The effect of chronic caffeine supplementation on endurance performance has been studied extensively in different populations. However, concurrent research on the effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance exercise in hot and humid conditions is unavailable
Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.
Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.
Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.
You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.
A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.
Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).
Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).
During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.
When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.
When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.
Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).
The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.
Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.
The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.
In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:
This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.
The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review
The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.
It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.
It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.
Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.
Copyright note:
Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.
How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.
Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.
When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.
The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.
Correct my document today
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .
If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:
You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:
Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.
You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.
For each publication, ask yourself:
Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.
The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).
Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.
To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.
Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, make sure to follow these tips:
In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.
If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/
Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.
3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019
Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.
Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).
Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?
Well, there are (at least) four core functions:
Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.
Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:
Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.
Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.
Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:
Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.
Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.
So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.
At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.
Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:
Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .
Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.
Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?
While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).
As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:
I’ll discuss each of these below:
As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.
In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.
I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):
If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).
Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:
To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.
Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:
Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!
Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.
In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .
Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!
PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…
With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.
Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.
Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.
Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.
In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.
In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:
This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .
Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.
This is awesome!
I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.
But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.
Thank you for this good job.
Keep it up!
You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.
Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.
You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂
This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂
Thank you Gradcoach.
Really agreed. Admirable effort
thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.
Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.
It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.
Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou
an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,
It is timely
It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.
I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research
I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.
Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information
This is super helpful thank you very much.
Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.
I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!
You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂
Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge
Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much
This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!
Thanks, Stephanie 🙂
This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.
I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.
thank you so much.
if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!
This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation
Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring
Thanks, it was useful
Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.
Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job
Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start
Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.
This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.
Very timely.
I appreciate.
Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you
Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.
Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.
Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.
In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.
A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.
Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:
“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.
Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”
Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.
A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.
As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.
A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.
The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:
Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.
Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.
Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.
All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.
Here are the different types of literature reviews:
Argumentative review
It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.
Integrative review
It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.
Methodological review
This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question — you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.
Systematic review
This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.
Meta-analysis review
Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.
Historical review
Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.
Theoretical Review
This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.
Scoping Review
The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.
State-of-the-Art Review
The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.
When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."
Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:
Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review
Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.
There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.
The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.
To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.
You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:
As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:
Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.
Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.
You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:
Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.
Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.
It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.
While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:
Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.
Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.
At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.
A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:
Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.
There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.
Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.
Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.
1. Standalone
2. As a section of a research paper
SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:
Find the right information
Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.
Assess credibility of papers quickly
When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.
Get the complete picture in no time
SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.
Make referring sources super easy
To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.
A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.
We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.
Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .
1. how to start a literature review.
• What questions do you want to answer?
• What sources do you need to answer these questions?
• What information do these sources contain?
• How can you use this information to answer your questions?
• A brief background of the problem or issue
• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue
• A description of what you will do in your project
• How this study will contribute to research on the subject
The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.
To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21
• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.
• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.
• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.
• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.
• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.
• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.
• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.
• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.
• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.
• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.
• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.
• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.
When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.
• To represent an abstract idea or concept
• To explain the steps of a process or procedure
• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts
Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.
• Argumentative review
• Integrative review
• Methodological review
• Systematic review
• Meta-analysis review
• Historical review
• Theoretical review
• Scoping review
• State-of-the-Art review
Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.
But before you go,
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Ayodeji amobonye.
1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Associated data.
The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.
Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].
Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].
Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.
According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.
Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.
Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.
The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].
Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.
In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.
The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.
Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.
Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].
Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].
A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.
Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.
One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.
Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.
It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].
The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].
Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.
The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.
Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.
Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.
Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.
As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].
The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.
Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].
The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].
Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].
An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].
Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.
It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].
Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?
As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.
Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.
Conflicts of interest.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Literature review.
Reviewing the Literature: Why do it?
Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type, and other factors.
Background:
Where to get help (there are lots of websites, blogs , articles, and books on this topic) :
READ related material and pay attention to how others write their literature reviews:
Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy
Have an exemplary literature review.
Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?
Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?
Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Email citation, add to collections.
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
Affiliation.
Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.
© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.
PubMed Disclaimer
Full text sources.
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )
The literature review is the section of your paper in which you cite and briefly review the related research studies that have been conducted. In this space, you will describe the foundation on which your research will be/is built. You will:
The literature review should be selective and should group the cited studies in some logical fashion.
If you need some additional assistance writing your literature review, the Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines offers a Graduate Writing Service .
For more information, visit our guide devoted to " Demystifying the Literature Review " which includes:
Nowadays, there is a huge demand for scientific literature reviews as they are especially appreciated by scholars or researchers when designing their research proposals. While finding information is less of a problem to them, discerning which paper or publication has enough quality has become one of the biggest issues. Literature reviews narrow the current knowledge on a certain field and examine the latest publications’ strengths and weaknesses. This way, they are priceless tools not only for those who are starting their research, but also for all those interested in recent publications. To be useful, literature reviews must be written in a professional way with a clear structure. The amount of work needed to write a scientific literature review must be considered before starting one since the tasks required can overwhelm many if the working method is not the best.
Writing a scientific review implies both researching for relevant academic content and writing , however, writing without having a clear objective is a common mistake. Sometimes, studying the situation and defining the work’s system is so important and takes equally as much time as that required in writing the final result. Therefore, we suggest that you divide your path into three steps.
Think about your target and narrow down your topic. If you don’t choose a well-defined topic, you can find yourself dealing with a wide subject and plenty of publications about it. Remember that researchers usually deal with really specific fields of study.
It is time to be a critic and locate only pertinent publications. While researching for content consider publications that were written 3 years ago at the most. Write notes and summarize the content of each paper as that will help you in the next step.
Check some literature review examples to decide how to start writing a good literature review . When your goals and structure are defined, begin writing without forgetting your target at any moment.
Related: Conducting a literature survey? Wish to learn more about scientific misconduct? Check out this resourceful infographic.
Here you have a to-do list to help you write your review :
Scholars and researchers are usually the best candidates to write scientific literature reviews, not only because they are experts in a certain field, but also because they know the exigencies and needs that researchers have while writing research proposals or looking for information among thousands of academic papers. Therefore, considering your experience as a researcher can help you understand how to write a scientific literature review.
Have you faced challenges while drafting your first literature review? How do you think can these tips help you in acing your next literature review? Let us know in the comments section below! You can also visit our Q&A forum for frequently asked questions related to copyrights answered by our team that comprises eminent researchers and publication experts.
Thank you for your information. It adds knowledge on critical review being a first time to do it, it helps a lot.
yes. i would like to ndertake the course Bio ststistics
Rate this article Cancel Reply
Your email address will not be published.
AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources
The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…
Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!
Literature review is both a process and a product. It involves searching within a defined…
Researcher 1: “It’s flooding articles every time I switch on my laptop!” Researcher 2: “Why…
How to Master at Literature Mapping: 5 Most Recommended Tools to Use
This article is also available in: Turkish, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese
Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines
How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time —…
Sign-up to read more
Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:
We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.
I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:
In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?
WTO / Education / 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)
A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, articles, and publications, which is then presented in an organized manner to relate to a specific research problem being investigated.
It highlights the methods, relevant theories, and gaps in existing research on a particular subject. It can be both a summary and synthesis of information on a specific topic. A summary reiterates key information from scholarly sources, while synthesis is a new interpretation or combination of new and old material.
As a synthesis, it can outline the intellectual progression of knowledge in a particular field or topic, which might involve stating key debates throughout the advancement period.
Literature reviews have different purposes in scholarly articles, research papers , and books, depending on the discipline at hand. First and foremost, reviews are generally meant to showcase the extensive research carried out by an author on a particular topic and their findings, which will form the foundation of the research. It then summarizes the information to show the author’s familiarity with the topic in question.
The review also demonstrates the relationship between the topic being investigated and other topics that were under consideration. Finally, it outlines the gaps in the previous works of other scholars, which create areas of research.
Literature reviews provide a new interpretation of previous scholarly publications and aim to resolve conflicting studies done in the past. In addition, identifying existing gaps in a particular research area illustrates the starting point of the research.
A research paper presents new ideas, arguments, and approaches toward a particular topic. The conclusions of a research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data collected by the author and an original study. On the other hand, a literature review is based on the findings of other publications. Thus, the review highlights the author’s understanding of a topic based on the previously conducted research. It is part of a research paper.
The need for a literature review in a publication will vary from one situation to the other and the field/discipline of research. These two factors determine what is expected from the lit review. For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative, highlighting the discrepancies and correspondences between scholars.
It can either be part of a publication or a stand-alone document. As part of a research publication, it is often placed after the introduction to the topic outlining knowledge about a particular topic and critical sources that formed the foundation of the research. As an individual document, it is prepared by students as part of course study to aid the students in familiarizing themselves with different topics in their field of study.
Lit reviews also guide students to help them synthesize theoretical methodologies and frameworks to adopt in academic research . As a publication, literature reviews are used to document existing information about a topic for readers (other scholars) to go through for whatever reasons they may have. Published studies are essentially helpful to new scholars getting into any field of research.
Before looking into how to write a literature review, it is vital to understand the different types. The type will usually depend on the objective approach of the author.
Common types are:
An argumentative review is adopted when the research paper or publication is meant to take a contrarian viewpoint on a particular subject. The review analyses an existing argument, philosophical problem, assumption, or conclusion outlined in different studies with an objective to either support or oppose the argument.
An integrative review integrates secondary data to develop new perspectives and frameworks on a topic. This is more prevalent in research that does not involve primary data. In addition, integrative reviews are more familiar with social sciences.
Historical reviews are used when scholars or authors place a particular idea, concept, theory, or research in a historical context. It examines the idea, theory, or issue from the first time it was discussed and outlines its evolution throughout a given period.
Methodological reviews look at how a specific theory, concept, results, or findings were developed. Therefore, methodological reviews will analyze the different methods used by different scholars to arrive at conclusions or knowledge about the topic being investigated.
Some of the methods scholars use in different disciplines to obtain information are interviewing, sampling, practical experiments/data collection, research approaches, critical thinking, social experiments, etc.
Methodological reviews are hence used to discuss tested methods of research and ethics that a researcher should be aware of before undertaking their investigations.
A systematic review is a more detailed and comprehensive review compared to other types of lit reviews. It highlights any existing research evidence associated with a clearly defined research problem or question. The evidence is collected, analyzed, and reported in a summarized but detailed manner. Systematic reviews are popularly presented as a cause-and-effect structure.
A theoretical review delves into the different theories regarding a particular issue, challenge, concept, or theory. It identifies their inadequacy in explaining the issue or concept at hand. The review then identifies the relationships between the identified theories, and the degree of research done and poses novel hypotheses to be investigated.
How an author organizes a literature review will depend on what they aim to achieve. As a consequence, there are multiple ways of organizing it which are discussed below:
A chronological format outlines knowledge on a particular topic based on when the scholarly source of information was published. Starting with the earliest followed up to the most recent chronological order. This format should be used if there is a clear chronological order in the development of the information; therefore, it will not be applicable in some cases. Instead, key turning points, patterns, and events that impacted the direction of the knowledge should be outlined.
It can be organized in the scholarly publications reviewed by the author, scholar, or student. The by-publication format should only improve the review and facilitate what the author aims to accomplish.
Scholars or students can adopt a dominant trend in research, such as history, developmental stages, steps involved in a process, etc.
A methodological format is based on the methods used by the researcher. Thus, the order of contents in the lit review will depend on the method they will use to carry out their research, knowledge obtained from the first method appears first, and the rest of the information follows in the same order according to the methods used by the author.
Literature reviews organized in a thematic format revolve around the subject being investigated in no order. It is, therefore, ordinarily up to the researcher or author to determine how they intend to outline the information. A thematic format will crossover from one period and publication to another, but can sometimes incorporate a chronological order.
Literature reviews organized in a theoretical format have their contents organized in an abstract framework established by the author to discuss different concepts, theories, and concepts and how they relate to the research at hand.
Depending on the objective, other sections do not fit under conventional lit review formats that one may need to add. Below are some of the sections that authors or students can include in the lit review:
Preparation is essential when it comes to writing. The objective should be to come up with a review that satisfactorily explores the topic being discussed. The following considerations are steps towards that if incorporated into the writing process:
Authors should seek clarification from mentors or supervisors before commencing the writing process. First, determine what is expected from the lit review. The type and number of sources to be used, the assignment (summarize, synthesize, or critique), and the type of information provided should be clear.
You should review literature from other authors in the same discipline and evaluate how those authors presented their lit reviews. Previous lit reviews can be used as guides that point authors in the right direction when writing their lit reviews.
It is always advantageous to narrow down the research topic to a specific area of research; that way, the number of sources can also be reduced. Even though conducting research will usually involve extensive research on all available materials about a particular topic, having a well-defined topic simplifies the task at hand.
Determine if the research project or discipline ought to be based on the most recent findings or information. It is common for knowledge to become obsolete, especially in disciplines where discoveries and new inventions are made fast. If the lit review should be based on current knowledge, limit the sources to the most recent literature. Some disciplines will typically have a limit on how old the sources should be.
Once all pre-writing considerations have been taken into account, it is time to write the document. At this point, you should already be aware of what you wish to accomplish with the literature review, and the steps to writing an exemplary lit review are mentioned below:
First and foremost, clearly define the topic (research area) to be investigated. For students, this will sometimes be given as an assignment. However, the research could be an academic project, which means that the author has to come up with the problem and define it themselves.
Once the problem is clearly expressed, you should search for studies related to the topic, concept, theory, or idea and questions surrounding the topic. Most stand-alone lit reviews will generally attempt to answer a more concentrated question. On the internet, literature can be searched using keywords related to the research area. In addition to keywords, include vital variables such as synonyms and associated terms. The inclusion of Boolean operators and, or not, is also used to narrow down results to more specific publications.
Familiar sources for publications are:
Before selecting relevant studies, go through their abstract and determine if they fit the scope needed in the investigation. Use a list to note down any chosen works. Select landmark sources in the discipline.
The next step is the evaluation stage . Evaluation involves a lot of reading. Evaluation can be done in two stages; overall skimming and thorough reading. During the second stage of this step, be critical, ask questions, and take many notes.
Some of the questions authors or researchers should ask themselves are:
Use credible sources. Most cited sources are preferred as they indicate their influence in the field. Also, keep track of the citations to be later incorporated.
While reading the sources, identify key patterns, themes, debates/arguments, and gaps in each literature. These elements help tie the literature to the topic under investigation. Look for consistent patterns, themes, questions, challenges, methods, and inconsistencies in the same. Consistencies present critical information for consideration, while inconsistencies present opportunities for research areas.
Formatting is part and parcel of a well-written work. Selecting the structure should start by creating an outline with all the information that will go into the lit review, then consider the different types of structures and select the most suitable. Next, take the basic structure of the introduction, body, and conclusion into consideration and start work from there.
Lastly, perform an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the information obtained from the scholarly research and put it into writing. The summarized, synthesized, and critically evaluated information is then written down in well-structured paragraphs that follow the chosen structure. Transition words are used to draw comparisons, connections, and contrasts.
Ordinarily, a literature review will have three key components: introduction, body, and conclusion. These components should appear in the document in the following order:
An introduction should inform the reader which topic is being studied. It gives the reader an overall idea of the purpose and focus of the document. The introduction lets the reader know beforehand the key things that will be highlighted in the document. Therefore, the introduction should be brief and precise.
The next item is the body, where the primary purpose of the lit review is fulfilled. The body should take critical information from all the sources used and comprehensively present them. This is where the author reports the extensive analysis and interpretation results that they gathered from all the sources they reviewed. The body should be categorized into themes, ideas, and concepts within the main topic.
Lastly, a summary of what the lit review entails should be provided as a conclusion. The critical points obtained from examining the sources should be written down and linked to the primary subject of the review. Key points are those that have the most outstanding contribution to the research.
Studies used should be screened based on provenance (author’s credentials or credibility), methodology, objectivity, persuasiveness, and value related to the topic at hand.
To improve the delivery of information, there are certain elements that authors can incorporate. They are:
The lit review’s findings, interpretations, and general contents should be based on actual evidence or credible literature. Using citations is evidence of authentic information.
There will always be a lot of information available from the reviewed sources. Authors should therefore be selective and discuss the key points that focus on the topic. Not all information must be included in the review.
Word-for-word quotes are acceptable . This is even more so if a critical point or author-specific terminology or knowledge cannot be paraphrased. Quotes should, however, be used sparingly.
The information obtained from the sources should be summarized, and the author should use it to synthesize new arguments, concepts, or ideas related to their research.
The literature review should reflect the author’s voice as it is a review of other people’s works. This can be done by starting and ending the paragraphs with an original voice, ideas, and wordings.
Any paraphrased information should be conveyed accurately and in the author’s words. A citation must always be done, even when paraphrasing has been done.
Proofread before submitting or publishing. Go through the document a few times and make the necessary changes. The review should be within the applicable guidelines. Check for language and any other errors and edit accordingly.
Every researcher wants to introduce their readers to a particular topic in an informative and engaging manner. Below are tips that can be used to this effect.
The following things should be opted by the researcher when writing a lit review:
The following don’ts should be avoided:
It is written by researchers, authors, and students who must study literature to gather knowledge on a particular topic they are interested in.
It should be placed right after the introduction of the dissertation. It places the research in a scholarly context by summarizing existing knowledge on the particular topic.
Researchers and authors are not limited in terms of how many sources they can review. Students will usually have a given number of sources to review as an assignment. However, the number of sources referenced in a lit review will vary from one topic or discipline to the other. Some topics have a vast catalog of available sources, while others have minimal sources, especially emerging issues. It is, however, advised that each key point discussed should have at least 2-3 references/sources. For example, a 10-page lit review will have an average of 30 references.
Was this helpful?
Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading.
Sample permission letter to visit a museum (email examples).
How to record blood sugar (free charts & log sheets), thank you for your feedback.
Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us.
Browse our catalog of well-written scientific literature review examples across different topics and from highly skilled authors.
How we handle writing a scientific literature review, what customers say about our help with scientific literature review, meet our scientific review example writers, how to write a scientific literature review.
First things first: what is a scientific literature review? It is a critical summary of existing research on a specific topic in a specific field. It involves gathering written work, synthesizing, and evaluating it to provide a clear view of the current knowledge in the field. It can be part of a longer paper, such as a thesis or a standalone piece. Writing itself involves several procedures. Each must be done appropriately to achieve a quality analysis.
So how to write a scientific literature review? Let’s dive in.
Pick an interesting topic that is relevant to your field. It should also be manageable, not too wide or too narrow, just enough to create a comprehensive analysis.
Once you have a good topic, create a list of objectives or research questions you will answer in your scientific literature review. For example, ask yourself:
Explore multiple scholarly databases, libraries, and search engines to find articles, papers, and books related to your topic. Evaluate each source you find based on quality and credibility. During selection, prioritize the sources that best cover the topic and respond to your literature review thesis statement .
Read each source and take notes revealing its arguments, methods, findings, and implications. Look for things such as patterns, themes, gaps, and even contradictions. After familiarizing yourself with them, sort them into categories based on your research questions.
Before writing a literature overview, draw a structure by creating an outline. It should include the different sections, including the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. List the points you will include in each section to make your further work easier. The outline will guide you and help prevent straying from the main ideas.
Using the structure from your scientific literature review outline, jump right in and start writing. Use clear & concise language; avoid jargon or complex terminology unless they are necessary.
Writing a literature review is much easier when you’ve done enough preparation. Take your time to research the task beforehand to understand what is required.
Understanding how to format the work helps create a clear and well-structured piece. The format and structure might differ depending on factors like your institution’s requirements. Here is the most commonly accepted scientific literature review format.
The intro provides an overview of the subject under investigation and its significance. It should also introduce the research question or objective in a study context. You can consult our example of scientific literature review to see how to achieve all this while maintaining the reader’s interest.
The body section is where you discuss all the key points and provide your arguments in depth. Arrange the literature sources into groups and discuss each group in a separate paragraph. It makes the piece easy to follow. Where possible, use diagrams, tables, and figures to support your points.
The conclusion part is important as it ensures your paper leaves a lasting impression. As the last part of the analysis, remind the reader of the primary focus of the study. Then, summarize all the major points and address any gaps and limitations in your research. Also, highlight the potential for future studies and provide closure to the readers.
Understanding the format and the process of writing is beneficial. However, as a student, it might not be enough. Sometimes, the best way to learn something is to see how others have done it by following a literature review example . You can learn how to create nice papers by using our scientific literature review example. How do you benefit from our samples?
Our examples are fantastic guide tools for writing. However, you should know how to use them effectively.
Learning from quality samples like ours can help you become a better writer and improve the quality of your papers. So, how can you make the most of our examples? Pick a relevant scientific paper review example and read it thoroughly, paying attention to structure, content, and organization. Our examples are up to date, including the latest trends, topics, and even requirements from instructors.
Note the tone, language, and style used and emulate it in your work. It should be formal, objective, and written with an academic voice. You also need to pay attention to how the writer expresses their ideas, for example, how they structure their sentences.
Once you’ve analyzed a scientific review example, note what you’ve learned and apply it to your writing. We must stress that you should only use samples as a learning tool; don’t submit them as your own work.
When you acquire a review paper example scientific from our site, be assured it is written by a highly skilled professional with vast knowledge in the field. And these experts can help with your own paper. All you need is just fill out the order form with assignment details and pay securely online. It will take us very little time to pick the best-suited expert among our literature review writers who is well-versed in your topic. Next, you can rest while the writer works on your paper and get a well-written one within the deadline.
You have full access to this open access article
In education discourse, student retention and Grade 12 or equivalent attainment are considered strong predictors for young people’s future workforce participation, economic prosperity and wellbeing. However, not all students are well supported in mainstream education, with an increasing number of youths becoming disenfranchised with the schooling system. Flexible and inclusive learning programs are developing as an alternative option for young people to access secondary education in Australia. To better understand young people’s experiences of engaging with these emerging alternatives to mainstream schooling, a review of current empirical literature was undertaken. Focusing on students’ perspectives on learning in flexible and inclusive education environments, 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. These studies captured the voices of young people as they navigated and experienced learning in these non-conventional education programs. The findings documented in the sample studies emphasised the value of providing holistic learning experiences, which integrate relational and interest-based pedagogies with personalised socio-emotional support. Cultivating communities of learners, characterised by positive relationships and a sense of belonging amongst students was also highlighted as being valuable for student engagement and learning. This synthesis contributes to the literature about learning and teaching in flexible and inclusive schooling and highlights new possibilities for student engagement across all education environments.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Education and political discourses prioritise student retention and Year 12 or equivalent attainment as important prerequisites for young people’s future workforce participation, economic prosperity and general sense of social connectedness and wellbeing. In Australia, for example, the National Youth Participation Requirement, requires all young Australians under the age of 17 to engage in education, training and/or employment (Council of Australian Governments, 2009 ). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the law stipulates that all young people must engage in training or education until 18 years of age (UK Government Department for Education, 2016 ). Scholarly literature demonstrates correlations between high levels of academic attainment and increased physical and mental health, greater workforce participation and economic independence, improved family relationships and social connections and greater life satisfaction (see for example, Hernandez, 2016 ; Powdthavee et al., 2015 ; Zimmerman et al., 2015 ). Considered from a macro-economic perspective, a country’s productivity and political, economic and social stability are enhanced by a well-educated citizenry (Coelli, 2015 ; Moretti, 2004 ; Shiplett et al., 2011 ). Therefore, the benefits of education for individuals, families, communities and society create a strong argument for supporting all young people to engage in formal learning.
Recently, education discourse has been influenced by mounting concerns about student disengagement. Student engagement is a multifaceted phenomenon comprising a behavioural, affective and cognitive dimension (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Jimerson et al., 2003 ). Behavioural engagement includes active participation in the classroom and other school-related activities. Affective engagement refers to positive feelings towards learning, teachers and peers. Cognitive engagement includes processes such as attention, motivation and the synthesis of information (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Sinatra et al., 2015 ). However, this distinction is somewhat arbitrary, because the dimensions overlap and problems in one area can impact others in complex ways (Theron et al., 2022 ). In practice, student disengagement is observed as withdrawal, absenteeism, low participation and disciplinary problems (Hancock & Zubrick, 2015 ). This narrow focus on behavioural aspects of disengagement risks missing a considerable number of students who ‘sit in classrooms, passively cooperating, even responding positively, but waiting for the bell’ (Holdsworth, 2004, as cited in Te Riele, 2007 , p. 64). They too, are not well served by mainstream schooling, even though they do not actively rebel against it.
According to recent statistics, approximately 20% of young Australians leave school prior to completing Year 12, with retention rates decreasing steadily since 2020. Amongst Indigenous students, this figure rises to 44% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024 ). A report compiled by Goss et al. ( 2017 ) for the Grattan Institute suggests that as many as 40% of Australian school students are disengaged from classroom learning and, as a consequence, are falling one to two years behind their peers. In a Gallup study in the United States, 56% of high school students reported feelings of disengagement at school (Busteed, 2013 ; Oscar, 2017 ). Concerns in relation to student disengagement from formal learning have also been reported in New Zealand, Canada and European countries (see for example,Assmann & Broschinski, 2021 ; Browne, 2019 ; Bruce, 2018 ; Uppal, 2017 ). In the context of the established correlations between poor academic achievement and compromised individual life opportunities and outcomes, these concerns are justified and pressing.
Certain circumstances and contexts place students at a heightened risk of having adverse school experiences and education outcomes. These factors include living in families with a low socio-economic status, identifying as Indigenous, having a culturally and linguistically diverse background, residing in a rural area, having a learning disability and living in out-of-home care (Assmann & Broschinski, 2021 ; McFarland et al., 2019 ; Murray et al., 2004 ; Tilbury, 2010 ). Moreover, poor educational outcomes tend to be concentrated in areas affected by poverty and social problems, making young people’s postcode a strong predictor of their academic success (Sherwood, 2015 ; Sullivan et al., 2012 ). Despite ongoing rhetorical commitments by governments and education departments to promote social mobility via improved education outcomes for marginalised and vulnerable students, the educational attainment of people with a low socio-economic background is markedly below the national average (Bonnor & Shepherd, 2016 ; Commonwealth of Australia, 2009 ; Deloitte Access Economics, 2019 ). They are less likely to attend preschool programs, more likely to have developmental delays on school entry, less likely to complete Grade 12 and less likely to pursue and attain post-school qualifications (Lamb et al., 2020 ). This points to shortcomings in mainstream schools’ and the education system’s capacity to effectively respond to the specific learning needs of marginalised students.
The prevailing concept of educational disengagement introduced thus far is distinct from an alternative, emerging discourse which centres on the notion of disenfranchisement. This matters because terms used to describe young people’s experiences of disconnection from school carry with them implicit meanings, assumptions and consequences (Grandin, 2008 ). Presenting students as disengaged assumes that young people actively and consciously withdraw from an educational process that is right and appropriate for them, thus putting the responsibility to change and re-engage firmly in their corner (Grandin, 2008 ; Howell, 2023 ). Conversely, students who are disenfranchised have been alienated and marginalised by an education system that delivers a one-size-fits-all pedagogy that does not promote their strengths or meet their needs (Mills & McGregor, 2014 ; Zyngier, 2008 ). This presents a paradigmatic shift away from blaming and trying to fix students, and puts the onus to change and be more flexible and inclusive on schools and the education system (Te Riele, 2006 ). This latter philosophy is espoused by the flexible learning programs studied for this review.
In response to increased educational disenfranchisement in recent decades, the schooling landscape in Australia has diversified. Flexible and inclusive education programs have emerged as an attempt to address social justice and equality of opportunity concerns inherent in young people’s withdrawal from formal learning. Referred to as ‘flexischools’, community colleges or special assistance schools, these diverse sites of learning have developed from isolated and small-scale community-based projects into one of the fastest growing schooling sectors in Australia (Mills, 2015 ; Mills & McGregor, 2014 ). The diversity and small size of programs, along with funding insecurities, have historically rendered this sector sidelined and difficult to quantify (Hayes, 2013 ). A 2014 report estimated that approximately 900 flexible learning options educate at least 70 000 young people across Australia each year (Te Riele, 2014 ). Despite the great diversity of these sites, they tend to be unified by a shared vision of social justice and provide educational opportunities for young people who lack access to, or are disenfranchised with, mainstream schooling (Mills & McGregor, 2014 ; Te Riele, 2014 ).
The definition of this schooling sector for the purpose of this study is based on the work of the Australian Association for Flexible and Inclusive Education ( 2021 ), the national peak body for flexible and inclusive education, and Kitty Te Riele ( 2014 ), a leading scholar in the field. Included programs are voluntary, offer general education at secondary level, provide opportunities for achieving recognised credentials, tailor learning opportunities to the unique strengths, needs and interests of their students, and are committed to working with young people who are vulnerable, marginalised or have experienced adversity. Excluded are schools and programs designed solely for students with disabilities (e.g. special schools), mandatory behaviour modification initiatives (e.g. suspension centres) and schools which follow a specific progressive era educational philosophy (e.g. Steiner Education) as their pedagogies are distinct. This review of the literature synthesises current research on young people's experiences of flexible learning options. The emerging and under-researched nature of this education sector inspired the exploratory research question: How do young people in Australia experience learning in flexible and inclusive education programs?
A systematic search of current, relevant and scholarly literature was conducted using the electronic databases ERIC, A + Education and ProQuest Education. The search terms ‘flexible learning’, ‘alternative education’, ‘inclusive’, ‘disengaged’, ‘disenfranchised’, ‘marginali?ed’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘at risk’, ‘young people’, ‘youth’, ‘students’, ‘adolescents’, ‘engage’, ‘re-engage’, ‘interview*’ and ‘qualitative’ were combined in three different ways for each database applying Boolean logic (see Table 1 ) to achieve a saturation of research papers with no new studies surfacing in the final search for each database (Newman & Gough, 2020 ). Search terms that were closely related to and/or synonymous with key concepts in the research question and frequently appeared in publications on flexible and inclusive education formed the basis of the database searches (Coughlan & Cronin, 2016 ). In addition, we conducted a comprehensive search of Google Scholar using a simplified version of the database search formula and scanned the reference lists of included studies for further relevant research.
To further narrow down the selection of research articles in line with the focus of the review, several criteria were applied to the search (Gough et al., 2017 ):
Literature was limited to peer reviewed articles of research conducted in Australia, published between 2012 and 2023 and written in English.
Only research projects which gathered qualitative data from current or former students of flexible and inclusive learning programs were included for review.
This review was sparked by a growing body of literature on students’ experiences of flexible and inclusive education in Australia. While we recognise that innovative approaches to addressing educational disenfranchisement have a long history and are continuously developed in various countries (Noddings & Lees, 2016 ; O’Gorman et al., 2016 ), the specific policy and practice context of the Australian education system and the unique features of flexible and inclusive learning options as an emerging and distinct education sector informed our decision to limit this review to Australian research.
During the selection process, 369 abstracts and 80 full-text articles were screened and 21 sources were deemed relevant and included sufficient student perspectives. A Google Scholar search yielded four additional studies and a further three sources were identified in the reference lists of included articles. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA diagram of the literature search and selection of articles (Page et al., 2020 ). In preparation for analysis, data was extracted from each article and collated in a table which captured publication date, author/s, title, participants, methods and key findings in relation to student perspectives (Newman & Gough, 2020 ). An overview of included sources is presented in Table 2 .
Flow diagram of literature search and article selection
The 28 articles found to be relevant to this review were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis, as proposed by Mayring ( 2000 ), is an ongoing iterative process during which categories are formed, verified, reviewed and adjusted as research teams read and re-read research data. Through this thematic synthesis, the research team aimed to contribute to the development of a shared language in relation to flexible and inclusive pedagogies, with the potential to inform policy, practice and further research (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009 ). Inductive analysis, a process which moves from the specific to the general, was used to derive initial categories out of the data collected on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive learning environments (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008 ). As data analysis progressed, deductive analytic processes, which utilise established concepts to analyse and integrate new information, assisted with the consolidation of categories into themes (Burns & Grove, 2005 ). Moving between the general and the specific in this way enabled us to recognise, describe and validate commonalities and shared understandings within and across the young people’s narratives. To address the risk of bias, two researchers undertook the analysis separately and collaborated in the development of final themes.
In the first phase of analysis, we assigned individual codes to text passages which presented findings on students’ perspectives. This was followed by a consolidation of codes into tentative categories. Finally, we reviewed our work by cross-checking our categories against the original text passages and described four themes which emerged from the data: Relationships, flexible and personally relevant learning, personal and socio-emotional support, and challenges encountered. The decision to use this approach was justified by the exploratory research question and the qualitative and narrative nature of data on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive education.
Relationships.
Students in the reviewed studies appreciated the strong and trusting relationships they had developed with adults in their flexible programs. Young people characterised their teachers and youth support workers as welcoming, friendly, respectful, caring, supportive, equal, non-judgmental, trustworthy, patient, approachable and responsive to their circumstances and needs (see for example, McGregor & Mills, 2012 ; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021 ; Waters, 2017 ). Their positive attributes promoted the establishment of stable, trusting relationships and allowed students to experience a sense of safety and belonging in a community that was frequently referred to as feeling like home or family (see for example, Baker, 2016 ; Baroutsis et al., 2016 ; Myconos et al., 2016 ).
This place is like a haven for me. As soon as I step through that front door, my troubles go away and I’m just with my family, my school family. (student voice in Lewthwaite et al., 2017 , p. 397)
These strong bonds between adults and young people laid the foundation for students’ wellbeing and learning in an environment in which young people were respected, cared for and treated fairly (Leitão et al., 2023 ; MacDonald et al., 2019 ). Across the studies reviewed, the significance of positive student-adult relationships for young people’s engagement in flexible learning programs emerged as a central theme.
In addition to positive relationships, young people also recognised and appreciated the pedagogic qualities of their teachers. Research participants experienced their teachers as skilful, passionate, authentic and enthusiastic with a great interest in facilitating the personal growth and learning of all students (see for example,Brandenburg, 2021 ; McGregor et al., 2015 ; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 ). Vadeboncoeur and Vellos ( 2016 ) explored the quality of student–teacher relationships in flexible and inclusive education programs in Australia and Canada and concluded that trust, equity and care are the building blocks for strong connections. Together, students and their teachers envisioned new possibilities and co-created social futures once deemed unimaginable, futures in which they reconnected with their cultural communities, experienced positive interpersonal relationships and pursued meaningful education and employment pathways.
Furthermore, young people described a positive and affirming relational and learning environment which enabled them to focus on their goals (Brandenburg, 2021 ; Robinson & Smyth, 2016 ). This led to a transformation of their self-image and the internalisation of personal qualities such as courage, responsibility, resilience, confidence, self-regulation, self-awareness, perseverance and hopefulness (see for example,Moffatt & Riddle, 2021 ; Smyth & McInerney, 2013 ; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021 ).
Since coming here, I have grown up a lot. I’ve been finding out what life is about. I’m in control of myself now. My aim now is to finish a number of certificate courses and make a career out of cooking. There is nothing better than a career you enjoy doing – one that can take you all the way around the world. (student voice in Robinson & Smyth, 2016 , pp. 332-333).
Positive relationships with teachers who believed in and were committed to them laid the foundation for a transformational educational experience for young people.
Access to flexible and personally relevant learning opportunities emerged as another central theme. Learners in flexible and inclusive education programs were able to acquire knowledge and practise skills with high applicability to their personal lives, interests, passions and future goals (see for example,Brandenburg, 2021 ; Lewthwaite et al., 2017 ; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 ).
Most of what I know about music now I credit to that Flexi School teacher. I only ever did music there, so I only spent time learning in the studio making beats. I don’t know why they allowed me to only do music. I got a Certificate III in Music Production. (student voice in Moffatt & Riddle, 2021 , p. 1468)
Their efforts were scaffolded by teachers who planned, worked and reflected alongside individual students and gave them agency, choices and time and space to learn at their own pace (see for example,Butson & Jeanes, 2023 ; Hobbs & Power, 2013 ; McGregor et al., 2015 ). Young people described their learning as holistic and extending beyond traditional academic subjects and topics to include, for example, interpersonal skills they could draw on to improve personal relationships within their families and friendships (Plows et al., 2017 ). Having agency and choice over their learning made students feel empowered and in control.
Certain characteristics of the educational environment facilitated students’ access to learning, such as small and consistent learning groups (see for example,Leitão et al., 2023 ; MacDonald et al., 2019 ; Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021 ), flexible, personalised and self-paced timetables (Bloomfield et al., 2022 ; Brandenburg, 2021 ; Plage et al., 2022 ), a crèche for young parents (Mills & McGregor, 2016 ) and a mobile van for outreach education (Reimer & Pangrazio, 2020 ).
When I started there was a small group, only ten pupils. It was so nice, you were able to do things according to your own rhythm. I was astonished: Can it really be this fun to be at school? (student voice in Stokes & Aaltonen, 2021 , p. 10)
Student feedback indicates that flexible and inclusive learning programs go to great lengths to respond to the individual strengths, needs, interests and life goals of each student.
The concepts of connection, content and motivation to learn were frequently interrelated in young people’s narratives. Te Riele et al. ( 2016 ) discovered a strong relationship between interest, belonging and engagement. Young people who were able to connect with learning opportunities and content on a personal level experienced increased motivation and engagement (Brandenburg, 2021 ; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 ; Reimer & Pangrazio, 2020 ).
The majority of the girls will actually stick with the course because they generally do like it, they generally are interested. Even out at break we’ll all be debating something or talking about something that we’ve just learnt. (student voice in Te Riele et al., 2016 , pp. 55-56)
Students exercised choice in relation to their education and this increased agency enabled them to experiment with new ideas, explore their creativity and experience self-pride for discovering new interests and skills and conquering challenges (Brandenburg, 2021 ; Rushton & Wilson, 2020 ). Furthermore, sharing an interest or experience with other young people and teachers fostered the emergence of shared identities and a sense of belonging and community (Te Riele et al., 2016 ). Therefore, the pursuit of interest-based and person-centred learning opportunities in a community of learners emerged as another essential ingredient for an engaging and motivating educational program.
Young people valued the additional support they received with personal matters and socio-emotional challenges. The assistance educators and other school staff provided went above and beyond conventional conceptualisations of teaching and learning in mainstream schooling and included tailored mental health and wellbeing support (see for example,Hobbs & Power, 2013 ; Lewthwaite et al., 2017 ; McGregor & Mills, 2012 ). Specifically, participants appreciated being able to talk with teachers about personal problems and developing practical skills required for independent living, such as healthy cooking and finding and maintaining employment and housing (see for example,Bloomfield et al., 2022 ; Butson & Jeanes, 2023 ; Moffatt & Riddle, 2021 ).
If you’re wanting to get away from your family problems you just come to school, you know you can talk to one of the teachers or one of the youth workers and just nut it out . (student voice in McGregor & Mills, 2012 , p. 856)
In addition, teachers and wellbeing staff frequently and promptly referred students to external support services and programs and assisted them with connecting to community resources (Brandenburg, 2021 ; Mills & McGregor, 2016 ). This holistic and personalised wellbeing support continued during COVID-19 school closures (Plage et al., 2022 ). It was evident in the young people’s narratives that their teachers were prepared to redefine the concept of support in education in their efforts to assist students individually.
Seven of the articles included in this review reported on challenges young people encountered in their flexible education programs. Frequently disclosed concerns included a disorganised and disruptive learning environment, a shortage of appropriate resources and lack of stimulating and challenging learning opportunities, limited socio-emotional support and exclusionary practices, such as peer bullying and conflict, and dismissive staff attitudes (Baker, 2016 ; Callingham, 2017 ; MacDonald et al., 2019 ). While many students appreciated the freedom, choice and flexibility their learning programs offered, for some, the absence of structure, guidelines and clear direction compromised their ongoing engagement (Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 ).
Personally, I think that there is just too much freedom there. If people don't go for a whole week they should say that you need to come in. People can go for, like, a month and they will just get a phone call saying, ‘What's going on?’ I think it's just saying to them, ‘Oh you don't have to go in’. (student voice in Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 , p. 48)
It appeared that, for some young people, too much freedom and not enough follow up and reflective conversations with mentors had a de-motivating effect, which led to non-attendance.
Another recurrent theme was the social stigma and discrimination some students faced because of their enrolment in a flexible program. Some young people felt judged for going to a ‘flexischool’ and believed that more needed to be done to address negative community attitudes and foster respect for flexible and inclusive education (Fish, 2017 ). In some instances, students appeared to have internalised deficit narratives about themselves and their education, stating that flexible programs are not for ‘kids who are really smart and stuff’ or ‘for the most normal of kids’ (student voice in Plows et al., 2017 , p. 35). Students’ perceptions of their education as being second best were further exacerbated by a lack of adequate resources and high quality, intellectually challenging curriculum options, along with uncertainties about the merit of their achievements and educational attainment beyond the alternative sector (Mills et al., 2016 ; Msapenda & Hudson, 2013 ).
It's good because it’s a lot less work, but bad because I don’t feel like I learn anything I haven’t already learned. It feels like I’m just repeating. (student voice in Mills et al., 2016 , p. 108)
Therefore, reframing of flexible and inclusive schooling and adequate resourcing of this emerging education sector are required to enable all students to experience pride and success in their education.
In this article we reviewed and synthesised current, empirical literature on young people’s experiences of flexible and inclusive education programs. In the 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria, participants identified the benefits as well as challenges inherent in engaging in non-traditional learning environments. As a result, we gained an overall understanding of how students experience and navigate these emerging alternatives to mainstream education. Young people’s perspectives on flexible learning programs were overwhelmingly positive. Students appreciated positive and respectful relationships, flexible, interesting and personally meaningful learning opportunities, a sense of belonging to a welcoming and safe community and individualised socio-emotional and practical support.
The relational nature of learning and teaching and the significance of positive student–teacher relationships for young people’s wellbeing and sustained engagement in education are well established in the literature (see for example,García-Moya et al., 2019 ; Obsuth et al., 2017 ; Pallini et al., 2019 ; Sointu et al., 2017 ). Oberle et al. ( 2014 ) explored the role of supportive adults in the lives of primary age children in Canada and concluded that, for their participants, positive relationships with teachers and other school staff were the strongest predictors for student wellbeing at school. Examining the characteristics and implications of student–teacher relationships for young people’s success with learning, Van Bergen et al. ( 2019 ) assert that positive connections between learners and teachers are beneficial for all young people, regardless of their learning styles, developmental status, behavioural characteristics and social context. Therefore, they recommend that ‘schools focus on relationships as an essential priority’ (p. 312). In recognition of the centrality of relationships for learning, Hickey and Riddle ( 2023 ) propose a framework for relational pedagogies which position relational encounters between students and teachers at the core of educational experiences. They describe a deliberate commitment to democratic, participatory and mutually meaningful engagement processes between students and teachers which harness the power of informality inherent in in-the-moment pedagogical encounters. Elements of this framework were evident in young people’s descriptions of their relationships with teachers in flexible and inclusive education programs.
The participants in the studies reviewed valued opportunities to learn about topics of interest to them in a highly supportive and self-paced learning environment. Working in small groups, they received one-on-one teacher assistance frequently and were able to see the real-life applicability of content and connect it to their future goals and hopes. The link between interest-based pedagogies and student motivation and engagement in learning is well established in the academic literature. For example, research in the field of reading skills acquisition has repeatedly demonstrated that young people who are able to choose reading material based on their interests read more frequently and acquire fundamental skills and techniques for independent reading more effectively (see for example,Allred & Cena, 2020 ; Fisher & Frey, 2018 ; Springer et al., 2017 ). Synthesising evidence from educational psychology and neuroscience, Renninger and Hidi ( 2016 ) explain the powerful effect of interest on success in academic efforts and life satisfaction. Engagement with content of interest is self-sustaining and positively affects attention, motivation, comprehension and goal setting and pursuit, thus facilitating achievement and success in academic and career pursuits. Opportunities to develop their learning goals and structure educational experiences around areas of interest to them were appreciated and embraced by the young people whose voices are presented in this review.
Closely linked to interest-based and flexible learning are the concepts of student agency and choice. Students spoke about feeling in control of their learning pathways and the sense of empowerment that came with having choices. Wiliams ( 2017 ) outlines the value of pedagogies which shift the locus of control from the teacher to the student and support young people to become experts in their own learning. By dismantling traditional power hierarchies in the classroom, student agency, their ability to take active steps towards self-defined goals, can flourish in an atmosphere of self-determination (Claxton, 2013 ; Johnston, 2004 ). This is of particular relevance for students who have been disenfranchised from mainstream education, giving them the confidence, knowledge and skills required to challenge their own socio-economic marginalisation and that of their communities (Freire, 1972 ; Thomas, 2018 ). For the young people in the literature reviewed, having freedom and choice increased their motivation to engage in a learning environment in which their unique individuality was valued, nurtured and encouraged.
The support students received with personal problems and socio-emotional challenges was highly valued by the young people who took part in the included studies. Their teachers and other school staff provided assistance with matters such as housing instability, food insecurity, family relationships, parenting, self-care strategies, mental health and independent living skills, and connected students with appropriate services in the local community for additional support. The link between out-of-school factors and poor educational engagement and achievement has been well documented in the academic literature (see for example,Ravitch, 2015 ; Rothstein, 2013 ; Von Stumm, 2017 ). Sammen ( 2017 ) consolidates this data into a social determinants of education framework and advocates for systemic attention to social justice in education. Based on the well-established and widely accepted social determinants of health (Brown & Homan, 2023 ; Marmot et al., 2008 ), this framework posits that the social and physical environment, physical and psychosocial health and wellbeing, economic conditions and material security of students and their families significantly impact engagement and success in education and, as a consequence, future life outcomes and satisfaction (Sammen, 2017 ). The pursuit of equity and social justice through education requires a recognition of and an impetus to action on these determinants. Flexible and inclusive learning programs are leading the way in this endeavour.
Attending non-traditional learning programs was not without challenges. These included an over-emphasis on freedom, choice and initiative, and lack of guidance and structure, a distracting and disruptive learning environment, a lack of intellectual stimulation and the social stigma attached to attending a ‘flexischool’. Mills et al. ( 2016 ) investigate curricular choices and pedagogical opportunities in flexible learning environments and identify a need for rigorous academic programs which allow students to develop the knowledge, skills and credentials they require to pursue their career aspirations. A lack of high-quality educational opportunities might contribute to young people’s further marginalisation and social isolation, by locking them into a cycle of menial labour work with limited career progression opportunities (Bardsley, 2007 ; Hayes, 2013 ). In addition, the provision of adequate resources and high quality, intellectually challenging curriculum options have the potential to address the stigmatisation that some students face and enable them to experience pride in their achievements (Mills et al., 2016 ). To address these concerns, future research should examine the overall educational achievement and life trajectories of flexible learning program graduates.
A synthesis of the student perspectives reviewed and the themes which emerged from them paints a picture of a distinct pedagogical framework adopted by flexible and inclusive learning programs in Australia (see Fig. 2 ). In these spaces counter to mainstream education, students experience interest-based, self-paced and highly supported learning in a school climate that prioritises relationships, diversity, inclusion and a sense of belonging to a community. Teachers and support staff are caring, committed, passionate, encouraging and supportive facilitators of learning, personal growth and positive change for young people who have experienced exclusion, marginalisation and disenfranchisement in traditional schools. They embed personalised wellbeing support in a student-centred and -led holistic educational experience and link young people with communities, services, further education and training and employment opportunities beyond school. Exposure to this pedagogical approach promotes the development of agency, responsibility, hopefulness, confidence, motivation and perseverance in students, and allows them to experience self-efficacy and a sense of achievement. Together adults and young people re-imagine positive futures and embark on a journey towards them.
Visualisation of identified themes and their significance for young people’s learning experiences in flexible and inclusive programs
Overall, the young people who contributed their perspectives in this review painted a picture of a holistic educational experience in flexible and inclusive learning programs. In these alternative spaces, they encountered a learning environment that made them feel like they mattered through person-centred, interest-based and relational pedagogies. They were supported by caring and dedicated teachers and support staff who respected them and their agency and responded to their individual strengths and challenges.
We contend that mainstream schooling can learn a lot from ‘flexischools’ and recommend a fundamental rethinking of the way education is currently conceptualised. Creating time and space for cultivating positive student–teacher relationships, and giving students agency and curriculum choices based on their interests and future aspirations would allow all young people access to an engaging and meaningful educational experience. The development of a school climate that promotes the health, wellbeing and social connectedness of every student should be a priority item on the strategic planning agendas of all schools. Furthermore, programs and services for addressing students’ specific mental health and wellbeing needs are urgently required across all school types. We understand that school reform efforts are frequently hampered by systemic barriers and advise education departments to heed the messages of this review and create an institutional context in which new ways of thinking about and doing education are valued and facilitated.
Flexible learning programs are encouraged to listen and respond to the challenges young people have identified. For education to be relevant and meaningful, it must create post-school opportunities and avenues towards young people’s future career and life goals. This is particularly important for students with limited economic and social resources and imperative for achieving social justice and equity through education. We therefore recommend that flexible programs advocate for and provide the resources required to implement a rigorous, academically stimulating curriculum which conveys the notion of a future full of possibilities to young people. This would also go a long way towards dismantling the stigma of flexible and inclusive education being perceived as inferior to traditional schooling.
In consolidating our findings, we would like to encourage the education research community to build on existing knowledge and dig deeper into this emerging field of education practice. A better understanding of why young people’s disenfranchisement with mainstream school continues to grow and what needs to be different in order to fulfill their right to a meaningful education is urgently needed. Furthermore, an exploration of the post-school trajectories of ‘flexischool’ graduates would allow insights into the long-term impact of this growing schooling sector and highlight opportunities as well as shortcomings as an impetus for practice development. Most importantly, we appeal to teachers, school leaders, policy makers and researchers to listen to the voices of young people and reconsider the way education is currently structured to ensure that all young people have access to safe, supportive, affirming and personally meaningful learning environments.
All figures and tables included in the manuscript have been created by the authors. The entire dataset is available from the corresponding author upon request.
Allred, J. B., & Cena, M. E. (2020). Reading motivation in high school: Instructional shifts in student choice and class time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64 (1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1058
Article Google Scholar
Assmann, M., & Broschinski, S. (2021). Mapping young NEETs across Europe: Exploring the institutional configurations promoting youth disengagement from education and employment. Journal of Applied Youth Studies, 4 , 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-021-00040-w
Australian Association for Flexible and Inclusive Education. (2021). National flexible learning options program database. https://aafie.org.au/national-flexible-learning-options-program-database/ .
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Schools. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release#cite-window1 .
*Baker, A. M. (2016). The process and product: Crafting community portraits with young people in flexible learning settings. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20 (3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1047656
Bardsley, K. (2007). Education for all in a global era? The social justice of Australian secondary school education in a risk society. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (5), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701541691
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9 , 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
*Baroutsis, A., Mills, M., McGregor, G., Te Riele, K., & Hayes, D. (2016). Student voice and the community forum: Finding ways of ‘being heard’ at an alternative school for disenfranchised young people. British Educational Research Journal, 42 (3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3214
*Bloomfield, C., Harreveld, B., & Fisher, R. (2022). ‘You don’t have to feel trapped’: Architectural discourses of youth engagement in a community-based learning environment. Smart Learning Environments, 9 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00208-8
Bonnor, C., & Shepherd, B. (2016). Uneven playing field: The state of Australia’s schools. Centre for Policy Development. https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-State-of-Australias-Schools.pdf .
*Brandenburg, R. (2021). ‘I started letting the teachers in’: What factors contribute to successful educational outcomes for disengaged young adults? Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 29 (3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1747107
Brown, T. H., & Homan, P. (2023). The future of social determinants of health: Looking upstream to structural drivers. The Milbank Quarterly, 101 (1), 36–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12641
Browne, J. (2019). Canada's high school dropout rates are staggeringly high . Pathways to Education. https://www.narcity.com/canadas-high-school-dropout-rates-are-staggeringly-high-according-to-studies#toggle-gdpr .
Bruce, J. (2018). Dis/Engagement in secondary schools: Towards truancy prevention. University of Canterbury College of Education. https://teorahou.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Disengagement-in-secondary-schools.pdf .
Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (5th edn.). Elsevier/Saunders
Busteed, B. (2013). The school cliff: Student engagement drops with each school year . Gallup News. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/170525/school-cliff-student-engagement-drops-school-year.aspx .
*Butson, M., & Jeanes, R. (2023). From ‘pushed out’ to reengaged: Experiences from a flexible learning programme. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2230921
*Callingham, M. (2017). From discrete intervention to engage marginalised students to whole-school initiative to engage all students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1218947
Claxton, G. (2013). What’s the point of school? Rediscovering the heart of education . Oneworld.
Google Scholar
Coelli, M. (2015). Australia’s ‘five pillar economy’: Education . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/australias-five-pillar-economy-education-40831
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Queensland implementation plan: National partnership for low socio-economic status school communities. Australian Government, Education Queensland, Independent Schools Queensland and Queensland Catholic Education Commission.
Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2016). Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Council of Australian Governments. (2009). COAG meeting communiqué, 30 April 2009 . COAG. https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/communique/2009-04-30.pdf .
Deloitte Access Economics. (2019). Unpacking drivers of learning outcomes of students from different backgrounds. Australian Government Department of Education. https://www.education.gov.au/integrated-data-research/resources/unpacking-drivers-learning-outcomes-students-different-backgrounds .
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
*Fish, T. (2017). Therapeutic responses to ‘at risk’ disengaged early school leavers in a rural alternative education programme. Ethnography and Education, 12 (1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1216321
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2018). Raise reading volume through access, choice, discussion, and book talks. The Reading Teacher, 72 (1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1691
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Penguin.
García-Moya, I., Brooks, F., & Moreno, C. (2019). Humanizing and conducive to learning: An adolescent students’ perspective on the central attributes of positive relationships with teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00413-z
Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: Creating classrooms that improve learning (Grattan Institute Report No. 2017-01). Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning.pdf .
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews Sage.
Grandin, B. (2008). Is disenfranchised a more appropriate term than disengaged? New Transitions, 12 (1), 1–6.
Hancock, K. J., & Zubrick, S. R. (2015). Children and young people at risk of disengagement from school. Commissioner for Children and Young People WA. https://ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/1422/report-education-children-at-risk-of-disengaging-from-school-literature-review.pdf
Hayes, D. (2013). Customization in schooling markets: The relationship between curriculum and pedagogy in a ‘pop-up’ learning project, and the epistemic opportunities afforded by students’ interests and backgrounds. International Journal on School Disaffection, 10 (2), 3–22.
Hernandez, E. L. (2016). Protective but not sheltering: Educational attainment and poor mental health in the great recession (unpublished master’s thesis). The Pennsylvania State University, State College. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/12281
Hickey, A., & Riddle, S. (2023). Proposing a conceptual framework for relational pedagogy: Pedagogical informality, interface, exchange and enactment. International Journal of Inclusive Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2259906
*Hobbs, C. M., & Power, J. (2013). Engaging disadvantaged young people in the course of their lives: The importance of staff/student relationships in alternative education. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action, 2 (1), 8.
Howell, A. (2023). From disenfranchisement to hope through youth-adult participatory action research. The Australian Educational Researcher . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00666-0
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8 , 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893
Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning . Stenhouse Publishers.
Lamb, S., Huo, S., Walstab, A., Wade, A., Maire, Q., Doecke, E., Jackson, J., & Endekov, Z. (2020). Educational opportunity in Australia 2020: Who succeeds and who misses out. Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/42362/1/educational-opportunity-in-australia-2020.pdf
*Leitão, S., Jackson, E., Kippin, N. R., Glisson, L., Tomlin, T., & Boyes, M. (2023). ‘They make it easier to learn and cope’: The views of adolescents with speech, language and communication needs on attending a flexible learning programme. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 39 (3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590231201740
*Lewthwaite, B., Wilson, K., Wallace, V., McGinty, S., & Swain, L. (2017). Challenging normative assumptions regarding disengaged youth: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30 (4), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1252867
*MacDonald, F. J., Bottrell, D., & Johnson, B. (2019). Socially transformative wellbeing practices in flexible learning environments: Invoking an education of hope. Health Education Journal, 78 (4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896918777005
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A. J., & Taylor, S. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet, 372 , 1661–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum, 1 (2), 8.
McFarland, J., Cui, J., Holmes, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2019. US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch .
*McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2012). Alternative education sites and marginalised young people: ‘I wish there were more schools like this one.’ International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16 (8), 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.529467
*McGregor, G., Mills, M., Te Riele, K., & Hayes, D. (2015). Excluded from school: Getting a second chance at a ‘meaningful’ education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (6), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.961684
Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2014). Re-engaging young people in education: Learning from alternative schools . Routledge.
Mills, M. (2015). Flexischools have a lot to teach mainstream schools. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/flexischools-have-a-lot-to-teach-mainstream-schools-44589
*Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2016). Alternative education: Providing support to the disenfranchised. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 7 (2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs72201615718
*Mills, M., McGregor, G., Baroutsis, A., Te Riele, K., & Hayes, D. (2016). Alternative education and social justice: Considering issues of affective and contributive justice. Critical Studies in Education, 57 (1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1087413
*Moffatt, A., & Riddle, S. (2021). Where are they now? Flexi school graduates reflect on their experiences of alternative education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25 (13), 1463–1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1615564
Moretti, E. (2004). Estimating the social return to higher education: Evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data. Journal of Econometrics, 121 (1), 175–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.015
*Msapenda, V., & Hudson, C. (2013). Flexible learning options: The experiences and perceptions of regional youth. Youth Studies Australia, 32 (3), 46–53.
Murray, S., Mitchell, J., Gale, T., Edwards, J., & Zyngier, D. (2004). Student disengagement from primary schooling: A review of research and practice. Centre for Childhood Studies, Monash University. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/student-disengagement-from-primary-schooling-a-review-of-research
*Myconos, G., Thomas, J., Wilson, K., Te Riele, K., & Swain, L. (2016). Educational re-engagement as social inclusion: The role of flexible learning options in alternative provision in Australia. Forum , 58 (3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.15730/forum.2016.58.3.345
Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1
Chapter Google Scholar
Noddings, N., & Lees, H. E. (2016). Introduction & this handbook. In N. Noddings & H. E. Lees (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of alternative education (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan.
Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Guhn, M., Zumbo, B. D., & Hertzman, C. (2014). The role of supportive adults in promoting positive development in middle childhood: A population-based study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29 (4), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514540116
Obsuth, I., Murray, A. L., Malti, T., Sulger, P., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2017). A non-bipartite propensity score analysis of the effects of Teacher-Student relationships on adolescent problem and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46 (8), 1661–1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0534-y
O’Gorman, E., Salmon, N., & Murphy, C. (2016). Schools as sanctuaries: A systematic review of contextual factors which contribute to student retention in alternative education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20 (5), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095251
Oscar, D. (2017). A solution for student disengagement. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/solution-student-disengagement-daniel-oscar
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, E., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2
Pallini, S., Vecchio, G. M., Baiocco, R., Schneider, B. H., & Laghi, F. (2019). Student-Teacher relationships and attention problems in school-aged children: The mediating role of emotion regulation. School Mental Health, 11 (2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9286-z
*Plage, S., Cook, S., Povey, J., Rudling, E., Te Riele, K., McDaid, L., & Western, M. (2022). Connection, connectivity and choice: Learning during covid-19 restrictions across mainstream schools and flexible learning programmes in Australia. The Australian Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.228
*Plows, V., Bottrell, D., & Te Riele, K. (2017). Valued outcomes in the counter-spaces of alternative education programs: Success but on whose scale? Geographical Research, 55 (1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12186
Powdthavee, N., Lekfuangfu, W. N., & Wooden, M. (2015). What’s the good of education on our overall quality of life? A simultaneous equation model of education and life satisfaction for Australia. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54 , 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.11.002
Ravitch, D. (2015). 2014 John Dewey lecture: Does evidence matter? Education and Culture, 31 (1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.31.1.3
*Reimer, K., & Pangrazio, L. (2020). Educating on the margins: Young people’s insights into effective alternative education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (5), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1467977
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement . Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
*Robinson, J., & Smyth, J. (2016). ‘Sent out’ and stepping back in: Stories from young people ‘placed at risk’. Ethnography and Education , 11 (2), 222–236. https://doi-org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2015.1040430
Rothstein, R. (2013). Why children from lower socioeconomic classes, on average, have lower academic achievement than middle-class children. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap (pp. 61–77). Oxford University Press.
*Rushton, C., & Wilson, K. (2020). Understanding the work of FLOs through a recovery framework lens. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1448122
Sammen, H. C. (2017). A social determinants of education framework (Publication No. 10608197) [Master’s Thesis, University of Colorado]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Sherwood, K. N. (2015). Stuck in detention: The connection between disengaging from school and youth offending in New Zealand [Honours dissertation]. University of Otago. https://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago451226.pdf
Shiplett, M. H., Russell, W., Khademian, A. M., & Gant, L. P. (2011). A well-educated workforce: Vital component of national and economic security. In S. R. Ronis (Ed.), Economic security: Neglected dimension of national security (pp. 83–97). National Defense University Press.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
*Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2013). Making ‘space’: Young people put at a disadvantage re-engaging with learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34 (1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.744735
Sointu, E. T., Savolainen, H., Lappalainen, K., & Lambert, M. C. (2017). Longitudinal associations of student-teacher relationships and behavioural and emotional strengths on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 37 (4), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1165796
Springer, S. E., Harris, S., & Dole, J. A. (2017). From surviving to thriving: Four research-based principles to build students’ reading interest. The Reading Teacher, 71 (1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1581
*Stokes, H., & Aaltonen, S. (2021). Time–space paths and the experiences of vulnerable young people in alternative educational settings . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994663
Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Conway, R., Owens, L., & Taddeo, C. (2012). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Technical Report 1. University of South Australia. http://www.bass.edu.au/files/1113/5966/8129/Sullivan_BaSS__Punish_Them_or_Engage_Them_Technical_Report.pdf
Te Riele, K. (2006). Youth ‘at risk’: Further marginalizing the marginalized? Journal of Education Policy, 21 (2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500499968
Te Riele, K. (2007). Educational alternatives for marginalised youth. Australian Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 53–68.
Te Riele, K. (2014). Putting the jigsaw together: Flexible learning programs in Australia. Final report. The Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and Lifelong Learning, Victoria University. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/31758/
*Te Riele, K., Plows, V., & Bottrell, D. (2016). Interest, learning, and belonging in flexible learning programmes. International Journal on School Disaffection, 12 (1), 45–63.
Theron, L., Ungar, M., & Höltge, J. (2022). Pathways of resilience: Predicting school engagement trajectories for South African adolescents living in a stressed environment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102062
Thomas, J. (2018). Flexible learning options in the neoliberal educational landscape. In S. McGinty, K. Wilson, J. Thomas, & B. Lewthwaite (Eds.), Gauging the value of education for disenfranchised youth: Flexible learning options (pp. 13–28). Brill.
Tilbury, C. (2010). Educational status of children and young people in care. Children Australia, 35 (4), 7–13.
UK Government Department for Education. (2016). Participation of young people in education, employment or training: Statutory guidance for local authorities. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561546/Participation-of-young-people-in-education-employment-or-training.pdf
Uppal, S. (2017). Young men and women without a high school diploma. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14824-eng.htm
*Vadeboncoeur, J. A., & Vellos, R. E. (2016). Re-creating social futures: The role of the moral imagination in student–teacher relationships in alternative education. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies , 7 (2), 307–323. https:// https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs72201615723
Van Bergen, P., McGrath, K. F., & Quin, D. (2019). Nurturing close student-teacher relationships. In L. J. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive education for the 21st century: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 296–316). Allen & Unwin. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116073
Von Stumm, S. (2017). Socioeconomic status amplifies the achievement gap throughout compulsory education independent of intelligence. Intelligence, 60 , 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.11.006
*Waters, R. (2017). Symbolic non-violence in the work of teachers in alternative education settings. Teaching Education, 28 (1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1210593
Wiliams, P. (2017). Student agency for powerful learning. Knowledge Quest, 45 (4), 8–15.
Zimmerman, E. B., Woolf, S. H., & Haley, A. (2015). Understanding the relationship between education and health: A review of the evidence and an examination of community perspectives. In R. M. Kaplan, M. L. Spittel, & D. H. David (Eds.), Population health: Behavioral and social science insights (pp. 347–384). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re)conceptualising student engagement: Doing education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24 (7), 1765–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.004
Download references
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Authors and affiliations.
School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, QLD, Australia
Martina Bateson & Marilyn Casley
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Martina Bateson, Marilyn Casley contributed to the conception and design of the literature review. Literature searches and screening were performed by Martina Bateson and reviewed by Dr Marilyn Casley. The authors undertook the analysis of included studies separately and collaborated in the development of final themes. Martina Bateson wrote the first draft of the article and Dr Marilyn Casley reviewed drafts, provided comments and assisted with proofreading and editing. Martina Bateson, Marilyn Casley read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Martina Bateson .
Competing interest.
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Since this is a literature review of previously published summary data, ethical approval is not required.
Since this is a literature review of previously published summary data, informed consent is not required.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Bateson, M., Casley, M. Young people’s experiences with flexible and inclusive education in Australia: a review of the literature. Aust. Educ. Res. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00763-8
Download citation
Received : 04 January 2024
Accepted : 12 August 2024
Published : 24 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00763-8
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
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Literature Review Examples. For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics. ... The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology, 67, 44-57. Source: https ...
For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery ...
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ...
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
When this happens, - the ultimate good of science can be realised. A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method. ... An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1. Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]
If you're working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter, you've come to the right place.. In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction.We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template.
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
begin by clearing up some misconceptions about what a literature review is and what it is not. Then, I will break the process down into a series of simple steps, looking at examples along the way. In the end, I hope you will have a simple, practical strategy to write an effective literature review.
Okay - with the why out the way, let's move on to the how. As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I'll break down into three steps: Finding the most suitable literature. Understanding, distilling and organising the literature. Planning and writing up your literature review chapter.
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
Scientific Literature Review Example. A scientific literature review is a critical account of what has been published on a topic by accredited researchers. It may be a stand-alone assignment, an introduction to an essay, report, thesis, etc., or part of research/grant proposals. Systematic Literature Review. Systematic Review Vs Literature Review.
2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author. Analysing literature gives an overview of the "WHs": WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [].For new or aspiring researchers in a particular ...
2. MOTIVATE YOUR RESEARCH in addition to providing useful information about your topic, your literature review must tell a story about how your project relates to existing literature. popular literature review narratives include: ¡ plugging a gap / filling a hole within an incomplete literature ¡ building a bridge between two "siloed" literatures, putting literatures "in conversation"
Personal: To familiarize yourself with a new area of research, to get an overview of a topic, so you don't want to miss something important, etc. Required writing for a journal article, thesis or dissertation, grant application, etc. Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type ...
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
A scientific literature review should: Provide a clear statement of the topical area (scope) Provide a range of research on the topic - and not just the "good" data! Critically analyse a selected topic using a published body of knowledge (backed-up arguments) Provide an indication of what further research is necessary.
A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the ...
A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section.
Here you have a to-do list to help you write your review: A scientific literature review usually includes a title, abstract, index, introduction, corpus, bibliography, and appendices (if needed). Present the problem clearly. Mention the paper's methodology, research methods, analysis, instruments, etc. Present literature review examples that ...
A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, ... For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative ...
Here, I provide tips on planning and writing a review article, with examples of well-crafted review articles published in The FEBS Journal. The advice given here is mostly relevant for the writing of a traditional literature-based review rather than other forms of review such as a systematic review or meta-analysis, which have their own ...
Machine learning can enhance the analysis of these data, improving the comprehension of health and well-being. Therefore, this paper presents a systematic literature review on machine learning and digital phenotyping, examining the research field by filtering 2,860 articles from eleven databases published up to November 2023.
Scientific literature review examples can build your confidence and make the task achievable. Reading well-written examples helps you develop your critical thinking skills. You improve your writing skills and language, especially if you are a non-native speaker. Our examples are fantastic guide tools for writing.
PRISMA framework (Agnusdei et al., 2022) is used to perform a systematic literature review (SLR). The SLRs follow concise approach to identify the scattering and synthesize apprehension on a specific concern [3, 5].The relevant articles were collected from the Scopus database using a set of keywords as 'additive manufacturing' and 'sustainable development' or 'circular economy' or ...
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a significant global health burden, characterized by progressive airflow limitation and exacerbations that significantly impact patient morbidity and mortality. Recent research has investigated the interplay between the gut and the lungs, known as the gut-lung axis, highlighting the role of the gut microbiome in COPD pathogenesis.
The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is using ROSES ... The study incorporates an integrative review, which is a scientific inquiry of diverse forms of evidence that integrates multiple methodologies ... taking into account the region's levels of unemployment and poverty. An example of a policy along these lines is the Waste Picker Inclusion ...
We review the scientific literature published between 2010 and May 2024 to analyze the current state of research on AI in production. Following a systematic approach to select relevant studies, our literature review is based on a sample of articles that contribute to production-specific AI adoption. Our results reveal that the topic has been ...
To better understand young people's experiences of engaging with these emerging alternatives to mainstream schooling, a review of current empirical literature was undertaken. Focusing on students' perspectives on learning in flexible and inclusive education environments, 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.
This study systematically reviewed the scientific literature on natural remedies for male sexual dysfunction (MSD), including conditions like erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and reduced libido. Limited scientific evidence exists regarding the efficacy and safety of these natural products.