and the arts; philosophy scholars, teachers, and students; and general readers.

Print circulation is 131. 

Online circulation is extensive.

Print Advertising Rates

Full Page: (4.75 x 7.5") – $375.00

Half Page: (4.75 x 3.5") – $281.00

2 Page Spread – $563.00

Print Advertising Deadlines

April Issue – February 15

October Issue – August 15

Online Advertising Rates (per month)

Promotion (400x200 pixels) – $281.00

Online Advertising Deadline

Online advertising reservations are placed on a month-to-month basis.

All online ads are due on the 20th of the month prior to the reservation.

General Advertising Info

For more information on advertising or to place an ad, please visit the  Advertising page.  

Arts & Letters Daily

eTOC (Electronic Table of Contents) alerts can be delivered to your inbox when this or any Hopkins Press journal is published via your ProjectMUSE MyMUSE account. Visit the eTOC instructions page for detailed instructions on setting up your MyMUSE account and alerts.  

Also of Interest

Dora Malech, Johns Hopkins University

Cheryl Lester, University of Kansas  Julie Beth Napolin, The New School  Rebecca Nisetich, University of Southern Maine

Anjali Nerlekar, Rutgers University, and Stephen Ross, Concordia University

Ryan Cull, New Mexico State University

Adam Ross, The University of the South

Brian Yothers, Saint Louis University

Katherine Malone, South Dakota State University

Meghan O’Rourke

Kelly Ross, Rider University

Leona Toker, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Greg Zacharias, Creighton University

Hopkins Press Journals

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Literature

Richard Eldridge is Charles and Harriett Cox McDowell Professor of Philosophy at Swarthmore College. He is the author of On Moral Personhood: Philosophy, Literature, Criticism, Self-Understanding; Leading a Human Life: Wittgenstein, Intentionality, and Romanticism; The Persistence of Romanticism; An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art; and, most recently, Literature, Life, and Modernity; and he is the editor of Beyond Representation and Stanley Cavell.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Literature contains twenty-three articles by major philosophers and literary scholars that investigate literature as a form of attention to human life. Various forms of attention are considered under the topics of genres (from ancient epic to the novel and contemporary experimental writing), periods (from realism and Romanticism to postcolonialism), devices and powers (imagination, plot, character, style, and emotion), and contexts and uses (in relation to inquiry, morality, and politics). In each case, the effort is to track and evaluate how specific modes and works of imaginative literature answer to important needs of human subjects for orientation, the articulation of interest in life, and the working through of emotion, within situations that are both sociohistorical and human. Hence these articles show how and why literature matters in manifold ways in and for human cultural life, and they show how philosophers and imaginative literary writers have continually both engaged with and criticized each other.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Philosophy Library Guide: How To Do A Literature Review

• Research & Writing Skills
• Referencing
• Mistress Serendipity's Library
• Search template
• Finding Seminal Authors and Mapping the Shape of the Literature
• Tracking Your Academic Footprint This link opens in a new window
• Other Resources
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 11:31 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.uct.ac.za/Philosophy

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

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

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

Introduction, anthologies and general overviews.

• Historical Background
• Metaphysics and Ontology of Fiction
• Imagination and Fiction
• Truth in Fiction
• Interpretation
• Authors and Intentions
• Emotions and Literature
• The Paradox of Tragedy
• Literature and Cognition
• Literature and Morality

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

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

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

• Aesthetic Hedonism
• Albert Camus
• Analytic Approaches to Aesthetics
• Analytic Philosophy of Music
• Art and Knowledge
• Art and Morality
• Continental Aesthetics
• David Hume: Aesthetics
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Aesthetics
• History of Aesthetics
• Imagination
• Julia Kristeva
• Mary Wollstonecraft
• Philosophy of Film

Other Subject Areas

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

• Alfred North Whitehead
• Feminist Aesthetics
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Philosophy of Literature by Jonathan Gilmore LAST REVIEWED: 09 January 2023 LAST MODIFIED: 24 July 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0213

The philosophy of literature addresses the most fundamental questions about the nature of literature as an art. Some of these questions address the metaphysics and ontology of literary works: What, if anything, essentially distinguishes literary works of art (such as epics, novels, drama, and poetry) from other kinds of writings, such as scientific reports, historical treatises, religious texts, guides, and manuals, which may happen to be written in a literary manner? Also, what kinds of things are literary works of art that seem to exist over time in some way independently of any of their particular printed editions? Other questions address our ways of engaging with literature, such as: What norms govern our interpretation and understanding of such works? Is the meaning of a work fixed, or does it change with the changes in the contexts in which it is read? Can we have a genuine emotional response to the characters, events, and states of affairs represented in such works even when we believe that they are not real? Finally, some questions address the value of works of literature: Do they offer any distinctive form of knowledge or insight? Can their cognitive and moral merits and defects count as artistic merits and defects? Philosophy of literature is not alone in pursuing these questions, for literary history, criticism, and other modes of scholarship address these concerns, as do readers when they reflect on their own and others’ practices of attending to works of art. However, the philosophical approach to literature, while often productively drawing on the empirical study and first-order analysis of literary works, tends to adopt a more systematic, theoretical, ahistorical, and foundational approach than commonly found in other fields. Also, while the philosophy of literature tends to address the nature of literature as an art, it has been profoundly shaped by work in other areas of philosophy far from aesthetics such as analytic metaphysics and philosophy of language, which since their inception have addressed such topics as the metaphysics of fictional characters. More recently, there has been an exciting cross-fertilization between philosophical approaches to literature and developments in cognitive science, particularly in areas devoted to the study of emotions and imagination.

The most current and representative anthologies in the philosophy of literature feature articles written by contemporary Anglo-American philosophers. Davies and Matheson 2008 and John and Lopes 2004 offer comprehensive but only partially overlapping sets of major essays. Each volume helpfully organizes its articles around particular topics or problems and would serve as an excellent introduction to the field as a whole. Kearney and Rasmussen 2001 is a broad selection of 19th- and 20th-century Continental philosophers on literature and art in general. Waugh 2006 collects informative essays on important developments in Continental philosophical approaches to literature and contemporary literary theory. Davies 2007 and Lamarque 2009 offer sophisticated and even-handed introductions to major themes in the philosophy of literature while persuasively advancing the particular philosophical views of their respective authors. Stecker 2005 , a clear and concise introduction to the philosophy of art in general, includes careful reconstructions and criticisms of some of the major positions in the philosophy of literature. Lamarque and Olsen 2004 is one of the most comprehensive and useful collections of influential articles in aesthetics and the philosophy of art, several of which are devoted to topics germane to the analysis of literature.

Davies, David. Aesthetics and Literature . London: Continuum, 2007.

Balanced survey of some of the major positions in the analytic philosophy of literature. Subtly adjudicates among competing views. Particularly useful for clear nontechnical accounts of the metaphysical, semantic, and epistemological questions in the field.

Davies, David, and Carl Matheson, eds. Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Literature: An Analytic Approach . Toronto: Broadview, 2008.

Features essays by leading philosophers on the metaphysical, epistemological, affective, and evaluative aspects of literature. An extensive introduction to each section of articles introduces the central topic and helpfully explains how the various authors’ views relate to one another.

John, Eileen, and Dominic McIver Lopes, eds. Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings: An Anthology . Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

Features many of the most influential essays in the field organized into several sections determined by topic, such as ontology, emotion, metaphor, and interpretation. Each includes a brief but useful introduction and a short literary work demonstrating the applicability of that section’s philosophical questions.

Kearney, R., and D. Rasmussen, eds. Continental Aesthetics: Romanticism to Postmodernism: An Anthology . Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

Essays by thirty philosophers exemplifying romantic, modernist, and postmodernist approaches to art, many addressing literary topics. Each section begins with a brief introduction to the arguments of the essays contained therein and to the cultural or philosophical context in which they were written.

Lamarque, Peter. The Philosophy of Literature . Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.

One of the best introductions to the field. Carefully distinguishes philosophical approaches to literature from those of other disciplines and identifies the main strands of argument in the major theoretical debates over literature as an art. Carefully and charitably reconstructs other philosophers’ views while advancing the author’s own systematic treatment of fundamental questions in the field.

Lamarque, Peter, and Stein Haugom Olsen, eds. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition: An Anthology . Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

Comprehensive anthology of many of the most influential analytic articles in the philosophy of art. Contains forty-six articles devoted to both general themes, such as the ontology of art and aesthetic properties, and more specific problems indexed to literature and fictions. Concise introductions with suggestions for further readings begin each section.

Stecker, Robert. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

A tightly argued analysis of major topics in the philosophy of art, including those that pertain to literature. Lucid explanations and often incisive criticisms of the arguments of several prominent theorists.

Waugh, Patricia, ed. Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

A very informative collection of essays by several contemporary authors addressing the major trends, concepts, and figures in 19th- and 20th-century literary criticism and Continental literary theory, with some earlier historical material.

back to top

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

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

• About Philosophy »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• A Priori Knowledge
• Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning
• Abstract Objects
• Addams, Jane
• Adorno, Theodor
• Aesthetics, Analytic Approaches to
• Aesthetics, Continental
• Aesthetics, Environmental
• Aesthetics, History of
• African Philosophy, Contemporary
• Alexander, Samuel
• Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
• Anarchism, Philosophical
• Animal Rights
• Anscombe, G. E. M.
• Anthropic Principle, The
• Anti-Natalism
• Applied Ethics
• Aquinas, Thomas
• Argument Mapping
• Art and Emotion
• Astell, Mary
• Aurelius, Marcus
• Austin, J. L.
• Bacon, Francis
• Bayesianism
• Bergson, Henri
• Berkeley, George
• Biology, Philosophy of
• Bolzano, Bernard
• Boredom, Philosophy of
• British Idealism
• Buber, Martin
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Burge, Tyler
• Business Ethics
• Camus, Albert
• Canterbury, Anselm of
• Carnap, Rudolf
• Cavendish, Margaret
• Chemistry, Philosophy of
• Childhood, Philosophy of
• Chinese Philosophy
• Cognitive Ability
• Cognitive Phenomenology
• Cognitive Science, Philosophy of
• Coherentism
• Communitarianism
• Computational Science
• Computer Science, Philosophy of
• Computer Simulations
• Comte, Auguste
• Conceptual Role Semantics
• Conditionals
• Confirmation
• Connectionism
• Consciousness
• Constructive Empiricism
• Contemporary Hylomorphism
• Contextualism
• Contrastivism
• Cook Wilson, John
• Cosmology, Philosophy of
• Critical Theory
• Culture and Cognition
• Daoism and Philosophy
• Davidson, Donald
• de Beauvoir, Simone
• de Montaigne, Michel
• Decision Theory
• Deleuze, Gilles
• Derrida, Jacques
• Descartes, René
• Descartes, René: Sensory Representations
• Descriptions
• Dewey, John
• Dialetheism
• Disagreement, Epistemology of
• Disjunctivism
• Dispositions
• Divine Command Theory
• Doing and Allowing
• du Châtelet, Emilie
• Dummett, Michael
• Dutch Book Arguments
• Early Modern Philosophy, 1600-1750
• Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought
• Education, Philosophy of
• Engineering, Philosophy and Ethics of
• Environmental Philosophy
• Epistemic Basing Relation
• Epistemic Defeat
• Epistemic Injustice
• Epistemic Justification
• Epistemic Philosophy of Logic
• Epistemology
• Epistemology and Active Externalism
• Epistemology, Bayesian
• Epistemology, Feminist
• Epistemology, Internalism and Externalism in
• Epistemology, Moral
• Epistemology of Education
• Ethical Consequentialism
• Ethical Deontology
• Ethical Intuitionism
• Eugenics and Philosophy
• Events, The Philosophy of
• Evidence-Based Medicine, Philosophy of
• Evidential Support Relation In Epistemology, The
• Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
• Evolutionary Epistemology
• Experimental Philosophy
• Explanations of Religion
• Extended Mind Thesis, The
• Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind
• Faith, Conceptions of
• Feminist Philosophy
• Feyerabend, Paul
• Fichte, Johann Gottlieb
• Fictionalism
• Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Film, Philosophy of
• Foot, Philippa
• Foreknowledge
• Forgiveness
• Formal Epistemology
• Foucault, Michel
• Frege, Gottlob
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg
• Geometry, Epistemology of
• God and Possible Worlds
• God, Arguments for the Existence of
• God, The Existence and Attributes of
• Grice, Paul
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Hart, H. L. A.
• Heaven and Hell
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Aesthetics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Metaphysics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of History
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of Politics
• Heidegger, Martin: Early Works
• Hermeneutics
• Higher Education, Philosophy of
• History, Philosophy of
• Hobbes, Thomas
• Horkheimer, Max
• Human Rights
• Hume, David: Aesthetics
• Hume, David: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Husserl, Edmund
• Idealizations in Science
• Identity in Physics
• Imagination and Belief
• Immanuel Kant: Political and Legal Philosophy
• Impossible Worlds
• Incommensurability in Science
• Indian Philosophy
• Indispensability of Mathematics
• Inductive Reasoning
• Instruments in Science
• Intellectual Humility
• Intentionality, Collective
• James, William
• Japanese Philosophy
• Kant and the Laws of Nature
• Kant, Immanuel: Aesthetics and Teleology
• Kant, Immanuel: Ethics
• Kant, Immanuel: Theoretical Philosophy
• Kierkegaard, Søren
• Knowledge-first Epistemology
• Knowledge-How
• Kristeva, Julia
• Kuhn, Thomas S.
• Lacan, Jacques
• Lakatos, Imre
• Langer, Susanne
• Language of Thought
• Language, Philosophy of
• Latin American Philosophy
• Laws of Nature
• Legal Epistemology
• Legal Philosophy
• Legal Positivism
• Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm
• Levinas, Emmanuel
• Lewis, C. I.
• Literature, Philosophy of
• Locke, John
• Locke, John: Identity, Persons, and Personal Identity
• Lottery and Preface Paradoxes, The
• Machiavelli, Niccolò
• Martin Heidegger: Later Works
• Martin Heidegger: Middle Works
• Material Constitution
• Mathematical Explanation
• Mathematical Pluralism
• Mathematical Structuralism
• Mathematics, Ontology of
• Mathematics, Philosophy of
• Mathematics, Visual Thinking in
• McDowell, John
• McTaggart, John
• Meaning of Life, The
• Mechanisms in Science
• Medically Assisted Dying
• Medicine, Contemporary Philosophy of
• Medieval Logic
• Medieval Philosophy
• Mental Causation
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
• Meta-epistemological Skepticism
• Metaepistemology
• Metametaphysics
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysical Grounding
• Metaphysics, Contemporary
• Metaphysics, Feminist
• Midgley, Mary
• Mill, John Stuart
• Mind, Metaphysics of
• Modal Epistemology
• Models and Theories in Science
• Montesquieu
• Moore, G. E.
• Moral Contractualism
• Moral Naturalism and Nonnaturalism
• Moral Responsibility
• Multiculturalism
• Murdoch, Iris
• Music, Analytic Philosophy of
• Nationalism
• Natural Kinds
• Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Naïve Realism
• Neo-Confucianism
• Neuroscience, Philosophy of
• Nietzsche, Friedrich
• Nonexistent Objects
• Normative Ethics
• Normative Foundations, Philosophy of Law:
• Normativity and Social Explanation
• Objectivity
• Occasionalism
• Ontological Dependence
• Ontology of Art
• Ordinary Objects
• Other Minds
• Panpsychism
• Particularism in Ethics
• Pascal, Blaise
• Paternalism
• Peirce, Charles Sanders
• Perception, Cognition, Action
• Perception, The Problem of
• Perfectionism
• Persistence
• Personal Identity
• Phenomenal Concepts
• Phenomenal Conservatism
• Phenomenology
• Philosophy for Children
• Photography, Analytic Philosophy of
• Physicalism
• Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism
• Physics, Experiments in
• Political Epistemology
• Political Obligation
• Political Philosophy
• Popper, Karl
• Pornography and Objectification, Analytic Approaches to
• Practical Knowledge
• Practical Moral Skepticism
• Practical Reason
• Probabilistic Representations of Belief
• Probability, Interpretations of
• Problem of Divine Hiddenness, The
• Problem of Evil, The
• Propositions
• Psychology, Philosophy of
• Quine, W. V. O.
• Racist Jokes
• Rationalism
• Rationality
• Rawls, John: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Realism and Anti-Realism
• Realization
• Reasons in Epistemology
• Reductionism in Biology
• Reference, Theory of
• Reid, Thomas
• Reliabilism
• Religion, Philosophy of
• Religious Belief, Epistemology of
• Religious Experience
• Religious Pluralism
• Ricoeur, Paul
• Risk, Philosophy of
• Rorty, Richard
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
• Rule-Following
• Russell, Bertrand
• Ryle, Gilbert
• Sartre, Jean-Paul
• Schopenhauer, Arthur
• Science and Religion
• Science, Theoretical Virtues in
• Scientific Explanation
• Scientific Progress
• Scientific Realism
• Scientific Representation
• Scientific Revolutions
• Scotus, Duns
• Self-Knowledge
• Sellars, Wilfrid
• Semantic Externalism
• Semantic Minimalism
• Senses, The
• Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
• Shepherd, Mary
• Singular Thought
• Situated Cognition
• Situationism and Virtue Theory
• Skepticism, Contemporary
• Skepticism, History of
• Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech
• Smith, Adam: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
• Social Epistemology
• Social Identity
• Sounds and Auditory Perception
• Space and Time
• Speech Acts
• Spinoza, Baruch
• Stebbing, Susan
• Strawson, P. F.
• Structural Realism
• Supererogation
• Supervenience
• Tarski, Alfred
• Technology, Philosophy of
• Testimony, Epistemology of
• Theoretical Terms in Science
• Thomas Aquinas' Philosophy of Religion
• Thought Experiments
• Time and Tense
• Time Travel
• Transcendental Arguments
• Truth and the Aim of Belief
• Truthmaking
• Turing Test
• Two-Dimensional Semantics
• Understanding
• Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology
• Utilitarianism
• Value of Knowledge
• Vienna Circle
• Virtue Epistemology
• Virtue Ethics
• Virtues, Epistemic
• Virtues, Intellectual
• Voluntarism, Doxastic
• Weakness of Will
• Weil, Simone
• William of Ockham
• Williams, Bernard
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Early Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Later Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Middle Works
• Wollstonecraft, Mary
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

• Zondervan Library
• Research Guides

Philosophy & Strategy for Christian Ministries (CMI 421)

• Writing A Literature Review
• CMI 421 - Home
• The Beginnings of Research...
• Where Do I Find Sources?
• Searching Tips and Tricks
• Evaluating Sources
• A Closer Look at Primary Sources
• Online Resources
• Print & Book Resources
• Discipleship
• Age-Specific Ministry
• Location-Specific Ministry
• Experimental Learning
• Mental & Physical Health
• Best Databases To Use
• Citation Style & Tools
• Interlibrary Loan

Literature Review

This is a brief introduction on how to write a literature review. If you need a refresher, or want to tips, use this guide to help you get started. 

If your professor has assigned a literature review, refer to the syllabus to ensure your review meets their requirements. This is simply a general guide designed to help you with the basics.

Literature Reviews

The narrower the topic the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read..

 A Literature Review is a select list of available resources covering the topic in question accompanied by a short description AND a critical comparative evaluation/analysis of the works included http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/litreviews/whatis.html  

• an integral part of the scientific process
• reveals whether or not a research question has been answered by someone else

Major points to consider

• Thematic -- defined by a guiding question or concept
• Descriptive
• Directly relevant
• Highly selective, narrowly focused
• May include all scholarly formats including government documents; book reviews; films; selected websites; scholarly open source journals
• Usually includes a thesis statement/narrowly focused research question,summary and/or synthesis of the ideas encountered. (synthesis=reorganization of information of what is known, what is yet to be discovered  

Questions to ask

*expect that your work will be traced by readers., definitions:.

Literature :  a collection of materials on your topic.  (does not mean “literature” in the sense of “language and literature” (To Kill a Mockingbird, Jane Eyre, etc.)   —means understanding the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary literature  Primary—peer reviewed, scholarly, original, review articles—secondary

Review :  to look again at what has been written. (does not mean giving your personal opinion or whether or not you liked the sources.) 

Research :  re search –to search again.  

What is the purpose of a Literature Review?  Why do people develop them?

How is a Literature Review organized?  How do I do a Literature Review?

  What do Librarians have to do with it?  Librarians are available for assistance:              

How to write a literature review

How to write a literature review.

This video produced by SJSU explains important research and organizational principles that will help you in thinking about your critical approaches papers.

Page Bottom

• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 8:50 AM
• URL: https://library.taylor.edu/cmi-421

Hours Policies Support Services

WorldCat Research Guides Interlibrary Loan (ILL)

Staff Directory Email the Library

Blackboard My Library Account My Taylor

Zondervan Library Taylor University 1846 Main Street, Upland, IN 46989 (765) 998-4357

Literature and Philosophy

A Guide to Contemporary Debates

• © 2006
• David Rudrum (Teaches) 0

London Metropolitan University, UK

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

2255 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

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

Access this book

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (18 chapters)

Front matter, introduction — literature and philosophy: the contemporary interface.

David Rudrum

Encounters with Literature in French Philosophy

First lessons: gilles deleuze and the concept of literature.

• Anthony Larson

‘The Absence of Origin’: Beckett and Contemporary French Philosophy

• Derval Tubridy

Encounters with Literature in Anglo-American Philosophy

The pattern that literature makes: davidson, pragmatism, and the reconstruction of the literary.

• Bryan Vescio

Autobiographical Memory: Wittgenstein, Davidson, and the Descent into Ourselves

• Garry L. Hagberg

What Can My Nonsense Tell Me About You?

• Brett Bourbon

Encounters with Literature in German Philosophy

A risky business: internal time and objective time in husserl and woolf.

• Ralph Strehle

The Poetics of Thinking

• Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei

Construction without Theory: Oblique Reflections on Walter Benjamin’s Goethe

• Richard J. Lane

Literature and Philosophy: The Question of Ethics

Liminal agencies: literature as moral philosophy.

• Mary C. Rawlinson

Is Forgiveness Ever Possible At All?

• Rupert Read

Reading Philosophy as Literature

Who is speaking brodsky, heidegger, wittgenstein, and the question of genre.

• Michael Eskin

Literary Potential: The Release of Criticism

• Andrew Benjamin

Gibberophobia: Philosophy, Fear, and the Plain Style

• Jonathan Rée
• Jacques Derrida

About this book

'A superb collection. The essays are original, provocative interventions across a range of live debates. Combined with the editor's concise essays on the distinct traditions and subfields, they provide readers with a lucid entry into the complex relations between philosophy and literature, demonstrating anew how neither can do without the other. A must for students and scholars alike.' - Dr. Michael John Kooy, Senior Lecturer, Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies, University of Warwick, UK

Editors and Affiliations

About the editor, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Literature and Philosophy

Book Subtitle : A Guide to Contemporary Debates

Editors : David Rudrum

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230598621

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts Collection , Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Copyright Information : Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2006

Hardcover ISBN : 978-1-4039-4773-4 Published: 31 July 2006

eBook ISBN : 978-0-230-59862-1 Published: 31 July 2006

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XIII, 246

Topics : Critical Theory , Literature, general , Literary History , Literary Theory

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

About the Journal

“No philosophy journal published in English is more highly regarded than the Philosophical Review .” —David Sanford, Duke University

In continuous publication since 1892, the Philosophical Review has a long-standing reputation for excellence and has published many papers now considered classics in the field, such as W. V. O. Quine's “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Thomas Nagel's “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” and the early work of John Rawls. The journal aims to publish original scholarly work in all areas of analytic philosophy, with an emphasis on material of general interest to academic philosophers, and is one of the few journals in the discipline to publish book reviews. The journal practices triple-anonymous review of all submissions.

Kate Manne, Karolina Hübner

Associate Editors

Matti Eklund, Nico Silins

Issue Alerts

Sign up to receive The Philosophical Review table-of-contents alerts when a new issue is published.

Publish in this journal

For information on how to submit an article, visit our submission guidelines .

View subscription rates and details for The Philosophical Review .

Affiliations

• About The Philosophical Review
• Editorial Board
• For Authors
• Rights and Permissions Inquiry
• Online ISSN 1558-1470
• Print ISSN 0031-8108
• Copyright © 2024
• Duke University Press
• 905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
• Durham, NC 27701
• (888) 651-0122
• International
• +1 (919) 688-5134
• Information For
• Advertisers
• Book Authors
• Booksellers/Media
• Journal Authors/Editors
• Journal Subscribers
• Prospective Journals
• Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
• View Open Positions
• email Join our Mailing List
• catalog Current Catalog
• Accessibility
• Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

Latest reviews.

Law is a Moral Practice

Scott Hershovitz

Harvard University Press

April 10, 2024

The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism

Theron Pummer

Oxford University Press

April 04, 2024

Splitsville USA: A Democratic Argument for Breaking Up the United States

Christopher F. Zurn

February 29, 2024

Ontology and Oppression: Race, Gender, and Social Reality

Katharine Jenkins

January 22, 2024

The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity

Nancy Cartwright, Jeremy Hardie, Eleonora Montuschi, Matthew Soleiman, and Ann C. Thresher

The Future of the World Is Open: Encounters with Lea Melandri, Luisa Muraro, Adriana Cavarero, and Rossana Rossanda

Elevira Roncalli

January 20, 2024

Aristotle, De Motu Animalium: a new critical edition of the Greek text

Oliver Primavesi, Christof Rapp, and Benjamin Morison

Laisser être et rendre puissant

Tristan Garcia

Presses Universitaires de France

Analytic Philosophy and Human Life

Thomas Nagel

December 29, 2023

Rational Sentimentalism

Justin D’Arms and Daniel Jacobson

Search Reviews

Ask Yale Library

My Library Accounts

Find, Request, and Use

Help and Research Support

Visit and Study

Explore Collections

Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews

• Political Science
• Books & Dissertations
• Articles & Databases
• Literature Reviews
• Senior Essay Resources
• Country Information

More Literature Review Writing Tips

• Thesis Whisperer- Bedraggled Daisy Lay advice on writing theses and dissertations. This article demonstrates in more detail one aspect of our discussion

Books on the Literature Review

What is a literature review?

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. [...] In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries."

(from "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Writing It," http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Strategies for conducting your own literature review

1. Use this guide as a starting point. Begin your search with the resources linked from the political science subject guide. These library catalogs and databases will help you identify what's been published on your topic.

2. What came first? Try bibliographic tracing. As you're finding sources, pay attention to what and whom these authors cite. Their footnotes and bibliographies will point you in the direction of additional scholarship on your topic.

3. What comes next? Look for reviews and citation reports. What did scholars think about that book when it was published in 2003? Has anyone cited that article since 1971? Reviews and citation analysis tools can help you determine if you've found the seminal works on your topic--so that you can be confident that you haven't missed anything important, and that you've kept up with the debates in your field. You'll find book reviews in JSTOR and other databases. Google Scholar has some citation metrics; you can use Web of Science ( Social Sciences Citation Index ) for more robust citation reports.

4. Stay current. Get familiar with the top journals in your field, and set up alerts for new articles. If you don't know where to begin, APSA and other scholarly associations often maintain lists of journals, broken out by subfield . In many databases (and in Google Scholar), you can also set up search alerts, which will notify you when additional items have been added that meet your search criteria.

5. Stay organized. A citation management tool--e.g., RefWorks, Endnote, Zotero, Mendeley--will help you store your citations, generate a bibliography, and cite your sources while you write. Some of these tools are also useful for file storage, if you'd like to keep PDFs of the articles you've found. To get started with citation management tools, check out this guide . 

How to find existing literature reviews

1. Consult Annual Reviews.  The Annual Review of Political Science consists of thorough literature review essays in all areas of political science, written by noted scholars. The library also subscribes to Annual Reviews in economics, law and social science, sociology, and many other disciplines.

2. Turn to handbooks, bibliographies, and other reference sources. Resources like Oxford Bibliographies Online and assorted handbooks ( Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics , Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior , etc.) are great ways to get a substantive introduction to a topic, subject area, debate, or issue. Not exactly literature reviews, but they do provide significant reference to and commentary on the relevant literature--like a heavily footnoted encyclopedia for specialists in a discipline. 

3. Search databases and Google Scholar.   Use the recommended databases in the "Articles & Databases" tab of this guide and try a search that includes the phrase "literature review."

4. Search in journals for literature review articles.  Once you've identified the important journals in your field as suggested in the section above, you can target these journals and search for review articles. 

5. Find book reviews.  These reviews can often contain useful contextual information about the concerns and debates of a field. Worldwide Political Science Abstracts is a good source for book reviews, as is JSTOR . To get to book reviews in JSTOR, select the advanced search option, use the title of the book as your search phrase, and narrow by item type: reviews. You can also narrow your search further by discipline.

6. Cast a wide net--don't forget dissertations.  Dissertations and theses often include literature review sections. While these aren't necessarily authoritative, definitive literature reviews (you'll want to check in Annual Reviews for those), they can provide helpful suggestions for sources to consider.

• << Previous: News
• Next: Senior Essay Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 12:55 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/politicalscience

Site Navigation

P.O. BOX 208240 New Haven, CT 06250-8240 (203) 432-1775

Yale's Libraries

Bass Library

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

Classics Library

Cushing/Whitney Medical Library

Divinity Library

East Asia Library

Gilmore Music Library

Haas Family Arts Library

Lewis Walpole Library

Lillian Goldman Law Library

Marx Science and Social Science Library

Sterling Memorial Library

Yale Center for British Art

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

@YALELIBRARY

Yale Library Instagram

Accessibility       Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion      Giving       Privacy and Data Use      Contact Our Web Team    

© 2022 Yale University Library • All Rights Reserved

The Harvard Review of Philosophy

A student-run professional journal of philosophy since 1991.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Your Email Leave this field blank

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.