review of the literature in social research

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:07 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Literature Reviews in the Social Sciences

• Get started
• Search tips
• Select Databases
• Organize your sources
• Evaluate your sources
• Structure your literature review

This guide is designed to help you as you get started on a literature review in the social sciences.  It contains search tips, advice on where to look for sources, and information on how to organize and evaluate the sources you find.   

Doing a Literature Review

What's a Literature Review?

A literature review is the systematic written analysis of previously published research on a specific topic or subject. A literature review is not merely a summary of another scholar's articles or books. Instead, it provides a contextual analysis of the data, ideas, or theoretical concepts presented in the article, book, or other publication.

Why is a literature review important?

All scholars recognize the importance of the literature review. It provides the foundation for all scholarly research papers, theses, and dissertations. You can't write intelligently about a subject if you are unfamiliar with the existing literature. Therefore, the literature review is meant to showcase what has already been discussed or discovered in your topical area.

What types of resources should be used for a literature review?

 A literature review should be written using "credible" academic sources of information. This means using peer-reviewed, scholarly articles, books, and other publications in your subject area. You should avoid using popular magazines, unpublished works, blogs, or other resources deemed non-scholarly.

What other things should I consider while reading the source material?

Take careful notes of important ideas, concepts, or facts you find that are relevant to your overall topic or thesis. Most importantly, keep track of all the sources used. This will keep you from needing to relocate them later. If your paper is large in scope, use electronic bibliographic tools such as Endnote or RefWorks to keep track of all your citations while you write.

What about writing the literature review itself?

When you are prepared to begin writing your literature review, you should not simply summarize the articles and books you find. You should carefully consider the research and the author's interpretation of the subject matter. Then show how their research relates to your specific topic, from your unique point of view.

Annual Reviews / Dissertations & Theses

Many scholarly journals, dissertations, and theses also publish long and extremely detailed literature reviews. 

The Annual Reviews series of publications offer articles that analyze the most significant scholarly research published within the preceding year. Written by leading scholars and academics, the articles cover over 40 different subject disciplines in the social and hard sciences.

To search directly for a literature review, go to a library database and search for:

    "literature review" AND [your research topic] .

• Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Annual Reviews offers comprehensive, timely collections of critical reviews written by leading scientists. Annual Reviews volumes are published each year for 29 focused disciplines within the Biomedical, Physical, and Social Sciences.
• Dissertations & Theses Global This link opens in a new window Dissertations and Theses Global contains indexes, dissertations and some theses. Full-text is available for many dissertations and theses, including those from NYU.

Books on Writing Literature Reviews

Sage Research Methods - Videos on Doing Literature Reviews

• Sage Research Methods - Literature Reviews Professor Eric Jensen and Dr. Charles Laurie explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.
• How to Conduct an Effective Literature Review Claire White, an Associate professor from California State University Northridge, explains how to conduct an effective literature review using a literature review sketch.
• Next: Get started >>
• Last Updated: Jul 9, 2024 9:51 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/litreviews

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

Chapter 5: The Literature Review

5.1 The Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of everything that has been written about a particular topic, theory, or research question. The word “literature” means “sources of information”. The literature will inform you about the research that has already been conducted on your chosen subject. This is important because we do not want to repeat research that has already been done unless there is a good reason for doing so (i.e., examining a new development in this area or testing a theory with a new population, or even just seeing if the research can be reproduced). A literature review usually serves as a background for a larger work (e.g., as part of a research proposal), or it may stand on its own. Much more than a simple list of sources, an effective literature review analyzes and synthesizes information about key themes or issues.

Purpose of a literature review

The literature review involves an extensive study of research publications, books and other documents related to the defined problem. The study is important because it advises you, as a researcher, whether or not the problem you identified has already been solved by other researchers. It also confirms the status of the problem, techniques that have been used by other researchers to investigate the problem, and other related details.

A literature review goes beyond the search for information; it includes the identification and articulation of relationships between existing literature and your field of research. The literature review enables the researcher to discover what material exists about a topic and to understand the relationship between the various contributions. This will enable the researcher to determine the contributions of each source (books, articles, etc.) to the topic. A literature review also enables the researcher to identify and (if possible) resolve contradictions, and determine research gaps and/or unanswered questions.

Even though the nature of the literature review may vary with different types of studies, the basic purposes remain constant and could be summarized as follows:

• Provide a context for your research.
• Justify the research you are proposing.
• Ensure that your proposed research has not been carried out by another person (and if you find it has, then your literature review should specify why replication is necessary).
• Show where your proposed research fits into the existing body of knowledge.
• Enable the researcher to learn from previous theories on the subject.
• Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously.
• Highlight flaws in previous research.
• Outline gaps in previous research.
• Show how your proposed research can add to the understanding and knowledge of the field.
• Help refine, refocus, or even move the topic in a new direction.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• EMU Library
• Research Guides

Social Research Methods

• Literature Reviews
• Welcome. Start Here.
• Social Problem Topics
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Reference Works for Sociology
• Search for News Articles
• Find Articles by tracking citations
• Locating Full Text
• Citing Sources in Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

Literature reviews in the social sciences take a slightly different approach than in the humanities (literature, philosophy, history, etc.) or the sciences (biology, physics, etc.).  This guide focuses ONLY on the social sciences (anthropology, criminology, political science, sociology, etc.).

'literature'  - commonly people use this word for creative written works like novels; but in academics the word 'literature' is also used to mean any collection or body of written work, including research articles and books.

'review' - commonly people use the word review for evaluations, like a movie review; but in academics the word is used broadly to mean a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes literature to give an overview of theory and research on a topic.

Putting it together:

In the social sciences, a literature review is a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes. To summarize is to describe the main arguments and conclusions. To synthesize is to compare, contrast, highlight relevant points, relate to ongoing trends or problems, and generally to draw out an argument or position based on the literature being reviewed.

A literature review is not a book review! Book reviews are articles that review a single book title. A literature sums up and analyzes a set of books or articles on a theme.

Literature reviews can be a section of a longer paper or book, or they can stand alone. Social scientists generally include a short review of relevant literature in their research papers to demonstrate how their own research fits into ongoing debates. Longer stand-alone review papers are published to give a picture of the current state of research.  The Annual Reviews publication series are classic examples of stand-alone reviews.

• Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Critical reviews of primary research literature in the sciences and social sciences. EMU access does not include the most recent 5 years.
• example of lit review articles

Guides on writing literature reviews:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• The Literature Review - USC Libraries
• Literature Reviews: An Overview - NCSU libraries

More kinds of review articles

Review articles are generally a kind of secondary source.  That is, they are not presenting empirical findings from a single research project.  They are, however, original , in the sense that the author is using skill, knowledge and creativity to compile and write something new about the material (books, articles) under review.

There are several kinds of review articles.  Book Reviews are a special case, because sometimes they are written by experts but sometimes they are written by journalists or just fans of the book. Typically, a book review describes the main contents of the book, how it relates to existing ideas or works, and gives a judgment as to its value to various readers.  Some book reviews are just a paragraph, but the reviews in scholarly journals can be several pages.  In Esearch, you can limit search results to book reviews only, or screen book reviews out of the results, by clicking into the left-hand column under Content Type . 

Stand-alone Review Articles or Literature Reviews are common in the social sciences. The authors of these articles are experts, usually scholars. The review articles will address a current topic, lay out the main theories or ideas, recent developments in research, and suggest where further research is needed. Typical review articles are published in series such as:

In the health fields, Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses are articles that go a step further. Not only do they summarize and research on a topic, but they carefully analyze the research and may attempt to draw conclusions based on the compiled studies.  For more on these kinds of reviews, see:

• What is a Systematic Review? (Curtin Univ) This guide distinguishes several different kinds of reviews, such as literature review, systematic review, scoping review, etc.
• What is a systematic review? (Cochrane)
• Systematic Reviews (EPPI centre)

Finding related articles

Whether for a literature review or a research paper, the analysis is much easier if it is based on a cluster of related articles and not a random assortment.  Finding articles that are related rarely happens just by doing a single search, but it is not hard. Here are some approaches:

• Start with a textbook, reference book, dissertation or review article and collect the citations of the authors who are mentioned or cited as part of the debate.  Make sure to collect works from all points of view.
• Use citation tracking to see how scholars mention each others' work, whether as examples, evidence or in order to debate.  See below for more on citation tracking.
• << Previous: Social Problem Topics
• Next: Selecting sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 1:01 PM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/c.php?g=188066

Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• > Literature Review

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
• 1 Promises and Pitfalls of Theory
• 2 Research Ethics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• 3 Getting Good Ideas and Making the Most of Them
• 4 Literature Review
• 5 Choosing a Research Design
• 6 Building the Study
• 7 Analyzing Data
• 8 Writing the Paper
• Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
• Part III Data Collection
• Part IV Statistical Approaches
• Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career

4 - Literature Review

from Part I - From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that establishes familiarity with and an understanding of current research in a particular field. It includes a critical analysis of the relationship among different works, seeking a synthesis and an explanation of gaps, while relating findings to the project at hand. It also serves as a foundational aspect of a well-grounded thesis or dissertation, reveals gaps in a specific field, and establishes credibility and need for those applying for a grant. The enormous amount of textual information necessitates the development of tools to help researchers effectively and efficiently process huge amounts of data and quickly search, classify, and assess their relevance. This chapter presents an assessable guide to writing a comprehensive review of literature. It begins with a discussion of the purpose of the literature review and then presents steps to conduct an organized, relevant review.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Literature Review
• By Rachel Adams Goertel
• Edited by Austin Lee Nichols , Central European University, Vienna , John Edlund , Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Online publication: 25 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

University Library

• Research Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Books, Encyclopedias, & Media
• Articles & Databases
• Methods/Stats/Datasets
• Annotated Bibliographies
• APA 6th Edition
• Majors, Minors, and Careers in Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

The scholarly conversation.

A literature review provides an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic. It allows the author to synthesize and place into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic. It helps map the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns. It forms the foundation for the author’s subsequent research and justifies the significance of the new investigation.

A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research.

• The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.
• The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.
• In the body of the review, the author should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups, the author can then discuss the merits of each article and analyze and compare the importance of each article to similar ones.
• The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.
• The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the literature review.

Key Questions for a Literature Review

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

• Who are the key researchers on this topic?
• What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?
• How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?
• Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?
• Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?
• How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?
• Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?
• How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation ?

Examples of Literature Reviews

Example of a literature review at the beginning of an article: Forbes, C. C., Blanchard, C. M., Mummery, W. K., & Courneya, K. S. (2015, March). Prevalence and correlates of strength exercise among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors . Oncology Nursing Forum, 42(2), 118+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=sonomacsu&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA422059606&asid=27e45873fddc413ac1bebbc129f7649c Example of a comprehensive review of the literature: Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature.   British Journal Of Nursing ,  25 (6), 303-306. For additional examples, see:

Galvan, J., Galvan, M., & ProQuest. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.). [Electronic book]

Pan, M., & Lopez, M. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. [ Q180.55.E9 P36 2008]

Useful Links

• Write a Literature Review (UCSC)
• Literature Reviews (Purdue)
• Literature Reviews: overview (UNC)
• Review of Literature (UW-Madison)

Evidence Matrix for Literature Reviews

The  Evidence Matrix  can help you  organize your research  before writing your lit review.  Use it to  identify patterns  and commonalities in the articles you have found--similar methodologies ?  common  theoretical frameworks ? It helps you make sure that all your major concepts covered. It also helps you see how your research fits into the context  of the overall topic.

• Evidence Matrix Special thanks to Dr. Cindy Stearns, SSU Sociology Dept, for permission to use this Matrix as an example.
• << Previous: Methods/Stats/Datasets
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/sociology

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Boston University Libraries

Literature Reviews in Social Work

• What is a Literature Review

Literature Review

Function of a literature review, literature reviews in social work tutorial.

• Types of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• Searching for Books, Articles, and Other Resources
• Associations and Research Institutes
• Citing Your Sources

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of the ideas, issues, approaches, and research findings published on a particular subject area or topic. A literature review is not a simple description of all that the reviewer has read on the topic. It is better understood as a critical synthesis (or bringing together) of :

• What can reasonably be asserted based on the extent of the literature findings
• What worked and didn’t work in terms of methods of (and approaches to) investigation
• What can be gleaned from the range of theoretical perspectives that have been applied
• What gaps, inconsistencies or problems still need to be addressed in further research on the topic
• What results may reasonably be expected to be repeatable, and under what circumstances [1]

The review should be organized with a clear purpose and scope defined by the author of the review and should not be just a summary of existing research on the topic.

Literature reviews in social work increasingly focus on evidence-based research found in scholarly journals but there is some discussion within the profession that focusing only on evidence-based studies minimizes the importance of other sources of knowledge, including that gained through practical experience. Material published by think tanks, professional associations, and research institutes may provide valuable current information about a particular topic but they are often not peer-reviewed or evaluated for reliability and validity as is the case with research articles found in scholarly journals.

[1] Kiteley, Robin and Chris Stogdon.  Literature Reviews in Social Work . Sage, 2014

The function is a literature review is to:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research related to your specific research topic
• Show that you are aware of other authors, thinkers, and researchers who have laid the foundation of your research topic
• Illustrate your ability to evaluate relevant information
• Indicate your ability to synthesize existing information 
• Unify your research materials (books, articles, resources) under a central theme 
• Convince your reader you will be making a contribution to the research topic 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Types of Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2024 11:59 AM
• URL: https://library.bu.edu/literaturereviews

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Social Work Research: Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Citation Searching
• Evaluating Sources This link opens in a new window
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence-Based This link opens in a new window
• Finding Instruments This link opens in a new window
• Writing & Citing

Using A Literature Review

A literature review is a very practical part of the research process.  It's how you build on other research in the field - identify best practices and tools and learn what doesn't work.  The resources on the page are here to help you structure you literature review so it's as useful as possible.  

Also take a look at any literature reviews you find as you search for articles - in addition to content and further references they'll also provide helpful structural hints. 

• Social Work Literature Review Guidelines Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study, in this case, social work.
• Considerations in Writing a Literature Review This article will briefly outline key points for you to keep in mind when writing literature reviews for social work.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach The purpose of this article is to present a step-by-step guide to facilitate understanding by presenting the critical elements of the literature review process. While reference is made to different types of literature reviews, the focus is on the traditional or narrative review that is undertaken, usually either as an academic assignment or part of the research process.

Conducting a Literature Review & Other Research Methods

What is a Literature Review?

"Literature reviews are systematic syntheses of previous work around a particular topic. Nearly all scholars have written literature reviews at some point; such reviews are common requirements for class projects or as part of theses, are often the first section of empirical papers, and are sometimes written to summarize a field of study. Given the increasing amount of literature in many fields, reviews are critical in synthesizing scientific knowledge." - Encyclopedia of Research Design

• APA Style Sample Papers (seventh edition) by the APA
• Sample APA Paper (lit. review begins page 3)
• Dissertations and Theses Full-Text Global Search here for examples of literature reviews from masters and doctoral theses.

Thinking About A Literature Review

Literature Reviews: An Overview

Additional How-To Guides

• CSU, Chico Office of Graduate Studies - Thesis Assistance Instructions, policies, and guidelines for graduate studies theses/projects.
• CSU, Chico Writing Center Make a one-on-one appointment with a writing tutor to help with your writing assignments.
• Learn How to Write a Review of the Literature University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Literature Review: An Overview for Graduate Students Video overview by North Carolina State University Libraries
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide University of Connecticut University Libraries
• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: Evidence-Based >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 9:49 AM
• URL: https://simmons.libguides.com/SSWResearch

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

3.3 Writing the literature review

Learning objectives.

• Begin to write your literature review
• Identify the purpose of a problem statement
• Apply the components of a formal argument to your topic
• Use elements of formal writing style, including signposting and transitions

Congratulations! By now, you should have discovered, retrieved, evaluated, synthesized, and organized the information you need for your literature review. It’s now time to turn that stack of articles, papers, and notes into a literature review–it’s time to start writing!

If you’ve followed the steps in this chapter, you likely have an outline from which you can begin the writing process. But what do you need to include in your literature review? We’ve mentioned it before here, but just to summarize, a literature review should:

…clearly describe the questions that are being asked. They also locate the research within the ongoing scholarly dialogue. This is done by summarizing current understandings and by discussing why what we already knows leads to the need for the present research. Literature reviews also define the primary concepts. While this information can appear in any order, these are the elements in all literature reviews. (Loseke, 2017, p. 61)

Do you have enough facts and sources to accomplish these tasks? It’s a good time to consult your outlines and notes on each article you plan to include in your literature review. You may also want to consult with your professor on what they expect from you. If there is something that you are missing, you may want to jump back to section 2.3 where we discussed how to search for literature on your topic. While you can always fill in material later, there is always the danger that you will start writing without really knowing what you are talking about or what you want to say. For example, if you don’t have a solid definition of your key concepts or a sense of how the literature has developed over time, it will be difficult to make coherent scholarly claims about your topic.

There is no magical point at which everyone is ready to write. As you consider whether you are ready or not, it may be useful to ask yourself these questions:

• How will my literature review be organized?
• What section headings will I be using?
• How do the various studies relate to each other?
• What contributions do they make to the field?
• What are the limitations of a study/where are the gaps in the research?
• And finally, but most importantly, how does my own research fit into what has already been done?

The problem statement

Many scholarly works begin with a problem statement. The problem statement serves two functions. On one hand, it establishes why your topic is a social problem worth studying. At the same time, it also pulls your reader into the literature review. Who would want to read about something unimportant?

A problem statement generally answers the following questions, though these are far from exhaustive:

• Why is this an important problem to study?
• How many people are affected by the problem?
• How does this problem impact other social issues or target populations relevant to social work?
• Why is your target population an important one to study?

A strong problem statement, like the rest of your literature review, should be filled with facts, theory, and arguments based on the literature you’ve found. A research proposal differs significantly from other more reflective essays you’ve likely completed during your social work studies. If your topic were domestic violence in rural Appalachia in the United States, you could come up with answers to the above questions without looking at a single source. However, the purpose of the literature review is not to test your intuition, personal experience, or empathy. Instead, research methods are about learning specific and articulate-able facts to inform social work action. With a problem statement, you can take a “boring” topic like the color of rooms used in an inpatient psychiatric facility, transportation patterns in major cities, or the materials used to manufacture baby bottles and help others see the topic as you see it—an important part of the social world that impacts social work practice.

The structure of a literature review

The problem statement generally belongs at the beginning of the literature review. Take care not to go on for too long. A good rule of thumb is to spend no more than a paragraph or two for a problem statement. For the rest of your literature review, there is no set formula for how it should be organized. However, a literature review generally follows the format of any other essay—Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.

The introduction to the literature review contains a statement or statements about the overall topic. At minimum, the introduction should define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. You might consider presenting historical background, mention the results of a seminal study, and provide definitions of important terms. The introduction may also point to overall trends in what has been previously published on the topic or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, conclusions, or gaps in research and scholarship. Put in a few sentences that walk the reader through the rest of the literature review. Highlight your main arguments from the body of the literature review and preview your conclusion. An introduction should let someone know what to expect from the rest of your review.

The body of your literature review is where you demonstrate your synthesis and analysis of the literature on your topic. Again, take care not to just summarize your literature. It’s not a good idea to  organize your literature review by source—that is, one paragraph for source A, one paragraph for source B, etc. That structure will likely provide an okay summary of the literature you’ve found, but it would give you almost no synthesis of the literature. That approach doesn’t tell your reader how to put those facts together, points of agreement or contention in the literature, or how each study builds on the work of others. In short, it does not demonstrate critical thinking.

Instead, use your outlines and notes as a guide to the important topics you need to cover, and more importantly, what you have to say about those topics. Literature reviews are written from the perspective of an expert on the field. After an exhaustive literature review, you should feel like you are able to make strong claims about what is true—so make them! There is no need to hide behind “I believe” or “I think.” Put your voice out in front, loud and proud! But make sure you have facts and sources that back up your claims.

The term “argument” is used here in a specific way. An argument in writing means more than simply disagreeing with what someone else said. Toulman, Rieke, and Janik (1984) identify six elements of an argument:

• Claim: the thesis statement—what you are trying to prove
• Grounds: theoretical or empirical evidence that supports your claim
• Warrant: your reasoning (rule or principle) connecting the claim and its grounds
• Backing: further facts used to support or legitimize the warrant
• Qualifier: acknowledging that the argument may not be true for all cases
• Rebuttal: considering both sides (as cited in Burnette, 2012)

Let’s walk through an example of an argument. If you were writing a literature review on a negative income tax, a policy in which people in poverty receive an unconditional cash stipend from the government each month equal to the federal poverty level, you would want to lay out the following:

• Claim: the negative income tax is superior to other forms of anti-poverty assistance.
• Grounds: data comparing negative income tax recipients to those in existing programs, theory supporting a negative income tax, data from evaluations of existing anti-poverty programs, etc.
• Warrant: cash-based programs like the negative income tax are superior to existing anti-poverty programs because they allow the recipient greater self-determination over how to spend their money.
• Backing: data demonstrating the beneficial effects of self-determination on people in poverty.
• Qualifier: the negative income tax does not provide taxpayers and voters with enough control to make sure people in poverty are not wasting financial assistance on frivolous items.
• Rebuttal: policy should be about empowering the oppressed, not protecting the taxpayer, and there are ways of addressing taxpayer opposition through policy design.

Like any effective argument, your literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that provide some detail, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or, it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Another important issue is signposting . It may not be a term you are familiar with, but you are likely familiar with the concept. Signposting refers to the words used to identify the organization and structure of your literature review to your reader.  The most basic form of signposting is using a topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph. A topic sentence introduces the argument you plan to make in that paragraph. For example, you might start a paragraph stating, “There is strong disagreement in the literature as to whether psychedelic drugs cause psychotic disorders, or whether psychotic disorders cause people to use psychedelic drugs.” Within that paragraph, your reader would likely assume you will present evidence for both arguments. The concluding sentence of your paragraph should address the topic sentence, addressing how the facts and arguments from other authors support a specific conclusion. To continue with our example, you might say, “There is likely a reciprocal effect in which both the use of psychedelic drugs worsens pre-psychotic symptoms and worsening psychosis causes use of psychedelic drugs to self-medicate or escape.”

Signposting also involves using headings and subheadings. Your literature review will use APA formatting, which means you need to follow their rules for bolding, capitalization, italicization, and indentation of headings. Headings help your reader understand the structure of your literature review. They can also help if the reader gets lost and needs to re-orient themselves within the document. Assume the reader knows nothing (they don’t mind) and need to be shown exactly where they are addressing each part of the literature review. It’s like walking a small child around, telling them “First we’ll do this, then we’ll do that, and when we’re done, we’ll know this!”

Another way to use signposting is to open each paragraph with a sentence that links the topic of the paragraph with the one before it. Alternatively, one could end each paragraph with a sentence that links it with the next paragraph. For example, imagine we wanted to link a paragraph about barriers to accessing healthcare with one about the relationship between the patient and physician. We could use a transition sentence like this: “Even if patients overcome these barriers to accessing care, the physician-patient relationship can create new barriers to positive health outcomes.” A transition sentence like this builds a connection between two distinct topics. Transition sentences are also useful within paragraphs. They tell the reader how to consider one piece of information in light of previous information. Even simple transitions like “however” or “similarly” demonstrate critical thinking and make your arguments clearer.

Many beginning researchers have difficulty with incorporating transitions into their writing. Let’s look at an example. Instead of beginning a sentence or paragraph by launching into a description of a study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

• Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).
• Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.
• An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

Now that we know to use signposts, the natural question is “What goes on the signposts?” First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument then should be apparent from the outline itself. Unfortunately, there is no formula that will work for everyone, but there are some general pointers on structuring your literature review.

The literature review generally moves from general ideas to more specific ones. You can build a review by identifying areas of consensus and areas of disagreement. You may choose to present earlier, historical studies—preferably seminal studies that are of significant importance—and close with most recent work. Another approach is to start with the most distantly related facts and literature and then report on those most closely related to your specific research question. You could also compare and contrast valid approaches, features, characteristics, theories – that is, one approach, then a second approach, followed by a third approach.

Here are some additional tips for writing the body of your literature review:

• Start broad and then narrow down to more specific information.
• When appropriate, cite two or more sources for a single point, but avoid long strings of references for a single point.
• Use quotes sparingly. Quotations for definitions are okay, but reserve quotes for when someone says something so well you couldn’t possible phrase it differently. Never use quotes for statistics.
• Paraphrase when you need to relate the specific details within an article, and try to reword it in a way that is understandable to your audience.
• Include only the aspects of the study that are relevant to your literature review. Don’t insert extra facts about a study just to take up space.
• Avoid first-person like language like “I” and “we” to maintain objectivity.
• Avoid informal language like contractions, idioms, and rhetorical questions.
• Note any sections of your review that lack citations and facts from literature. Your arguments need to be based in specific empirical or theoretical facts. Do not approach this like a reflective journal entry.
• Point out consistent findings and emphasize stronger studies over weaker ones.
• Point out important strengths and weaknesses of research studies, as well as contradictions and inconsistent findings.
• Implications and suggestions for further research (where there are gaps in the current literature) should be specific.

The conclusion should summarize your literature review, discuss implications, and create a space for future or further research needed in this area. Your conclusion, like the rest of your literature review, should have a point that you are trying to make. What are the important implications of your literature review? How do they inform the question you are trying to answer?

While you should consult with your professor and their syllabus for the final structure your literature review should take, here is an example of the possible structure for a literature review:

• Establish the importance of the topic
• Number and type of people affected
• Seriousness of the impact
• Physical, psychological, economic, social consequences of the problem
• Definitions of key terms
• Important arguments you will make
• Overview of the organization of the rest of the review
• Supporting evidence
• Implications
• Specific suggestions for future research
• How your research topic adds to the literature

Here are some additional resources, if you are having trouble putting together your literature review:

Doing a literature review

Get Lit: The Literature Review

Writing resources at the University of Texas at Arlington

The University of Texas at Arlington has several resources available to students to help with writing research proposals.

• The School of Social Work has writing resources available on its website.  The Writing Guide for Social Work is available on the Writing Resources page, including the Common Assignments section and the Index of All Assignments , where students can find individual writing guides to major types of assignments.
• Check out the specific information about writing for research classes from the SSW.
• For individual tutoring assistance, the UTA Writing Center is available for in-person and live online appointments, and also has substantial walk-in office hours.

Editing your literature review

For your literature review, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. As you start editing your literature review, make sure that it is balanced. If you want to emphasize the generally accepted understanding of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have found contradictory findings, you should discuss them, too. Or, if you are proposing a new theory, then you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in social work can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer (University of Minnesota, 2016).  [1]

In addition to subjectivity and bias, another obstruction to getting your literature review written is writer’s block. Often times, writer’s block can come from confusing the creating and editing parts of the writing process. Many writers often start by simply trying to type out what they want to say, regardless of how good it is. Author Anne Lamott (1995) terms these “shitty first drafts” and we all write them. They are a natural and important part of the writing process. Even if you have a detailed outline to work from, the words are not going to fall into place perfectly the first time you start writing. You should consider turning off the editing and critiquing part of your brain for a little while and allow your thoughts to flow. Don’t worry about putting the correct internal citation when you first write. Just get the information out. Only after you’ve reached a natural stopping point might you go back and edit your draft for grammar, APA formatting, organization, flow, and more. Separating the writing and editing process can go a long way to addressing writer’s block—as can picking a topic about which you have something to say!

As you are editing, keep in mind these questions adapted from Green (2012):

• Content: Have I clearly stated the main idea or purpose of the paper and address all the issues? Is the thesis or focus clearly presented and appropriate for the reader?
• Organization: How well is it structured? Is the organization spelled out for the reader and easy to follow?
• Flow: Is there a logical flow from section to section, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence? Are there transitions between and within paragraphs that link ideas together?
• Development: Have I validated the main idea with supporting material? Are supporting data sufficient? Does the conclusion match the introduction?
• Form: Are there any APA style issues, redundancy, problematic wording and terminology (always know the definition of any word you use!), flawed sentence constructions and selection, spelling, and punctuation?

Key Takeaways

• The problem statement draws the reader into your topic by highlighting how important the topic is to social work and overall society.
• Signposting is an important component of academic writing that helps your reader follow the structure of your argument and literature review.
• Transitions demonstrate critical thinking and help guide your reader through your arguments.
• Editing and writing are separate processes.
• Signposting- words that identify the organization and structure of a literature review

Image attributions

Startup notebooks by startupstockphotos cc-0, board front problem by geralt cc-0, person holding white paper and typewriter by dreamstime cc-0, signs direction bergen by mariamichelle cc-0, mistakes by annekarakash cc-0.

• University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). This is a derivative of  Research Methods in Psychology  by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution, which was originally released and is used under CC BY-NC-SA. This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . ↵

Guidebook for Social Work Literature Reviews and Research Questions Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca Mauldin and Matthew DeCarlo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Writing a Literature Review in Social Sciences

Checklist for getting started, what to expect, 1) understand the purpose of your literature review, 2) building or polishing your research toolbox.

• 2. Select / Refine a Topic
• 2.1 Find Review Articles
• 3. Search Literature
• 3.1 Find Scholarly Journals
• 3.2 Find Theses or Dissertations
• 3.3 Track Citations
• 4. Evaluate Literature
• 5. Take Notes & Manage References
• 6. Keep Current
• 7. Prepare First Draft & Revise
• 7.1 Grammar & Writing
• FSU Resources

1) Understand the purpose of your literature review 2) Building or polishing your research toolbox   

• Writing a literature review is about making connections with the related works and with your own research. See the big picture. 
• It is quite often impossible to search (and read) "everything" that has been written and published on a topic. Be selective. 
• At some point, you have to STOP searching and reading, and start to write a draft. Know when to stop. 
• It could be an overwhelming task. Setting up your research toolbox before you jump into the task will help you manage the process better. Get prepared.

Depending on the purpose of your literature review, you will need different ways to get prepared.  The following tips will help you visualize what your final product will look like. 

• Length, due dates, # of sources to use, which style the paper should be formatted, etc.  
• If you have a specific journal in mind to publish your research article, read the literature review section of 2-3 articles published in the journal. Read the "Instructions for Authors," a set of requirements to submit a paper to the journal, to see if there is any requirement on the literature review section of the paper.  
• Make yourself familiar with the common format of review articles in the field 
• E.g.,  International Journal of Management Reviews Psychology of Men and Masculities's Literature Review Guideline
• E.g.,  Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior     
• Systematic Review is a type of review to identify, appraise, and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. 
• For resources and strategies to conduct a systematic review project, see the Libraries' Systematic Reviews Guide .
• E.g., " How to Find Theses & Dissertations "  

Toolbox for Searching:

• Know key databases and journals in the field 
• A video tutorial on  Boolean Operators for Database Searching  (from VCU) (3:02)
• Check out "Help" page of a database (if available) to learn the techniques
•  Download   Search Log Template (or create your own)
• Sample Search Log  (Topic: Adolescent Depression & Attachment )  to learn how to use the Template 
• Know   citation chaining methods (or how to search cited references) 
• Know Interlibrary Loan procedures
• Check out  Research Guides in your field 
• Schedule an appointment with Liaison Librarian

Toolbox for Writing:

• Make yourself familiar with the required publishing style (e.g., APA, MLA, etc.) 
• Learn how to use citation management tools 
• Understand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it 
• Check out  Research Guide to Citations 
• << Previous: Home
• Next: 2. Select / Refine a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Aug 11, 2023 11:32 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.fsu.edu/lit_rev

© 2022 Florida State University Libraries | 116 Honors Way | Tallahassee, FL 32306 | (850) 644-2706

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Organizing Your Paper

Before you begin writing your paper, you will need to decide upon a way to organize your information. You can organize your paper using a number of different strategies, such as the following:

• Topics and subtopics : Discussing your sources in relation to different topics and subtopics; probably the most common approach
• Chronologically : Discussing your sources from oldest to newest in order to show trends or changes in the approach to a topic over time
• Methods : Discussing your sources by different methods that are used to approach the topic

When literature reviews are incorporated into a research paper, they are often structured using the  funnel method , which begins with a broad overview of a topic and then narrows down to more specific themes before focusing in on the specific research question that the paper will address.

A literature review paper often follows this basic organization:

Introduction

• Describes the importance of the topic
• Defines key terms
• Describes the goals of the review
• Provides an overview of the literature to be discussed (e.g., methods, trends, etc.) (optional)
• Describes parameters of the review and particular search methods used (optional)
• Discusses findings of sources, as well as strengths, weaknesses, similarities, differences, contradictions, and gaps
• Divides content into sections (for longer reviews), uses headings and subheadings to indicate section divisions, and provides brief summaries at the end of each section
• Summarizes what is known about the topic
• Discusses implications for practice
• Discusses areas for further research

Synthesizing Sources

A literature review paper not only describes and evaluates the scholarly research literature related to a particular topic, but it also synthesizes that information. Synthesis  is the process of weaving together information from sources to arrive at new analyses and insights.

To help you prepare to synthesize sources in your paper, you can take the topic matrix that you prepared as you were organizing your sources, and flesh it out into a  synthesis matrix  that contains detailed notes from each source as they relate to different topics and subtopics of your literature review. Once you've completed your synthesis matrix, you can more easily identify ways that sources relate to each other in terms of their similarities and differences, methodological strengths and weakness, and contradictions and gaps. The video below shows how to create a synthesis matrix.

Video:  Synthesis Matrix Tutorial  by  Andrew Davis .

Writing Your Paper

A literature review paper should flow logically from one topic to the next. As you write your paper, consider these tips:

• Write in a formal voice and with an impartial tone.
• Define critical terms and describe key theories.
• Use topic sentences to clearly indicate what each paragraph is about.
• Use transitions to make links between sections.
• Introduce acronyms upon first using them.
• Call attention to seminal (i.e., highly influential; groundbreaking) studies.
• Clearly distinguish between your ideas and those of the authors you cite.
• Cite multiple sources for a single idea, if appropriate.
• Create a list of references that follows appropriate style guidelines.
• Give your paper a title that conveys what the literature review is about.
• Once you have written your paper, carefully proofread it for errors.
• << Previous: Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Next: Help and Resources >>

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Research Evaluation
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. framework and method of the literature review, 3. method and data, 4. scientific impact of ssh research, 5. social impact of social sciences and humanities research, 6. political impact of social sciences and humanities research, 7. discussion, 8. conclusion.

• < Previous

A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Emanuela Reale, Dragana Avramov, Kubra Canhial, Claire Donovan, Ramon Flecha, Poul Holm, Charles Larkin, Benedetto Lepori, Judith Mosoni-Fried, Esther Oliver, Emilia Primeri, Lidia Puigvert, Andrea Scharnhorst, Andràs Schubert, Marta Soler, Sàndor Soòs, Teresa Sordé, Charles Travis, René Van Horik, A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research, Research Evaluation , Volume 27, Issue 4, October 2018, Pages 298–308, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Recently, the need to contribute to the evaluation of the scientific, social, and political impact of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research has become a demand of policy makers and society. The international scientific community has made significant advances that have transformed the impact of evaluation landscape. This article reviews the existing scientific knowledge on evaluation tools and techniques that are applied to assess the scientific impact of SSH research; the changing structure of social and political impacts of SSH research is investigated based on an overarching research question: to what extent do scholars attempt to apply methods, instruments, and approaches that take into account the distinctive features of SSH? The review also includes examples of European Union (EU) projects that demonstrate these impacts. This article culminates in a discussion of the development of the assessment of different impacts and identifies limitations, and areas and topics to explore in the future.

A key concern of contemporary research policies is to demonstrate the ‘impact’ of research, or the value that public investment in research generates for increasing scientific competitiveness and excellence of the country, wealth creation, productivity, and social well-being. Impact is often understood as a change that research outcomes produce upon academic activities, the economy, and society at large. However, speaking of ‘attributable change’ poses some problems, such as finding adequate tools and methods to measure impact, the time lag between the effect produced and the research activities that are supposed to have generated it, as well as the problem of disentangling the extent to which the research results were the sole or most significant causes of the effect produced.

In addition to these well-known shortcomings, another problem is the different modes by which disciplinary fields are likely to impact academic communities, the economy, and society. This is especially true for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) because of their organizational and epistemic characteristics, and the type of outcomes that differentiate them from the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines ( Whitley 2000 ; Bastow, Dunleavy and Tinkler 2014 ).

The research questions the article addresses are: How far does impact assessment in SSH attempt to apply methods, instruments and approaches that take into account the distinctive features of SSH? and: Are the dominant (STEM) perspectives of impact evaluation applicable to SSH research? We investigate these questions through the review of the literature, which sheds light on the state of the art of knowledge production in the field, and allows us to understand what is still missing in the analysis and therefore the relevant gaps that need to be addressed.

In the review, we articulate the concept of impact by distinguishing between the different structures of scientific, social, and political impacts of SSH research. The assumption is that unpacking the concept of impact should allow us to improve knowledge of the different types of changes that are likely to be produced, and hence to assess them in a more robust manner.

The article is organized as follows: Section 2 explains how we frame the systematic literature review to identify the key themes and dimensions emerging in SSH evaluation; Section 3 presents the method and data used for the review; Sections 4–6 present the review’s findings and focus on three types of research impact: scientific, social, and political; Section 7 discusses advances in knowledge of each type of impact, connections between these impacts, and their limitations. Section 8 presents the article’s conclusions, which centre on the need to advance knowledge of how to understand, measure, and assess SSH research impacts.

This article aims to deepen our knowledge of specific features of assessing the impact of SSH research in three respects. First, it highlights the relationship between science and society and its bearing on research conduct and evaluation. In recent years, top-down political demand has led publicly funded research agencies to increasingly account for the scientific and broader societal impacts of the research that they support, which has in turn required researchers and research institutions to provide evidence of these impacts. This has been accompanied by bottom-up demands from academic researchers and research users (for example, within civil society) to articulate the value of research for society ( Beck 1992 ).

Secondly, the review emphasizes the relevance within the literature of discipline-specific research evaluation . At national and cross-national levels, research evaluation and research policy tends to be designed from the perspective of the life sciences and the natural sciences, with SSH research commonly an afterthought ( Donovan 2005 ). To bridge the gap between science and society, traditional research evaluation schemes are being reconsidered and reformed ( Arnold 2004 ) in ways that make the scientific and public value of SSH research potentially more visible, and to this end non-standard research assessment tools have been developed and applied to evaluating the impact of SSH research.

Thirdly, although a dedicated literature exists on research evaluation, other relevant pockets of literature are focused within an extensive range of SSH journals, as well as within books, chapters, and grey literature. This article reviews these diverse contributions to the scholarly literature on the evaluation of the scientific, social, and political impact of SSH research.

2.1 Motivations driving the investigation

As discussed above, policy makers justify the investment of public resources in R&D in terms of scientific advances that are likely to stimulate knowledge production (scientific impact). Wider impacts include the possibility of providing solutions to perennial policy problems (policy impact), and creating interventions to improve societal challenges (societal impact). Policy makers therefore want to understand (define, measure, and capture) these effects to be sure that they are using public funding to sustain ‘good science’. However, the policy makers’ perspective of ‘good science’ is not aligned with what scholars in all fields consider to be good science, since their main preoccupations are often with the robustness of the methods used, the reliability of tests and analysis, and the integrity of the research effort ( Guetzkow, Lamont and Mallard 2004 ).

This divide is even more important for SSH due to the distinctive features that differentiate it from natural sciences. For example, several authors characterize SSH according to organizational and institutional perspectives ( Whitley 2000 ), the likelihood of SSH to be local or internationally oriented ( Forbes and Abrams 2004 ), and reflexivity and the appreciation of novel research efforts ( Guetzkow et al. 2004 ; Weingart and Schwechheimer 2007 ; Ochsner et al. 2013 ). Other recent pieces of work ( Bod 2013 ; Molas-Gallart 2015 ) have pointed out that SSH is more interested in new approaches—which are the essence of originality, rather than in new theories or findings; SSH are reflexive and non-cumulative sciences, contrary to the normative and cumulative structure of natural sciences, so judgements on the value of research can vary depending on the existing different schools of thought ( Weingart and Schwechheimer 2007 ; Ochner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ). These characteristics have distinct effects on impact assessment. Despite the fact that a distinctive feature of SSH scholarship is a commitment to developing research for the good of society, the interest of scholars is often not oriented towards producing ‘usable’ results ( Berubé 2002 ; Benneworth 2015 ), but to influence and orient society, to maintain cultural heritage, and to create capabilities of self-understanding in different contexts ( Nussbaum 2010 ; Ochsner et al. 2013 ; Small 2013 ). Thus, scholars highlight that SSH impact cannot be assessed as ‘return on investment’ (Weingart 2007). It therefore follows that looking for similarities and normative solutions to assess SSH research impact would not produce reliable results because it clashes with the internal diversity of the disciplines ( Kuhlmann 1998 ).

2.2 Distinguishing between impacts

The article addresses three different types of impact (scientific, social, and political) assuming that this distinction will allow a better understanding of how SSH research is likely to generate change in science and in society.

Scientific impact is commonly defined as a change in research, which breaks the dominant paradigm and influences future research investigations. In fact, ‘there is a distinction between “academic impact” that is understood as the intellectual contribution to a person’s field of study within academia and the “external socioeconomic impact” beyond academia’ ( Penfield et al. 2014 : 21). However, in SSH the identification of ‘dominant paradigms’ is difficult due to the co-existence of competing paradigms and the difficulty in finding a common definition of what research quality means ( Ochner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ), and finding common criteria to assess it ( Guetzkow et al. 2004 ). Thus, scientific impact in SSH research is related to the capacity of founding new schools of thought and influencing future research in the field. It is not important for new schools to become dominant within the field: in SSH, different schools can co-exist; what is important is the fact that the new schools are producing research that follows a different approach.

The conceptualization of the social impact of research remains an ongoing effort. Flecha (2014) makes the distinction between scientific impact, dissemination, political impact and social impact, and argues that social impact can be understood as the culmination of the prior three stages of research. Therefore, the social impact of research occurs when published and disseminated results, which have been transferred into a policy or an NGO-led initiative, produce improvements in relation to the stated goals of society. However, a major problem in the literature is the lack of consensus on the meaning of the word ‘social’. In some publications, a broad spectrum of social impact areas is listed: human rights, social cohesion, economic cohesion, employment, human capital formation, public health and safety, social protection and social services, liveable communities, culture, consumer interests, security, governance, international cooperation, role of SMEs, lessons learnt and success stories ( European Commission, 2005 ). At the other end of the social impact spectrum, the social impact domain is limited to a few items that pertain to the living conditions of people: welfare, well-being, and quality of life, customs and habits of life, i.e. consumption, work, sexuality, sports, and food ( Godin and Doré 2005 ). Sometimes the terms ‘social’ and ‘societal’ are interchangeable ( Bornmann 2013 : 218); in other cases, a distinction is made.

The assessment of the political impact of research as a separate from social impact has gained momentum in Europe, especially when investigating the relationships between science and policy and how to enhance the impact of the results of research on the policy process. Political impact of research occurs when knowledge is transferred, that is, when decision makers and/or social actors employ the published and disseminated results as the basis for their policies and/or actions ( Flecha 2014 ). Although it significantly overlaps with the concept of social impact, its specific features relate to the fact that it addresses transformations that are produced in policy development and in the policy process (motivations and rationales, policy design, policy implementation, and policy assessment). For this reason, the article addresses political impact separately from social impact, taking into account both the macro-politics of dealing with large-scale decisions affecting the solution of complex problems, and policy related to micro-scale implementation of specific intervention techniques.

The three types of impact the article addresses produce different orders of change within science and society. SSH research generates scientific impact when it influences the production of further research outputs following new approaches for analysis or based on new results. Changes related to social impact affect the cultural, economic, and social life of individuals, organizations, and institutions. Political impact incorporates the contents of research into political decisions, and motivations and rationales for political action and priority setting.

In this review, we aim to understand the way in which the aforementioned changes occur, and how far new avenues, such as the importance of researchers engaging and interacting with society, were explored. To enable this, we use the analytical framework of critical communicative methodology (CCM) proposed by Gómez and colleagues (2011), which considers people as transformative social agents who are able to produce changes in the existing order. CCM considers that change from research is likely to occur when ‘lifeworld is incorporated into the research process from the beginning to end’ (p. 238). Two analytical dimensions characterize the CCM methodology, namely, the exclusionary one and the transformative one. The former refers to the barriers impeding non-academic individuals and groups from participating or from enjoining benefits; the latter dimension refers to the actions that help to overcome the barriers and produce a change in a given social situation ( Gómez, Puigvert and Flecha 2011 ). Thus the analysis presents evidence of what the literature on the impact of SSH research found to be factors that promoted or inhibited the successful scientific, social, and political impact of research.

Journal articles: the literature search was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS databases;

Books, reports, and working papers;

CORDIS database: exploration of EU FP6 and EU FP7 projects (2006–12);

The EU FP7 Flash-it project 1 as a source for relevant research reports;

Web searches, e.g., Science Europe Association and other research centres and institutes in Europe and throughout the world;

Guidelines for applicants and evaluators, including searches of European Commission databases of funded projects;

Grey literature from relevant evaluation bodies and institutions.

The review focused on eight disciplinary fields: Economics and Business; Educational Sciences, Media, and Communication; Humanities; Law; Life Sciences; Political Science; Psychology; and Sociology and Socio-economic Geography. Numerous combinations of keywords were employed as search terms to detect the impact of research; these terms were also applied to search key research evaluation journals. The analysis covered the period 2006–12 to coincide with the European Union’s Sixth and Seventh Framework programmes. Some key pieces of literature published before 2006 and after 2012 were also included to describe the evolution of the concepts of and approaches to evaluating the impact of SSH research. To handle the extensive range of literature, different teams scanned the different disciplinary areas and independently identified important literature in this area. For these studies, the findings of the review were shared using standardized grids , which were presented as templates to annotate the studies.

3.1 Data analysis

A total of 288 grids were completed for the literature reviewed; two types of information were recorded: one dealing with approaches to the evaluation of the impact of SSH research, and one documenting examples of SSH research that had achieved impact (scientific, social, political). In this way we could, on the one hand, understand the new approaches and tools for evaluation methods and instruments the literature produced; and on the other hand, understand the capability of the observed approaches to properly asses the achievement of an impact.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, using the WoS and Scopus database and the snowball strategy, journal papers account for 95% of the reviewed literature (233 of the 275 publications that were surveyed include articles that were published between 2009 and 2012). Secondly, scientific production in the social sciences tends to be more concentrated in journal articles, and journal articles comprise a significant part of the humanities and law; thus, the latter fields are less well-represented than other fields in this review. Thirdly, the capacity to trace research outputs which are neither publicly available nor have been cited by other publications is also limited. Last, the English-language output is overrepresented, and literature written in national languages (other than English) only appears in the case of studies that have received citations.

The selected journal papers were located in 172 scholarly journals, which encompassed the entire range of SSH. These papers were not concentrated in particular core journals, with the exception of Research Evaluation , which provided 40 articles for review, followed by American Psychologist (10) and Scientometrics (7). The remaining literature included a small number of working and discussion papers (5), book chapters (3), a book (1), a doctoral dissertation (1), and ‘hidden’ pieces of literature in the form of EU FP6 or FP7 project documents (3).

The debate on scientific impact has a large place in the literature on SSH research; in the past 10 years, it was mainly pushed by the advent of national ex post research assessments, and by the importance that the use of metrics gained in impact evaluation. In this respect, the value of bibliometric indicators was highlighted for STEM disciplines as more objective and less costly than other methods, but the possibility of applying these types of indicators to SSH research was highly questioned.

4.1 Bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics and other metrics in STEM research

The scientific impact of STEM research on the policy agenda has existed since the emergence of ‘Big Science’ after the Second World War ( Price, 1963 ). The growth of science, the need to monitor (public) spending, and the recent shift to a knowledge-based economy caused the growth of the specialized scientific discipline of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics ( De Bellis 2009 ). The literature is dominated by quantitative, bibliometric approaches to assess the scientific impact of research, including the use of the journal impact factor (a measure that is based on the average number of citations to articles in a specific journal) and other citation-based methods ( Garfield 2006 ). Traditionally the measurement of scientific impact focused on publications ( Scharnhorst and Garfield 2010 ). Increasingly, we observe the tendency to focus on individual authors as the unit of analysis ( Wouters and Costas 2012 ). A new indicator that has gained significant attention is the h-index, which was proposed by Hirsch (2005) . Tibor Braun and colleagues proposed to employ Hirsch-type indexes as useful complements to journal impact factors and to evaluate the scientific impact of research ( Braun, Glänzel and Schubert 2006 ).

Despite these efforts, scholars in STEM disciplines have always questioned the extent to which scientific impact, measured by numbers of citations, reflects the ‘quality’ or ‘importance’ of a single journal paper or a body of scientific work. New ideas in technological innovation and instruments tend to emerge at the boundaries of scientific fields led by atypical researchers, who may never achieve recognition from their academic peers ( Joerges and Shinn 2001 ). However, the fascination with numbers and simple data is still alive. Simple measures, such as the journal impact factor, which produce one number, are easy to apply and are attractive for many organizations that address evaluations of scientific impact. This simplicity belies the contested nature of the application of these measures ( Glänzel and Moed 2002 ; Leydesdorff, Hammarfelt and Salah 2011 ). Therefore, in scientometrics, a debate about the validity of different indicators and the continuous development of new indicators is underway. One example is the Scimago Journal Rank, which is a citation impact index that considers the relative prestige of journals that cite a particular journal paper ( González-Pereira, Guerrero-Bote and Moya-Arnegón 2010 ). Thus, current metric-based evaluation practices are not without dispute, even for the natural sciences, among those that are subject to evaluation ( Blockmans, Engwall and Weaire 2014 ), and among those that develop metrics ( Hicks et al. 2015 ). Criticisms deal with computation of indicators and with the reliability of citations as a proxy of scientific impact.

In the mid-1980s, changes in scholarly communication and practices, which are informed by open-access principles, gained attention from epistemic communities and research institutions, and new indicators were developed based on the Web: web indicators, webometrics, cybermetrics, and altmetrics ( Borgman 1990 , 2007 ), which were supposed to complement citations to understand scientific impact of research outputs, attempting to measure the circulation and use of the research outputs within the scholars’ community. One method for ordering webometrics is a timeline of their appearance that start from calculations about the use of the Web in scholarly communication: web indicators, webometrics, cybermetrics ( Scharnhorst, Wouters and van den Besselaar 2006 ); Web 2.0—user-generated content and the emergence of altmetrics ( Priem et al. 2010 ; Bornmann 2014 ); and the Semantic web—automatically generated impact stories (see https://impactstory.org /). 2

4.2 The use of metrics for assessing scientific impact of SSH research

Do metrics for measuring scientific impact works in the case of SSH research? There are different answers to this question.

Perspectives range from the idea that SSH disciplines are less scientifically developed and that existing metrics will become a better fit as they mature, to the viewpoint that the scientific impact of SSH research cannot be captured by blunt metrics and can only be assessed by peer review ( Donovan 2007 ; Bastow, Dunleavy and Tinkler 2014 ). Hicks (2004) noted the existence of four literature in social sciences: international journal articles, books, national journals, and non-scholarly publications, and despite the movement towards academics privileging the first type of publication, the importance of the other types of literature remained high.

A recent review on evaluation practices indicated that several authors outline bibliometrics in SS as one resource among many for scientific impact assessment, which can provide better results when used in combination with other metrics and information sources than when it is used as a separate tool ( de Rijcke et al. 2016 ). This evidence raises the issue of selecting the most suitable mixed method for impact assessment. Conversely, bibliometrics do not emerge as an advantage for the assessment of the impact of humanities research. However, specific cases, such as psychology and linguistics, have a consolidated arena of relevant indexed journals in the fields.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned evidence, the majority of discussions occupy a middle ground and are dependent on bibliometrics but seek alternative techniques that are more suited to the production and consumption of SSH research, overcoming the most important limitations, such as the different citation behaviour of SSH when compared with natural sciences ( Hammarfelt 2014 ), the different types of outputs ( Hicks and Wang 2009 ; Torres-Salinas et al. 2013 ), the heterogeneity of the audience (scholars from international or national arena, non-scholarly audience) to which many research outputs are oriented ( Hammarfelt 2012 ) and the inadequate coverage of the existing data sets ( Archambault et al. 2006 ; Peric et al. 2013 ). The issue of building a comprehensive SSH database that encompasses domestic publications has also been explored by scholars’ literature ( Hicks and Wang 2009 ; Sivertsen and Larsen 2012 ), and within the ESF Scoping Project, pointing out needs and recommendations to implement it ( Ochner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ). Other results show that the ‘selectivity of journals in their choice of papers for publication’ and ‘journal diffusion’ are sensitive and useful indicators to measure the impact of scholarly journals in the humanities ( De Marchi and Lorenzetti 2016 ). Lepori and Probst (2009) employed a novel data gathering and analysis technique to map a heterogeneous social science field (communication studies) in a culturally, socio-political, and linguistically diverse country (Switzerland), which combined the use of data that were captured from CVs and WoS indicators.

Some scholars from SSH have also recommended the use of alternative statistics, such as using Google Scholar, to capture citations that appear in both articles and books ( Jacobs 2011 ; Prins et al. 2016 ). Others suggest that understanding the extent of the scientific impact of research, especially in SSH, may take many years due to long time-lags in expected citation patterns ( Priem et al. 2010 ), thus the use of altmetrics and similar tools to create real-time inputs about how an article or a research report is being utilized could be useful (cut/paste activities, citations in media reports, online newspapers, peer-review discussions, and blogs). These webometric indicators, such as article usage data (HTML views and PDF downloads), should also be considered in the research evaluation process. However, other scholars have pointed out that the use of altmetrics in SSH produces the same advantages for other fields of science, having the same drawbacks and shortcomings as bibliometric data ( Mohammadi and Thelwall 2014 ).

In sum, notwithstanding the efforts to use WoS data and scientometric techniques to assess the scientific impact of SSH research and the transformation of some disciplinary fields, the analysis of the literature identified many shortcomings in the proposed methods and solutions, which indicate that impact evaluations based on bibliometric resources generally underestimate the value of the SSH research outputs ( Bastow, Dunleavy and Tinkler 2014 ). Alternative metrics, methods, and data sources are being increasingly explored to understand their potential as an alternative to bibliometrics for the scientific impact assessment of SSH research. Scholars therefore have expressed interest in the new developments to understand how far they can contribute to the long-term assessment of the impact in SSH ( Ochner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ), pointing out the need to engage with scholars in the fields examined to construct appropriate indicators ( Nederhof 2006 ; KNAW 2011).

Despite the uncertainties related to properly defining social impact, there is general agreement in the literature that social impact is the change or the influence that research can have on society. The most debated problem is how this change takes place.

The literature on STEM highlights a variety of processes that research outputs follow before they can produce an impact on society. For instance, in Australia’s Research Quality Framework, definitions of research impact were co-produced with the research community and were defined as ‘adding to the social, economic, natural, and cultural capital of the nation’ ( Donovan 2008 : 54). Recent evidence coming from the 2014 Research Excellence Framework assessment of research impact in the UK show that social impact is defined as a change or a difference—positive or negative, produced by research ( Samuel and Derrick 2015 ). Weinberg and colleagues (2014) identified the effect of science funding on short-term economic activity. The authors concluded that scientific activity has an economic impact on society by identifying the number of people who are directly employed in the research and the products and goods purchased by scientific institutions. In this respect, a large consensus suggests that social/societal effects of (social) research may not only exhibit a positive nature (‘benefits’) but also exhibit a negative nature and have disadvantageous consequences.

Theoretical advances in the conceptualization of social impact have affected evaluation methodologies and indicators. In our review, we find both ex ante evaluations of research projects concerning possible social impacts and ex post evaluations that monitor the impact of research ( Holbrook and Frodeman 2011 ; Bornmann 2013 ; Social Sciences and Humanities Scientific Committees 2013). Two major groups of methods are distinguished: qualitative methods (including peer review, case studies, and surveys) and quantitative methods (development and use of statistical indicators and, in certain fields, advanced mathematical models such as econometric models). 3

In SSH research, because shortcomings affect the use of indicators, successful practices for assessing impact are generally considered to be those that combine or integrate narratives with relevant qualitative and complementary quantitative indicators to grasp the multidimensional and contextual nature of complex societal phenomena ( Spaapen, van Drooge and Sylvain 1993 ; Gabolde 1998 ; Evaluating Research in Context 2010 ; Schmoch et al. 2010 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ; Donovan 2011 ; Penfield et al. 2014 ). Assessment methods should focus on process rather than on results, which allows us ‘to identify how relevant research is conducted and the processes by which it is applied, or not’ ( Molas-Gallart and Tang 2011 ).

Bastow and colleagues (2014) discuss a range of types of impacts of social scientists via engagement with business, government, the third sector, and the public via the media. Where types of engagement can be identified, the authors conclude that an assessment of the impacts of these activities is difficult. Lam (2011) has sought to identify the types of impact of research based on the attitudes of academics towards impact, the nature of the interactions between researchers and users, and the processes of using research to inform policymaking. Literature on research utilization discusses a number of models of researcher–user interactions in SSH, which focus on the extent to which the research is led by the researcher, by the user, or based on an interactive process ( Amara, Ouimet and Landry 2004 ).

Main social impact tools emerging in the literature review

The tools in Table 1 clearly demonstrate efforts to make central the consideration of differences existing between disciplinary fields and the specificities of SSH research. In this respect, they represent a step forward in understanding hidden transformations produced within science and society—either positive or negative—during the research process and after research outputs are produced, in delivering impact, and disentangling the effects of the process of knowledge production, rather than only concentrating on impact in relation to the final outputs. Moreover, both the exclusionary and transformative dimensions of CCM (see Section 3) are likely to be included in the impact assessment.

The debate about the political impact of SSH research is held not only in social and academic fora but also as part of the political research agenda ( Meagher, Lyall and Nutley 2008 ; Lemay and Sá, 2012 ). In this review, we discuss the identified venues by which political impact is enhanced, which involve how researchers perform and communicate their research findings and how policy makers use scientific knowledge to inform their decisions. Among these mechanisms, ways in which these two worlds interact, how research agendas are policy-oriented, and the processes of co-creation are included.

6.1 Relationships between science and policy

A body of literature has been dedicated to the study of the relationship between research and politics. Boaz and Ashby (2003) have highlighted the need for changes in traditional research assessments by creating mechanisms that can be applied to identify how research generates findings that can be usefully reported to inform politics and practice. We also need to learn how policy makers use evidence from the social sciences in their practices to address social problems. According to Sanderson (2009) , better contexts can be constructed and are needed to enhance an appropriate process for policymaking. The literature also highlights that political impact is difficult to attribute to a specific research project if both researchers and players outside the research system do not participate in impact assessment (Rymer 2011). They can achieve this by producing evidence briefings that are based on systematic reviews ( Chambers et al. 2012 ) or by participating in advisory committees on legal practice and policy ( de Jong et al. 2011 ).

To understand the processes and actors behind successful policymaking that applies evidence from scientific research, some authors have emphasized exploring ‘productive interactions’ (see Section 5). Similarly, the role of different stakeholders in research has been the focus of many studies that aim to describe the most effective processes in translating evidence into political impact while considering occasional or structured partnerships among stakeholders in the scientific research process ( de Jong et al. 2011 ; Wehrens, Bekker and Bal 2012 ).

In recent years, the number of problem-oriented or policy-oriented research calls has increased in Europe. Scholars often remark that traditional indicators do not sufficiently measure policy-relevant effects when assessing the political impact of this type of research as they relate to traditional modes of knowledge production, known as Mode 1 ( Gibbons et al. 1994 ). They do not consider how research contributes to ameliorating the problems that societies face or how policymakers use evidence. Ernø-Kjølhede and Hansson (2011) conceptualized this type of policy-oriented research as Mode 2 research, i.e., transdisciplinary collaborative modes of knowledge production that is oriented towards policy and society, and highlighted the need to construct new indicators —Mode 2 indicators—to better monitor the research impact. 4

6.2 Co-production of research and research impacts

Although the main focus of the literature is on barriers to achieve political impact, some authors also point out how the co-production of research between academics and policymakers can facilitate research impact. Duijn, Rijnveld and van Hulst (2010) investigated the co-production of research between academics and policymakers, particularly in terms of negotiating complex governance processes. They believed that ‘If public managers and policy-makers become more reflective and researchers more action-oriented, they can meet in joint enquiry’ ( Duijn, Rijnveld and van Hulst 2010 : 228); thus, they championed the idea of a ‘community of inquiry’ located ‘in the middle between science and practice’ and where social scientists and practitioners can ‘co-produce knowledge to cope with practical challenges’ ( Duijn, Rijnveld and van Hulst 2010 : 230–32), a condition that is supposed to overcome the potential negative effect of policy makers that seek to reject research that does not fit with their preconceived needs. O’Hare, Coaffee and Hawkesworth (2010) highlighted the negotiated context of co-produced research and introduced the idea of academics and practitioners working together as ‘critical friends’ to ‘negotiate clear independence’ (O’Hare, Coaffee and Hawkesworth 2010: 246).

Cotterill and Richardson (2010) assessed the benefits of co-produced research with local government as a research partner, using randomized control trials. They reported a series of local-level experiments that are co-produced with policymakers and public service providers, including (1) to evaluate the promotion of household recycling participation in 6,580 households; and (2) to evaluate the impact of school-based education on the environmental attitudes and behaviours of 715 primary school students and their families in 27 primary schools. In terms of co-production, the authors concluded that ‘partners want to have equal say over the research methodology, and negotiations cover both the research and the intervention’ and as the ‘collective nature of civic interventions can militate against individual randomization’ researchers can encounter ‘ethical and moral objections from principled public service practitioners’ ( Cotterill and Richardson 2010 : 161).

From the perspective of research management from within the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Armstrong and Alsop (2010) suggest that both ex ante evaluation criteria and ex post evaluation criteria should rely on a conceptual model that includes ‘the crucial role of co-production in achieving impact’ as the ESRC’s impact evaluation work has demonstrated that ‘sustained involvement of [non-academic research] users is one of the most important determinants of policy impact’ ( Armstrong and Alsop 2010 : 209–10). They argue that the effective co-production of research entails that research end users should be ‘involved throughout the research process, from agenda-setting, through design, fieldwork and communication of outcomes’ ( Armstrong and Alsop 2010 : 209).

However, less attention has been placed on studying how these partnerships include the voices of the most vulnerable end users throughout the entire research process. Some articles provide evidence of these successful actions, which are designed via dialogue among scientists, civil society, and policy makers ( Flecha and Soler 2014 ). When these successful actions address targets in the political agenda and provide evidence of overcoming inequality (for example, by reducing school dropout or creating sustainable employment), transfer into policy tends to be smooth and attributable to a specific research project. In some examples, such as the case of the inclusion of ethnic minorities, these partnerships can shape the practice of policymaking in discussing and evaluating action plans for social inclusion ( Munté, Serradell and Sordé 2011 ).

However, a clear gap emerged in the analysis, which refers to the lack of investigation of the possible negative impacts of engagement on research agendas, and the lack of willingness of policy makers to use evidence of impact to become more reflexive.

We now summarize the main findings of the literature review presented in the article, especially the exclusionary and transformative dimensions of CCM (see Section 3), and what inhibits or allows for various types of research impact to occur.

Regarding scientific impact in SSH, scholars focused on bibliometric analyses, indicators, and tools that are related to publications, to understand the extent to which these can be applied to SSH research; the limitations that affect metrics for SSH are not yet solved and a clear knowledge gap still exists. The gap also refers to the strong orientation of the scholars’ efforts towards considering scientific impact as a change produced by a single (or a combination of) piece(s) of research, with a limited interest in deepening conditions of the research processes contributing to generating an impact in the interested fields ( Morton 2015 ).

Generally speaking, it is recognized that changes in scholarly communication are likely to transform and improve our capability to understand the scientific impact of research outputs and surpass the simple paper publication. Although new digital traces will inspire the search for new automatic metrics, understanding of the limits and possible drawbacks of metrics-only approaches in SSH is increasing. In the scientific discourse, we strive for a subtler use of indicators and its combination with qualitative methods of evaluation. The latter extends from traditional peer review to tracing narratives and success stories that are both supported by automatic means. If such an effect exists, then the role of time and timescales in deploying aspects of the impact should be considered.

In both political and social impact of SSH research and, to some extent, scientific impact, we observed an increasing trend towards responding to the demand to create new opportunities for participation and public engagement of researchers and stakeholders. Creating shared dialogical spaces and promoting processes of co-production of research between academics and policy makers are assessed as promising practices that are likely to create greater political impact, and in some cases (not all), social impact. 5

Despite significant divergence, some common elements are recognized in the reviewed literature. In terms of conceptualization, political impact refers to the transfer of research findings to the political sphere to inform decision-making or policy design, and social impact refers to the extent to which an action from a policy or a civil society-led action has actually contributed to improve identified social challenges.

Another important aspect is whether researchers generate interventions based on research findings and provide evidence on resulting social improvements, or whether researchers identify actions that have a positive impact on society and analyse their features to create possibilities for transferability. Two different perspectives emerged in the review regarding impact assessment. The first is building indicators and metrics to ‘measure’ impact, and assumes impact as a magnitude of forward progress. The second assesses the extent to which conditions for an impact to occur have been created and mobilized, and assumes that impact is an emerging property, which depends on later choices and events beyond the scholars’ immediate control. The literature shows that both avenues are explored as far as SSH research is concerned, but the latter gained more interest and consensus that the former.

Regarding problems of attributing and identifying the political and social impacts of particular pieces of research, the literature review has demonstrated the need for additional improvements in methods, techniques, metrics, and methodologies to better grasp the impact of research in SSH fields. Despite the technical limitations, we have identified a transformation of the scientific community in being increasingly aware of not only the crucial importance of achieving these types of impacts but also their responsibility to gather evidence and information to support impact claims. For instance, evidence emerged in the literature on the contribution and impact of SSH research on policies related to social problems, such as social exclusion, gender discrimination, and other relevant social challenges ( Larivière et al. 2013 ; Rawlings and McFarland 2011 ; Sordé-Martì et al. 2014), demonstrating possibilities for such data collection.

Last but not least, the analysis found that SS research was well represented in the specialized literature on political and social impacts. This finding applies to the humanities in more recent time, a delay that may be attributed to the characteristics of the epistemic communities that are included within the humanities, and are traditionally less focused on demonstrating an ‘impact’ to external stakeholders ( Ochsner et al. 2013 ). There are also signals that the interest in SSH research on impact assessment is likely to improve in the future. For instance, the recent HERAVALUE project under the FP7 noted that ‘there is evidence of a genuine commitment to A&HR, and that policymakers and the academy are inching towards a common language’ ( Hazelkorn 2014 : 27), and the more recent literature demonstrates important efforts of scholars to critically engage with the problem of impact in SSH research ( Ochsner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ; Levitt et al., 2010 ).

The main purpose of this article was to shed light on how scholars have dealt with the problem of assessing the impact of SSH research, and whether impact assessment approaches and techniques developed for STEM disciplines can legitimately be used for SSH.

The analysis shows that scientific impact has gained a space in the literature of SSH; however, the predominant methods tend to underestimate the value of SSH research outputs because efforts fail to properly take into account the distinctive features of SSH research that differ from the natural sciences. In addition, the presence of adverse feelings of SSH scholars about quantifications and indicators ( Ochner, Hug and Daniel 2016 ) still emerge in the analysis.

Some recent pieces of literature provide evidence that the most important and unavoidable social contributions of SSH are in providing an understanding of shared values, improving social awareness—also in an historical perspective—of our common cultural heritage, and the maintenance over the generations of the constitutive elements of our society ( Small 2013 ). In this respect the separation between SSH and other fields is a category mistake, since all contribute to the human well-being ( Bod 2013 ).

We have identified areas that require additional exploration in future studies. First, as social impact and political assessments are already performed in several national contexts and other initiatives with substantial differences, the need to produce systematic and comparable assessments of these processes is evident ( Price and Peterson 2016 ).

Secondly, although each process for assessing the social impact of SSH research has different levels of development in different countries, considerable improvements in terms of identifying and analysing convergences affecting these processes are needed.

Lastly, a third area involves the investigation of why research does not achieve an envisioned impact (scientific, political, or social). The surveyed literature addressed either methodological issues that are related to the assessment of impact of SSH, or impact assessments using different methods. In the latter case, almost all studies emphasize the transformative dimension by demonstrating how impact has been achieved and how metrics and methodological approaches are likely to determine the change produced by research. Failure is unacceptable and rendered invisible, and so the exclusionary dimension does not emerge as a central item to be assessed. A possible explanation may be that scholars generally consider outputs to be publishable to represent successful positive achievements. Another explanation may be that the collective literature aims to show unintended and negative consequences of existing assessment approaches rather than searching for explanations of the lack of impact. A further possibility is the long-term perspective of impact in SSH research, which considers impact a normal effect of research ( Ochsner et al. 2013 ) but occurring at a time that can be very distant from the research activities and is therefore difficult to investigate. Thus, the exclusionary dimension is a topic that deserves special attention and may inform future investigations.

This study was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (FP7/2014-2017) under grant agreement number 613202 (IMPACT-EV Evaluating the Impact and Outcomes of European SSH Research).

Flash-it is a project funded under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme that seeks, among other things, to standardize, analyse, synthesizes, and disseminate research results by creating a SSH network and the technological tools necessary to facilitate this.

These developments also affect the analysis of SSH research impact. A pioneer in the area of open access, which also explores altmetrics, is the Public Library of Science PLOS Medicine Editors, 2006. The PLOS explores tools to track the post-publication reception of any research ( Fenner 2014 ). This process has also been promoted by SSH scholars to generate Open Access initiatives, such as the Public Knowledge Project ( MacGregor, Stranack and Willinsky 2014 ).

See, for instance, a previous literature review of the societal impact of research ( Gibbons et al. 1994 ; Newby 1994; Hanney, Packwood and Buxton 2000 ; Hessels and Lente 2010 ; de Jong et al. 2011 ; Holbrook and Frodeman 2011 ; United States Government Accountability Office 2012 ; Bornmann 2013 ).

The Mode 1 and Mode 2 concepts originally comes from Gibbons et al. (1994) .

One recent example from the impact assessment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council in UK, in which the impact of Arts and Humanities Research was assessed regarding contributions to the development of creative industries, cultural engagement, new skills enhancement, and collaborative opportunities to sustain the emergence of new ideas and perspectives (AHRC 2015).

Amara N. , Ouimet M. , Landry R. ( 2004 ) ‘ New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies ’, Science Communication , 26 : 75 .

Google Scholar

Archambault E. et al.  ( 2006 ) ‘ Benchmarking Scientific Output in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Limits of Existing Databases ’, Scientometrics , 68 / 3 : 329 – 42 .

Armstrong F. , Alsop A. ( 2010 ) ‘ Debate: Co-Production can Contribute to Research Impact in the Social Sciences ’, Public Money and Management , 30 / 4 : 208 – 10 .

Arnold E. ( 2004 ) ‘ Evaluating Research and Innovation Policy: A Systems World Needs Systems Evaluations ’, Research Evaluation , 13 / 1 : 3 – 17 . doi:10.3152/147154404781776509.

AHRC-Arts and Humanities Research Council . ( 2015 ), The Impact of AHRC Research 2013-2014. Swindon: AHRC.

Barré R. ( 2001 ) ‘ The Agora Model of Innovation Systems, S&T Indicators for a Democratic Knowledge Society ’, Research Evaluation , 10 / 1 : 13 – 18 .

Bastow S. , Dunleavy P. , Tinkler J. ( 2014 ) The Impact of the Social Sciences . Los Angeles; London; New Dehli; Singapore; Washington, DC : SAGE .

Google Preview

Beck U. ( 1992 ) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity . London : SAGE .

Benneworth P. ( 2015 ) ‘ Tracing How Arts and Humanities Research Translates, Circulates and Consolidates in Society. How Have Scholars Been Reacting to Diverse Impact and Public Value Agendas? ’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education , 14 / 1 : 45 – 60 .

Berubé M. ( 2002 ) ‘ The Utility of the Arts and Humanities ’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education , 2 / 1 : 23 – 40 .

Blockmans W. , Engwall L. , Weaire D. ( 2014 ). Bibliometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance: Proceedings from a symposium held in Stockholm, 23-25 May 2013 . London: Portland Press.

Boaz A. , Ashby D. ( 2003 ) ‘Fit for Purpose? Assessing Research Quality for Evidence Based Policy and Practice’, Working Paper 11. UK: ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.

Bod R. ( 2013 ) A New History of the Humanities . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Borgman C. et al.  ( 1990 ) Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics . Newbury Park : Sage .

Borgman C. et al.  ( 2007 ) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Bornmann L. ( 2013 ) ‘ What is Societal Impact of Research and How can it be Assessed? A Literature Survey ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 / 2 : 217 – 33 .

Bornmann L. ( 2014 ) Measuring the Broader Impact of Research: The Potential of Altmetrics. Digital Libraries; Physics and Society; Applications. < http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7091 >.

Braun T. , Glänzel W. , Schubert A. ( 2006 ) ‘ A Hirsch-Type Index for Journals ’, Scientometrics , 69 / 1 : 169 – 73 .

Brewer J. D. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Impact of Impact ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 255 – 6 .

Buxton M. , Hanney S. ( 1994 ) Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research and Development: Preliminary Report. Volume 1: The Main Report . Uxbridge : HERG, Brunel University .

Buxton M. , Hanney S. ( 1996 ) ‘ How Can Payback from Health Services Research Be Assessed? ’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy , 1 / 1 : 35 – 43 .

Buxton M. , Hanney S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Evaluating the NHS Research and Development Programme: Will the Programme Give Value for Money? ’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 91 Suppl. 3 / 35 : 2 – 6 .

Chambers D. et al.  ( 2012 ) ‘ Use of Evidence from Systematic Reviews to Inform Commissioning Decisions: A Case Study ’, Policy and Evidence , 8 / 2 : 141 – 8 .

Cotterill S. , Richardson L. ( 2010 ) ‘ Expanding the Use of Experiments on Civic Behaviour: Experiments with Local Government as a Research Partner ’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 628 : 148 – 64 .

De Bellis N. ( 2009 ) Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics . Lanham, MD : Scarecrow Press .

De Jong S. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Evaluation of Research in Context: An Approach and Two Cases ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 1 : 61 – 72 .

De Jong S. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Understanding Societal Impact Through Productive Interactions: ICT Research as a Case ’, Research Evaluation , 23 / 2 : 89 – 102 .

De Marchi M. , Lorenzetti E. ( 2016 ) ‘ Measuring the Impact of Scholarly Journals in the Humanities Field ’, Scientometrics , 106 : 253 – 61 .

de Rijcke S. et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 25 : 161 – 9 . doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv038.

Donovan C. ( 2005 ) ‘ The Governance of Social Science and Everyday Epistemology ’, Public Administration , 83 / 3 : 597 – 615 .

Donovan C. ( 2007 ) ‘ Guest Editor’s Introduction: Future Pathways for Science Policy and Research Assessment: Metrics vs Peer Review, Quality vs Impact ’, Science and Public Policy , 34 / 8 : 538 – 42 .

Donovan C. ( 2008 ) ‘ The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research ’, New Directions for Evaluation , 118 : 47 – 60 .

Donovan C. ( 2011 ) ‘ State of the Art in Assessing Research Impact: Introduction to a Special Issue ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 175 – 9 .

Donovan C. , Hanney S. ( 2011 ) ‘ The ′Payback Framework′ Explained ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 181 – 3 .

Duijn M. , Rijnveld M. , van Hulst M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Meeting in the Middle: Joining Reflection and Action in Complex Public Sector Projects ’, Public Money and Management , 30 / 4 : 227 – 33 .

Elboj C. ( 2014 ) ‘ In the Path to Regaining Social Sciences Legitimacy Through Public Sociology ’, International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences , 3 / 2 : 158 – 81 .

Ernø-Kjølhede E. , Hansson F. ( 2011 ) ‘ Measuring Research Performance During a Changing Relationship Between Science and Society ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 2 : 130 – 42 . doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876544.

ESRC . ( 2010 ). Research Performance and Economic Impact Report 2010/II. < http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/research/research-and-impact-evaluation/research-performance-and-economic-impact-report-2010-11/  >.

European Commission . ( 2005 ) Assessing the Social and Environmental Impacts of European Research . Brussels : Directorate-General for Research, European Communities .

Evaluating Research in Context (ERiC) . ( 2010 ) Evaluating the Societal Relevance of Academic Research: A Guide . Delft, The Netherlands : Delft University of Technology .

Fenner M. ( 2014 ) ‘Altmetrics and Other Novel Measures for Scientific Impact’, in: Bartling S. , Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science , pp. 179 – 89 . Dordrecht : Springer .

Flecha R. ( 2014 ) ‘¿Cómo conseguir o aumentar el Impacto de los proyectos y cómo liderar un proyecto de referencia?/How to improve the social impact of the projects?’, Horizonte 2020 y Patrimonio Cultural: Investigación e Innovación, 03/31/2014, Madrid, Spain.

Flecha R. , Soler M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Communicative Methodology: Successful Actions and Dialogic Politics ’, Current Sociology , 62 / 2 : 232 – 42 .

Flecha R. , Soler-Gallart M. , Sordé T. ( 2015 ) ‘ Social Impact: Europe Must Fund Social Science ’, Nature , 528 : 193. doi:10.1038/528193d.

Fletcha R. ( 2015 ). Successful Educational Actions for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe . Dordrect : Springer .

Forbes I. , Abrams D. ( 2004 ) ‘ International Social Science Research: Craft Industry or Baby Behemoth? ’, International Social Science Journal , 56 / 180 : 227 – 44 .

Gabolde J. ( 1998 ) ‘ New Challenges for Indicators in Science and Technology Policy-Making: A European View ’, Research Evaluation , 7 / 2 : 99 – 104 .

Garfield E. ( 1980 ) ‘ Is Information Retrieval in the Arts and Humanities Inherently Different from That in Science? ’, The Library Quarterly , 50 : 40 – 57 .

Garfield E. ( 2006 ) ‘ The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor ’, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association , 295 / 1 : 90 – 3 . doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.

Gibbons M. et al.  ( 1994 ) The New Production of Knowldege. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies . London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi : Sage .

Glänzel W. , Moed H. F. ( 2002 ) ‘ Journal Impact Measures in Bibliometric Research ’, Scientometrics , 53 / 2 : 171 – 93 . doi:10.1023/A:1014848323806.

Godin B. , Doré C. ( 2005 ) ‘Measuring the Impacts of Science; Beyond the Economic Dimension, INRS Urbanisation, Culture et Sociult’, HIST Lecture . Helsinki, Finland : Helsinki Institute for Science and Technology Studies .

Gómez A. , Puigvert L. , Flecha R. ( 2011 ) ‘ Critical Communicative Methodology: Informing Real Social Transformation Through Research ’, Qualitative Inquiry , 17 / 3 : 235 – 45 . doi: 10.1177/1077800410397802.

González-Pereira B. , Guerrero-Bote V. P. , Moya-Arnegón F. ( 2010 ) ‘ A New Approach to the Metric of Jounals’ Scientific Prestige: The SJR Indicator ’, Journal of Informetrics , 4 / 3 : 379 – 91 . doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002.

Guetzkow J. , Lamont M. , Mallard G. ( 2004 ) ‘ What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences? ’, American Sociological Review , 69 : 190 – 2012 .

Hammarfelt B. ( 2012 ). ‘Following the Footnotes: A Bibliometric Analysis of Citation Patterns in Literary Studies’, Doctoral dissertation. Skrifter utgivna vid institutionen för ABM vid Uppsala Universitet, Vol. 5 . Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. < http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:511996/FULLTEXT01.pdf >.

Hammarfelt B. ( 2014 ) ‘ Using Altmetrics for Assessing Research Impact in the Humanities ’, Scientometrics , 101 / 2 : 1419 – 30 .

Hanney S. , Packwood T. , Buxton M. ( 2000 ) ‘ Evaluating the Benefits from Health Research and Development Centres: A Categorization, a Model, and Examples of Application ’, Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice , 6 : 137 – 60 .

Hazelkorn E. ( 2014 ). ‘ Making an Impact: New Directions for Arts and Humanities Research ’, Articles. Paper 51. http://arrow.dit.ie/cserart/51 .

Henshall C. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Impact of Payback Research: Developing and Using Evidence in Policy ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 257 – 8 .

Hessels L. K. , Lente H. ( 2010 ) ‘ The Mixed Blessing of Mode 2 Knowledge Production ’, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies , 6 / 1 : 65 – 9 .

Hicks D. ( 2004 ). ‘The Four Literatures of Social Science’, in Moed H. F. , Glänzel W. , Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , pp. 473 – 96 . The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publisher .

Hicks D. , Wang J. ( 2009 ). Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities . School of Public Policy : Georgia University of Technology . < https://works.bepress.com/diana_hicks/18/ >.

Hicks D. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics ’, Nature , 520 / 7548 : 429 – 31 .

Hirsch J. E. ( 2005 ) ‘ An Index to Quantify and Individual’s Scientific Research Output ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 102 / 46 : 16569 – 72 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

Holbrook J. B. , Frodeman R. ( 2011 ) ‘ Peer Review and the ex ante Assessment of Societal Impacts ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 239 – 46 .

Jacobs J. A. ( 2011 ) ‘Journal Rankings in Sociology: Using the H Index with Google Scholar’, PSC Working Paper Series, PSC 11-05 . Philadelphia : Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania .

Joerges B. , Shinn T. ( 2001 ) Instrumentation: Between Science, State, and Industry . Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers .

Klautzer L. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Assessing Policy and Practice Impacts of Social Science Research: The Application of the Payback Framework to Assess the Future of Work programme ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 201 – 9 .

KNAW—Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences . ( 2011 ). Quality Indicators for Research in the Humanities . Amsterdam : KNAW .

Kuhlmann S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Moderation of Policy Making? Science and Technology Policy Evaluation Beyond Impact Measurement—The Case of Germany ’, Evaluation , 4 / 2 : 192 – 205 .

Lam A. ( 2011 ) ‘ What Motivates Academic Scientists to Engage in Research Commercialization: ‘Gold’ ‘Ribbon’ or ‘Puzzle’? ’, Research Policy , 40 : 1354 – 68 .

Larivière V. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Bibliometrics: Global Gender Disparities in Science ’, Nature , 504 / 7479 : 211 – 13 . doi:10.1038/504211a.

Lemay M. A. , Sá C. ( 2012 ) ‘ Complexity Sciences: Towards an Alternative Approach to Understanding the Use of Academic Research ’, Evidence and Policy , 8 / 4 : 473 – 94 .

Lepori B. , Probst C. ( 2009 ) ‘ Using Curricula Vitae for Mapping Scientific Fields: A small-Scale Experience for Swiss Communication Sciences ’, Research Evaluation , 18 / 2 : 125 – 34 .

Levitt R. et al.  ( 2010 ) Assessing the Impact of Arts and Humanities Research at the University of Cambridge . Cambridge : RAND Europe .

Leydesdorff L. , Hammarfelt B. , Salah A. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Structure of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index: A Mapping on the Basis of Aggregated Citations Among 1,157 Journals ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 62 : 2414 – 26 . doi:10.1002/asi.21636.

MacGregor J. , Stranack K. , Willinsky J. ( 2014 ) ‘The Public Knowledge Project: Open Source Tools for Open Acces to Scholarly Communication’, in Bartling S. , Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science , pp. 165 – 75 . Dordrecht : Springer .

Meagher L. , Lyall C. , Nutley S. ( 2008 ) ‘ Flows of Knowledge, Experitise and Influence: A Method for Assessing Policy and Practice Impacts from Social Science Research ’, Research Evaluation , 17 / 3 : 163 – 73 .

Molas-Gallart J. , Tang P. ( 2011 ) ‘ Tracing "Productive Interactions" to Identify Social Impacts: An Example from the Social Sciences ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 219 – 26 .

Molas-Gallart J. ( 2015 ) ‘ Research Evaluation and the Assessment of Public Value ’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education , 14 / 1 : 111 – 26 .

Mohammadi E. , Thelwall M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Mendeley Readership Altmetrics for the Social Sciences and Humanities: Research Evaluation and Knowledge Flows ’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 65 / 8 : 1627 – 38 .

Morton S. ( 2015 ) ‘ Progressing Research Impact Assessment: A ‘Contributions’ Approach ’, Research Evaluation , 24 : 405 – 19 .

Munté A. , Serradell O. , Sordé T. ( 2011 ) ‘ From Research to Policy: Roma Participation Through Communicative Organization ’, Qualitative Inquiry , 17 / 3 : 256 – 66 .

Nederhof A. J. ( 2006 ) ‘ Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review ’, Scientometrics , 66 / 1 : 81 – 100 .

Nedeva M. , Braun D. , Edler J. , Glaser J. , Laredo P. , Laredo G. , Luukkonen T. , Stampfer M. , Thomas D. , Whitley R. ( 2012 ) ‘ Understanding and Assessing the Impact and Outcomes of the European Research Council and its Funding Schemes. European Research Council ’, http://erc.europa.eu/documents/understanding-and-assessing-impact-and-outcomes-erc-and-its-funding-schemes-eurecia-final- .

Newby H. ( 1994 ) ‘ The challenge for social science: a new role in public policy-making ’, Research Evaluation , 4 / 1 : 6 – 11 .

Nussbaum M. ( 2010 ) Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities . Princeton : Princeton University Press .

Ochsner M. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Four Types of Research in the Humanities: Setting the Stage for Research Quality Criteria ’, Research Evaluation , 22 : 369 – 83 .

Ochsner M. , Hug S. E. , Daniel H. D. (eds) ( 2016 ). Research and Assessment in the Humanities. Toward criteria and Procedures . Switzerland : Springer .

O'Hare P. , Coaffee J. , Hawkesworth M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Managing Sensitive Relations in Co-produced Panning Research ’, Public Money and Management , 30 / 4 : 243 – 50 .

Penfield T. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Assessment, Evaluations, and Definitions of Research Impact: A Review ’, Research Evaluation , 23 / 1 : 21 – 32 .

Peric B. et al.  ( 2013 ). Arts and Humanities Research Assessment Bibliography (AHRABi) . Zurich : ETH Zurich .

PLoS Medicine Editors . ( 2006 ) ‘ The Impact Factor Game ’, PLoS Medicine , 3 / 6 : e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.

Price A. M. , Peterson L. P. ( 2016 ) ‘ Scientific Progress, Risk, and Development: Explaining Attitudes Toward Science Cross-Nationally ’, International Sociology , 31 / 1 : 57 – 80 .

Price D. J. S. ( 1963 ) Little science, big science . New York : Columbia Univ. Press .

Priem J. T. et al.  ( 2010 ) Altmetrics: A manifesto. < http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ >.

Prins A. A. M. et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Using Google Scholar in Research Evaluation of Humanities and Social Science Programs: A Comparison with Web of Science Data ’, Research Evaluation , 25 / 3 : 264 – 70 .

Rawlings C. M. , McFarland D. A. ( 2011 ) ‘ Influence Flows in the Academy: Using Affiliation Networks to Assess Peer Effects Among Researchers ’, Social Science Research , 40 / 3 : 1001 – 17 . doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.10.002.

Reale E. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Evaluation Through Impact: A Different Viewpoint ’, Fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation , 39 : 36 – 41 .

Rymer L. ( 2011 ) ‘Measuring the Impact of Research–the Context for Metric Development’, in The Group of Eight (ed.), Go8 Backgounder , Vol. 23 . Turner : ACT .

Samuel G. N. , Derrick G. ( 2015 ) ‘ Societal Impact Evaluation: Exploring Evaluator Perceptions of the Characterization of Impact Under the REF2014 ’, Research Evaluation , 24 : 229 – 41 .

Sanderson I. ( 2009 ) ‘ Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning ’, Political Studies , 57 / 4 : 699 – 719 .

Scharnhorst A. , Wouters P. , van den Besselaar P. ( 2006 ) ‘ What Does the Web Represent? From Virtual Ethnography to Web Indicators ’, Special Issue of Cybermetrics , 10 / 1 : 1 – 3 .

Scharnhorst A. , Garfield E. ( 2010 ) ‘ Tracing Scientific Influence ’, Journal of Dynamics of Socio-Economic Systems , 2 / 1 : 1 – 33 .

Schmoch U. et al.  ( 2010 ) ‘ How to Use Indicators to Measure Scientific Performance: A Balanced Approach ’, Research Evaluation , 19 / 1 : 2 – 18 .

SIAMPI. ( 2011 ) Social Impact Assessment Methods for Research and Funding Instruments Through the Study of Productive Interactions . Final report. < http://www. siampi.edu/ >.

Sivertsen G. , Larsen B. ( 2012 ) ‘ Comprehensive Bibliographic Coverage of the Social Sciences and Humanities in a Citation Index: An Empirical Analysis of the Potential ’, Scientometrics , 91 : 567 – 75 .

Small H. ( 2013 ) The Value of the Humanities . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Social Sciences and Humanities Scientific Committees. ( 2013 ) Humanities and Social Sciences in Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges: Implementation and Monitoring. < http://www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/PublicDocumentsAndSpeeches/SSH_Horizon2020_WEB_fin.pdf >.

Sordé-Martí T. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Solidarity Networks that Challenge Racialized Discourses: The Case of Romani Immigrant Women in Spain ’, European Journal of Women’s Studies , 21 / 1 : 87 – 102 .

Spaapen J. , van Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing "Productive Interactions" in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 211 – 18 .

Spaapen J. , van Drooge L. , Sylvain C. ( 1993 ) ‘ Assessing the Value of Research for Society ’, Research Evaluation , 3 / 2 : 117 – 26 .

Torres-Salinas D. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Mapping Citation Patterns of Book Chapters in the Book Citation Index ’, Journal of Informetrics , 7 / 2 : 412 – 24 . doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.004.

United States Government Accountability Office . ( 2012 ) Designing Evaluations . Washington, DC : United States Government Accountability Office .

Valls R. , Padrós M. ( 2011 ) ‘ Using Dialogic Research to Overcome Poverty: From Principles to Action ’, European Journal of Education , 46 / 2 : 173 – 83 .

Wehrens R. , Bekker M. , Bal R. ( 2012 ) ‘ Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health: Development Through Time—Issues, Dilemmas and Coping Strategies ’, Evidence and Policy , 8 / 2 : 149 – 70 .

Weinberg B. A. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Science Funding and Short-Term Economic Activity ’, Science , 344 / 6179 : 41 – 3 .

Weingart P. , Schwechheimer H. ( 2007 ) Conceptualizing and Measuring Excellence in the Social Sciences and Humanities . Global SSH. < www.globalsocialscience.org  >. 

Whitley R. ( 2000 ) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Wooding S. E. et al.  ( 2007 ) Policy and practice impacts of research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. A case study of the Future of Work programme, approach and analysis . < http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR435.pdf >.

Wouters P. , Costas R. ( 2012 ) Users, Narcissism and Control—Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21 st century. < http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx >.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5449
• Print ISSN 0958-2029
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• 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.

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, 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." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2024

The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers’ research motivation in China

• Yanping Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-7132 1 ,
• Lawrence Jun Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1025-1746 2 &
• Naashia Mohamed 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  942 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

700 Accesses

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Teachers at Higher Education (HE) institutions are expected to do research. However, the level of motivation to engage in research varies with various institutional factors affecting teachers’ research motivation. Previous research has shown the need to better understand these factors to facilitate teachers’ research motivation. This mixed methods study with 536 English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher participants from Chinese universities investigates the relationship between mentorship, working environment and teachers’ research motivation. Our analysis of the questionnaire data using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) shows the significant influence of working environments on teachers’ research motivation. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and diaries were thematically analysed to reveal that the examined factors have different impacts on teachers’ research motivation on the basis of different university types. Both mentorship and working environments had an influence on teachers’ research motivation. Teachers from “Project 985” and “Project 211” universities had a more supportive working environment than those teachers at ordinary/regular universities who appeared to have insufficient mentorship, poor working environments, inadequate time support, and deficient opportunities to attend academic conferences that affected these teachers’ research motivation negatively. The implications of our study are that university administrators and policymakers could develop practical mentorship programmes with effective assessment measurements of the mentoring process and stipulate relevant policies to provide conducive working environments, especially for teachers from ordinary/regular universities, to enhance teachers’ research motivation and improve their research productivity.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring the employment motivation, job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of university English instructors in public institutions: a Chinese case study analysis

‘Making it possible’: the complex dynamics of university foreign language teacher agency for research in funding applications

A quantitative study on the impact of working environment on the well-being of teachers in China’s private colleges

Introduction.

Research is, and has long been, a central activity of universities (Brew and Lucas 2009 ). The research productivity of universities is an important or key performance index when it comes to their ranking either at home or abroad, and it is also well recognised as an indication of their influence and competitiveness (Morze et al. 2022 ). Higher education (HE) institutions are engaged in a toxic race to reach the prestigious rankings that bring in revenue and status. Amidst this competitive climate, HE teachers are under pressure to perform while institutions struggle to attain the status of world-class research universities (Sondari et al. 2016 ). Faculty members at universities are expected to publish not only nationally but also internationally (Anderson and Shannon 1988 ; Lucas and Murry 2016 ) with the aphorism “publish or perish” used to indicate the reality of the pressures that academics endure (Zhang 2021 ; Nygaard 2017 ). Teachers’ research performance also determines their promotion and job security; therefore, teachers struggled to publish their work in peer-review journals, and most often in highly-ranked journals, those covered in indexes such as the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), or the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Zhou et al. 2022 ).

Given that academic publications are predominantly in English, maintaining the level of high-quality publications is a particular challenge for universities in non-English dominant countries. For example, according to the Google Scholar metrics, the top 100 journals publish research in 11 languages, including Japanese, Korean, Polish, etc., but not in Chinese. When comparing with other countries, such as Spain, India, Swiss and so on, in Google Scholar metrics, we can see that public access to Chinese academics’ publications is the lowest (51%) from 2019 to 2021. It seems that Chinese academics’ research is not as widely disseminated as that of scholars from other countries. This is mainly because Chinese EFL academics have been reported to have fewer records in research compared to teachers of other disciplines in the social sciences (Borg 2009 ; Peng and Gao 2019 ). The existing literature has revealed various factors influencing teachers’ research productivity from individual and institutional perspectives (Heng Hamid and Khan 2020 ). These factors include research competency (Prado 2019 ), research self-efficacy (Randazzo et al. 2021 ), research motivation (Borg 2015 ; Borg and Liu 2013 ; Stupnisky et al. 2022 ), socialisation of teachers (Hedjazi and Behravan 2011 ; Nguyen 2022 ), demographics (age, gender, qualification, rank), and teachers’ working experiences (Farooqi et al. 2019 ; Hedjazi and Behravan 2011 ); institutional factors involving working environments (Li and Zhang, 2022 ); time allocation (Barber et al. 2021 ); extra administrative duties and institutional support (Randazzo et al. 2021 ; Sakarkaya 2022 ; Uwizeye et al. 2022 ); financial support (Randazzo et al. 2021 ); institutional culture and inadequate mentoring (Okon et al. 2022 ); research skills training (Kyaw 2021 ) and collaboration among teachers (Owan et al. 2023 ). Although many scholars studied individual-level research productivity and factors that contributed to its increase (Duc et al. 2020 ; Gironzetti and Muṅoz-Basols 2022 ; Nygaard 2017 ), few have been reported that are relevant to an EFL context in developing countries (Noorollahi 2021 ; Owan et al. 2023 ).

As it is known, China is a developing country with many changes in its educational sector. There are 3472 higher education institutions (HEIs), including 2688 regular HEIs and 784 non-government (private) HEIs (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2020). Traditionally, these HEIs are categorised into the following types: “Project 985” universities (39 universities), “Project 211” universities (116 universities), ordinary/regular universities and colleges. “Projects 985/211” universities are considered top-tier institutions in China, with “Project 985” universities being established as elite institutions derived from the “Project 211” universities. The government allocates varying financial budgets to different types of universities, with higher-level institutions receiving larger budgets (MoE 2007 ). The MoE proposed the “Double First-class” university initiative in 2017, with the objective of establishing first-class universities and disciplines of the world (MoE 2017). This initiative encompasses all universities under the “Projects 985/211” umbrella. Notably, it diverges from the “Projects 985/211” framework by employing a dynamic university list subject to reassessment every five years (MoE 2017). Universities failing to meet the specified criteria are subject to removal from the “Double First-class” designation. In our current study, conventional categorisation was employed to ensure the reliability and consistency of the results.

Among those factors, motivation has been reported to be one of the most influential factors for teachers’ research productivity (Borg 2015; Borg and Liu 2013 ), teachers with a stronger research motivation show better research performance (Duc et al. 2020 ; Nguyen et al. 2021 ). Nevertheless, most available studies merely focused on teachers’ general research behaviours, few of them specialising in their research motivation in China (Liu 2016 ; Zhou et al. 2022 ). Zhang ( 2014 ) proposed that the contextual factors need to be considered when studying human dynamics because they are not isolated but associated with the culture of their organisations. Employees accomplish their work within the created context of organisational culture (Nguyen et al. 2021 ). When individuals show motivation naturally, it indicates that the organisation has created a conducive work environment and ambiance to promote their motivation (Duc et al. 2020 ). However, the level of teachers’ research motivation is various with diverse factors affecting their research motivation. These include demographic factors, gender (Tran et al. 2021 ), age (Henry et al. 2020 ; Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ), rank (Heng et al. 2020 ), qualification (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), years of employment (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), intrinsic factors including research interests (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), research capability and expectation (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), satisfaction and acquiring new knowledge (Zhou et al. 2022 ), enjoyment and collaboration (Yuan et al. 2016 ), sense of creativity-curiosity (Chen and Zhao, 2013 ) and extrinsic factors involving tenure (Miller et al. 2011 ), solving teaching problems (Yuan et al. 2016 ), promotion (Heng et al. 2020 ), organisational support (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), salary increase (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), rewards and punishments (Zhou et al. 2022 ), teachers’ education or experience (Sun and Zhang 2022 ), administrative post (Tran et al. 2021 ), and job security (Tian and Lu 2017 ). Although diverse factors have been studied affecting teachers’ motivation for conducting research, institutional support can be prioritised (Randazzo et al. 2021 ). Sakarkaya ( 2022 ) found that institutional support is one of the most prevalent barriers to teachers’ research in Turkey, which is supported by Borg and Alshumaimeri’s ( 2012 ) and Kyaw’s ( 2021 ) studies. However, Randazzo et al. ( 2021 ) found teachers’ research motivation is positively related to institutional support in the United States. It corresponds to Randazzo et al.’s ( 2021 ) study that proper institutional support significantly drives teachers’ research. With inconsistent findings from different countries, further studies are needed to explore the impact of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation in different contexts. Additionally, as existing studies mostly showed pure quantitative or qualitative conclusions (Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ; Yuan et al. 2016 ), there is a need for a mixed-methods study to explore both the general situation of institutional support for Chinese EFL teachers and how it affects their research motivation (Liu 2016 ). Accordingly, our study investigates the influence of institutional support on motivation among academics in China, a typical EFL context in which English is seldom used as a working language or informally for daily communication. It also aims to explore the significant measures to promote Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation.

Literature review

Teachers’ research motivation.

Motivation refers to “the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritised, operationalised, and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (Dörnyei and Ottó 1998 , p.65). In other words, it initiates people’s behaviour and directs, energises, sustains, and eventually terminates the action (Graham and Weiner 2012 ). Motivation research in general education and applied linguistics has a history of more than 60 years (Al-Hoorie 2017 ). However, the study on teachers’ motivation only has a relatively short history of over 20 years (Han and Yin 2016 ), and these primarily focus on aspects of motivation related to teaching (Liu 2016 ). Teachers’ research motivation was proposed for the first time just over a decade ago by Borg ( 2007 ). To date, few studies have examined teachers’ research motivation (Liu 2016 ). Existing studies pay more attention to how research motivation affects teachers’ research; however, the exploration of what factors affect teachers’ research motivation becomes an urgent task (Zhou et al. 2022 ).

In the current study, we follow scholars’ definition of motivation, which is traditionally divided into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Dornyei and Ushioda 2011 ). Intrinsic motivation refers to the internal fascination and gratification of the activity itself as the main reasons to attract people to engage in an activity, while extrinsic motivation means incentives or external pressures that attract people to pursue an activity (Reeve 1995 ). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are essential to teachers’ research engagement but have significant differences in different contexts (Borg 2007 , 2009 ; Borg and Alshumaimeri 2012 ; Borg and Liu 2013 ). For example, Borg ( 2007 ) found that intrinsic motivation was more significant than extrinsic motivation in Turkey. In contrast, in the replicative survey, extrinsic motivation occupied a greater position than intrinsic motivation in China (Borg and Liu 2013 ). However, the reasons why intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is more significant are not clear because of the lack of follow-up in-depth studies. According to Han and Yin ( 2016 ), teachers’ research motivation varies in different contexts, and the investigation into motivation in the Chinese context is a scarcity. Drawing on the previous literature, this study uses mixed methods and concentrates on the current states of Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation and institutional factors that positively or negatively impact it.

Institutional support for research

Research support can be defined as any provided resource that can boost the ability of a faculty member’s engagement in scholarship (McGill and Settle 2012 ). The provided support for teachers’ research affects their research motivation. For example, the disconnect between the institutions’ rhetoric and their actual actions affected teachers’ engagement and motivation for research (Randazzo et al. 2021 ). In China, Luo and Hyland ( 2016 ) found that a lack of institutional support was one of the main reasons why university teachers’ manuscripts cannot be published and/or are cited less often, even if they are published. A proper organisational work environment of the department, such as effective policies, reasonable structure, and supportive resources for the job (including incentives, practical goals, skills, and staffing), is necessary for any significant research (Bland et al. 2005 ). Given these justifications, the current study investigates how institutional support in Chinese universities concerning time-related support, funding-related support, training-related support, and working environment support affect teachers’ research motivation and engagement.

Time-related and funding-related support

Time constraint has been regarded as one of the constraints of being research-engaged for teachers (Borg and Alshumaimeri 2012 ; Kyaw 2021 ), which is a common phenomenon in many contexts (Borg 2006 ). For example, although teachers in Chile were willing to access and utilise research, they collectively stated that they lacked time to search for materials, read articles, and attend conferences (Sato and Loewen 2019 ). In accordance with Davey’s ( 2013 ) findings, teachers complained that their formal working hours were occupied by attending school activities, which hindered teachers from indulging in research-related activities. In such a situation, teachers understandably struggled to devote their time to research. Because of that, some researchers emphasised the necessity of separating research from teaching hours in faculty time allocation (Creswell 1985 ). As Kyaw ( 2021 ) found, the research activities were impeded by unbalanced workloads rather than heavy teaching loads in Myanmar. As a consequence, it was imperative that universities arrange schedules that allowed teachers to have sufficient time to gather resources and conduct research (Graves et al. 1982 ).

In addition, the allocation of funding for research was output-driven (Nundulall and Dorasamy, 2010 ). According to Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ), in Iran, lack of funds was the second main reason teachers scarcely conducted research. McGill and Settle ( 2012 ) discovered that American and Canadian teachers who received more institutional funding were more likely to engage in research. At the same time, Randazzo et al. ( 2021 ) found that the research endeavours of American researchers were limited because not many people were keen to submit grant applications. The shortage of financial support led to a lack of opportunities to attend conferences and/or seminars at home and abroad (Kızıltepe 2008 ), resulting in weaker research motivation. Therefore, Wang et al. ( 2020 ) appealed for more research funding to be distributed to EFL teachers to encourage them to do research. However, different countries have different ways of allocating funds. To benefit Chinese EFL teachers’ funding distribution, the exploration of the current status of Chinese EFL teachers’ funding allocation is needed to boost their research motivation.

Training-related and working environment support

Mentoring is a form of institutional support in which a more experienced member provides information, support, and guidance to a less experienced, usually new member of an institution to enhance the latter’s chances of success within or beyond the institution (Campbell and Campbell 1997 ). Mentors are expected to serve as role models (Wanberg et al. 2007 ), who would transfer skills and support continuous learning, especially when skills are scarce (Nundulall and Dorasamy 2010 ). With mentors’ support, inexperienced researchers build confidence in their research (Griffiths et al. 2010 ). As Eby and Robertson ( 2020 ) proposed, mentoring positively affects the mentee, the mentor, and the organisation. As a capacity-building initiative, mentorship programmes can increase research outputs (Nundulall and Reddy 2011 ). Specifically, a practitioner-oriented research support programme was highly effective in promoting teacher research (Al-Maamari et al. 2017 ). Teachers who never received initial and continued support from the mentor hardly engage in or sustain research activities (Borg 2006 ). Nevertheless, mentoring has been perceived as a grey area in universities, theoretically established but executed ineffectively due to a lack of knowledge and interest, negative perceptions of mentorship, and the absence of university networks and role models (Owan et al. 2023 ). According to the available literature, the extent of its promotion and application in China is still unclear. Further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of mentoring among Chinese EFL teachers. Additionally, factors such as enhanced faculty research networks and collaborations are crucial for teachers because research collaboration is a growing trend among scholars (Paul and Mukhopadhyay 2022 ). In their systematic review, Uwizeye et al. ( 2022 ) found that teachers in African HE institutions had limited participation in research collaboration, which hindered their research motivation and research productivity. It appears that research collaboration significantly enhances scholars’ and institutions’ publications and rankings (Paul and Mukhopadhyay 2022 ). Therefore, research collaboration among faculty within and across institutions is highly expected to promote teachers’ research motivation and productivity (Yuan et al. 2016 ). However, effective collaborative methods between/among teachers still need to be further explored.

In addition, general guidance and skill development training from the relevant technical expertise also enhance university teachers’ research involvement (Wilkins 2011 ). It is necessary for teachers to possess related research knowledge and skills that help them to conduct enquiries soundly and share the findings effectively (Borg 2006 ). Among the available studies, researchers seldom noticed the enhancement of the actual research competence and skills from the training programmes (Gelso and Lent 2000 ). Insufficient research skills, such as language skills, information and communications technology skills, deter Burmese teachers’ research engagement (Kyaw 2021 ). In their study, Kozhakhmet et al. ( 2020 ) proposed that extra training and re-learning of research skills were needed for scholars in non-Anglophone and developing countries to fully become a member of the global scientific community. However, Loewen ( 2019 ) reported that language teachers were neither paid nor trained to conduct research, as was the case with teachers in Iran (Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ). It is necessary for HE institutions that emphasise research to cultivate expert and knowledgeable faculty members by organising in-service training (Shariatmadari and Mahdi 2012 ). However, it is unclear whether Chinese EFL teachers receive sufficient research training as teachers and researchers.

Finally, teachers’ working environment is vital for their research involvement. In the current study, “research environment” refers to the behaviours that include, at a minimum, shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and the valued, worthwhile and pre-eminent activity with a central focus on the acceptance and recognition of research practices and outcomes (Evans 2008 ). It was found that faculty members’ work environments drove their productivity and prominence (Heng et al. 2023 ; Way et al. 2019 ). Limited workspace, including sharing offices with other colleagues, affected Turkish teachers’ research negatively (Kızıltepe 2008 ). Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ) claimed teachers in Iran are suffering from a shortage of access to essential books and journals for conducting research. Borg ( 2009 ) found that the lack of knowledge and access to research sources was the reason why teachers do not engage in and with research. The more and better resources were provided for teachers, the higher the level of research productivity was achieved (Dundar and Lewis 1998 ). Therefore, it is necessary for HE institutions to provide a conducive research environment for academics to stimulate their engagement with research (Tadesse and Khalid 2022 ). Thus, the Chinese EFL teachers’ working environment should be studied to help institutions to provide conducive environments for motivating teachers in research. Overall, it is necessary to study the current situation of Chinese institutional support and how it motivates or de-motivates teachers’ research.

Given the above justifications, there were two research questions for the current study:

What is the relationship between the institutional support and Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation?

What is the influential institutional support for motivating Chinese university EFL teachers to do research?

Methodology

An explanatory mixed methods design was adopted to maximise the benefits of utilising quantitative analyses of large samples to provide broad trends in the population, and delving deep into the experiences of a selected group of teachers to qualitatively understand the issues they face (Bryman 2006 ). Using a mixed-methods approach made it possible for researchers to explore the relationship among the selected variables in-depth (Frankel et al. 2019 ).

Data collection methods

Anonymous user-friendly online questionnaires (Bowen et al. 2017 ) for EFL teachers were the data collection instruments in the quantitative phase. These questionnaires were administered online, including on social media platforms (e.g., WeChat, a popular social media platform in China). The Questionnaire on Teacher Research Motivation (QTRM) and the Questionnaire on Institutional Support for Teacher Research (QISTR) were developed by drawing on Amabile et al.’s (1994) Work Preference Inventory Scale (WPI) and Angaiz’s ( 2015 ) Institutional Support Scale. QTRM examined EFL teachers’ research motivation involving both intrinsic factors (interest in research, responsibility for conducting research, mastery of research skills, sense of achievement, and flexibility of research) and extrinsic factors (respect from others (e.g., colleagues, students) and research compensation (e.g., promotion, salary raise) with 19 items. QISTR measures mentorship support and the teachers’ working environment with 10 items. The validity and reliability of the questionnaires were examined through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The qualitative approach to data collection involved two methods: semi-structured interviews and teacher diaries. Semi-structured interviews entail a formal questionnaire in verbal form, consisting of questions designed to elicit concrete answers from respondents to gain their ideas, opinions, and experiences in-depth (Fraenkel et al. 2012 ). This method enables researchers to explore the participants’ biographies and what they value, through which participants’ attitudes, opinions, and beliefs can be probed (Cohen et al. 2011 ). In this study, teachers were interviewed individually to encourage them to give deeper and more personal expressions to their thoughts and opinions (Sparkes and Smith 2014 ). Additionally, personal diary writing was a key data source for the qualitative data as a valuable supplementary method in a mixed-method study (Bartlett and Milligan 2015 ). By using teacher diaries, we were able to obtain rich data about teaching events, motivations, and emotions of the participants as they regularly recorded their experiences in an unhampered way and over a period of time (Bartlett and Milligan 2015 ). For teachers, a record of their research enables them to shape their thinking, explore ideas and “make an important discovery” (Borg 2002 , p.163). This research was conducted following the guiding ethical principles of the authors’ university.

Procedures and participants

The survey was conducted first. The snowball method to recruit the participants was employed at this stage. The authors initially contacted one volunteer through their social networks. The invitation to join the study was sent to the first participant by email. After completing the questionnaire, the first participant recommended the next participant who met the criteria. In this manner, finally, 536 teachers completed the questionnaires. The questionnaire was distributed at the beginning of the first semester of the 2020–2021 academic year and it was open for four weeks. The first 12 teachers who agreed to participate in the interviews were chosen as the interviewees, and each participant was interviewed once, and each interview lasted for approximately 60 min, at a time and venue convenient for them. Two teachers were willing to record their research experiences in diaries for the past three months voluntarily.

The demographic information of the 536 teachers who took part in the quantitative phase is displayed in Table 1 . Almost half of these teachers (49.2%) were from ordinary/regular universities. The number of teachers from “Project 985” and “Project 211” universities was close to each other, and the proportion was nearly one-fifth of teachers separately. College teachers had the lowest proportion (8.9%) of the teachers. As expected, female teachers nearly tripled male teachers, with 380 female and 128 male participants. Almost 40% (199 teachers) teachers were from the age range of 41–50, which was close to the percentage of teachers from the 31- to 40-year-old age group. There were 67 (13.2%) teachers under 30 years old, who participated in this study. A total of 45 teachers (8.9%) who were over 51 answered the questionnaire. Lecturers (226, 44.5%) and associate professors (195, 38.4%) accounted for over four fifths (82.9%), with only 59 (11.6%) assistant lecturers and 28 (5.5%) full professors in this study. Over half of the participants (309, 60.8%) were from the College English department (teachers who teach non-English majors) and the rest (199, 39.2%) were from the English department (teachers who teach English majors).

Table 2 shows the demographic information of the participants in the qualitative phase. T represents the teachers who attended interviews, and D is identified as a diary writer. The number after T and D represents the sequence of their attendance in the current study. Seven teachers were from ordinary/regular universities. A quarter of the teachers came from “Projects 985/211” universities, and one of them agreed to write a diary. Nine teachers were from ordinary/regular colleges and one of them recorded her research monthly.

Data analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were used in analysing quantitative data. AMOS was used to analyse the quantitative data at this phase. CFA was utilised to specify the relationships of the observed variables to the latent variables within the measurement model. The purpose of the measurement test was to evaluate whether the observed variables accurately reflect the desired factors and to determine to what extent the measurement model fitted the empirical data. Each measurement construct was examined separately with the sample of 508 Chinese EFL teachers who participated in the online survey. The model fit evaluation was conducted in line with multiple model fit indices. The final well-fitting models for the measurement constructs were specified by the model fit and chosen as the final model. The results of evaluating the model can be found in Li and Zhang ( 2022 ).

SEM, a multivariate statistical framework to model complex relationships between directly and indirectly observed variables (Stein et al. 2012 ), describes the relationship among various measurement model components. It can also address research questions associated with complex casual relationships among latent constructs (Nusair and Hua 2010 ). SEM was selected as the most appropriate analytical approach for establishing the relationship between independent and dependent variables in this study, primarily due to the following reasons: (i) the presence of multiple observed variables, as SEM is adept at examining and modelling relationships among numerous variables; (ii) consideration of measurement error, as SEM incorporates the assessment of measurement error, thereby acknowledging the validity and reliability of observed scores; and (iii) the analysis of multiple-level data, as SEM enables the examination of sophisticated theoretical models pertaining to intricate phenomena (Schumacker and Lomax 2016 ). The current investigation encompassed a total of 29 items, aligning with the first criterion of involving multiple observed variables.

Thematic analysis was employed for analysing and interpreting the qualitative data, with reference to the six phases of thematic analysis suggested by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). These phases were as follows: familiarisation with the data, generating codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. Initially, the transcriptions were coded on the basis of the conceptual framework and research questions of this phase using the qualitative data software NVivo 12. The first author, who conducted the research, identified segments of the data and added a code to label the identified segments. The segments referred to a data extract with a unit of meaning related to the phenomenon under investigation, and a code meant a label that described the characters and meanings of the attached segment precisely (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). After coding the whole data, the researcher compared and contrasted those codes, and the similar and related codes were merged to form themes. Therefore, the redundant codes were reduced in quantity, and the themes were developed. The researcher repeatedly inspected the existing codes and original data to ensure there were no new codes. When all the themes were confirmed, the researcher reviewed the “determined” themes to guarantee their accuracy. The judgment of the themes was based on Patton’s (1990) criteria: internal homogeneity (codes within a theme should cohere meaningfully together) and external heterogeneity (different themes should be clearly and identifiably distinguished).

To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, several steps were taken. The primary analysis was conducted by the first author and then shared and agreed upon with the other authors. Additionally, a portion of the data was coded by another independent researcher except for the authors, and an 85% rater agreement was achieved.

Predictive effects of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation

To examine the effect of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation, we built a SEM. The measurement model of institutional support was used as the predictor to test its effect on teachers’ research motivation. Table 3 presents the results of the model index of SEM on research motivation, which were all in the acceptable range ( χ2  = 1188.924; χ2/ df  = 3.240; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.066; SRMR = 0.0666; gamma hat = 0.90, TLI = 0.93). Figure 1 shows a simplified graphic representation of the SEM model with only significant paths.

Mentorship = Mentorship Support; Working Environment = Working Environment of Teachers; Interest = Research Interest; Responsibility = Teacher Responsibility of Being Research-engaged; Achievement = Sense of Achievement; Flexibility = Flexibility of Doing Research; Respect = Respect from Others; Compensation = Compensation from Research.

The two-factor model showed that the working environment ( β  = 0.344, p  < 0.05) significantly influenced teachers’ research motivation. It suggests that if the working environment improves, teachers’ research motivation increases. The research motivation was explained 18.1% ( R²  = 0.181, f²  = 0.22, p  < 0.001) in total by this model. Table 4 reports the regression weights.

Factors affecting teachers’ research motivation

Our qualitative analysis revealed both positive and negative findings relating to teachers’ research motivation. Teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities claimed that they had sufficient online databases support and support of building research teams as motivators to enhance their research motivation. While teachers from ordinary/regular universities reported that they were short of guidance for research, had poor working conditions, lacked time support, and experienced deficiency in academic conference funding, which waned their research motivation. We present further details on each of these themes.

Working environments of teachers

Universities are supposed to provide various support for motivating teachers to do research. Different universities set up various tasks for EFL teachers to accomplish based on their occupied resources. Top universities, such as “Projects 985/211” universities with better platforms, had higher research requirements than those ordinary/regular universities. T1, who was from a top “Project 985” university in the northeast part of China reported that her university would support them to publish in top journals, such as those covered indexes including the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and/or the CSSCI (Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index). She said that her university would invite experts from different fields to hold workshops and share their research experience with teachers. In addition, the online databases in support of T1’s university were sufficient. The library of her university provided literature-search services and supplemented to the databases when teachers required new online resources. The support of constructing research teams was also provided when it was needed. To organise a research team, the team leader was selected first, and the other members were recruited based on their research interests. Therefore, the collaboration among teachers was strengthened. While T6 from a “Project 211” university indicated that their university would give them more time but less funding support to accomplish the task of publishing a paper as compared with top “Project 985” university teachers. The research assessment of them was not as strict as with teachers in top “Project 985” universities. While their research support was sufficient for their current research requirement, the online databases were also sufficient for them to read. Teachers could choose to do more research or teaching based on their strengths. It means that teachers have the flexibility of choosing to be a researcher or a teacher.

However, as mentioned above, there are a number of different findings between teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities and ordinary/regular universities. In the ensuing section, findings from ordinary/regular university teachers are reported and as will be evident soon, these findings often show the negative side about research support.

Shortage of mentorship for teachers

The lack of mentors was an obstacle for teachers to get involved in research. Teachers usually did research alone. As T10 presented, she did not know how and who she could turn to for help when she encountered problems while doing research. She had to struggle with these problems herself, which would decline her positivity in doing research.

“How I wished that someone could help me with my research instead of working alone. However, even now, with high research pressure for teachers, there was no mentor for us. I suffered enough from doing research and wanted to stop now.” (Excerpt from the interview of T10)

Teachers urgently needed to engage in more research with the research pressure of “publish or perish.” To help them achieve the research engaged goal, the arrangement of mentors was pressing for universities. The research team was supposed to be a kind of impetus for teachers to engage in research. Different universities provided diverse support for organising a research team. Some universities explicitly encouraged teachers to set up research teams to establish better cooperation without a need for help. As displayed in T12’s interview, teachers had to explore the process of building up the research team themselves.

“Doing research alone was a little bit lonely. With the encouragement of the university, I applied for a research team at our university. What I did was to organize those teachers who had the same hobbies (planting) as me together. The university did nothing during this process.” (Excerpt from the interview of T12)

Other universities had no clear policy and support for establishing a research team, and teachers tried to organise a research group through their social networks. T3 reported the university hardly issued any policies to encourage them to discuss research. Teachers could only ask other teachers for help proactively.

“Because my rank was associate professor, I could apply projects as an organizer. Teachers who were willing to join me would be invited to join my team. The department provided no support for building a research team, and I used my social network merely to find research cooperators.” (Excerpt from the interview of T11)

It can be seen from the interviews of T11 and T3 that teachers were eager to have research teams that would benefit their research. The help from other teachers in the research team was valuable, especially for novice teachers. For teachers, the provided office from the university guaranteed their work efficiency. They could concentrate on their work in a proper space they could call their own. However, not all of the teachers were provided with the office, as reflected in T5’s interview:

“Our university provided no office for teachers. I had to go back home after teaching every time. It was hard for me to engage in research at home because I had no energy to do research after teaching and the long trip home. We did not have a place to prepare for our teaching, let alone do research. Our department was ignored by our university because we a liberal arts major in a polytechnic university.” (Excerpt from the interview of T5)

As one of the basic conditions of guaranteeing teachers’ research work, the provided offices for teachers needed to be awesome auxiliary support. It was found that teachers’ research motivation was influenced by database support. Some universities never provided database support for teachers. For example, T5 said that her university scarcely provided any databases for teachers, even the CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). She could not read the latest literature except by borrowing her friends’ accounts from other universities to download. It was very inconvenient. Therefore, she seldom did research.

Other universities supplied certain databases which were insufficient for teachers. The lack of sufficient online database support has been a common obstacle for teachers to engage in research. We can see from T4’s interviews that it was so hard for them to read the latest research in their areas of interest. If they wanted to read the latest literature, they needed to download it themselves and pay for it. It might be a financial burden to some teachers due to their low salaries, and they were unwilling to do it in this way.

“The basic Chinese databases were supplemented, such as CNKI and some other top Chinese journals. However, it was tough to search for the English databases. When I needed some foreign materials, I had to pay for them myself.” (Excerpt from the interview of T4)

Lack of time support for teachers’ research engagement

Five interviewees reported the heavy workload hindered their research engagement. According to these teachers, the teaching load was too heavy for them to do research. Teachers could only do research during vacations or weekends. For example, T12 said the daily reading habit was cultivated unsuccessfully because of the workload during each semester. A vacation was the time when she would read and write because she did not need to teach and attend various activities at the university.

Similarly, T7 reported that she had over 20 classes a week. There was no energy in her to discuss research after teaching. Besides, she needed to organise and take students to various competitions. Most of her work time was occupied by diverse workloads making her have no time to consider research. She said it was common for Chinese university teachers to struggle to be teachers and researchers at the same time.

Administrative meetings would influence teachers’ research engagement in different aspects, as shown in T7’s interview. On the one hand, the meeting was time-consuming for teachers. Their task was to sit quietly and listen to leaders’ speeches or briefings. If they were absent from the meeting, their salary would be deducted. It took up a lot of time; therefore, teachers had to allocate less time to research. On the other hand, these meetings seldom provided teachers with substantial, meaningful content for study. Teachers could not learn anything that benefited their research. Administrative meetings were necessary because of the need to manage a university. However, too many meetings became a burden for teachers, resulting in their research time deduction.

Deficiency in academic conference funding or opportunities

Generally, academic conferences made teachers engage in research more. However, it was found that T4’s university held few conferences, and she had fewer opportunities to communicate with other scholars and/or share her research with others. Although communication with other scholars would help teachers involve in research more often, the support for teachers to attend academic conferences was not enough. Teachers had few opportunities to attend conferences with little support from their university. Compared with other teachers who had enough support for participating in academic conferences, it was a disadvantage for those teachers with less support to be research-engaged.

The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the influence of institutional support on their research motivation, as described in the preceding section, indicated opposite findings. An explanation for this discrepancy may be that participants responded to the questionnaires within a short time, which might have led to an inaccurate recall of their experiences. Brewer et al. ( 2004 ) claimed that participants may provide purposefully, or accidentally, imprecise recall and responses because of a lack of time to fully recall information. This section discusses the explanation of the consistency and inconsistency of the findings in relation to the literature.

Both the quantitative and qualitative results showed that working environments provided for teachers significantly affect teachers’ research motivation. According to Way et al. ( 2019 ), the drive for early-career faculty members to be research-engaged was where they worked rather than where they were trained. This emphasises the importance of teachers’ working environment as a facilitator for motivating them to be research-engaged, which aligns with Heng et al.’s ( 2023 ) findings. Nguyen et al. ( 2021 ) found that lecturers’ research motivation in Vietnam was positively affected by organisational support directly and indirectly. If teachers can access whatever they want for their studies, they then might be motivated to do research because they do not have to worry about lacking anything, such as materials and basic equipment. In the present study, the teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities claimed that an appropriate working environment guaranteed the auxiliary support for research, making them more willing to be research-engaged. Teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities seemed to have a supportive working environment with high research motivation, except for T5, who was from a polytechnic “Project 211” university. The unequal resource distribution within her university demotivated her from conducting research. Besides, the government unequally distributed its financial budget based on the university types in China, reflecting the reality that liberal arts majors are not valued in polytechnic universities and are even ignored. One possible explanation is that these universities are pressurised by the government to innovate and have research productivity in their strong disciplines (e.g., science, engineering, architecture). Therefore, more resources, such as independent offices, funding, online databases, among other things, are distributed to the science and engineering majors. Without sufficient institutional support, teachers of the liberal arts majors may gradually lose passion for conducting research due to a lack of funding, time, and latest databases support etc.

One unanticipated qualitative finding was that most teachers from ordinary/regular universities and colleges reported insufficient institutional support in their institutions. Teachers’ research motivation varied based on the university type, which is a new finding compared to previous related studies (e.g., Kızıltepe, 2008 ; Way et al. 2019 ). This inconsistency may be due to the unequal distribution of resources from the central government, including funding, research training, etc., in Chinese universities. The allocation of the financial budget of the government depends on the university type. The “Projects 985/211” universities usually received more funding support than those ordinary/regular universities and colleges. As McGill and Settle ( 2012 ) found, increased research funding could promote teachers’ research motivation. Funding support is a common method to stimulate teachers to be research-engaged in universities (e.g., Faribi, 2019 ). Therefore, EFL teachers who work in “Projects 985/211” universities may show higher research motivation than others. However, the number of EFL teachers who work in “Projects 985/211” universities is quite limited, and most Chinese EFL teachers are from ordinary/regular universities. The relatively low research motivation among ordinary/regular university/college teachers could result in their lower research productivity. This might be the main reason for the fewer research records of Chinese EFL teachers.

On the other hand, without ample financial support, ordinary/regular universities might have fewer opportunities to either host or attend academic conferences. Thus, teachers have limited opportunities to stay updated with the latest development of their field, which may decrease their research motivation and research productivity. Another possible explanation for this is that research training is deficient for EFL teachers in ordinary/regular universities/colleges with inadequate financial support. Although there are many free online research training classes, they might not be sufficient or necessary for those teachers to conduct research. The needed research training might require substantial financial investment. It is also possible that the research training programmes may not be helpful for teachers’ development of research skills, and, in certain universities, there may be a lack of research training altogether. To some extent, teachers have to learn to conduct research themselves, which is challenging because it is hard to find systemic knowledge about research in their field (Yuan et al. 2016 ). The acquired resources might be unsystematic, and teachers may lack the patience to seek the resources they need for their studies. The complex learning process means teachers had no robust drive to engage in and with research. Therefore, teachers’ research motivation is negatively affected due to the lack of necessary research training. According to the qualitative data from ordinary/regular university/college EFL teachers, their universities/colleges seldom provided teachers with time support. Teachers in ordinary/regular universities/colleges have multiple roles: teachers, researchers and administrators. Many of them have a heavy teaching load and administrative responsibilities, which leaves little time for them to do research. With limited time, teachers’ motivation to conduct research gradually declines.

The quantitative data analysis corroborated findings that mentorship had no impact on teachers’ research motivation. It could be deduced that most universities/colleges in China might not offer adequate mentorship support for teachers’ research engagement. The follow-up qualitative findings also revealed that teachers were not allocated enough mentors in their universities, which demotivated teachers to do research when initial and continuing support was removed from mentors (Borg 2006 ). This corroborated Owan et al.’s ( 2023 ) study, which suggested that mentorship is a grey area in universities. The probable explanation is that the research policies about mentorship in Chinese universities were not practical. Mentorship programmes may have been unreasonably designed and implemented to support teachers’ research. Current university research policies mostly focused on assessing the research outputs, with few clear rules for allocating mentors to teachers and helping them transition smoothly to becoming researchers, and it is especially true for novice teachers. In such a situation, teachers had to rely on their own networks to seek guidance and collaboration, which gradually led to a reluctance to engage in research due to limited networks. Although some universities provided mentorship for teachers, the mentorship offered to these teachers was a general guidance rather than customised guidance when teachers encountered difficulties during their research. Such practices highly likely would negatively affect research motivation (Owan et al. 2023 ). It is clear that there is a need for teachers to have pertinent research mentors. Despite mentor allocation being achieved in a few universities, there was a lack of regulatory systems for the mentoring process between experienced mentors and novice teachers (Nundulall and Dorasamy 2010 ). The validity of mentorship was difficult to measure and test. Furthermore, teachers did not know how to connect the mentors’ experiences to their own research. The shared experiences of those mentors might not be suitable for the practices of the teacher under instruction, which would lead to a gradual decline in teachers’ research motivation due to failures in their own research experiences.

Conclusions, implications and limitations

This study was designed to investigate the influence of mentorship and working environments on EFL teachers’ research motivation in Chinese universities. The first research question is about the relationship between institutional support and Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation. The results reflected the positive influence of the working environment on teachers’ research motivation, especially in “Projects 985/211” universities, and mentorship has no influence on their research motivation. The second research question is about how institutional support affects teachers’ research motivation. We found that the working environment of “Projects 985/211” universities is far better than ordinary/regular universities and colleges with timely academic workshops, sufficient online databases, supportive research communities, etc. The third research question explores the influence of institutional support on motivating Chinese university EFL teachers to do research. In the current study, the working environment is more influential than mentorship in motivating teachers to do research.

Theoretically, we explored the influence of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation in the Chinese context. We investigated the mentorship and working environments in different types of higher education institutions, providing researchers and teachers with a new perspective to understand teachers’ research motivation more directly at granular levels. Methodologically, we employed a mixed-methods approach to examine the influence of mentorship and working environments on Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation. This approach offered a new perspective on understanding the extent to which institutional factors would affect teachers’ research motivation. It also shed light on Chinese EFL teachers’ professional development related to research.

Practically, administrators of these universities can establish research guidelines based on the current research findings. On the one hand, administrators are expected to fulfil the necessary needs of faculty members for their research. More research support, such as funding, time, and technical guidance for teachers to do research projects, could be provided (e.g., Faribi 2019 ). On the other hand, the performance appraisal could be adjusted to examine not only the final number of the research productivity annually but also the time that teachers spend being research-engaged. Universities could develop time-counting systems to record teachers’ research time. Teachers could also self-report their concrete time of reading the literature, analysing data, writing papers or project applications etc. through Excel, Word files, etc. Then these universities could give teachers rewards based on their research time. Thus, teachers’ research motivation could be boosted, especially those teachers who are motivated by external rewards. Additionally, administrators could formulate the achievement assessment system based on their university type and faculty members’ diversity of personality. Some teachers might be motivated by the incentives, and others probably care more about the promotion. Hence, the administrators could develop different forms of assessment for teachers of different characteristics. Besides, as the front-line teachers expect more opportunities to communicate with experienced scholars, the administrators could provide more opportunities for teachers to attend international and domestic conferences, research training programmes, and their targeted seminars. With these opportunities, teachers could accumulate more knowledge about research and may solve many research problems in their studies. In this way, their confidence in conducting research may be enhanced, which will strengthen their research motivation. Finally, as Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ) proposed, raising teachers’ awareness of the benefits of research was the first step in motivating teachers to be research-active. This could be achieved through institutional management and constructing a rich research culture inside the education system. The supplement of substantial resources by the institutions might encourage teachers to research actively by guaranteeing their basic research needs.

From a national policy-making perspective, the distribution of research resources is unbalanced, including the allocation of the research funding. Policymakers could seek ways to balance the resource distribution among various types of universities. Even though the government may not be able to supply enough resources to every university in China, the policy of encouraging cooperation between the “Projects 985/211” and ordinary/regular universities could be proposed to help those universities with poor research atmospheres promote teachers’ research endeavours. It might be useful, especially for teachers at ordinary/regular universities, to be given opportunities and resources to learn how to do research from “Projects 985/211” teachers. Mentorship programmes between different types of universities could be established. “Projects 985/211” universities could provide research training programmes for teachers from different ordinary/regular universities. These programmes could be non-profit training, funded by the government. After training, teachers might acquire the research skills they need and build their research networks. Thus, research collaboration among different teachers from different universities could be promoted. After teachers establish stable research networks, their research productivity could be increased continuously, and teachers’ research motivation could be promoted. As teachers establish stable research networks, their research productivity could continuously increase, thereby promoting their research motivation. To enhance teachers’ motivation, future research could explore the cooperation methods and practical research training modes between “Projects 985/211” and ordinary/regular universities. Other influential environmental factors on teachers’ research motivation, such as research culture and university research policy for different disciplines, could be investigated to enhance Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation.

We acknowledge the limitations of the study. Using the snowball sampling method, we recruited enough participants for the current study. Although this method is not a random selection method and may involve unrepresentative participants (Heckathorn 1997 ), the authors utilised it because it was the most economical way of collecting sufficient data during the pandemic. The generalisability of the study was compromised by its reliance on referrals within participants’ personal networks. Snowball sampling, thus employed, may result in a sample that inadequately reflected the broader population, potentially limiting the study’s applicability to other populations. Future studies could adopt random sampling to collect data for its representativeness. Also, the current study collected data for one semester without observing these teachers’ daily research activities. Therefore, the dynamic change in teachers’ research motivation cannot be obtained. To compensate for this shortcoming, in future studies researchers could adopt the observation method to collect data to clarify any dynamic changes in teachers’ research motivation.

Data availability

Data in this study are not publicly available to protect participants’ privacy. Data can be made available upon written request to the corresponding author Yanping Li.

Al-Hoorie AH (2017) Sixty years of language motivation research: Looking back and forward. SAGE Open 7(1):1–11

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Maamari F, Al-Aamri K, Khammash S, Al-Wahaibi M (2017) Promoting EFL teacher research engagement through a research support programme. RELC J. 48(3):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216684282

Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM (1994) The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66(5):950

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson EM, Shannon AL (1988) Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. J. Teach. Educ. 39(1):38–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900109

Angaiz D (2015) An investigation of determinants of teacher education faculty research productivity in public sector universities of Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dowling College

Barber BM, Jiang W, Morse A, Puri M, Tookes H, Werner IM (2021) What explains diferences in fnance research productivity during the pandemic? J. Financ. 76(4):1655–1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/jof.13028

Bartlett R, Milligan C (2015) What is diary method? Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472572578

Bland CJ, Center BA, Finstad DA, Risbey KR, Staples JG (2005) A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Acad Med. 80(3):225–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Borg S (2002) Research in the lives of TESOL professionals. TESOL Matters 13(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.012

Borg S (2006) Conditions for teacher research. Engl. Teach. Forum 44(4):22–27

Google Scholar  

Borg S (2007) Research engagement in English language teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 23(5):731–747

Borg S (2009) English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Appl. Linguist. 30(3):358–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007

Borg S (2010) Language teacher research engagement. In Language Teaching (Vol. 43, Issue 4). The University of Auckland Library. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000170

Borg S, Alshumaimeri Y (2012) University teacher educators’ research engagement: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.011

Borg S, Liu YD (2013) Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Q. 47(2):270–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.56

Borg S (2015). Professional development for English language teachers: Perspectives from higher education in Turkey. British Council

Bowen PW, Rose R, Pilkington A (2017) Mixed methods-theory and practice: Sequential, explanatory approach Int. J. Quan. Qual. Res. Methods 5(2):10–27

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2):77–101

Brew A, Lucas L (2009). Introduction: Academic research and researchers. In A. Brew, & Lucas, L. (Eds.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 1-12). Society for Research into Higher Education; Open University Press

Brewer NT, William KH, Nancy F, Howard MK (2004) Why Do People Report Better Health by Phone Than by Mail? Med. Care 42(9):875–883

Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qual. Res. 6(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

Campbell TA, Campbell DE (1997) Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Res. High. Educ. 38(6):727–742

Chen Y, Zhao Q (2013) Gender differences in business faculty’s research motivation. J. Educ. Bus. 88(6):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.717121

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2011) Research methods in education, 7th ed. New York: Routledge

Creswell JW (1985) Faculty research performance: Lessons from the science and the social science. Washington: Association for the Study of Higher Education

Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: Qualitative, quantatitive, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Davey R (2013) The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? New York: Routledge

Dörnyei Z, Ottó I (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Pap. Appl. Linguist. 4:43–69

Dornyei Z, Ushioda E (2011) Teaching and researching motivation, 2nd ed. New York: Longman

Duc A, Pham NT, Bui HP, Vu DT, Nguyen TH (2020) Impact of motivational factors on the work results of lecturers at Vietnam National University, Hanoi. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 7(8):425–433. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.425

Dundar H, Lewis DR (1998) Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 39(6):607–631. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763

Eby LT, Robertson MM (2020) The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7(1):75–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044924

Evans P (2008) Is an alternative globalization possible? Politics Soc. 36(2):271–305

Faribi D (2019) Iranian journal of educational sociology Iranian English language teachers’ conceptions. Iran. J. Educ. Sociol. 2(2):1–11

Farooqi SM, Shahzad S, Tahira SS (2019) Who are more successful researchers? An analysis of university teachers’ research productivity. Glob. Soc. Sci. Rev. 4(1):354–364. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).46

Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH (2012) How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill

Frankel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. (2019) How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill

Gelso CJ, Lent RW (2000) Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and their interaction. In: Brown SD, Lent RW (eds), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 109–139). John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Gironzetti E, Muñoz-Basols J (2022) Research engagement and research culture in Spanish Language Teaching (SLT): Empowering the profession. Applied Linguistics, 1–28

Graham S, Weiner B (2012) Motivation: Past, present, and future. In Harris KR, Urdan T (eds), APA educational psychology handbook. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 367–397

Graves P, Marchand J, Thompson R (1982) Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. Am. Econ Rev. 72(5):1131–1141

Griffiths V, Thompson S, Hryniewicz L (2010) Developing a research profile: Mentoring and support for teacher educators. Professional Dev. Educ. 36(1–2):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903457166

Han J, Yin H (2016) Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Educ. 3(1):1–18

Heckathorn DD (1997) Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc. Probl. 44(2):174–199

Hedjazi Y, Behravan J (2011) Study of factors influencing research productivity of agriculture faculty members in Iran. High. Educ. 62:635–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9410-6

Heng K, Hamid MO, Khan A (2020) Factors influencing academics’ research engagement and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues Educ. Res. 30(3):965–987. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/heng.pdf

Heng K, Hamid MO, Khan A (2023) Research engagement of academics in the Global South: The case of Cambodian academics. Globalisation Societies Educ. 21(3):322–337

Henry C, Md Ghani NA, Hamid UMA, Bakar AN (2020) Factors contributing towards research productivity in higher education. Int. J. Eval Res. Educ. 9(1):203–211. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20420

Horodnic IA, Zaiţ A (2015) Motivation and research productivity in a university system undergoing transition. Res. Eval 24(3):282–292

Kozhakhmet S, Moldashev K, Yenikeyeva A, Nurgabdeshov A (2020) How training and development practices contribute to research productivity: A moderated mediation model. Stud Higher Educ, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1754782

Kyaw MT (2021) Factors influencing teacher educators’ research engagement in the reform process of teacher education institutions in Myanmar. SAGE Open 11(4):215824402110613. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061349

Kızıltepe Z (2008) Motivation and demotivation of university teachers. Teach. Teach. 14(5–6):515–530

Li Y, Zhang LJ (2022) Influence of mentorship and the working environment on English as a foreign language teachers’ research productivity: The mediation role of research motivation and self-efficacy. Front. Psychol. 13:1–17

ADS   Google Scholar  

Liu H (2016) Teacher motivation. In: Xu H (eds), Major issues in foreign language teacher education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, pp. 56–81

Loewen S (2019) The role of research in the second language classroom. Lang. Teach. Res. Q. 9(10):31–38. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2019.10.03

Lucas CJ, Murry JW (2016) New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan New York

Luo N, Hyland K (2016) Chinese academics writing for publication: English teachers as text mediators. J. Second Lang. Writ. 33:43–55

McGill MM, Settle A (2012) Identifying effects of institutional resources and support on computing faculty research productivity, tenure, and promotion. Int. J. Doctoral Stud. 7:167–198

Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG (2011) Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev. Int. 16(5):422–445

Ministry of Education, China (2007) Management reform of foreign universities and its enlightenment, http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A14/A14_other/200703/t20070309_75776.html

Ministry of Education, China (2017) Implementation Measures for Comprehensively Promoting the Construction of World-class Universities and First-class Disciplines (Interim), http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201701/t20170125_295701.html

Ministry of Education, China (2020) Number of Higher Education Institutions, http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/statistics/2019/national/202006/t20200611_464789.html

Morze NV, Buinytska OP, Smirnova VA (2022) Designing a rating system based on competencies for the analysis of the university teachers’ research activities. CEUR Workshop Proc. 3085:139–153

Nguyen PV (2022) Infuence of institutional characteristics on academic staff’s research productivity: The case of a Vietnamese research-oriented higher education institution. Vietnam J. Educ. 6(3):196–208. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.202

Nguyen TD, Bui THV, Nguyen TLT, Tran MD, Tran TKN (2021) Perception of organizational support to lecturers’ research motivation: The case of Vietnam. J. Asian Financ., Econ. Bus. 8(2):657–666. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0657

Noorollahi N (2021) On the relationship between Iranian English language teaching students-self-efficacy, self-esteem, and their academic achievement. Lang. Teach. Res. Q. 21:84–96. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.06

Nundulall R, Dorasamy N (2010) Mentorship and sustainable research output: A case study of the University of Johannesburg. Ind. High. Educ. 26(2):127–137

Nundulall R, Reddy K (2011) Mentorship as a strategy to improve research output at tertiary institutions: A case study of University of Johannesburg. SAJHE 25(6):1155–1177

Nusair K, Hua N (2010) Comparative assessment of structural equation modelling and multiple regression research methodologies: E-commerce context. Tour. Manag. 31(3):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.010

Nygaard PL (2017) Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity Stud. High. Educ. 42(3):519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351

Okon AE, Owan VJ, Owan MV (2022) Mentorship practices and research productivity among early-career educational psychologists in universities. Educ. Process Int. J. 11(1):105–126. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2022.111.7

Owan VJ, Ameh E, Anam E (2023) Collaboration and institutional culture as mediators linking mentorship and institutional support to academics’ research productivity. Educ Res Policy Pract, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09354-3

Paul P, Mukhopadhyay K (2022) Measuring research productivity of marketing scholars and marketing departments. Marketing Educ Rev, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2021.2024077

Peng JE, Gao X (2019) Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. Sage Open 9(3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019866295

Prado NI (2019) Predictors of research productivity among administrators, faculty, and students. Liceo J. High. Educ. Res. 15(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v15i2.1319

Punch KF (2005) Introduction to social research–quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: Sage

Randazzo M, Priefer R, Pasupathy R (2021) Research self-efficacy and productivity in communication sciences and disorders faculty. J. Commun. Disord. 92:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106107

Reeve JM (1995) Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon

Sadeghi K, Abutorabi P (2017) Iranian English language teachers’ views of research: Implications for policy and practice. Res. Post Compuls. Educ. 22(4):513–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2017.1381295

Sakarkaya V (2022) What triggers teacher research engagement and sustainability in a higher education context in Turkey? Participatory Educ. Res. 9(2):325–342. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.43.9.2

Sato M, Loewen S (2019) Do teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT J. 73(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy048

Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2016) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 4th ed. New York: Routledge

Shariatmadari M, Mahdi S (2012) Barriers to research productivity in Islamic Azad University: Exploring faculty members perception. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 5(5):2765–2769. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2012/v5i5.12

Sondari MC, Tjakraatmadja JH, Bangun YR (2016) What motivate faculty member to do research? A literature review. Soc. Sci 11(21):5265–5269. https://doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2016.5265.5269

Sparkes AC, Smith B (2014) Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London: Routledge

Stein CM, Morris NJ, Nock NL (2012) Structural equation modeling. In R. C. Elston (Ed.). Statistical human genetics: Vol. 850. Methods and protocols (pp. 495–512). Springer

Stupnisky RH, Larivière V, Hall NC, Omojiba O (2022) Predicting research productivity in STEM faculty: The role of self-determined motivation. Res Higher Educ, 64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09718-3

Sun Q, Zhang LJ (2022) Understanding novice and experienced teachers’ cognitions and practices for sustainable teacher development: The case of form-focused instruction in English language teaching. Sustainability 14:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084711

Tadesse EF, Khalid S (2022) Are teachers and HE are on the same page? Calling for a research–teaching nexus among Ethiopian and Pakistani academics. J Appl Res Higher Educ, https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2021-0348

Tian M, Lu G (2017) What price the building of world-class universities? Academic pressure faced by young lecturers at a research-centered university in China. Teach. High. Educ. 22(8):957–974

Tran TKN, Do Nguyen T, Van Pham T, Nguyen TLH, Glang MD, Ha NT (2021) Impact of administrative post and gender on lecturers’ research motivation in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ., Econ. Bus. 8(3):705–715

Uwizeye D, Karimi F, Thiong’o C, Syonguvi J, Ochieng V, Kiroro F, Gateri A, Khisa AM, Wao H (2022) Factors associated with research productivity in higher education institutions in Africa: A systematic review. AAS Open Res. 4:26. https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.13211.2

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wanberg CR, Welsh ET, Kammeyer-Mueller K (2007) Protégé and mentor self-disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. J. Vocational Behav. 70(2):398–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.002

Wang BR, Zhang YZ, Zhang L (2020) On the status quo of college English teachers’ scientific research and influencing factors. Test. Eval 3:102–109

Way SF, Morgan AC, Larremore DB, Clauset A (2019) Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116(22):10729–10733

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilkins P (2011) Research engagement for school development. Institute of Education, University of London

Yu K, Stith AL, Liu L, Chen HZ (2012) Tertiary education at a glance: China. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/detail.action?docID=3034689

Yuan R, Sun P, Teng L (2016) Understanding language teachers’ motivations towards research. TESOL Q. 50(1):220–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.279

Zhang LJ (2021) Curriculum innovation in language teacher education: Reflections on 31 years of the PGDELT program for teacher continuing professional development. Chin. J. Appl. Linguist. 44:435–450

Zhang X (2014) Factors that motivate academic staff to conduct research and influence research productivity in Chinese project 211 universities. PhD Thesis, University of Canberra

Zhou T, Law R, Lee PC (2022) “What motivates me?” Motivation to conduct research of academics in teaching-oriented universities in China. J. Hospitality Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 31:1–16

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Humanities, Sichuan Agricultural University, Sichuan, China

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Lawrence Jun Zhang & Naashia Mohamed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y. Li, L. J. Zhang and N. Mohamed conceived and designed the study. Y. Li, as the first author, collected and analysed the data and drafted the manuscript, and all the authors revised and approved the manuscript. Y. Li finalised it for submissions as the corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This research was conducted following the guiding ethical principles of the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: UOA2792).

Informed consent

To seek the participants’ informed consent, the adequate information about the purpose of the research, methods of participant involvement, intended use of the results, rights as a participant, and any potential risks were provided to the participants. This ensured that they comprehended the information thoroughly and were willing to participating the current study.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Y., Zhang, L.J. & Mohamed, N. The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers’ research motivation in China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 942 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03448-w

Download citation

Received : 27 June 2023

Accepted : 02 July 2024

Published : 20 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03448-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Department of Education of the Philippines

What is the related literature review about numeracy in early grades?

Get help with your research

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

Top contributors to discussions in this field

• Periyar University

• The World Islamic Science and Education University (WISE)

• Technical College Požarevac

• The Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro

• Dhofar University

Similar questions and discussions

• Asked 12 October 2020

• Asked 3 November 2020

• Asked 26 September 2021

• Asked 6 March 2022

• Asked 11 September 2016

• Asked 17 November 2022

• Asked 15 January 2023

• Asked 27 April 2023

• Asked 13 August 2023

Related Publications

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up