literary research in research methodology

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

The Handbook to Literary Research

Edited by Delia da Sousa Correa and W.R. Owens The Handbook to Literary Research is a practical guide for students embarking on postgraduate work in Literary Studies. It introduces and explains research techniques, methodologies and approaches to information resources, paying careful attention to the differences between countries and institutions, and providing a range of key examples. This fully updated second edition is divided into five sections which cover: • Tools of the trade-a brand new chapter outlining how to make the most of literary resources; • Textual scholarship and book history-explains key concepts and variations in editing, publishing and bibliography; • Issues and approaches in literary research-presents a critical overview of theoretical approaches essential to literary studies; • The dissertation-demonstrates how to approach, plan and write this important research exercise; • Glossary-provides comprehensive explanations of key terms, and a checklist of resources. Packed with useful tips and exercises and written by scholars with extensive experience as teachers and researchers in the field, this volume is the ideal handbook for those beginning postgraduate research in literature. Delia da Sousa Correa is Senior Lecturer in English at

Related papers

Emelia Samanhyia, 2021

Question: The Setting of a literary work contributes to the development of characters and themes, among other relevance. Examine this notion with reference to at least two of the texts studied in this course.

Drawing upon Hillway’s three types of research, this paper seeks to take a look at the nature and scope of literary research. It focuses on early works on the subject: Altick (1950, 1963), Sanders (1951), and Bateson (1972) – to demonstrate how some facts lying there can be uncovered through a slightly different reading of these texts. It highlights the similarities that make literary criticism, literary research, and literary scholarship synonymous, if not the same. It ends by mentioning briefly the approaches and methods of literary research.

Lesson 5 in a one-term course of academic writing. The course aims at providing students with basic instruction in essay writing, with a special emphasis on literary critical essays. The students are guided through all the stages involved in the process of writing, ranging from choosing the topic to compiling a bibliography. The course deals with a logical structure of the essay, its unity and coherence, with using secondary sources as well as with the issue of plagiarism. Other topics include the suitable language and style and formal requirements in academic writing.

CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF LITERATURE, PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE, 2019

Master Drawings , 2024

A note by Barocci's hand, dating back to his first stay in Rome around 1553 and containing a list of ingredients for the pastel, allows to contextualise a group of unknown juvenile drawings by the artist.

A cura di Francesca Artemisio e Vera Fravventura 🔗 Per acquistare il volume cartaceo: https://bit.ly/3wEgh75 Il volume, realizzato per onorare e ringraziare Ileana Pagani in occasione del suo ritiro dai ruoli dell’università, si presenta come una miscellanea di studi sul tema dell’anonimato e della pseudoepigrafia nei testi mediolatini, valorizzando ambiti di interesse del progetto OPA (Opere Perdute e Opere Anonime - secoli III-XV). A partire da diverse prospettive, i sedici contributi qui pubblicati propongono una campionatura di esempi e di casi studio, calati nei rispettivi generi letterari di riferimento, dalla trattatistica grammaticale e storiografica all’agiografia, dalla poesia all’epistolografia. Contributi di: P. F. Alberto, L. Castaldi, P. Chiesa, F. De Dominicis, A. Degl’Innocenti, L. Fizzarotti, M. T. Galli, D. Gallo, S. Grazzini, P. Licciardello, F. Mantegazza, V. Mattaloni, C. Paolino, F. Santi, F. Toscano, L. Vangone.

Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time.

In the meantime, you can download the document by clicking the 'download' button above..

Springer eBooks, 2023

Texila International Journal of Nursing, 2023

Jurnal Japanedu : pendidikan dan pengajaran bahasa Jepang, 2022

International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 2024

Rowman & Littlefield, 2024

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 2021

Journal de physique, 1997

Energy Policy, 2011

International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 2018

Sains …, 2011

Dental Materials, 2015

Journal of Community Practice, 2016

ALKIN, Ruhi Can, YELKEN, Ramazan, “Introduction to Value - Relevant and Normative Tradition in Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Sosyal Bilimler Felsefesinde Değer - Yüklü ve Normatif Geleneğe Giriş), Beytülhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt:4, Sayı:2, ISSN:1303-8303, Aralık 2014 , 2014

American Heart Journal, 2009

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

Methodologies

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

We discuss the following topics on this page:

Example [Marxist Theory Methodologies]

Example [critical race theory methodologies].

We also provide the following activity on this page:

Exercises [Discussion]

Methodologies (not to be confused with methods, which we discuss on the next page)   are linked to literary theories. Methodologies are necessary to working with theories. They serve as the interfaces between theory (purely conceptual) and praxis (practical application). Methodologies consist of tools and lines of investigation: sets of practices and propositions about texts and the world. Researchers using Marxist literary criticism adopt methodologies that seek to understand literature and its relationship to the world by looking to material forces like labor, ownership, and technology. These researchers also seek to understand authors not as inspired geniuses but as people whose lives and work are shaped by social, economic, and historical forces. Daniel Hartley, in his “Marxist Literary Criticism: An Introductory Reading Guide” (2018) describes some areas of inquiry and methodologies used by Marxist literary critics.

Areas of inquiry:

• Anthropological:  investigates the social functions of art
• Political:  investigates the link between literature and the political fortunes of classes and political systems such as capitalism and socialism
• Ideological:  investigates the link between literature and identity

Methodologies:

• Genetic Structuralism:  “Lucien Goldmann . . . examined the structure of literary texts to discover the degree to which it embodied the ‘world vision’ of the class to which the writer belonged. For Goldmann literary works are the product, not of individuals, but of the ‘transindividual mental structures’ of specific social groups. These ‘mental structures’ or ‘world visions’ are themselves understood as ideological constructions produced by specific historical conjunctures.”
• Dialectical criticism:  Emphasizes “reflexivity and totality: it stresses the way in which ‘the [critic’s] mind must deal with its own thought process just as much as with the material it works on’ (Fredric Jameson); it holds that literary works internalise social forms, situations and structures, yet simultaneously refuse them (thereby generating a critical negativity that resists vulgar economic or political reductionism); and it takes the mediated (not external or abstract) social totality as its ultimate critical purview.”

Jada, in her research about James Baldwin’s story, “Sonny’s Blues,” uses both Marxist theory and Critical Race Theory (CRT). Below are some of the methodologies that CRT researchers use.

Critical Race Theorists use a variety of methodologies, including

• Interest convergence: investigates whether marginalized groups only achieve progress when dominant groups benefit as well
• Intersectional theory: investigates how multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage around race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. operate together in complex ways
• Radical critique of the law: investigates how the law has historically been used to marginalize particular groups, such as black people, while recognizing that legal efforts are important to achieve emancipation and civil rights
• Social constructivism: investigates how race is socially constructed (rather than biologically grounded)
• Standpoint epistemology: investigates how knowledge relates to individual experience and social position
• Structural determinism: investigates how structures of thought and of organizations determine social outcomes

Wikipedia can help with finding methodologies. For instance, the page about Cultural Studies notes that the primary areas of study are about power , which consists of many other things (such as ideology, social relations, etc.) and discourse (the languages and world views found in and around texts). You can follow the citation links in wikipedia to research each methodology. Better still, use your library. Cultural Studies has subdivisions, which include New Historicism, Multiculturalism, and Postcolonialism. One methodology of Cultural Studies is radical contextualism, which “rejects universal accounts of cultural practices, meanings, and identities.”

Some psychological theories, such as Freudian and Lacanian, use a set of methodologies referred to as “symptomatic.” The analogy is to medicine and the ways in which doctors seek to diagnose a patient’s condition based on their presenting symptoms. Since many medical conditions can produce similar symptoms (for instance, chest congestion can be caused by a cold, the flu, COVID, and many other conditions), a doctor has to look closely at a set of symptoms, use their knowledge of various medical conditions and how they present, and reason abductively (from effects to causes) to figure out what the underlying condition is. Similarly, a Freudian or Lacanian reading of a literary text will look for clues related to the characters, narrator, author, or audience to determine what underlying conditions are present. These conditions may be cognitive (beliefs), affective (feelings), or interpersonal (relationships). They also can be a combination of these things.

Theorists don’t always label their methodologies as such. You need to look into each theory to see what positions the theorists take, what they study, and why. The “methods” part is about how they study. Not every methodology will work with every theory. You will need to do some research to discover which methodologies are most appropriate for your project.

• What methodologies will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which methodologies are you considering?
• What specific concepts from the methodologies are you most interested in exploring in relation to your chosen literary work?
• What is your plan for researching your methodologies?
• When you do your assignments for this week about theory and methodology, you should refer to your earlier work – the literature you chose, the problem, etc. We are in building mode. Recall that the methodology relates directly to the theory. You may need to do some additional reading to identify methodologies and theories.
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?

Methodologies Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Literature: A Research Guide for Graduate Students and Faculty

Research dos & don'ts.

• Get Started
• Find a Database

DON'T reinvent the wheel

Many scholars have spent their entire careers in your field, watching its developments in print and in person. Learn from them! The library is full of specialized guides, companions, encyclopedias, dictionaries, bibliographies, histories and other "reference" sources that will help orient you to a new area of research. Similarly, every works cited list can be a gold mine of useful readings.

DO get to know your field

• Know Your Field , a module from Unabridged On Demand, offers tips, thought prompts, and links to resources for quickly learning about and staying current with an area of scholarly study.
• How do I find other sources that have cited a particular article or book? (Harvard Library FAQ) - also known as cited reference searching or reverse footnote-mining, this method helps you move forward from a really great source to the most recent scholarship on that same topic.
• Find Background (from the guide to Literary Research in Harvard Libraries) - how to find scholarly companions and guides that summarize and synthesize the research literature on a topic.
• Use HOLLIS to browse the literature section of the Loker Reading Room reference collection - Loker Reading Room, on the second floor of Widener, holds the most frequently consulted volumes of Widener's print reference collection. Use this browse to get a sense of the types of reference works that exist.
• James Harner's Literary Research Guide: an Annotated Listing of Reference Sources in English Literary Studies - a discontinued classic whose 2014 edition is now freely available on GitHub. For many topics, a decades-old reference source may still be the standard. This is especially true for the types of reference sources that are less likely to be published today, such as directories, inventories, and guides to collections.

DON'T treat every search box like Google or ChatGPT

Break free of the search habits that Google and generative AI have taught you! Learn to pay attention to how a search system operates and what is in it, and to adjust your search inputs accordingly.

Google and generative AI interfaces train you to type in your question as you would say it to another person. They give you the illusion of a search box that can read your thoughts and that access the entire internet. That's not what's actually happening, of course! Google is giving you the results others have clicked on most while generative AI is giving you the output that is most probable based on your input. Other search systems, like the library catalog, might be matching your search inputs to highly structured, human-curated data. They give the best results when you select specific keywords and make use of the database's specialized search tools.

DO adjust your language

Searching often means thinking in someone else's language, whether it's the librarians who created HOLLIS's subject vocabularies, or the scholars whose works you want to find in JSTOR, or the people of another era whose ideas you're trying to find in historical newspapers. The Search Vocabulary page on the general topic guide for literary studies is a great place to start for subject vocabularies.

Learn more about searching:

• Database Search Tips from MIT: a great, concise introduction to Booleans, keywords v. subjects, and search fields
• Improve Your Search , a module from our library research intensive, Unabridged On Demand

Search technique handouts

• "Search Smarter" Bookmark Simple steps to improve your searching, plus a quick guide to the search commands HOLLIS uses
• Decoding a database A two-page guide to the most effective ways to quickly familiarize yourself with a new system.
• Optimize Your Search A 3-column review of the basic search-strategy differences between Google and systems like JSTOR or HOLLIS.

DON'T search in just one place

No search has everything. Each system is useful for some tasks and less so for others. Judicious triangulation is the key to success.

DO SEARCH A VARIETY OF RESOURCES

There's always one more site you could  search, but eventually you will experience diminishing returns. For most research projects, I recommend searching at least 4 types of systems:

• Your library catalog ,  HOLLIS
• A subject-specific scholarly index , such as the MLA International Bibliography , LION (Literature Online) , or the IMB (International Medieval Bibliography)
• A full-text collection of scholarship,  such as JSTOR or ProjectMuse
• One of Google's full-text searches,   Google Scholar or Google Books

DO look beyond the library's collections

The library purchases and licenses materials for your use. Harvard's collections are some of the best in the world. And yet: there is a lot more to discover beyond Harvard, from open-access projects on the open web to other institutions' archives and special collections. Schedule a conversation with a librarian to discover the best resources for your specific project.

• << Previous: Find a Database

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Literary Research Strategy

Basic reference, reference plus, primary source databases.

• Keeping Up with Scholarship
• Searching Catalogs and Databases

English Literature and Digital Humanities Librarian

Hesburgh Library 250C Navari Center for Digital Scholarship University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556

(574) 631-3457 [email protected]

There are a multitude of resources and strategies for conducting literary research in the twenty-first century. In addition to outlining new and classic research tactics, this guide will provide links to literary resources with a broad scope. For links to resources designed for smaller fields of study, consult the following guides:

• Medieval English Studies PENDING
• Early-Modern Studies PENDING
• Eighteenth-Century Studies
• Nineteenth-Century Studies
• Twentieth-Century Studies PENDING
• Poetry Studies PENDING

These reference resources are grouped here based on their encyclopedic quality -- they give decent factual summaries and are useful for familiarizing oneself with literary subjects, like a more reliable Wikipedia. For the most part, they are not suitable for use as quotable scholarly sources.

• Johns Hopkins guide to literary theory & criticism This link opens in a new window A full-text searchable database of articles on individual critics and theorists, critical and theoretical schools and movements, and the critical and theoretical innovations of specific countries and historical periods.
• Literature online the home of English and American literature on the World Wide Web LION This link opens in a new window Literature Online actually extends beyond reference (and even includes a search interface for both ABELL and MLA), but it provides a good selection of reference material. Click "Browse reference works" on the right to scan the options.
• MagillOnLiterature This link opens in a new window Includes the complete contents of 31 sets of reference books, including nearly 20 Masterplots and Masterplots II titles, the Cyclopedia of world authors, the Cyclopedia of literary characters, as well as 10 years of Magill's literary annual and Magill book reviews.

These reference sources tend to provide more advanced information, and may in some cases (for example, in the Oxford entries) offer quotable material.

• English short title catalogue ESTC This link opens in a new window "... lists over 460,000 items published between 1473 and 1800, mainly in Britain and North America, mainly, but not exclusively, in English, from the collections of the British Library and over 2,000 other libraries."--Publisher's website.
• MLA Directory of Periodicals This link opens in a new window Searchable reference guide to journals in the field of English literature. NOTE: Once in the MLA site, user must click the "Choose Databases" link near the top, and select "MLA Directory of Periodicals."
• Oxford bibliographies online. British and Irish Literature This link opens in a new window Offers peer-reviewed annotated bibliographies on British and Irish literature, including perspectives from such fields as history, cultural studies, political science, and philosophy. Bibliographies are browseable by subject area and keyword searchable.
• Oxford dictionary of national biography This link opens in a new window The classic, authoritative biographical source for British history. Usage info: Licensed for 3 simultaneous users.
• Oxford English Dictionary This link opens in a new window A complete text of the second edition of the Oxford English dictionary with quarterly updates, including revisions not available in any other form. Contains the complete text of the 20-volume second edition together with its 3-volume additions series.
• Gale Primary Sources This link opens in a new window A collection of twenty primary-source databases, from the 16th through 21st centuries.
• Oxford scholarly editions online This link opens in a new window Currently includes writers active between 1485 and 1837, plus Classical Latin poets. Provides full-text access to hundreds of editions straight to your desktop, showcasing their authoritative editorial notes directly alongside the text and enabling advanced search within and between editions.
• Past masters This link opens in a new window Scholarly editions of classic works, primarily from the 16th through 19th centuries, complete with referenceable page numbers.
• Next: Keeping Up with Scholarship >>
• Last Updated: Oct 24, 2023 10:28 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.nd.edu/literary-research

Need help? Ask us.

Report a problem

Search Modern Language Association

Log in to Modern Language Association

• Annual Report
• MLA News Digest Archive
• Mission and Strategic Priorities
• Advertising
• Join the MLA Mailing List
• The MLA Staff
• Delegate Assembly
• Executive Council
• Related Organizations
• Donate to the MLA
• Leading Contributors to the MLA
• MLA Webinars Site
• ADE-ALD Summer Seminar and MAPS Leadership Institute
• MLA Convention Seminars
• Be a Volunteer at the MLA Annual Convention
• Presidential Theme for the 2025 Convention
• Information for Attendees
• Cultural Excursions Organized by the MLA
• Registration and Hotels
• Registration Rates for the 2025 Convention
• Online Session FAQ
• MLA Convention Land Acknowledgment
• MLA Exhibit Hall
• Access Guidelines for MLA Convention Session Organizers and Presenters
• Calls for Papers
• Policies for Forums and Allied Organizations
• Procedures for Organizing Convention Meetings
• Exhibiting at the 2025 MLA Convention
• Sponsorship and Marketing
• Convention History
• Appropriate Conduct at the MLA Annual Convention
• Join the MLA
• MLA Academic Program Services
• MLA Newsletter
• MLA Strategic Partnership Network
• Renew Your Membership
• MLA Handbook Plus
• Buy the MLA Handbook
• MLA Style Support
• Publications
• Backlist Titles
• Forthcoming Titles
• Library Subscriptions
• What We Publish
• What We Value
• How to Propose a Volume
• Contribute to a Book in Development
• Request Your Complimentary MLA Handbook
• About the MLA International Bibliography
• Free Online Course
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Submitting Work to the MLA International Bibliography
• Tutorial Videos
• Using the MLA International Bibliography
• Executive Council Actions
• MLA Pathways
• Resources on Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and the Right to Protest
• Resources on Collective Action
• Career Resources
• Conferences, Fellowships, and Announcements
• Humanities Leadership for Community College Faculty
• MLA Grants and Awards
• MLA Professional Development Webinars
• MLA Sit and Write Sessions
• MLA Webinars on the Public Humanities
• MLA Language Map
• Reports and Professional Guidelines

LOOKING TO UPDATE YOUR SYLLABUS?

Our new titles catalog for the 2024–25 academic year is now available!

MLA Guide to Undergraduate Research in Literature

Second edition.

• Authors: Elizabeth Brookbank, H. Faye Christenberry
• Published: 2023
• ISBN: 9781603296298 (Paperback)

This product is not yet available. We are currently accepting preorders for this forthcoming title.

Add to Cart

• Description

What makes a good research topic in a literature class? What does your professor mean by “peer-reviewed” sources? What should you do if you can’t find enough material? This approachable guide walks students through the process of research in literary studies, providing them with tools for responding successfully to course assignments.

Written by two experienced librarians, the guide introduces the resources available through college and university libraries and explains how to access the ones a student needs. It focuses on research in literature, identifying relevant databases and research guides and explaining different types of sources and the role each plays in researching and writing about a literary text. But it also contains helpful information for any student researcher, describing strategies for searching the web to find the most useful material and offering guidance on organizing research and documenting sources with MLA style.

Extensively updated and revised, the second edition emphasizes digital resources that can be accessed remotely, offers critical thinking strategies for evaluating sources, and includes more information on writing about audiovisual as well as written works.

• Digital Pedagogy
• Writing and Research Guides

Introduction (1)

1. Starting the Research Process (5)

Understanding Your Research Paper Assignment (6)

Developing a Topic (11)

Developing a Search Strategy (13)

The Research Process: Five Top Tips for Doing Better Research (19)

2. Searching Your Library Discovery System or Catalog (25)

Is This like Google ? Your Library’s Discovery System (27)

The Library’s Special Language: Library of Congress Subject Headings (32)

Moving beyond the Basics (33)

Using Materials from Other Libraries (39)

Choosing the Right Library Sources for Your Assignment (41)

3. Searching Subject-Specific Databases (43)

How to Select the Right Database (44)

Subject-Specific Databases (47)

Advanced Searching in the MLA International Bibliography (50)

Interdisciplinary Databases (52)

4. Searching the Internet (59)

Finding Scholarship on the Internet (60)

Accessing Scholarship Online (63)

Searching Smarter: Search Engine Advanced Tools (65)

Evaluating Internet Sources (67)

Evaluating Library Sources (71)

5. Finding Reviews (75)

6. Using Contextual Primary Sources (83)

What Is a Primary Source? (83)

Periodicals as Primary Sources (85)

Audiovisual Media as a Primary Source (86)

Using Primary Sources in Literary Research (86)

Finding Primary Sources Using a Library Database or Catalog (89)

Finding Primary Sources Using the Internet (91)

7. Finding Background Information (95)

Library Sources for Biographical and Historical Information (96)

Internet Sources for Biographical and Historical Information (101)

Finding a Definition or the Source of a Quotation (106)

8. Managing Sources and Creating Your Bibliography (111)

Creating In-Text Citations and a Works-Cited List (112)

Organizing Your Research (116)

9. Guides to Research in Literature Written in English (121)

Harner’s Literary Research Guide (122)

Series on Literary Research from Scarecrow Press (123)

Appendix. A Selected Bibliography of Research Sources for Literature and Literary Studies in English (125)

Glossary (143)

Index (149)

Search Bookstore

Browse subjects, browse periods, browse series, related links.

• Author Resources
• 2020–21 Catalog
• 2021–22 Catalog
• 2022–23 Catalog
• 2023–24 Catalog
• 2024–25 Catalog
• Writing and Research Titles Catalog
• Join Our Mailing List
• Course, Bulk, and International Book Orders
• Request a Desk, Exam, or Review Copy

Literary Research Guide

An annotated listing of reference sources in english literary studies, james l. harner.

Copyright © 2008 by The Modern Language Association of America

This version of the Literary Research Guide is based on the sixth edition, published by the Modern Language Association in 2014. The Modern Language Association has since made the HTML, XML, and CSS of this edition available on GitHub under the terms of a CC-BY 4.0 license. The Modern Language Association did not create this version and is not responsible for the contents, display, accessibility, or any other aspect of it.

• Art of Literary Research
• Modern Researcher
• Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures
• On Compiling an Annotated Bibliography
• Attributing Authorship
• ““ Rise of Periodical Studies ””
• Guide to Reference
• New Walford Guide to Reference Resources
• Reader’s Adviser
• General Subject-Indexes since 1548
• Research Guide for Undergraduate Students
• Guide to English and American Literature
• Reference Guide for English Studies
• Handbook to Literature
• Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory
• Oxford Classical Dictionary
• Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts
• Dictionary of Literary Symbols
• Benét’s Reader’s Encyclopedia
• Cambridge Guide to Literature in English
• Kindlers neues Literatur Lexikon
• Serial Bibliographies
• Other Bibliographies
• Bibliographies
• Background Reading
• Guides to Libraries
• Guides to Collections
• Interlibrary Loan
• Bibliographies and Guides
• Union Catalogs
• Catalogs of National Libraries
• Use of Manuscripts in Literary Research
• Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology
• Archive Finder
• British Archives
• “ National Archives ”
• Guide to the National Archives of the United States
• Catalogs of Major Collections
• Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts
• Guide to Serial Bibliographies for Modern Literatures
• Early Periodical Indexes
• Surveys of Research
• Literature Bibliographies
• General Bibliographies
• Bibliographies of Bibliographies
• Abstracts of English Studies
• English and American Studies in German
• Guide to Theses and Dissertations
• Dissertation Abstracts
• Canadian Theses / Thèses canadiennes
• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
• Union List of Higher Degree Theses in Australian University Libraries
• Catalogue of Austrian and Swiss Dissertations on English and American Literature
• Dissertations in English and American Literature
• Language and Literature of the Anglo-Saxon Nations
• 18thConnect: Eighteenth-Century Scholarship Online
• Literature Online
• Literature Resource Center
• Oxford Reference
• Gale Virtual Reference Library
• Guides to Biographies
• Guides to Scholarship and Criticism
• General Biographical Dictionaries
• Dictionaries of Writers
• ““ Digital Burney Newspapers Collection ””
• MLA Directory of Periodicals
• Author Newsletters and Journals
• Related Works
• New Serial Titles
• Serials in the British Library
• Project Muse
• IngentaConnect
• American Reference Books Annual
• Times Literary Supplement
• Guides to Reference Works
• Histories and Surveys
• Guides to Primary Works
• Gothic and Horror Fiction
• Historical Fiction
• Mystery Fiction
• Picaresque Fiction
• Science and Fantasy Fiction
• Utopian Fiction
• Short Fiction (Short Story, Novella)
• Literary Handbooks, Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias
• Biographical Dictionaries
• Biography and Autobiography
• Travel Writing
• Periodicals
• Research Methods
• Literary Research and Irish Literature
• Cambridge History of Irish Literature
• Dictionary of Irish Literature
• Guide to Irish Bibliographical Material
• Manuscripts
• Printed Works
• Dissertations and Theses
• Guides to Scholarship
• Dictionary of Irish Biography
• Biographical Dictionary of Irish Writers
• Drama and Theater
• Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature
• Companion to Scottish Literature
• Scotland: A Literary Guide
• Dictionaries
• Guide to Welsh Literature
• History of Welsh Literature
• New Companion to the Literature of Wales
• Bibliography of Anglo-Welsh Literature
• Bywgraffiadur Ar-lein / Welsh Biography Online
• Eastern Literature
• Midwestern Literature
• Southern Literature
• Western Literature
• African American Literature
• American Indian Literatures
• Asian American Literature
• Hispanic American Literature
• Jewish American Literature
• Literary Research and Postcolonial Literatures in English
• ““ Researching African Literatures ””
• Asian Literature in English
• Manuel bibliographique des études littéraires
• Literaturrecherche für Germanisten
• Manuale critico-bibliografico per lo studio della letteratura italiana
• Companion to Neo-Latin Studies
• Introduction to Medieval Latin
• Portuguese Language and Luso-Brazilian Literature
• Russian Reference Works
• Guide to Reference Works for the Study of the Spanish Language and Literature
• Comparative Literature and Literary Theory
• Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary
• Individuals
• Institutions
• Organizations
• General Introductions
• Handbooks, Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias
• Author Bibliographies
• Descriptive Bibliography
• Textual Criticism
• Book Trade, History of the Book, and Publishing History
• Directories of Book Dealers
• Biographical Dictionaries of Collectors
• Booksellers’ and Auction Catalogs
• Computer Programs
• Grants Register
• Histories of the English Language
• Handbooks, Linguistic Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias
• General Linguistics
• Special Topics
• Types, Schools, and Movements
• Guide to Microforms and Digital Resources
• Microform Research Collections
• Handbooks and Guides to Publishing
• Directories of Publishing Opportunities
• Guides to Writing
• Style Manuals
• Book Reviewing
• History and Literature
• Political Science and Literature
• Psychology and Literature
• Sociology and Literature
• Index of Names
• Index of Titles
• Subject Index
• Bibliography

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 11 October 2016

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

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

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

56k Accesses

27 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

The example systematic methods overview on sampling in qualitative research

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

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

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

Organization of the guidance into principles and strategies

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

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

Results and discussion

Literature identification and selection.

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

Delimiting a manageable set of publications

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

Principle #1:

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

Strategy #1:

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

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

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

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

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

Searching beyond standard bibliographic databases

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

Principle #2:

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

Strategy #2:

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

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

Searching without relevant metadata

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

Principle #3:

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

Strategy #3:

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

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

Purposefully selecting literature on conceptual grounds

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

Principle #4:

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

Strategy #4:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data abstraction

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

Iteratively defining conceptual information to abstract

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

Principle #5:

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

Strategy #5:

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

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

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

Accounting for inconsistent terminology

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

Principle #6:

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

Strategy #6:

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

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

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

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

Generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations

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

Principle #7:

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

Strategy #7:

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

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

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

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

Integrative versus interpretive methods overviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

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

Authors’ contributions

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

Authors’ information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

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

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

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

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

David B. Nicholas

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

Jenny Ploeg

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

Stephen J. Gentles

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Gentles .

Additional information

Cathy Charles is deceased

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Submitted: Analysis_matrices. (DOC 330 kb)

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2016

Accepted : 14 September 2016

Published : 11 October 2016

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

University of Denver

University libraries, research guides, literary research: strategies and sources: literary research series.

• Literary Research Series
• British Romantic Era
• American Nationalism and Romanticism
• American Modernist Era
• American Realism and Naturalism
• Irish Literature
• Australia and New Zealand
• British Modernism
• British Renaissance/Early Modern
• Canadian Literature
• Victorian and Edwardian Ages
• Postcolonial Literatures in English
• British Eighteenth Century
• British Postmodernism

Literary Research: Strategies and Sources

Every literary age presents scholars with both predictable and unique research challenges. This Scarecrow Press series fills a gap in the field of reference literature by featuring research strategies and by recommending the best tools for conducting specialized period and national literary research. Emphasizing research methodology, each series volume takes into account the unique challenges inherent in conducting research of that specific literary period and outlines the best practices for research within it. Volumes place the research process within the period's historical context and use a narrative structure to analyze and compare print and electronic reference sources. Following an introduction to online searching, chapters will typically cover these types of sources: general literary reference materials; library catalogs; print and online bibliographies, indexes, and annual reviews; scholarly journals; contemporary reviews; period journals and newspapers; microform and digital collections; manuscripts and archives; and Web resources. Additional or alternative chapters might be included to highlight a particular research problem or to examine other pertinent period or national literary resources.

• Literary Research and the British Romantic Era by Peggy Keeran and Jennifer Bowers, 2005.
• Literary Research and the Era of American Nationalism and Romanticism by Angela Courtney, 2008.
• Literary Research and American Modernism by Robert N. Matuozzi and Elizabeth B. Lindsay, 2008.
• Literary Research and the American Realism and Naturalism Period by Linda L. Stein and Peter J. Lehu, 2009.
• Literary Research and Irish Literature by J. Greg Matthews, 2009.
• Literary Research and the Literatures of Australia and New Zealand by H. Faye Christenberry and Angela Courntey, 2010.
• Literary Research and British Modernism by Alison M. Lewis, 2010.
• Literary Research and the British Renaissance and Early Modern Period by Jennifer Bowers and Peggy Keeran, 2010.
• Literary Research and the Victorian and Edwardian Ages 1830-1910 by Melissa S. Van Vuuren, 2011
• Literary Research and Canadian Literature by Gabriella Natasha Reznowski, 2011
• Literary Research and Postcolonial Literatures in English  by H. Faye  Christenberry , Angela  Courntey, Liorah Golomb, and  Melis sa S. Van  Vuuren, 2012
• Literary Research and the British Eighteenth Century  by  Peggy  Keeran  and Jennifer Bowers, 2013
• Literary Research and British Postmodernism  by Bridgit McCafferty and Arianne Hartsell-Gundy, 2015

Book Titles

Click on the images below to view the updated content within each book.

• Next: British Romantic Era >>
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 2:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.du.edu/literaryresearchseries

How to Write a Methods Section: A Guide for Literature Reviews and Research Articles

The methods section is the most dreaded and difficult part of academic articles, both to read and also to write. One of the reasons for this common opinion is because this section holds a lot of importance for the outcome of the entire article.   When you’re diving into an article, the methods section is your …

Derek Pankaew

Nov 1, 2024

The methods section is the most dreaded and difficult part of academic articles, both to read and also to write. One of the reasons for this common opinion is because this section holds a lot of importance for the outcome of the entire article.  

When you’re diving into an article, the methods section is your go-to for the “how” behind the research—how data was collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Understanding what’s included (and sometimes what’s left out) helps you gauge the study’s credibility and quality. Likewise, when writing your own methods section, it’s essential to keep the reader’s perspective in mind, aiming for clarity, thoroughness, and transparency to make it as digestible as possible.

In this guide, we’ll break down both reading and writing a methods section. We’ll also cover the nuances between crafting methods sections for literature reviews versus research articles, as each serves a distinct purpose and approach.

Key Take Aways

• Understand the Purpose Of A Methods Section
• Distinguish Between Literature Review and Research Article Methods
• Evaluate And Interoperate A Methods Sections
• Apply Writing Techniques To Write Your Own Methods Section

What is Important About A Methods Section

A study analyzing 400 submissions to a medical journal found that poor methodology was among the top five reasons for manuscript rejection , alongside issues like lack of new information and low scientific content.

When studies go wrong, they usually go wrong in the methods section. Investors, companies, and grading professors alike look for sound methods nearly above all else. Getting this section wrong could cost you big time in funding, second phase research acceptance, credibility, and in time and energy if you are trying to graduate. 

If you are writing this paper as a part of graduation requirements, plan on rewriting the methods section more than a few times before your principal investigator approves your paper for defense. Don’t take it personally, it is just a part of the graduate student experience.

Consider it a cannon event that contributes to the plot and to your overall character development. At least that is how most of the people we know who went through graduate school coped with the stress of endless edits on dissertation and thesis writing.

Save yourself a lot of rework and unnecessary revisions by continuing to read below. The info in the next few paragraphs will be sure to set you up for success in how to write a methods section for literature reviews and research articles.

What is NOT included in the Methods Section

Before we cover what is in a methods section and how to read and write one, let’s cover what is not included. What you wont find (and shouldn’t include) in a methods section is any comments on results, findings, or correlations of the data. 

While you will see HOW results, correlation and findings were obtained, you should not see what any of this means. Think of this section as the operations of how conclusions were made, but not language on the actual conclusions themselves. 

This is a tricky and nuanced but very important delineation to understand. The methods section is just the facts of how you gathered the data, how you organized it, and what types of process and tests you used to analyze it. Results of these tests and processes will go in, well, the Results section (which is not just a clever name).

What IS Included In The Methods Section

In academic writing, the methods section plays a pivotal role by outlining the processes involved in gathering and analyzing information, whether for synthesizing existing knowledge or presenting new findings. When you find yourself asking “but how did they come to that conclusion?” This section should answer that for you. In the same way, when you are writing a methods section, you will want to make sure readers are clear on how you came to the conclusions you highlight in your article.

For both literature reviews and research articles, this section sets the groundwork for credibility, rigor, and transparency, albeit in different ways. While both types of methods sections serve as blueprints for the work being discussed, their objectives are wildly different due to the difference in the main objective of the article and even the type of data and information each is presenting. 

How to Read and Interoperate A Methods Section

Once you have done a few of your own research projects you will realize just now important working with data to tell a story is. You will likely see first hand how choosing one type of testing method over another can and often does wildly change the results and the outcomes of the entire project. This is why it is so important to know exactly what to look for and how to interoperate the methods section. 

What to Look For In The Methods Section

Reading and interpreting a methods section is essential for evaluating the credibility and rigor of an academic work. Evaluating for credibility means looking for sound, ethical, and repeatable ways the author analyze the data. 

To effectively understand this section, begin by examining its structure and content. Look for key elements such as the research design, participant or sample characteristics, materials used, procedures followed, and data analysis methods. 

Each of these components provides insight into how the study was conducted and whether it aligns with best practices in the field. By carefully analyzing these details, you can assess the study’s validity, replicability, and relevance to your own research or interests. For literature reviews, focus on search criteria, databases used, and inclusion/exclusion criteria to judge the thoroughness and objectivity of the synthesis.

How to Interoperate The Methods  Section

Interpreting a methods section also involves considering its alignment with the study’s objectives or research questions. Ask yourself if the chosen methods logically support the study’s goals and if they are appropriate for the questions being explored. 

Pay attention to any limitations or potential biases noted by the authors, as these can impact the study’s findings or interpretations. For instance, a small sample size may limit the generalizability of results, while certain exclusion criteria in a literature review could introduce bias. Evaluating these factors allows you to determine how much confidence you should place in the findings and helps you better understand the study’s contribution to the broader field.

Methods for A Literature Review vs. A Research Article

While the methods sections in literature reviews and research articles have distinct goals, they both serve as essential indicators of credibility and rigor. 

In a literature review, transparency in study selection and analysis assures readers of a balanced perspective. In a research article, detailed procedures and clear data analysis reinforce the validity of findings, setting a standard for replicability.

Both methods sections build a foundation of trust with the reader, ensuring that the subsequent conclusions or findings are reliable. Whether synthesizing existing studies or presenting new research, the methods section ensures that academic work stands on a clear, credible, and rigorously documented foundation.

This table highlights the unique focus and components of each methods section, helping readers understand the distinct goals and foundations of credibility in both literature reviews and research articles.

Key Components of A Methods Section for Literature Reviews

In a literature review, the primary goal of the methods section is to detail the approach taken to identify, select, and analyze relevant studies. Since a literature review synthesizes findings from existing research rather than collecting new data, the methods section clarifies why certain studies were included and how they contribute to answering the review’s central question. 

This transparency is crucial because it establishes the credibility of the review’s conclusions. Readers need to trust that the sources were selected systematically, without bias, and that they truly represent the existing landscape of knowledge on the topic.

A well-written methods section for a literature review includes the following elements: search strategy, databases accessed, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the approach to analyzing the selected studies. 

For example, the author might describe specific keywords and Boolean operators used in search queries or list databases like PubMed or JSTOR where searches were conducted. These details demonstrate a systematic approach and help others replicate or verify the review if needed.

This methods section also sets the tone for objectivity. By clarifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the author shows that the sources were not cherry-picked to support a particular viewpoint. Instead, they provide a balanced view, showcasing relevant studies from diverse perspectives. This transparency in selection not only strengthens the review’s reliability but also ensures that it is a valuable resource for others in the field.

Key Components of A Methods Section for Research Articles

For a research article, the methods section has a slightly different purpose, as it focuses on describing the procedures for collecting and analyzing new data. Here, the goal is to provide enough detail for another researcher to replicate the study under similar conditions, thereby validating its findings. A comprehensive and precise methods section is a hallmark of rigor in original research, as it ensures that the study’s results are credible and scientifically sound.

In a research article, the methods section typically covers information on participants or subjects, materials or tools, procedures, and data analysis methods. For instance, in a study on human subjects, details on the sample size, demographics, and selection criteria are essential for understanding the scope and applicability of the results. Similarly, explaining the tools or materials used, such as specialized equipment or software, allows readers to gauge the study’s reliability and precision.

The procedures section describes each step of the study, often in a chronological order. This transparency allows others to follow the same process, reinforcing the study’s validity. Additionally, data analysis methods, whether statistical tests or qualitative coding techniques, show how results were interpreted, helping readers assess the rigor of the analysis.

5 Tips for Writing A Methods Section That Passes The Test

Now that we have covered how to read a methods section and what purpose a method section plays for literature reviews vs research articles, let’s cover 5 tips for writing your own clear and engaging methods section to greatly enhance the readability and credibility of your research.

Again the key here is to make information clear and easy for readers to understand and potentially replicate your study. Here are the tips to guide you in creating a methods section that is both accessible and thorough.

Be Clear and Concise

Less is more and simple language goes a long way. Readers will appreciate it if you are as direct, to the point, and specific you can be. Avoid jargon and overly complex language when possible. The goal is to communicate your procedures clearly so that readers from different backgrounds can easily understand your methods. 

Break down each step logically and use straightforward language to explain each part of the process, whether detailing participant selection, materials used, or the procedures followed.

Organize with Subheadings

Use subheadings for each major component, such as “Participants,” “Materials,” “Procedure,” and “Data Analysis.” Organizing like this improves readability and also allows readers to quickly find specific information. 

If your study involves multiple steps or complex procedures, consider using bullet points or numbered lists to clarify the sequence.

Include Enough Detail for Replication

Being repeatable is the key to being credible. Make sure to include enough detail so that other researchers can follow your methods and get the same or very similar results.

Describe the conditions and variables precisely, specifying exact measurements or tools. For materials, name specific brands or models used, and for procedures, explain the exact order in which tasks were conducted. 

For a methods section in a literature review, be specific about search terms, databases, and criteria for inclusion and exclusion.

Anticipate Reader Questions

This one is important. It is always a good idea to write with your audience in mind. Imagine yourself as a reader unfamiliar with your study. 

Anticipate questions that may arise, such as why certain variables were controlled or why specific inclusion criteria were chosen. Addressing these potential questions within your methods section demonstrates transparency and helps build trust in your study.

Edit for Flow and Readability

While methods sections are inherently technical, that does not mean they have to be dry. After drafting, review the section to ensure that each sentence logically leads to the next. Avoid long, complex sentences that may be hard to follow; instead, opt for a clear, engaging style that holds readers’ attention while conveying all necessary details.

Whether you are writing a literature review or a research article, the methods section serves as the foundation upon which your findings rest, providing the detailed blueprint of your approach. By understanding the different goals and structures required for each type of methods section, you can better communicate your process and ensure your work is both replicable and rigorous.

Remember, a well-constructed methods section not only answers the “how” of your research but also strengthens the impact of your conclusions. And incase you missed it, check out our blog on how to write a complete research paper from start to finish.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Academic Research

Academic Writing

Graduate School

Recent articles

What is a Graduate Student?

Explore the journey of a PHD student: from deep learning and advanced research to personal growth and expertise in their field.

Nov 4, 2024

Academic pursuits

Advanced Degrees

graduate studies

Higher Education

Masters vs. Ph.D.

Ph.D. student

Postgraduate experience

Professional Development

Research Skills

Thesis writing

10 Study Habits of Highly Effective Students

Discover 10 effective study habits that top students use to excel. Boost your productivity and achieve better grades with these simple, proven tips.

Effective learning strategies

Good Study Habits

Student Success

The Top 5 Free Study Tools for Students

Discover the top 5 free study tools that can boost your academic performance. Unlock your potential with these essential resources for students.

Academic resources

Educational assistance

Online learning tools

What Is an Associate Degree?

Learn what is an associate degree, its benefits, and career opportunities. Discover how this two-year college program can advance your education and professional goals.

Academic credentials

Associate degree overview

Career Advancement

Community college programs

Higher education pathways

Job market opportunities

Transfer credits

Two-year college degree

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Design: Selection of Data Collection Methods

Elise paradis , phd, bridget o'brien , phd, laura nimmon , phd, glen bandiera , md, maria athina (tina) martimianakis , phd.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Elise Paradis, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and a Scientist, Wilson Centre; Bridget C. O'Brien, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Laura Nimmon, PhD, is a Scientist, Centre for Health Education Scholarship, and Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Glen Bandiera, MD, is Chief of Emergency Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education, and Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; and Maria Athina (Tina) Martimianakis, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, and a Scientist, Wilson Centre.

Corresponding author: Elise Paradis, PhD, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, 144 College Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2 Canada, 416.946.7022, [email protected]

Editor's Note: The online version of this article contains resources for further reading and a table of strengths and limitations of qualitative data collection methods.

The Challenge

Imagine that residents in your program have been less than complimentary about interprofessional rounds (IPRs). The program director asks you to determine what residents are learning about in collaboration with other health professionals during IPRs. If you construct a survey asking Likert-type questions such as “How much are you learning?” you likely will not gather the information you need to answer this question. You understand that qualitative data deal with words rather than numbers and could provide the needed answers. How do you collect “good” words? Should you use open-ended questions in a survey format? Should you conduct interviews, focus groups, or conduct direct observation? What should you consider when making these decisions?

Introduction

Qualitative research is often employed when there is a problem and no clear solutions exist, as in the case above that elicits the following questions: Why are residents complaining about rounds? How could we make rounds better? In this context, collecting “good” information or words (qualitative data) is intended to produce information that helps you to answer your research questions, capture the phenomenon of interest, and account for context and the rich texture of the human experience. You may also aim to challenge previous thinking and invite further inquiry.

Coherence or alignment between all aspects of the research project is essential. In this Rip Out we focus on data collection, but in qualitative research, the entire project must be considered. 1 , 2 Careful design of the data collection phase requires the following: deciding who will do what, where, when, and how at the different stages of the research process; acknowledging the role of the researcher as an instrument of data collection; and carefully considering the context studied and the participants and informants involved in the research.

Types of Data Collection Methods

Data collection methods are important, because how the information collected is used and what explanations it can generate are determined by the methodology and analytical approach applied by the researcher. 1 , 2 Five key data collection methods are presented here, with their strengths and limitations described in the online supplemental material.

Questions added to surveys to obtain qualitative data typically are open-ended with a free-text format. Surveys are ideal for documenting perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge within a clear, predetermined sample of individuals. “Good” open-ended questions should be specific enough to yield coherent responses across respondents, yet broad enough to invite a spectrum of answers. Examples for this scenario include: What is the function of IPRs? What is the educational value of IPRs, according to residents? Qualitative survey data can be analyzed using a range of techniques.

Interviews are used to gather information from individuals 1-on-1, using a series of predetermined questions or a set of interest areas. Interviews are often recorded and transcribed. They can be structured or unstructured; they can either follow a tightly written script that mimics a survey or be inspired by a loose set of questions that invite interviewees to express themselves more freely. Interviewers need to actively listen and question, probe, and prompt further to collect richer data. Interviews are ideal when used to document participants' accounts, perceptions of, or stories about attitudes toward and responses to certain situations or phenomena. Interview data are often used to generate themes , theories , and models . Many research questions that can be answered with surveys can also be answered through interviews, but interviews will generally yield richer, more in-depth data than surveys. Interviews do, however, require more time and resources to conduct and analyze. Importantly, because interviewers are the instruments of data collection, interviewers should be trained to collect comparable data. The number of interviews required depends on the research question and the overarching methodology used. Examples of these questions include: How do residents experience IPRs? What do residents' stories about IPRs tell us about interprofessional care hierarchies?

Focus groups are used to gather information in a group setting, either through predetermined interview questions that the moderator asks of participants in turn or through a script to stimulate group conversations. Ideally, they are used when the sum of a group of people's experiences may offer more than a single individual's experiences in understanding social phenomena. Focus groups also allow researchers to capture participants' reactions to the comments and perspectives shared by other participants, and are thus a way to capture similarities and differences in viewpoints. The number of focus groups required will vary based on the questions asked and the number of different stakeholders involved, such as residents, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patients. The optimal number of participants per focus group, to generate rich discussion while enabling all members to speak, is 8 to 10 people. 3 Examples of questions include: How would residents, nurses, and pharmacists redesign or improve IPRs to maximize engagement, participation, and use of time? How do suggestions compare across professional groups?

Observations are used to gather information in situ using the senses: vision, hearing, touch, and smell. Observations allow us to investigate and document what people do —their everyday behavior—and to try to understand why they do it, rather than focus on their own perceptions or recollections. Observations are ideal when used to document, explore, and understand, as they occur, activities, actions, relationships, culture, or taken-for-granted ways of doing things. As with the previous methods, the number of observations required will depend on the research question and overarching research approach used. Examples of research questions include: How do residents use their time during IPRs? How do they relate to other health care providers? What kind of language and body language are used to describe patients and their families during IPRs?

Textual or content analysis is ideal when used to investigate changes in official, institutional, or organizational views on a specific topic or area to document the context of certain practices or to investigate the experiences and perspectives of a group of individuals who have, for example, engaged in written reflection. Textual analysis can be used as the main method in a research project or to contextualize findings from another method. The choice and number of documents has to be guided by the research question, but can include newspaper or research articles, governmental reports, organization policies and protocols, letters, records, films, photographs, art, meeting notes, or checklists. The development of a coding grid or scheme for analysis will be guided by the research question and will be iteratively applied to selected documents. Examples of research questions include: How do our local policies and protocols for IPRs reflect or contrast with the broader discourses of interprofessional collaboration? What are the perceived successful features of IPRs in the literature? What are the key features of residents' reflections on their interprofessional experiences during IPRs?

How You Can Start TODAY

Review medical education journals to find qualitative research in your area of interest and focus on the methods used as well as the findings.

When you have chosen a method, read several different sources on it.

From your readings, identify potential colleagues with expertise in your choice of qualitative method as well as others in your discipline who would like to learn more and organize potential working groups to discuss challenges that arise in your work.

What You Can Do LONG TERM

Either locally or nationally, build a community of like-minded scholars to expand your qualitative expertise.

Use a range of methods to develop a broad program of qualitative research.

Supplementary Material

• 1. Teherani A, Martimianakis T, Stenfors-Hayes T, Wadhwa A, Varpio L. Choosing a qualitative research approach. J Grad Med Educ . 2015; 7 4: 669– 670. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Wright S, O'Brien BC, Nimmon L, Law M, Mylopoulos M. Research design considerations. J Grad Med Educ . 2016; 8 1: 97– 98. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Stalmeijer RE, McNaughton N, Van Mook WN. Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Med Teach . 2014; 36 11: 923– 939. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (109.9 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections