10 importance of literature review in research example

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

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, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

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

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

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:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

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.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

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 only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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.

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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.

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can 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:

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

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

You can 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!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

It’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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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:

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

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

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

There are various approaches to 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).

Chronological

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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:

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Approach – Types Methods and Examples

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 1:54 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Importance Of Proofreading For Scientific Writing Methods and Significance

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

Comments are closed.

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 1:20 PM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — ChatPDF Showdown

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 19, Issue 1
• Reviewing the literature
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Joanna Smith 1 ,
• Helen Noble 2
• 1 School of Healthcare, University of Leeds , Leeds , UK
• 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Joanna Smith , School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; j.e.smith1{at}leeds.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102252

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Implementing evidence into practice requires nurses to identify, critically appraise and synthesise research. This may require a comprehensive literature review: this article aims to outline the approaches and stages required and provides a working example of a published review.

Are there different approaches to undertaking a literature review?

What stages are required to undertake a literature review.

The rationale for the review should be established; consider why the review is important and relevant to patient care/safety or service delivery. For example, Noble et al 's 4 review sought to understand and make recommendations for practice and research in relation to dialysis refusal and withdrawal in patients with end-stage renal disease, an area of care previously poorly described. If appropriate, highlight relevant policies and theoretical perspectives that might guide the review. Once the key issues related to the topic, including the challenges encountered in clinical practice, have been identified formulate a clear question, and/or develop an aim and specific objectives. The type of review undertaken is influenced by the purpose of the review and resources available. However, the stages or methods used to undertake a review are similar across approaches and include:

Formulating clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, for example, patient groups, ages, conditions/treatments, sources of evidence/research designs;

Justifying data bases and years searched, and whether strategies including hand searching of journals, conference proceedings and research not indexed in data bases (grey literature) will be undertaken;

Developing search terms, the PICU (P: patient, problem or population; I: intervention; C: comparison; O: outcome) framework is a useful guide when developing search terms;

Developing search skills (eg, understanding Boolean Operators, in particular the use of AND/OR) and knowledge of how data bases index topics (eg, MeSH headings). Working with a librarian experienced in undertaking health searches is invaluable when developing a search.

Once studies are selected, the quality of the research/evidence requires evaluation. Using a quality appraisal tool, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools, 5 results in a structured approach to assessing the rigour of studies being reviewed. 3 Approaches to data synthesis for quantitative studies may include a meta-analysis (statistical analysis of data from multiple studies of similar designs that have addressed the same question), or findings can be reported descriptively. 6 Methods applicable for synthesising qualitative studies include meta-ethnography (themes and concepts from different studies are explored and brought together using approaches similar to qualitative data analysis methods), narrative summary, thematic analysis and content analysis. 7 Table 1 outlines the stages undertaken for a published review that summarised research about parents’ experiences of living with a child with a long-term condition. 8

• View inline

An example of rapid evidence assessment review

In summary, the type of literature review depends on the review purpose. For the novice reviewer undertaking a review can be a daunting and complex process; by following the stages outlined and being systematic a robust review is achievable. The importance of literature reviews should not be underestimated—they help summarise and make sense of an increasingly vast body of research promoting best evidence-based practice.

• ↵ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Guidance for undertaking reviews in health care . 3rd edn . York : CRD, York University , 2009 .
• ↵ Canadian Best Practices Portal. http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/interventions/selected-systematic-review-sites / ( accessed 7.8.2015 ).
• Bridges J , et al
• ↵ Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). http://www.casp-uk.net / ( accessed 7.8.2015 ).
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Shaw R , et al
• Agarwal S ,
• Jones D , et al
• Cheater F ,

Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at @josmith175

Competing interests None declared.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: A literature review is an objective, concise, critical summary of published research literature relevant to a topic being researched in an article. A good literature review will order articles and books to focus on unresolved debates, inconsistencies, tensions, and questions in a research field. It will also summarize the most relevant, important aspects of scientific literature related to your area of research, and synthesize past and current research on the topic and show how your research fits in. One way to think about doing a literature review is to imagine building a bookshelf. You don't need to cut each piece by yourself, rather you can take the pieces that other researchers have made and put them together to build your project. The literature review provides an understanding of the background of the field, identifying which studies are important and which are not, to put together your bookshelf of a study. So what should the literature review include? Historical background for research. You should show what has been written about your field of research so that you can present something new and significant and contribute to the understanding of this field, even in a small way. This also demonstrates to other researchers and journal editors that you know how to read theoretical concepts and put them in your own words to show understanding. Include current research context in which your research is situated. This means discussion questions, issues, and debates in the field. You can contextualize your work by showing related work as both historical background and the modern state of research, showing the development and trends of research. Include relevant theories and concepts. For example, if you are researching the relationship between the ecological environment and human population in that environment, providing models and theories that focus on specific aspects of this connection will help contextualize your study. Introduce and define relevant terminology to show how terms fit into the context of your work. Add related research and show how your work expands or challenges this research, or works to fill in a gap in the work in this field. You can use the literature review as evidence of what works, what doesn't, and what is missing. Provide supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue that your research is addressing, showing its importance. Referencing related research establishes your area of research as reputable and shows you are building upon previous work that other researchers have deemed significant. Literature reviews range from the selective, a very narrow area of research or only a single work, to the comprehensive, or a larger amount or range of works. They can also exist as part of a larger work or stand on their own. A course assignment is an example of a selective, standalone work. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up an entire work on its own. The literature review in a dissertation or thesis is both comprehensive and helps make up a larger work. A majority of journal articles start with a selective literature review to provide context for research reported in the manuscript, which is the broader work for which the literature gives context. The literature review is often included in the introduction. Some literature reviews are both comprehensive and stand as a separate work. The entire article analyzes the literature on a given topic. Thus, the literature review, while it has common applications across many kinds of documents, can serve slightly different purposes and take different forms. The two types of literature reviews found in journals are research articles, such as studies and surveys, and standalone literature analyses. They differ in their scope, length, and specific purpose. The literature review found at the beginning of a journal article is used to introduce the research related to the specific study and is found in the introduction section, usually near the end. It is shorter than standalone reviews because it must limit its scope to very specific studies and theories that are directly relevant to this study. It is also often used to set research precedent and support theory or methods. Here is an example of a review of the literature, accompanied by the heading, Related Research. This section is four paragraphs in length and cites four to five sources, or roughly one source per short paragraph. This is fairly standard for a literature review introducing an article or study. When a literature review exists as a part of an introduction to a study, it follows the structure of the introduction itself and moves from the general to the specific, presenting the broadest background information about a topic first and then moving to specific studies that support your study, finally leading to your hypothesis statement. The literature is often indistinguishable from the introduction itself, introducing the background and defining the gaps your study aims to fill. The standalone literature review published as its own article, on the other hand, presents and analyzes as much of the important text in an area of study as possible to provide background information and context for a current area of research or a specific study that is being conducted now or will be conducted in the future. This can be an excellent resource for researchers when they are first seeking out the most relevant information on an area of study. Such an article, thus, presents and analyzes as many relevant texts as necessary to give a full account of a research topic, approach, or theory. It is generally a bit broader in scope and extends further back in time. This means that sometimes a scientific literature review can be highly theoretical. In addition, it focuses on the results and methods of previous studies. It often has a more extended analysis and goes into greater detail. All of the sections of this kind of review refer to the literature rather than detailing a specific current study. In this example of a literature review in a journal, there are two features that distinguish it. First, the words literature review are contained in the title. While it is not necessary to include this exact term, many literature reviews do indicate the type of article in their title. The second feature one notices is the length of the text. It is much longer than the literature review that introduces a study. The headings indicate what kind of literature is being discussed and how it contributes to the topic. At the end of the review is a conclusion that once again explicitly ties all of these works together to show how this analysis is itself a contribution to the literature. So how do authors turn a network of articles into a coherent review of relevant literature? Writing the literature review is not usually a linear process. You will often need to go back and check the literature while reformulating your ideas. This means you will not be writing the literature review at any one time, but constantly working on it before, during, and after your study is complete. This process will apply more to standalone literature reviews, but can also be useful in understanding what to include to introduce your study. The first step is to choose a topic to write on, focus, and explore this topic. Choose a topic that you are familiar with and highly interested in analyzing, a topic your intended readers and researchers will find interesting and useful, and a topic that is current, well-established in the field, and about which there has been sufficient research conducted for a review. This will help you find the sweet spot for what to focus on. In a journal article introduction, this is the point where you might realize you need to adjust your scope depending on what you learn from the literature. Next, research and collect all of the scholarly information on that topic that might be pertinent to your study. Scholarly articles, books, academic conference speeches, dissertations and theses, and any other academic work related to your area of study is called the literature. Next, analyze the network of information that extends or responds to the major works in your area. Select the material that is most useful. Use thought maps and charts to identify intersections in the research and to outline important categories. Select the material that will be most useful for you to review. Following this, it's time to describe and summarize each article. Provide the essential information of the article that pertains to your study. Determine two to three important concepts, depending on the length of your article, that are discussed in the literature. Take notes about all of the important aspects of the study relevant to your topic being reviewed. For example, in a study of heart disease, perhaps some of the main concepts are arthrosclerosis, hypertension, and obesity. Note these concepts and then write a brief summary about how the article incorporates them. For instance, Yang's 1995 longitudinal study of obese patients attempts to measure the effects of chronic hypertension on arthrosclerosis. In reviews that introduce a study, these can be relatively short summaries. In standalone reviews, there may be significantly more text and concepts to review. After you've summarized each article, you want to demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed. In a literature intro for the article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond or confirm to the sections in your own study. You might identify the missing parts in previous studies that your study addresses or highlight concepts that support your hypothesis, methods, results, or conclusions. In a standalone literature review, this may mean highlighting the concepts in each article and showing they strengthen a hypothesis or show a pattern. For example, you might identify any unaddressed issues in the previous studies. You can identify what is accurate and what is out of scope within these works. The final step in the literature review process is to identify relationships in the literature and develop and connect your own ideas to them. This is essentially the same as the previous step, but focus on the connections between the literature and the current study or guiding concepts or arguments in the paper, not only the connections between the works themselves. Examining these concepts is almost like doing a study in itself, pointing to the most important information from previous studies and drawing possible conclusions from the results of these works. Your hypothesis, argument, or guiding concept is the golden thread that will ultimately tie the works together and give them the importance they wouldn't have had outside of your literature review. Furthermore, your review will not only cover publications on your topics, but will include your own ideas and contributions. By following these steps, you will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research, and you can turn a network of related works into a focused review of the literature. How long should a literature review be? The length of your literature review will be determined by how many sources you are reviewing and how many concepts you are exploring, as well as how much tension exists between these concepts. A stand-alone literature review can be anywhere from 2-3 pages to an entire book in length. For a separate article, this section is usually no more than 2-4 paragraphs maximum. How many sources should I review? The amount of articles you review will be heavily determined by how broad or narrow your topic is, how in-depth you want to explore an issue, and perhaps how much consensus or disagreement exists in this area. In a stand-alone review, the number of works reviewed might be anywhere from 5-15 and up to 30 or more in a full book of literature review, whereas a journal article usually has fewer than 5 sources and does not go into great depth, but often focuses on the most important points. Here are some tips for creating a stronger literature review. Always define your topic and audience before beginning your research. This will help later when deciding which works to ultimately include in the review. Read as many journal articles as you can, especially those that are in your area of interest. These will give you an excellent idea of how to structure and order your review. Focus on more current literature, especially when it comes to studies and articles. Using older theories is fine if they are fundamental and provide a stable foundation for work that hasn't changed over the years, but more current research will always be highly sought after by researchers and other readers. This might go without saying, but researchers should always take ample notes while they are researching the texts. Using note cards, tables, and computing programs like Microsoft Excel will help organize and index information and make it much easier to categorize later. Whatever you do, don't simply stack texts in the relevant pile without first writing down exactly what in the texts makes them relevant. For more resources on research writing and publication information, as well as a full list of academic editing services, visit wordvice.com.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions

• Natalie Coleman 1 ,
• Xiangpeng Li 1 ,
• Tina Comes 2 &
• Ali Mostafavi 1  

npj Natural Hazards volume  1 , Article number:  25 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Natural hazards
• Sustainability

Infrastructure resilience plays an important role in mitigating the negative impacts of natural hazards by ensuring the continued accessibility and availability of resources. Increasingly, equity is recognized as essential for infrastructure resilience. Yet, after about a decade of research on equity in infrastructure resilience, what is missing is a systematic overview of the state of the art and a research agenda across different infrastructures and hazards. To address this gap, this paper presents a systematic review of equity literature on infrastructure resilience in relation to natural hazard events. In our systematic review of 99 studies, we followed an 8-dimensional assessment framework that recognizes 4 equity definitions including distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, and capacity equity. Significant findings show that (1) the majority of studies found were located in the US, (2) interest in equity in infrastructure resilience has been exponentially rising, (3) most data collection methods used descriptive and open-data, particularly with none of the non-US studies using human mobility data, (4) limited quantitative studies used non-linear analysis such as agent-based modeling and gravity networks, (5) distributional equity is mostly studied through disruptions in power, water, and transportation caused by flooding and tropical cyclones, and (6) other equity aspects, such as procedural equity, remain understudied. We propose that future research directions could quantify the social costs of infrastructure resilience and advocate a better integration of equity into resilience decision-making. This study fills a critical gap in how equity considerations can be integrated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards, providing a comprehensive overview of the field and developing future research directions to enhance societal outcomes during and after disasters. As such, this paper is meant to inform and inspire researchers, engineers, and community leaders to understand the equity implications of their work and to embed equity at the heart of infrastructure resilience plans.

Similar content being viewed by others

Measuring accessibility to public services and infrastructure criticality for disasters risk management

Realizing resilience for decision-making

Exploring disaster impacts on adaptation actions in 549 cities worldwide

Introduction.

Infrastructures are the backbones of our societies, connecting people to essential resources and services. At the same time, infrastructure systems such as power, water, and transportation play a pivotal role in determining whether a natural hazard event escalates into a disaster 1 . Driven by the combination of accelerating climate hazards and increasing vulnerability, a 2022 Reuters report indicated that natural hazards caused infrastructure and building losses between $732 and $845 billion dollars internationally 2 . In another report by the World Bank (2019), the direct damage to power and transportation systems had an estimated cost of $18 billion annually 3 . Not only do infrastructure disruptions result in economic losses but they also lead to health issues and a decline in quality of life 4 . Since infrastructure systems secure the accessibility and availability of water, health, and electricity, among other critical services, disruptions of infrastructure exacerbate disasters. For example, the Nepal earthquake (2015) caused the collapse of 262 micro-hydropower plants and 104 hospitals, which further weakened the community’s ability to recover from the hazardous event 5 . Hurricane Maria (2017) in Puerto Rico led to year-long power disruptions which contributed to the 2975 estimated human fatalities 6 . Therefore, infrastructure resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in research, policy, and practice.

The National Infrastructure Advisory Council defined infrastructure resilience as the ability of infrastructure systems, to absorb, adapt, or recover from disruptive events such as natural hazards 7 , 8 . From an engineering viewpoint, infrastructure resilience ensures no significant degradation or loss of system performance in case of a shock (robustness), establishes multiple access channels to infrastructure services (redundancy), effectively mobilizes resources and adapts to new conditions (resourcefulness), and accomplishes these goals in a timely manner (rapidity) 9 . From these origins, infrastructure resilience has evolved to include the complex interactions of technology, policy, social, and governance structures 10 . The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction discusses the need to use transdisciplinary and systemic methods to guide infrastructure resilience 11 . In their Principles of Resilient Infrastructure report, the principles of infrastructure resilience are to develop understanding and insights (continual learning), prepare for current and future hazards (proactively protected), positively work with the natural environment (environmentally integrated), develop participation across all levels of society (socially engaged), share information and expertise for coordinated benefits (shared responsibility), and address changing needs in infrastructure operations (adaptively transforming) 12 .

Based on the argument of Schlor et al. 13 that “social equity is essential for an urban resilience concept,” we also argue that equity in infrastructure resilience will not only benefit vulnerable populations but also lead to more resilient communities. Equity, in a broad sense, refers to the impartial distribution and just accessibility of resources, opportunities, and outcomes, which strive for fairness regardless of location and social group 14 , 15 . Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that everyone in the community, regardless of their demographic background, geographic location, level of community status, and internal capabilities, have access to and benefits from infrastructure services. It would also address the limitations of infrastructure resilience, which brings short-term benefits to a specific group of people but ultimately results in long-term disaster impacts 16 . A failure to recognize equity in infrastructure resilience could exacerbate the disaster impact and lock in recovery processes, which in turn, reduces future resilience and leads to a vicious cycle 17 .

Even though infrastructure resilience has important equity impacts, the traditional definition of infrastructure resilience is antithetical to equity. Socially vulnerable populations (such as lower income, minority, indigenous, or rural populations) have traditionally been excluded from the development, maintenance, and planning of infrastructure resilience 18 . For instance, resilience strategies do not conventionally consider the unique needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, leading to inadequate one-size-fits-all solutions 19 . Conventional approaches to restoring infrastructure after hazard events are based on the number of outages, the number of affected customers, and extent of damage within an area, depending on the company preferences, and rarely prioritize the inherent vulnerability of affected individuals and areas 20 . Thereby, those who are most dependent on infrastructure systems may also be most affected by their outages. Several reports, such as National Institute of Standards and Technology 21 , United Nations Office for Project Services 11 , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure 22 , and the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure 23 have recognized the importance of considering vulnerable populations in infrastructure resilience.

Furthermore, infrastructure resilience efforts often require significant investment at individual, community, and societal levels 24 . For instance, lower income households may not be able to afford power generators or water tanks to replace system losses 25 , 26 , which means they are more dependent on public infrastructure systems. Wealthier communities may receive more funding and resources for resilience projects due to better political representation and economic importance 27 . Improvements in infrastructure can also lead to gentrification and displacement, as an area perceived with increased safety may raise property values and push out underrepresented residents 28 . Infrastructure resilience may not be properly communicated or usable for all members of the community 29 . Research has also shown an association between vulnerable groups facing more intense losses and longer restoration periods of infrastructure disruptions due to planning biases, inadequate maintenance, and governance structures 18 . Due to the limited tools that translate equity considerations, infrastructure managers, owners, and operators are unlikely to recognize inequities in service provision 20 . Finally, resilience planning can prioritize rapid recovery which may not allow for sufficient time to address the underlying social inequities. This form of resilience planning overlooks the range of systematic disparities evident in infrastructure planning, management, operations, and maintenance in normal times and hazardous conditions 18 .

The field of equity in infrastructure resilience has sparked increasing interest over the last decade. First, researchers have distinguished equal and equitable treatment for infrastructure resilience. As stated by Kim and Sutley 30 , equality creates equivalence at the beginning of a process whereas equity seeks equivalence at the end. Second, the term has been interpreted through other social-economic concepts such as social justice 16 , sustainability 31 , vulnerability 32 , welfare 33 , 34 , and environmental justice 35 . Third, equitable infrastructure is frequently associated with pre-existing inequities such as demographic features 36 , 37 , spatial clusters 38 , 39 , 40 , and political processes 41 . Fourth, studies have proposed frameworks to analyze the relationship of equity in infrastructure resilience 42 , 43 , adapted quantitative and qualitative approaches 44 , 45 , and created decision-making tools for equity in infrastructure resilience 31 , 46 .

Despite a decade of increasing interest in integrating equity into infrastructure resilience, the research gap is to systematically evaluate collective research progress and fundamental knowledge. To address this gap, this paper presents a comprehensive systematic literature review of equity-related literature in the field of infrastructure resilience during natural hazards. The aim is to provide a thorough overview of the current state of art by synthesizing the growing body of literature of equitable thinking and academic research in infrastructure resilience. From there, we aim to identify gaps and establish a research agenda. This review focuses on the intersection of natural hazard events, infrastructure resilience, and equity to answer three overarching research questions. As such, this research is important because it explores the critical but often neglected integration of equity into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. It provides a comprehensive overview and identifies future research opportunities to improve societal outcomes during and after disasters.

What are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories in assessing the inequities of infrastructure services in association with natural hazard events?

What are the similarities and differences in studying pathways of equity in infrastructure resilience?

What are the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience?

To answer the research questions, the authors reviewed 99 studies and developed an 8-dimensional assessment framework to understand in which contexts and via which methods equity is studied. To differentiate between different equity conceptualizations, the review distinguishes four definitions of equity: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). In our study, “pathways” explores the formation, examination, and application of equity within an 8-dimensional framework. Following Meerow’s framework of resilience to what and of what? 47 , we then analyze for which infrastructures and hazards equity is studied. Infrastructures include power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded. The hazards studied include flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard.

The in-depth decadal review aims to bring insights into what aspects are fully known, partially understood, or completely missing in the conversation involving equity, infrastructure resilience, and disasters. The review will advance the academic understanding of equity in infrastructure resilience by highlighting understudied areas, recognizing the newest methodologies, and advising future research directions. Building on fundamental knowledge can influence practical applications. Engineers and utility managers can use these findings to better understand potential gaps in the current approaches and practices that may lead to inequitable outcomes. Community leaders and advocates could also leverage such evidence-based insights for advocacy and bring attention to equity concerns in infrastructure resilience policies and guidelines.

Infrastructure resilience in the broader resilience debate

To establish links across the resilience fields, this section embeds infrastructure resilience into the broader resilience debate including general systems resilience, ecological resilience, social resilience, physical infrastructure resilience, and equity in infrastructure resilience. From the variety of literature in different disciplines, we focus on the definitions of resilience and draw out the applicability to infrastructure systems.

Resilience has initially been explored in ecological systems. Holling 48 defines resilience as the ability of ecosystems to absorb changes and maintain their core functionality. This perspective recognizes that ecosystems do not necessarily return to a single equilibrium state, but can exist in multiple steady states, each with distinct thresholds and tipping points. Building on these concepts, Carpenter et al. 49 assesses the capacity of socioecological systems to withstand disturbances without transitioning to alternative states. The research compares resilience properties in lake districts and rangelands such as the dependence on slow-changing variables, self-organization capabilities, and adaptive capacity. These concepts enrich our understanding of infrastructure resilience by acknowledging the complex interdependencies between natural and built systems. It also points out the different temporal rhythms across fast-paced behavioral and slow-paced ecological and infrastructural change 50 .

Social resilience brings the human and behavioral dimension to the foreground. Aldrich and Meyer focuses on the concept of social capital in defining community resilience by emphasizing the role of social networks and relationships to enhance a community’s ability to withstand and recover from disasters 51 . Aldrich and Meyer argues that social infrastructure is as important as physical infrastructure in disaster resilience. Particularly, the depth and quality of social networks can provide crucial support in times of crisis, facilitate information sharing, expedite resource allocation, and coordinate recovery efforts. Resilience, in this context, is defined as the enhancement and utilization of its social infrastructure through social capital. It revolves around the collective capacity of communities to manage stressors and return to normalcy post-disaster through cooperative efforts.

Since community resilience relies on collaborative networks, which in turn are driven by accessibility, community and social resilience are intricately linked to functioning infrastructures 52 . To understand the relationships, we first examine the systems of systems approach thinking. Vitae Systems of Systems aims to holistically resolve complex environmental and societal challenges 53 . It emphasizes strategic, adaptive, and interconnected solutions crucial for long-term system resilience. Individual systems, each with their capabilities and purposes, are connected in ways such that they can achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. Additionally, Okada 54 also shows how the Vitae Systems of Systems can detect fundamental areas of concern and hotspots of vulnerability. It highlights principles of survivability (live through), vitality (live lively), and conviviality (live together) to build system capacity in the overall community. In the context of infrastructure resilience, these approaches bring context to the development of systems and their interdependencies, rather than focusing on the resilience of individual components in isolation.

Expanding on the notion of social and community resilience, Hay’s applies key concepts of being adaptable and capable of maintaining critical functionalities during disruptions to infrastructure 55 . This perspective introduces the concept of “safe-to-fail” systems, which suggests that planning for resilience should anticipate and accommodate the potential for system failures in a way that minimizes overall disruption and aids quick recovery.

As such, the literature agrees that social, infrastructural, and environmental systems handle unexpected disturbances and continue to provide essential services. While Aldrich’s contribution lies in underscoring the importance of social ties and community networks, Hay expands this into the realm of physical systems by considering access to facilities. Infrastructure systems traditionally adapt and change slowly, driven by rigid physical structures, high construction costs, and planning regulations. In contrast, behavioral patterns are relatively fast-changing, even though close social connections and trust also take time to build. Yet, infrastructures form the backbone that enables—or disrupts—social ties. By adopting resilience principles that enable adaptation across infrastructure and social systems, better preparedness, response, and recovery can be achieved.

Given the dynamic, complex nature of resilience, infrastructure resilience, by extension, should not just be considered through the effective engineering of the built environment. Rather, infrastructure resilience must be considered as an integral part of the multi-layered resilience landscape. Crucial questions that link infrastructure to the broader resilience debate include: How will it be used and by whom? How are infrastructure resilience decisions taken, and whose voices are prioritized? These critical questions necessitate the integration of equity perspectives into the infrastructure resilience discourse.

Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures all community members have equitable access to essential services and infrastructure. In her commentary paper, Cutter 56 examines disaster resilience and vulnerability, challenging the prevalent ambiguity in the definitions of resilience. The paper poses two fundamental questions of “resilience to what?” and “resilience to whom?” . Later, Meerow and Newell 47 expanded on these questions in the context of urban resilience, “for whom, what, where, and why?” . They also stress the need for “resilience politics,” which include understanding of how power dynamics shape resilience policies, creating winners and losers 47 .

In a nutshell, resilience strategies must proactively address systemic inequities. This can also be framed around the concept of Rawls’ Theory of Justice principles, such as equal basic rights and fair equality of opportunity 57 , 58 . Rawls advocates for structuring social and economic inequalities to benefit the least advantaged members of society. In the context of infrastructure resilience, the theory would ensure vulnerable communities, such as lower-income households, have priority in infrastructure restoration. Incorporating Walker’s Theory of Abundant Access, this could also mean prioritizing those most dependent on public transit. Access to public transit, especially in lower-income brackets, allows for greater freedom of movement and connection to other essential facilities in the community like water, food, and health 59 , 60 . At the same time, Casali et al. 61 show that access to infrastructures alone is not sufficient for urban resilience to emerge. Such perspectives integrate physical and social elements of a community to equitably distribute infrastructure resilience benefits. Table 1 summarizes the selected definitions of resilience.

Definitions of equity

Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that individuals have the same opportunity and access to infrastructure services regardless of differing demographics, spatial regions, involvement in the community, and internal capacity. Equity is a multifaceted concept that requires precise definitions to thoroughly assess and address it within the scope of infrastructure resilience. Based on the literature, our systematic literature review proposes four definitions of equity for infrastructure resilience: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). Distributional-demographic (D) equity represents accessibility to and functionality of infrastructure services considering the vulnerability of demographic groups 62 . Distributional-spatial (S) equity focuses on the equitable distribution of infrastructure services to all spatial regions 63 . Procedural (P) equity refers to inclusive participation and transparent planning with stakeholders and community members 31 . Capacity equity (C) connect the supporting infrastructure to the hierarchy of needs which recognizes the specific capacities of households 64 .

Distributional-demographic (D) addresses the systemic inequities in communities to ensure those of differing demographic status have equitable access to infrastructure services 37 . The purpose is to equitably distribute the burdens and benefits of services by reducing disparity for the most disadvantaged populations 42 . These groups may need greater support due to greater hardship to infrastructure losses, greater dependency on essential services, and disproportionate losses to infrastructure 43 , 65 , 66 . In addition, they may have differing abilities and need to mitigate service losses 33 . Our research bases distributional-demographic on age for young children and elderly, employment, education, ethnicity, people with disabilities, gender, income, tenure of residence, marginalized populations based on additional demographic characteristics, intergenerational, and general-social inequities 67 .

Distributional-spatial (S) recognizes that the operation and optimizations of the systems may leave certain areas in isolation 68 , 69 , 70 . For example, an equitable access to essential services (EAE) approach to spatial planning can identify these service deserts 46 . Urban and rural dynamics may also influence infrastructure inequities. Rural areas have deficient funding sources compared to urban areas 17 while urban areas may have greater vulnerability due to the interconnectedness of systems 71 . Our research labels distributional-spatial as spatial and urban-rural. Spatial involves spatial areas of extreme vulnerability through spatial regression models, spatial inequity hotspots, and specific mentions of vulnerable areas. Urban-rural references the struggles of urban-rural areas.

Procedural (P) equity ensures the inclusion of everyone in the decision-making process from the collection of data to the influence of policies. According to Rivera 72 , inequities in the disaster recovery and reconstruction process originate from procedural vulnerabilities associated with historical and ongoing power relations. The validity of local cultural identities is often overlooked in the participation process of designing infrastructure 73 . Governments and institutions may have excluded certain groups from the conversation to understand, plan, manage, and diminish risk in infrastructure 74 . As argued by Liévanos and Horne 20 , such utilitarian bureaucratic decision rules can limit the recognition of unequal services and the development of corrective actions. These biases can be present in governmental policies, maintenance orders, building codes, and distribution of funding 30 . Our research labels procedural equity as stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder input goes beyond collecting responses from interviews and surveys. Rather, researchers will ask for specific feedback and validation on final research deliverables like models, results, and spatial maps, but they are not included in the research planning process. Stakeholder engagement are instances where participants took an active role in the research deliverables to change elements of their community.

Capacity (C) equity is the ability of individuals, groups, and communities to counteract or mitigate the effect of infrastructure loss. As mentioned by Parsons, et al. 75 , equity can be enhanced through a network of adaptive capacities at the household or community level. These adaptive capacities are viewed as an integral part of community resilience 76 . Regarding infrastructure, households can prepare for infrastructure losses and have service substitutes such as power generators or water storage tanks 77 , 78 . It may also include the household’s ability to tolerate disruptions and the ability to perceive risk to infrastructure losses 66 . However, capacity can be limited by people’s social connections, social standing, and access to financial resources and personal capital 79 . Our research categorizes capacity equity as adaptations, access, and susceptibility. Adaptations include preparedness strategies before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Access includes a quantifiable metric in reaching critical resources which may include but is not limited to vehicles, public transportation, or walking. Susceptibility involves a household internal household capability such as tolerance, suffering, unhappiness, and willingness-to-pay models. Although an important aspect of capability, the research did not include social capital since it is outside the scope of research.

Methods of systematic literature review

Our systematic literature review used the Covidence software 80 , which is a production tool to make the process of conducting systematic reviews more efficient and streamlined 80 . As a web-based platform, it supports the collaborative management of uploaded journal references and processes journals through 4-step screening and analysis including title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment. The software also follows the guidelines of PRIMSA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis), which provides a clear, transparent way for researchers to document their findings 81 . PRIMSA includes a 27-item checklist and 4-phase flow diagram of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Figure 1 summarizes the PRIMSA method we followed during our review process by showing the search criteria and final selected articles at each stage, including identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.

The figure shows the 4-step screening process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion as well as the specific search criteria for each step. From the initial 2991 articles, 99 articles were selected.

Identification

The search covered Web of Science and Science Direct due to their comprehensive coverage and interdisciplinary sources. To cover a broad set of possible disasters and infrastructures, our search focused on the key areas of equity (“equit- OR fair- OR justice- OR and access-“), infrastructure (“AND infrastructure system- OR service-”), and disasters (“ AND hazard- OR, cris- OR, disaster- OR”). We limited our search to journal articles published in engineering, social sciences, and interdisciplinary journals during January 2010 to March 2023. Excluding duplicates, the combined results of the search engines resulted in 2991 articles.

The articles were screened on their title and abstract. These had to explicitly mention both an infrastructure system (water, transportation, communication, etc.) and natural hazards (tropical cyclone, earthquake, etc.) The specific criteria for infrastructure and natural hazard is found in the 8-dimension framework. This initial screening process yielded 398 articles for full-text review.

Eligibility

The articles were examined based on the extent of discussion in infrastructure, natural hazard, and equity dimension. Insufficient equity discussion means that the paper did not fall within the distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, or capacity forms of equity (98). Studies were also excluded for not directly including equity analysis in the infrastructure system (19). Limited infrastructure focus means that the article may have focused on infrastructure outside the scope of the manuscript such as industrial, green, building, or social infrastructure (74). Limited disaster focus means that the article did not connect to the direct or indirect impacts of disasters on infrastructure systems (45). Wrong study design included literature reviews, opinion pieces, policy papers, and unable to access (56). This stage yielded 99 final articles.

Inclusion and assessment framework

To analyze the 99 articles, we designed an 8-dimensional assessment framework (see Fig. 2 ) to analyze the literature. In Fig. 2 , the visualization focuses on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazards since these are the 3 main dimensions of the systematic literature review. The icons on the bottom are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more analysis and context to the first 3 dimensions. Here, we refer to research question 1: what are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services? The framework distinguished the concepts (equity dimensions, infrastructure system, and natural hazard event), foci (geographical scale, geographic location, temporal scale), methods (nature of study and data collection), and theories (theoretical perspective) (Fig. 2 ). The following details each subquestion:

Equity dimensions, infrastructure type, and hazard event type are the main 3 dimensions while geographical location, geographic scale, temporal, nature of the study, and theoretical perspectives are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more information and context.

How is equity conceptualized and measured? First, we label equity into 4 definitions (DPSC). Second, it summarizes the equity conclusions.

Infrastructure type

Which infrastructure services were most and least commonly studied? This category is divided into power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Studies can include more than one infrastructure service. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded.

Hazard event type

Which hazard events are most or least frequently studied? This category includes flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard. To clarify, tropical cyclones include hurricanes and typhoons while extreme temperatures are coldwaves and heatwaves. It determines which studies are specific to hazards and which can be applied to universal events.

Geographic location

Which countries have studied equity the most and least? This category is at the country scale such as the United States, Netherlands, China, and Australia, among others.

Geographic scale

What geographic unit of scale has been studied to represent equity? Smaller scales of study can reveal greater insights at the household level while larger scales of study can reveal comparative differences between regional communities. It ranges from individual, local, regional, and country as well as project. To clarify, ‘individual’ can include survey respondents, households, and stakeholder experts; ‘local’ is census block groups, census tracts, and ZIP codes equivalent scales; ‘regional’ is counties, municipalities, and cities equivalent; ‘project’ refers to studies that focused on specific infrastructure/ construction projects.

Temporal scale

When did themes and priority of equity first emerge? This category determines when equity in infrastructure research is published and whether these trends are increasing, decreasing, or constant.

Nature of the study

How is data for equity being collected and processed? This category analyzed data types used including conceptual, descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, and simulation data. To clarify, conceptual refers to purely conceptual frameworks or hypothetical datasets; descriptive refers to surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or field observations performed by the researcher; open-data refers to any open-data source that is easily and freely attainable such as census and flood data; location-intelligence refers to social media, human mobility, satellite and aerial images, visit data, and GIS layers; and finally, simulation data can be developed through simulation models like numerical software, Monte-Carlo, or percolation methods. Second, the data can be processed through quantitative or qualitative methods. Quantitative methods may include correlation, principal component analysis, and spatial regression while qualitative methods may include validation, thematic coding, participatory rural appraisal, and citizen science. We focused on analysis explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. For example, it can be assumed that studies of linear regression discussed correlation analysis and other descriptive statistics in their data processing.

Theoretical perspective

Which theoretical frameworks have been created and used to evaluate equity? This category summarizes the reasoning behind the theoretical frameworks which may have informal or formal names such as a service-gap model, well-being approach, and capability approach.

Based on the 8-dimensional assessment framework, the research first examines the spatiotemporal patterns as well as data and methods to evaluate equity. Then, it investigates the definitions of equity to the intersections with infrastructure and hazards. It concludes with a discussion of theoretical frameworks. We use the term “pathways” to identify how equity is constructed, analyzed, and used in relation to the 8-dimensional framework. For instance, the connection between equity and infrastructure is considered a pathway. By defining specific “pathways,” we are essentially mapping out the routes through which equity interacts with various dimensions of a framework, such as infrastructure. The following analysis directly addresses research question 1 (prevailing concepts, focuses, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services) and research question 2 (similar and different pathways of equity). Supplementary Figures 1A – 12A provide additional context to the research findings and can be found in the Supplementary Information .

Spatiotemporal patterns of equity

Overall, there is an increasing number of publications about equity in infrastructure management (Fig. 3 ). A slight decrease observed in 2021 could be because of the focus on COVID-19 research. Spatially, by far the most studies focus on the US (69), followed by India (3), Ghana (3), and Bangladesh (3) (Fig. 5 ). This surprising distribution seems to contradict the intuition that equity and fairness in infrastructure resilience are certainly global phenonmena. Besides the exact phrasing of the search term, this result can be explained by the focus of this review on the intersection of infrastructure resilience and inequity. For infrastructure resilience, prominent reports, such as the CDRI’s 2023 Global Infrastructure Resilience Report 82 still fail to address it. Even though research has called for increasing consideration of equity and distributive justice in infrastructure and risk assessment, inequity is still all too often viewed as a social and economic risk 83 . At the same time, persistent imbalances in terms of data availability have been shown to shift research interest to the US, especially for data intense studies on urban infrastructures 84 . Finally, efforts to mainstream of equity and fairness across all infrastructures as a part of major transitions may explain why equity discussion is less pronounced in the context of crises. For instance, in Europe, according to the EU climate act (Article 9(1)) 85 , all sectors need to be enabled and empowered to make the transition to a climate-resilient society fair and equitable .

The bar graph shows an overall increasing from 2011 to 2023 in publications about equity in infrastructure resilience during natural hazard events. The pie chart shows that countries in the global north with United States (US), England, Australia, Germany, Taiwan, Norway, South Korea, and Japan and global south with Bangladesh, India, Ghana, Mexico, Mozambique, Brazil, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Nepal, Zimbabwe, Central Asia, and South Africa.

Data and methods to interpret equity

Our Sankey diagram (Fig. 4 ) sketches the distribution of data collection pathways which connects quantitative-qualitative data to data type to scale. Most studies start from quantitative data (120) with fewer using mixed (34) or qualitative (18) data. Quantitative studies use descriptive (58), open-data (50) location-intelligence (36), simulation (19), and conceptual (9). The most prominent spatial scale was local (66) which consisted of census tract, census block group, zip code, and equivalent spatial scale of analysis. This was followed by individual or household scale (64) which largely stems from descriptive data of interviews, surveys, and field observations. Within the context of infrastructure, equity, and hazards, non-US studies did not use human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data. This could be due to limitations in data availability and different security restrictions to these researchers such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 86 . Increasingly, the application of location-intelligence data was used to supplement the understanding of service disruptions. For example, satellite information 87 , telemetry-based data 37 , and human mobility data 88 were used to evaluate the equitable restoration of power systems and access to critical facilities. Social media quantified public emotions to disruptions 89 , 90 .

The Sankey diagram shows the flow from studies containing quantitative, qualitative, or quantitative–qualitative data to the specific type of data of descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, simulation, and conceptual to spatial scale of data of local, individual, regional, country, and project.

As shown in Fig. 5 , there are distinct quantitative and qualitative methods to interpret equity. Most quantitative methods were focused on descriptive analysis and linear models which can assume simple relationships within equity dimensions. Simple relationships would assume that dependent variables have a straightforward relationship with independent variables. Regarding quantitative analysis, descriptive statistics were correlation (12), chi-square (6), and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (5) means. Spatial analysis included geographic information system (GIS) (15), Moran’s-I spatial autocorrelation (6), and spatial-regression (5). Variables were also grouped together through principal component analysis (PCA) (9) and Index-Weighting (9). Logit models (13) and Monte-Carlo simulations (7) were used to analyze data. Thus, more complex models are needed to uncover the underlying mechanisms associated with equity in infrastructure. In analyzing quantitative data, most research has focused on using descriptive statistics, linear models, and Moran’s I statistic which have been effective in pinpointing areas with heightened physical and social vulnerability 25 , 91 , 92 .

The quantitative pie chart has geographic information system (GIS), logit model, correlation, index-weighting, principal component analysis (PCA), monte-carlo simulation, chi-square, Moran’s- I spatial autocorrelation, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and spatial regression. The qualitative pie chart has validation, thematic coding, citizen science, sentiment analysis, conceptual analysis, participatory rural appraisal, document analysis, participatory assessment, photovoice, and ethnographic.

However, there has been a less frequent yet insightful use of advanced techniques like machine learning, agent-based modeling, and simulation. For example, Esmalian, et al. 66 employed agent-based modeling to explore how social demographic characteristics impact responses to power outages during Hurricane Harvey. In a similar vein, Baeza, et al. 93 utilized agent-based modeling to evaluate the trade-offs among three distinct infrastructure investment policies: prioritizing high-social-pressure neighborhoods, creating new access in under-served areas, and refurbishing aged infrastructure. Simulation models have been instrumental in understanding access to critical services like water 43 , health care 92 , and transportation 33 . Beyond these practical models, conceptual studies have also contributed innovative methods. Notably, Clark, et al. 94 proposed gravity-weighted models, and Kim and Sutley 30 explored the use of genetic algorithms to measure the accessibility to critical resources. These diverse methodologies indicate a growing sophistication in the field, embracing a range of analytical tools to address the complexities of infrastructure resilience.

Regarding qualitative analysis, the methods included thematic coding (7), validation of stakeholders (9), sentiment (4), citizen science (5), conceptual analysis (3) participatory rural appraisal (2), document analysis (2), participatory assessment (1), photovoice (1), and ethnographic (1). Qualitative methods were used to capture diverse angles of equity, offering a depth and context not provided by quantitative data alone. These methods are effective in understanding capacity equity, such as unexpected strategies and coping mechanisms that would go otherwise unnoticed 95 . Qualitative research can also capture the perspectives and voices of stakeholders through procedural equity. Interviews and focus groups can validate and enhance research frameworks 96 . Working collaboratively with stakeholders, as shown with Masterson et al. 97 can lead to positive community changes in updated planning policies. Qualitative methods can narratively convey the personal hardships of infrastructure losses 98 . This approach recognizes that infrastructure issues are not just technical problems but also deeply intertwined with social, economic, and cultural dimensions.

Interlinkages of equity definitions

As shown in Fig. 6 , the frequency of type of equity was distributional-demographic (90), distributional-spatial (55), capacity (54), and procedural (16). It is notable to reflect on the intersections between the four definitions of equity. Between two linkages, the top three linkages between DC (20), DS (16), and DP (9), which all revealed a connection to distributional-demographic equity. There were comparatively fewer studies linking 3 dimensions except for DSC which had 25 connections. Only 3 studies had 4 connections.

Distributional-demographic had the highest number of studies and the greatest overlap with the remaining equity definitions of capacity, procedural, and distributional-spatial. Only 3 studies overlapped with the four equity definitions.

Distributional-demographic equity was the most studied equity definition. Table 2 shows how pathways of demographic equity relate to the different infrastructure systems and variables within distributional-demographic, including 728 unique pathways. As a reminder, pathways explore equity across an 8-dimensional framework. In this case, the distributional-demographic equity is connected to infrastructure, treating these connections as pathways Pathways with power (165), water (147), and transportation (112) were the most frequent while those with stormwater (23) and emergency (9) services were the least frequent. Referencing demographics, the most pathways were income (148), ethnicity (115), and age (122) while least studied were gender (63), employment (35), marginalized populations (5) and intergenerational (1). Note the abbreviations for Tables 2 and 3 are power (P), water (W), transportation (T), food (F), health (H), sanitation (ST), communication (C), stormwater (SW), emergency (E), and general (G). Regarding distributional-demographic, several research papers showed that lower income and minority households were most studied in comparison to the other demographic variables. Lower-income and minority households faced greater exposure, more hardship, and less tolerance to withstand power, water, transportation, and communication outages during Hurricane Harvey 99 . These findings were replicated in disasters such as Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, COVID-19 pandemic, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Hermine, respectively 65 , 91 , 100 , 101 . Several studies found that demographic vulnerabilities are interconnected and compounding, and often, distributional-demographic equity is a pre-existing inequality condition that is exacerbated by disaster impact 102 . For instance, Stough, et al. 98 identified that respondents with disabilities faced increased struggles due to a lack of resources to access proper healthcare and transportation after Hurricane Katrina. Women were often overburdened by infrastructure loss as they were expected to “pick up the pieces,” and substitute the missing service 103 , 104 . Fewer studies involved indigenous populations, young children, or considered future generations. Using citizen-science methods, Ahmed, et al. 105 studied the struggles and coping strategies of the Santal indigenous group to respond to water losses in drought conditions. Studies normally did not account for the direct infrastructure losses on children and instead concentrated on the impacts on their caretakers 106 ; however, this is likely due to restrictions surrounding research with children. Lee and Ellingwood 107 discussed how, “intergenerational discounting makes it possible to allocate costs and benefits more equitably between the current and future generations” (pg.51) A slight difference in discounting rate can lead to vastly different consequences and benefits for future generations. For example, the study found that insufficient investments in design and planning will only increase the cost and burden of infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

Distributional-spatial equity was the second most studied aspect, which includes spatial grouping and urban-rural designation, particularly given the rise of open-data and location-intelligence data with spatial information. Table 3 shows the pathways of spatial equity connected to different infrastructures and variables. In total, 109 unique pathways were found with spatial (83) and urban-rural (26) characteristics. Power (27), transportation (22), water (16), and health (15) systems were the most frequent pathways with stormwater (4), emergency (2), and communication (3) the least frequent. Urban-rural studies on communication and emergency services are entirely missing. Distributional-spatial equity studies, including spatial inequities and urban-rural dynamics, were often linked with distributional-demographic equity. For example, Logan and Guikema 46 defined “access rich” and “access poor” to measure different sociodemographic populations’ access to essential facilities. White populations had less distance to travel to open supermarkets and service stations in North Carolina 46 . Esmalian et al. 108 found that higher income areas had a lower number of stores in their areas, but they still had better access to grocery stores in Harris County, Texas. This could be because higher income areas live in residential areas, but they have the capability to travel further distances and visit more stores. Vulnerable communities could even be indirectly impacted by spatial spillover effects from neighboring areas 26 . Regarding urban-rural struggles, Pandey et al. 17 argued that inequities emerge when urban infrastructure growth lags with respect to the urban population while rural areas face infrastructure deficits. Rural municipalities had fewer resources, longer restoration times, and less institutional support to mitigate infrastructure losses 95 , 109 , 110 .

Capacity was the third most studied dimension and had 150 unique pathways to adaptations (54), access (43), and susceptibility (53). In connecting to infrastructure systems, power (29), water (27), transportation (25), and food (22) had the greatest number of pathways. There were interesting connections between different infrastructures and variables of capacity. Access was most connected to food (11), transportation (10), and health systems (10). Adaptations were most connected to water (15) and power (12) systems. This highlights how capacity equity is reflected differently to infrastructure losses. Capacity equity was often connected with distributional-equity since different sociodemographic groups have varying adaptations to infrastructure losses 78 . For example, Chakalian, et al. 106 found that white respondents were 2.5 more likely to own a power generator while Kohlitz et al. 95 found that poorer households could not afford rainwater harvesting systems. These behaviors may also include tolerating infrastructure disruptions 111 , cutting back on current resources 112 , or having an increased suffering 113 . The capabilities approach offers a valuable perspective on access to infrastructure services 94 . It recognizes the additional time and financial resources that certain groups may need to access the same level of services, especially if travel networks are disrupted 114 , 115 and travel time is extended 33 . In rural regions, women, children, and lower income households often reported traveling further distances for resources 105 , 116 . These disparities are often influenced by socioeconomic factors, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding on how different communities are affected by and respond to infrastructure losses. As such, building capacity is not just increasing the preparedness of households but also accommodating infrastructure systems to ensure equitable access, such as the optimization of facility locations 69 .

Procedural was the least studied equity definition with only 26 unique pathways, involving stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Pathways to communication and emergency systems were not available. The greatest number of pathways were water services to stakeholder input (7) and stormwater services to stakeholder engagement (4). Stakeholder input can assist researchers in validating and improving their research deliverables. This approach democratizes the decision-making process and enhances the quality and relevance of research and planning outcomes. For instance, the involvement of local experts and residents in Tanzania through a Delphi process led to the development of a more accurate and locally relevant social resilience measurement tool 117 . Stakeholder engagement, such as citizen science methods, can incorporate environmental justice communities into the planning process, educate engineers and scientists, and collect reliable data which can be actively incorporated back to the community 118 , 119 , 120 . Such participatory approaches, including citizen science, allow for a deeper understanding of community needs and challenges. In Houston, TX, the success of engaging high school students in assessing drainage infrastructure exemplified how community involvement can yield significant, practical data 119 . The data was approximately 74% accurate to trained inspectors, which were promising results for communities assessing their infrastructure resilience 119 . In a blend of research and practice, Masterson, et al. 97 illustrated the practical application of procedural equity. By interweaving equity in their policy planning, Rockport, TX planners added accessible services and upgrades to infrastructure for lower-income and racial-ethnic minority neighborhoods, directly benefiting underserved communities.

Pathways between equity, hazard, and infrastructure

For the hazards, tropical cyclones (34.6%) and floods (30.8%) make up over half of the studied hazards (Supplementary Figure 2A ) while power (21.2%), water (19.2%), transportation (15.4%), and health (12.0%) were the most frequently studied infrastructure services (Supplementary Figure 3A ). A pathway is used to connect equity to different dimensions of the framework, in this case, equity to infrastructure to hazard (Fig. 7 ). When considering these pathways, distributional-demographic (270) had the most pathways followed by capacity (175), distributional-spatial (140), and procedural (28). The most common pathway across all infrastructure services was a tropical cyclone and flooding with distributional-demographic equity (Supplementary Figures 6A – 8A ). As shown in Fig. 7 , tropical cyclone (229) and flood (192) had the most pathways while extreme temperatures (20) and pandemic (14) had the least. Although pandemic is seemingly the least studied, it is important to note that most of these studies were post COVID-19. Power (120), transportation (107), and water (104) had the most pathways whereas sanitation (33), communication (27), stormwater (21), and emergency (14) had the least pathways. The figure shows specific gaps in the literature. Whereas the other three equity definitions had connections to each hazard event, procedural equity only had connections to tropical cyclone, flood, general, and drought. There were only pathways from health infrastructure to tropical cyclone, flood, general, earthquake, and pandemic. There were 106 pathways connecting equity to general hazards, which may suggest the need to look at the impacts of specific hazards to equity in infrastructure resilience.

The Sankey diagram shows the flow from the different types of equity, or equity definitions, of distributional-demographic (D), capacity (C), distributional-spatial (S), and procedural (P) to hazard of tropical cyclone, flood, general, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, and pandemic to infrastructure of power, transportation, water, health, food, communication, general, stormwater, emergency, and sanitation.

Research frameworks

Regarding research question 2, this research aims to understand frameworks of equity in infrastructure resilience. As an exploration of the frameworks. we found common focus areas of adaptations, access, vulnerability, validation, and welfare economics (Table 4 ). The full list of frameworks can be found in the online database that was uploaded in DesignSafe Data Depot. Supplementary Information .

Adaptations

Household adaptations included the ability to prepare before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Esmalian et al. 111 developed a service gap model based on survey data of residents affected by Hurricane Harvey. Lower-income households were less likely to own power generators, which could lead to an inability to withstand power outages 111 . To understand household adaptations, Abbou et al. 78 asked residents of Los Angeles, California about their experiences in electrical and water losses. The study showed that when compared to men, women used more candles and flashlights. People with higher education, regardless of gender, were more likely to use power generators. In a Pressure and Release model, Daramola et al. 112 examined the level of preparedness to natural hazards in Nigeria. The study found that rural residents tended to use rechargeable lamps while urban areas used generators, likely due to the limited availability of electricity systems. Approximately 73% of participants relied on chemist shops to cope with constrained access to health facilities.

Other frameworks focused on the accessibility to resources. Clark et al. 94 developed the social burden concept which uses resources, conversion factors, capabilities, and functioning into a travel cost method to access critical resources. In an integrated physical-social vulnerability model, Dong et al. 92 calculated disrupted access to hospitals in Harris County, Texas. Logan and Guikema 46 integrated spatial planning, diverse vulnerabilities, and community needs into EAE services. In the case study of Willimgton, North Carolina, they showed how lower-income households had fewer access to grocery stores. In a predictive recovery monitoring spatial model, Patrascu and Mostafavi 26 found that the percentage of Black and Asian subpopulations were significant features to predict recovery of population activity, or the visits to essential services in a community.

Vulnerability

Several of the infrastructure resilience frameworks were grounded in social vulnerability assessments. For instance, Toland et al. 43 created a community vulnerability assessment based on an earthquake scenario that resulted in the need for emergency food and water resources. Using GIS, Oswald and Mohammed developed a transportation justice threshold index that integrated social vulnerability into transportation understanding 121 . In a Disruption Tolerance Index, Esmalian et al. 25 showed how demographic variables are connected with disproportionate losses in power and transportation losses.

Additional studies were based on stakeholder input and expert opinion. Atallah et al. 36 established an ABCD roadmap for health services which included acute life-saving services, basic institutional aspects for low-resource settings, community-driven health initiatives, and disease specific interventions. Health experts were instrumental in providing feedback for the ABCD roadmap. Another example is the development of the social resilience tool for water systems validated by experts and community residents by Sweya et al. 117 . To assess highway resilience, Hsieh and Feng had transportation experts score 9 factors including resident population, income, employment, connectivity, dependency ratio, distance to hospital, number of substitutive links, delay time in substitutions, and average degenerated level of services 122 .

Welfare economics

Willingness-to-pay (WTP) models reveal varied household investments in infrastructure resilience. Wang et al. 123 showed a wide WTP range, from $15 to $50 for those unaffected by disruptions to $120–$775 for affected, politically liberal individuals. Islam et al. 124 found households with limited access to safe drinking water were more inclined to pay for resilient water infrastructure. Stock et al. 125 observed that higher-income households showed greater WTP for power and transportation resilience, likely due to more disposable income and expectations for service quality. These findings highlight the need to consider economic constraints in WTP studies to avoid misinterpreting lower income as lower willingness to invest. Indeed, if a study does not adequately account for a person’s economic constraints, the findings may incorrectly interpret a lower ability to pay as a lower willingness to pay.

In terms of policy evaluation for infrastructure resilience, studies like Ulak et al. 126 prioritized equitable power system recovery for different ethnic groups, favoring network renewal over increasing response crews. Baeza et al. 93 noted that infrastructure decisions are often swayed by political factors rather than technical criteria. Furthermore, Lee and Ellingwood 107 introduced a method for intergenerational discounting in civil infrastructure, suggesting more conservative designs for longer service lives to benefit future generations. These studies underscore the complex factors influencing infrastructure resilience policy, including equity, political influence, and long-term planning.

This systematic review is the first to explore how equity is incorporated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. By systematically analyzing the existing literature and identifying key gaps, the paper enhances our understanding of equity in this field and outlines clear directions for future research. This study is crucial for understanding the fundamental knowledge that brings social equity to the forefront of infrastructure resilience. Table 5 summarizes the primary findings of this systematic review of equity in infrastructure resilience literature, including what the studies are currently focusing on and the research gaps and limitations.

Our findings show a great diversity of frameworks and methods depending on the context, in which equity is applied (Table 5 ). Moreover, we identify a lack of integrative formal and analytical tools. Therefore, a clear and standard framework is needed to operationalize inequity across infrastructures and hazards; what is missing are analytical tools and approaches to integrate equity assessment into decision-making.

Referring to question 3, we will further explore the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience. In elaborating on the gaps identified in our review, we propose that the next era of research questions and objectives should be (1) monitoring equity performance with improved data, (2) weaving equity in computational models, and (3) integrating equity into decision-making tools. Through principles of innovation, accountability, and knowledge, such objectives would be guided by moving beyond distributional equity, recognizing understudied gaps of equity, and inclusion of all geographic regions, and by extension stakeholders (Fig. 8 ).

The figure demonstrates that previous research has focused on detecting and finding evidence of disparity in infrastructure resilience in hazard events. It supports that the next phase of research will monitor equity performance with improved data, weave equity in computational models, and integrate equity in decision making tools in order to move beyond social and spatial distributions, recognize understudied gaps of equity, and include all geographic regions.

The first research direction is the monitoring equity performance with improved data at more granular scales and greater representation of impacted communities. Increased data availability provides researchers, stakeholders, and community residents with more detailed and accurate assessment of infrastructure losses. Many studies have used reliable, yet inherently approximate data sources, for infrastructure service outages. These sources include human mobility, satellite, points-of-interest visitation, and telemetry-based data (such as refs. 69 , 100 ). Private companies are often reluctant to share utility and outage data with researchers 127 . Thus, we encourage the shift towards transparent and open datasets from utility companies in normal times and outage events. This aligns with open-data initiatives such as Open Infrastructure Outage Data Initiative Nationwide (ODIN) 128 , Invest in Open Infrastructure 129 , and Implementing Act on a list of High-Value Datasets 130 . Transparency in data fosters an environment of accountability and innovation to uphold equity standards in infrastructure resilience 131 . An essential aspect of this transparency involves acknowledging and addressing biases that may render certain groups ‘invisible’ within datasets. These digitally invisible populations may well be among the most vulnerable, such as unhoused people that may not have a digital footprint yet are very vulnerable to extreme weather 132 . Gender serves as a poignant example of such invisibility. Historical biases and societal norms often result in gender disparities being perpetuated in various facets of infrastructure design and resilience planning 133 . Women are frequently placed in roles of caregiving responsibilities, such as traveling to reach water (as shown in refs. 105 , 116 , 134 ) or concern over the well-being of family members (as shown in refs. 103 , 135 ), which have been overlooked or marginalized in infrastructure planning processes.

If instances of social disparities are uncovered, researchers and practitioners could collaboratively cultivate evidence-based recommendations to manage infrastructure resilience. At the same time, approaches for responsible data management need to be developed that protect privacy of individuals, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups 136 . There is a trade-off between proper representation of demographic groups and ensuring the privacy of individuals 45 , 67 . Despite this, very few studies call into question the fairness of the data collection in capturing the multifaceted aspects of equity 137 , or the potential risks to communities as described in the EU’s forthcoming Artificial Intelligence Act 138 .

By extension, addressing the problem of digitally invisible populations and possible bias, Gharaibeh et al. 120 also emphasizes that equitable data should represent all communities in the study area. Choices about data collection and storage can directly impact the management of public services, by extension the management of critical information 139 . For example, a significant problem with location-intelligence data collection is properly representing digitally invisible populations as these groups are often marginalized in the digital space leading to gaps in data 132 , 140 . Human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data derived from cell phone pinpoint data, illustrates this issue. Vulnerable groups may not afford or have frequent access to cell phones, resulting in a skewed understanding of population movements 141 . However, other studies have shown that digital platforms can be empowering for marginalized populations to express sentiments of cultural identity and tragedies through active sharing and communication 142 . Ultimately, Hendricks et al. 118 recommend a “triangulation of data sources,” to integrate quantitative and qualitative data, which would mitigate potential data misrepresentation and take advantage of the online information. Moving ahead, approaches need to be developed for fair, privacy-preserving, and unbiased data collection that empowers especially vulnerable communities. At the same time, realizing that data gaps especially in infrastructure-poor regions may not be easy to address, we also follow Casali et al. 84 in calling for synthetic approaches and models that work on sparse data.

Few studies, such as refs. 45 , 66 , have created computational models to capture equity-infrastructure-hazards interactions, which are initial attempts to quantify both the social impacts and the physical performance of infrastructure. This is echoed in the work of Soden et al. 143 which found only ~28% of studies undertake a quantitative evaluation of differential impacts experienced in disasters. To enhance analytical and computational methods in supporting equitable decision-making, it is imperative for future studies to comprehensively integrate social dimensions of infrastructure resilience. Therefore, the next research direction is the intentional weaving of equity in computational models. Where the majority of studies used descriptive statistics and non-linear modeling, complex computational models—such as agent-based simulations—offer the advantage of capturing the nonlinear interactions of equity in infrastructure systems. These tools also allow decision-makers to gain insights into the emergence of complex patterns over time. These simulation models can then be combined with specific metrics that measure infrastructural or social implications. Metrics might include susceptibility curves 144 , social burden costs estimates 94 , or social resilience assessment 76 . Novel metrics for assessing adaptive strategies, human behaviors, and disproportionate impacts (such as 113 ) could also be further quantified through empirical deprivation costs for infrastructure losses 145 . These metrics also are a stepping-stone for formalizing and integrating equity into decision-making tools.

Another research direction is the integration of equity into decision-making tools. Key performance indicators and monitoring systems are essential for clarifying equity processes and outcomes and creating tangible tools for infrastructure planners, managers, engineers, and policy-makers. In particular, the literature discussed the potential for using equity in infrastructure resilience to direct infrastructure investments (such as refs. 93 , 126 , 146 ). Infrastructure resilience requires significant upfront investment and resource allocations, which generally favors wealthier communities. Communities may hold social, cultural, and environmental values that are not properly quantified in infrastructure resilience 147 . Since traditional standards of cost-benefit analyses used by infrastructure managers and operators primarily focus on monetary gains or losses, they would not favorably support significant investments to mitigate the human impacts of infrastructure losses on those most vulnerable 148 . This limitation also delays investments and leads to inaction in infrastructure resilience, resulting in unnecessary loss of services and social harm, potentially amplifying inequities, and furthering societal fragmentation. To bridge this gap, we propose to measure the social costs of infrastructure service disruptions as a way to determine the broad benefits of resilience investments 147 .

As the literature review found, several studies are following a welfare economics approach to quantify social costs associated with infrastructure losses such as the evaluation of policies (such as ref. 93 ) and willingness-to-pay models (such as ref. 125 ). Such economic functions are preliminary steps in quantifying equity as a cost measure; however, these models must avoid misinterpreting lower income as a lower willingness to invest. Lee and Ellingwood 107 proposed using intergenerational discounting rate; however, it is important to recognize the flexibility of options for future generations 149 . Teodoro et al. 149 points to the challenges of using (fixed) discount rates and advocate for a procedural justice-based approach that maximizes flexibility and adaptability. Further research is needed to quantify the social costs of infrastructure disruptions and integrate them into infrastructure resilience assessments, such as calculating the deprivation costs of service losses for vulnerable populations.

Our review shows that certain demographic groups such as indigenous populations, persons with disabilities, and intergenerational equity issues have not been sufficiently studied 150 . This aligns with the conclusions of Seyedrezaei et al. 151 , who found that the majority of studies about equity in the built-environment focused on lower-income and minority households. Indigenous populations face significant geographical, cultural, and linguistic barriers that make their experiences with disrupted infrastructure services distinct from those of the broader population 152 .

Even though intergenerational justice issues have increasingly sparked attention on the climate change discussion, intergenerational equity issues in infrastructure resilience assessments have received limited attention. We argue that intergenerational equity warrants special attention as infrastructure systems have long life cycles that span across multiple generations, and ultimately the decisions on the finance, restoration, and new construction will have a significant impact on the ability of future generations to withstand the impact of stronger climate hazard events. Non-action may lead to tremendous costs in the long run 149 . It is the responsibility of current research to understand the long-term effects of equity in infrastructure management to mitigate future losses and maintain the flexibility of future generations. As a means of procedural justice, these generations should have the space to make choices, instead of being locked in by today’s decisions. Future studies should develop methods to measure and integrate intergenerational inequity in infrastructure resilience assessments.

Given the specific search criteria and focus on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazard, we found a major geographic focus on the United States. Large portions of the global north and global south were not included in the analysis. This could be due to the search criteria of the literature review; however, it is important to recognize potential geographic areas that are isolated from the academic studies on infrastructure resilience. Different infrastructure challenges (e.g., intermittent services) are present through data availability in the region. A dearth of studies on equitable infrastructure resilience could contribute to greater inequity in those regions due to the absence of empirical evidence and proper methodological solutions. This aligns with other findings on sustainable development goals and climate adaptation broadly 153 . Global research efforts, along with common data platforms, standards and methods (see above), that include international collaborations among researchers across the global north and global south regions can bridge this gap and expand the breadth of knowledge and solutions for equitable infrastructure resilience.

Finally, while significant attention has been paid to distributional demographic and spatial inequity issues 151 , there remain several underutilized definitions of equity. Procedural and capacity equity hold the greatest potential for people to feel more included in the infrastructure resilience process. Instead of depending directly on the infrastructure systems, individual households can adapt to disrupted periods through substituted services and alternative actions (such as ref. 78 ). To advance procedural equity in infrastructure resilience, citizen-science research or participatory studies can begin by empowering locals to understand and monitor their resilience (such as ref. 76 ) or failures in their infrastructure systems (such as ref. 120 ). As referenced by Masterson and Cooper 154 , the ladder of citizen power can serve as a framework for how to ethically engage with community partners for procedural equity. The ladder, originally developed by Arnstein 155 , includes non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. Table 3 shows that most research falls into non-participation: survey data and information are extracted without any community guidance. Limited studies that have branched into community involvement still stay restricted in the tokenism step, such as models that are validated by stakeholders or receive expert opinions on their conceptual models. Future studies should expand inquiries regarding the procedural and capacity dimension of equity in infrastructure resilience assessments and management. For instance, research could map out where inequities occur in the decision-making process and targeted spatial regions as well as allocate of resources for infrastructure resilience. It could also continue pursuing inclusive methodologies such as participatory action research and co-design processes. It should investigate effective methods to genuinely integrate different stakeholders and community members from conception through evaluation of research.

Although the primary audience of the literature review is academic scholars and fellow researchers, the identified gaps are of importance for practitioners, governmental agencies, community organizations, and advocates. By harnessing the transformative power of equity, studies in infrastructure resilience can transcend its traditional role and develop equity-focused data, modeling, and decision-making tools which considers everyone in the community. The integration of equity aspects within the framework of infrastructure resilience not only enhances the resilience of infrastructure systems but also contributes to the creation of inclusive and resilient communities. Infrastructure resilience would not just be a shield against adversity but also a catalyst for positive social and environmental change.

Data availability

The created excel database which includes information on the key parts of the 8-dimensional equity framework will be uploaded to DesignSafe-CI.

Oh, E. H., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Criticality assessment of lifeline infrastructure for enhancing disaster response. Nat. Hazards Rev. 14 , 98–107 (2013).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tripathi, B., Thomson Reuters Foundation. in Reuters (2023).

Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J. & Rozenberg, J. Lifelines: the resilience infrastructure opportunity (2019).

Scherzer, S., Lujala, P. & Rød, J. K. A community resilience index for Norway: an adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 36 , 101107 (2019).

Platt, S., Gautam, D. & Rupakhety, R. Speed and quality of recovery after the Gorkha Earthquake 2015 Nepal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101689 (2020).

George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health & University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health. Ascertainment of the estimated excess mortality from hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (2018).

National Infrastructure Advisory Council. Critical Infrastructure Resilience Final Report and Recommendations (2010).

Hosseini, S., Barker, K. & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 , 47–61 (2016).

Berkeley, A. & Wallace, M. A Framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals final report and recommendations by the council (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2010).

Mehvar, S. et al. Towards resilient vital infrastructure systems–challenges, opportunities, and future research agenda. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 , 1383–1407 (2021).

United Nations Office for Project Services. Inclusive Infrastructure for Climate Action. (2022).

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Principles for Resilient Infrastructure. (2022).

Schlör, H., Venghaus, S. & Hake, J.-F. The FEW-Nexus city index—measuring urban resilience. Appl. Energy 210 , 382–392 (2018).

Hart, D. K. Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Adm. Rev. 34 , 3 (1974).

Cook, K. S. & Hegtvedt, K. A. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9 , 217–241 (1983).

Boakye, J., Guidotti, R., Gardoni, P. & Murphy, C. The role of transportation infrastructure on the impact of natural hazards on communities. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 219 , 108184 (2022).

Pandey, B., Brelsford, C. & Seto, K. C. Infrastructure inequality is a characteristic of urbanization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119 , e2119890119 (2022).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hendricks, M. D. & Van Zandt, S. Unequal protection revisited: planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environ. Justice 14 , 87–97 (2021).

Ma, C., Qirui, C. & Lv, Y. “One community at a time”: promoting community resilience in the face of natural hazards and public health challenges. BMC Public Health 23 , 2510 (2023).

Liévanos, R. S. & Horne, C. Unequal resilience: the duration of electricity outages. Energy Policy 108 , 201–211 (2017).

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (2020).

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction & Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. Global Methodology for Infrastructure Resilience Review (2023).

Robertson, I. et al. Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure, Science Plan, Multi-Hazard Research to Make a More Resilient World, Third Edition, < https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-abbs-0966 > (2023).

Rathnayaka, B., Siriwardana, C., Robert, D., Amaratunga, D. & Setunge, S. Improving the resilience of critical infrastructures: Evidence-based insights from a systematic literature review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 78 , 103123 (2022).

Esmalian, A. et al. Disruption Tolerance Index for determining household susceptibility to infrastructure service disruptions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2021.102347 (2021).

Patrascu, F. I. & Mostafavi, A. Spatial model for predictive recovery monitoring based on hazard, built environment, and population features and their spillover effects. Environ. Plan. B: Urban Anal. City Sci. 23998083231167433 https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231167433 (2023).

Archer, D., Marome, W., Natakun, B., Mabangyang, P. & Phanthuwongpakdee, N. The role of collective and individual assets in building urban community resilience. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 12 , 169–186 (2020).

Anguelovski, I. et al. Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the Global North and South. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 36 , 333–348 (2016).

Hallegatte, S. & Li, J. Investing in resilience and making investments resilient. PLOS Clim. 1 , e0000077 (2022).

Kim, J. H. & Sutley, E. J. Implementation of social equity metrics in an engineering-based framework for distributing disaster resources. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102485 (2021).

Seigerman, C. K. et al. Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 59 , 281–298 (2023).

Karakoc, D. B., Barker, K., Zobel, C. W. & Almoghathawi, Y. Social vulnerability and equity perspectives on interdependent infrastructure network component importance. Sustain. Cities Soc. 57 , 102072 (2020).

Silva-Lopez, R., Bhattacharjee, G., Poulos, A. & Baker, J. W. Commuter welfare-based probabilistic seismic risk assessment of regional road networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 227 , 108730 (2022).

Dhakal, S. & Zhang, L. A Social welfare-based infrastructure resilience assessment framework: toward equitable resilience for infrastructure development. Nat. Hazards Rev. 24 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000597 (2023).

Sotolongo, M., Kuhl, L. & Baker, S. H. Using environmental justice to inform disaster recovery: vulnerability and electricity restoration in Puerto Rico. Environ. Sci. Policy 122 , 59–71 (2021).

Atallah, D. G. et al. Developing equitable primary health care in conflict-affected settings: expert perspectives from the frontlines. Qual. Health Res. 28 , 98–111 (2018).

Coleman, N. et al. Energy inequality in climate hazards: empirical evidence of social and spatial disparities in managed and hazard-induced power outages. Sustain. Cities Soc. 92 , 104491 (2023).

Balomenos, G. P., Hu, Y. J., Padgett, J. E. & Shelton, K. Impact of coastal hazards on residents’ spatial accessibility to health services. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000509 (2019).

Wakhungu, M. J., Abdel-Mottaleb, N., Wells, E. C. & Zhang, Q. Geospatial vulnerability framework for identifying water infrastructure inequalities. J. Environ. Eng. 147 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001903 (2021).

Abdel-Mooty, M. N., Yosri, A., El-Dakhakhni, W. & Coulibaly, P. Community flood resilience categorization framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102349 (2021).

Millington, N. Producing water scarcity in São Paulo, Brazil: The 2014-2015 water crisis and the binding politics of infrastructure. Political Geogr. 65 , 26–34 (2018).

Clark, L. P. et al. A data framework for assessing social inequality and equity in multi-sector social, ecological, infrastructural urban systems: focus on fine-spatial scales. J. Ind. Ecol. 26 , 145–163 (2022).

Toland, J. C., Wein, A. M., Wu, A.-M. & Spearing, L. A. A conceptual framework for estimation of initial emergency food and water resource requirements in disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 90 , 103661 (2023).

Zhai, W., Peng, Z. R. & Yuan, F. Examine the effects of neighborhood equity on disaster situational awareness: harness machine learning and geotagged Twitter data. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101611 (2020).

Yuan, F. et al. Smart flood resilience: harnessing community-scale big data for predictive flood risk monitoring, rapid impact assessment, and situational awareness. Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , 025006 (2022).

Google Scholar  

Logan, T. M. & Guikema, S. D. Reframing resilience: equitable access to essential services. Risk Anal. 40 , 1538–1553 (2020).

Meerow, S. & Newell, J. P. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geogr. 40 , 309–329 (2019).

Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4 , 1–23 (1973).

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 , 765–781 (2001).

Krishnan, S., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. TIMEWISE: temporal dynamics for urban resilience—theoretical insights and empirical reflections from Amsterdam and Mumbai. npj Urban Sustain. 4 , 4 (2024).

Aldrich, D. P. & Meyer, M. A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 59 , 254–269 (2014).

Choi, J., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Seven-layer classification of infrastructure to improve community resilience to disasters. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 , 04019012 (2019).

Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M. & Fang, L. Systems methodologies in vitae systems of systems. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 63–77 (2011).

Okada, N. A scientific challenge for society under sustainability risks by addressing coping capacity, collective knowledge and action to change: a Vitae System perspective. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 53–62 (2011).

Hay, A. Planning Resilient Infrastructure Systems 75–106 (2021).

Cutter, S. L. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geogr. J. 182 , 110–113 (2016).

Wenar, L. John Rawls, < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/ > (2021).

Van Zandt, S. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).

Walker, G. Antipode . 4 edn.

Walker, J. “Abundant Access”: a map of a community’s transit choices, and a possible goal of transit , < https://humantransit.org/2013/03/abundant-access-a-map-of-the-key-transit-choices.html > (2013).

Casali, Y., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. A data-driven approach to analyse the co-evolution of urban systems through a resilience lens: a Helsinki case study. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 0 , 1–18 (2024).

Beck, A. L. & Cha, E. Probabilistic disaster social impact assessment of infrastructure system nodes. Struct. Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2022.2097268 (2022).

Matin, N., Forrester, J. & Ensor, J. What is equitable resilience? World Dev. 109 , 197–205 (2018).

Clark, S., Seager, T. & Chester, M. A capabilities approach to the prioritization of critical infrastructure. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38 , 339–352 (2018).

Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Anatomy of susceptibility for shelter-in-place households facing infrastructure service disruptions caused by natural hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101875 (2020).

Esmalian, A., Wang, W. & Mostafavi, A. Multi‐agent modeling of hazard–household–infrastructure nexus for equitable resilience assessment. Comput.‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 37 , 1491–1520 (2021).

Dhakal, S., Zhang, L. & Lv, X. Understanding infrastructure resilience, social equity, and their interrelationships: exploratory study using social media data in hurricane Michael. Nat. Hazards Rev. 22 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000512 (2021).

Adu-Gyamfi, B., Shaw, R. & Ofosu, B. Identifying exposures of health facilities to potential disasters in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area of Ghana. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 54 , 102028 (2021).

Fan, C., Jiang, X., Lee, R. & Mostafavi, A. Equality of access and resilience in urban population-facility networks. npj Urban Sustain. 2 , 1–12 (2022).

Best, K. et al. Spatial regression identifies socioeconomic inequality in multi-stage power outage recovery after Hurricane Isaac. Nat. Hazards 117 , 1–23 (2023).

Chopra, S. S. & Khanna, V. Interconnectedness and interdependencies of critical infrastructures in the US economy: implications for resilience. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 436 , 865–877 (2015).

Rivera, D. Z. Unincorporated and underserved: critical stormwater infrastructure challenges in South Texas Colonias. Environ. Justice https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0062 (2022).

Rendon, C., Osman, K. K. & Faust, K. M. Path towards community resilience: examining stakeholders’ coordination at the intersection of the built, natural, and social systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 68 , 102774 (2021).

Eghdami, S., Scheld, A. M. & Louis, G. Socioeconomic vulnerability and climate risk in coastal Virginia. Clim. Risk Manag. 39 , 100475 (2023).

Parsons, M. et al. Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: a conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 , 1–11 (2016).

Champlin, C., Sirenko, M. & Comes, T. Measuring social resilience in cities: an exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of activity routines in urban spaces during Covid-19. Cities 135 , 104220 (2023).

Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-810057/v1 (2021).

Abbou, A. et al. Household adaptations to infrastructure system service interruptions. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000715 (2022).

Völker, B. Disaster recovery via social capital. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 96–97 (2022).

Covidence. < https://www.covidence.org/ >

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 , 264–269 (2009).

CDRI. Global infrastructure resilience: capturing the resilience dividend—a biennial report from the coalition for disaster resilient infrastructure (2023).

Comes, M. et al. Strategic crisis management in the European Union: Evidence Review Report (2022).

Casali, Y., Yonca, N. A., Comes, T. & Casali, Y. Machine learning for spatial analyses in urban areas: a scoping review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 104050 (2022).

Regulation (Eu) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) Office Journal of the European Union (2021).

Wolford, B. What is GDPR, the EU’s protection law? < https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ >

Roman, M. et al. Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. PLoS One 14 , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218883 (2019).

Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , 1–12 (2022).

Chen, Y. & Ji, W. Public demand urgency for equitable infrastructure restoration planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102510 (2021).

Batouli, M. & Joshi, D. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2022: Infrastructure Sustainability and Resilience—Selected Papers from Construction Research Congress (2022).

Ulak, M. B., Kocatepe, A., Sriram, L. M. K., Ozguven, E. & Arghandeh, R. Assessment of the hurricane-induced power outages from a demographic, socioeconomic, and transportation perspective. Nat. Hazards 92 , 1489–1508 (2018).

Dong, S., Esmalian, A., Farahmand, H. & Mostafavi, A. An integrated physical-social analysis of disrupted access to critical facilities and community service-loss tolerance in urban flooding. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 80 , 101443 (2020).

Baeza, A., Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., Janssen, M. A. & Eakin, H. Operationalizing the feedback between institutional decision-making, socio-political infrastructure, and environmental risk in urban vulnerability analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 241 , 407–417 (2019).

Clark, S. S., Peterson, S. K. E., Shelly, M. A. & Jeffers, R. F. Developing an equity-focused metric for quantifying the social burden of infrastructure disruptions. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 8 , 356–369 (2023).

Kohlitz, J., Chong, J. & Willetts, J. Rural drinking water safety under climate change: the importance of addressing physical, social, and environmental dimensions. Resources 9 https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060077 (2020).

Islam, M. A., Shetu, M. M. & Hakim, S. S. Possibilities of a gender-responsive infrastructure for livelihood-vulnerable women’s resilience in rural-coastal Bangladesh. Built Environ. Project Asset Manag. 12 , 447–466 (2022).

Masterson, J. et al. Plan integration and plan quality: combining assessment tools to align local infrastructure priorities to reduce hazard vulnerability. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2165779 (2023).

Stough, L. M., Sharp, A. N., Resch, J. A., Decker, C. & Wilker, N. Barriers to the long-term recovery of individuals with disabilities following a disaster. Disasters 40 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12161 (2016).

Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Equitable resilience in infrastructure systems: empirical assessment of disparities in hardship experiences of vulnerable populations during service disruptions. Nat. Hazards Rev. 21 , 04020034 (2020).

Dargin, J. S., Li, Q. C., Jawer, G., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Compound hazards: an examination of how hurricane protective actions could increase transmission risk of COVID-19. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102560 (2021).

Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01353-8 (2021).

Grineski, S. E., Collins, T. W. & Chakraborty, J. Cascading disasters and mental health inequities: Winter Storm Uri, COVID-19 and post-traumatic stress in Texas. Soc. Sci. Med. 315 , 115523 (2022).

Dominelli, L. Mind the gap: built infrastructures, sustainable caring relations, and resilient communities in extreme weather events. Aust. Social Work 66 https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.708764 (2013).

Sam, A. S. et al. Flood vulnerability and food security in eastern India: a threat to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102589 (2021).

Ahmed, B. et al. Indigenous people’s responses to drought in northwest Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. 29 , 55–66 (2019).

Chakalian, P. M., Kurtz, L. C. & Hondula, D. After the lights go out: household resilience to electrical grid failure following hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards Rev. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000335 (2019).

Lee, J. Y. & Ellingwood, B. R. Ethical discounting for civil infrastructure decisions extending over multiple generations. Struct. Saf. 57 , 43–52 (2015).

Esmalian, A., Coleman, N., Yuan, F., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Characterizing equitable access to grocery stores during disasters using location-based data. Sci. Rep. 12 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23532-y (2022).

Mitsova, D., Esnard, A. M., Sapat, A. & Lai, B. S. Socioeconomic vulnerability and electric power restoration timelines in Florida: the case of Hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards 94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3413-x (2018).

Hamlet, L. C., Kamui, M. M. & Kaminsky, J. Infrastructure for water security: coping with risks in rural Kenya. J. Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. 10 , 481–489 (2020).

Esmalian, A., Dong, S., Coleman, N. & Mostafavi, A. Determinants of risk disparity due to infrastructure service losses in disasters: a household service gap model. Risk Anal. 41 , https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13738 (2021).

Daramola, A. Y., Oni, O. T., Ogundele, O. & Adesanya, A. Adaptive capacity and coping response strategies to natural disasters: a study in Nigeria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 15 , 132–147 (2016).

Yang, Y., Tatano, H., Huang, Q., Wang, K. & Liu, H. Estimating the societal impact of water infrastructure disruptions: A novel model incorporating individuals’ activity choices. Sustain. Cities Soc. 75 , 103290 (2021).

Zhu, L., Gong, Y., Xu, Y. & Gu, J. Emergency relief routing models for injured victims considering equity and priority. Ann. Oper. Res. 283 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3089-3 (2019).

Blondin, S. Let’s hit the road! Environmental hazards, materialities, and mobility justice: insights from Tajikistan’s Pamirs. J. Ethn Migr. Stud. 48 , 3416–3432 (2022).

Basu, M., Hoshino, S., Hashimoto, S. & DasGupta, R. Determinants of water consumption: a cross-sectional household study in drought-prone rural India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 24 , 373–382 (2017).

Sweya, L. N., Wilkinson, S. & Kassenga, G. A social resilience measurement tool for Tanzania’s water supply systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 , 102558 (2021).

Hendricks, M. D. et al. The development of a participatory assessment technique for infrastructure: neighborhood-level monitoring towards sustainable infrastructure systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 , 265–274 (2018).

Oti, I. C. et al. Validity and reliability of drainage infrastructure monitoring data obtained from citizen scientists. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000495 (2019).

Gharaibeh, N., Oti, I., Meyer, M., Hendricks, M. & Van Zandt, S. Potential of citizen science for enhancing infrastructure monitoring data and decision-support models for local communities. Risk Anal. 41 , 1104–1110 (2021).

Oswald Beiler, M. & Mohammed, M. Exploring transportation equity: development and application of a transportation justice framework. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 47 , 285–298 (2016).

Hsieh, C.-H. & Feng, C.-M. The highway resilience and vulnerability in Taiwan. Transp. Policy 87 , 1–9 (2020).

Wang, C., Sun, J., Russell, R. & Daziano, R. A. Analyzing willingness to improve the resilience of New York City’s transportation system. Transp. Policy 69 , 10–19 (2018).

Islam, M. S. et al. Households’ willingness to pay for disaster resilient safe drinking water sources in southwestern coastal Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00229-x (2019).

Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards 115 , 1–28 (2022).

Ulak, M. B., Yazici, A. & Ozguven, E. A prescriptive model to assess the socio-demographics impacts of resilience improvements on power networks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51 , 101777 (2020).

Sapat, A. Lost in translation? Integrating interdisciplinary disaster research with policy praxis. Risk Anal. 41 , 1232–1239 (2021).

Ross, D., Wilson, T. & Irwin, C. A White House call for real-time, standardized, transparent power outage data , < https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/11/22/a-white-house-call-for-real-time-standardized-and-transparent-power-outage-data/ > (2022).

Invest in Open Infrastructure Steering Committee. IOI’s Strategic Plan for 2021–2024 , < https://investinopen.org/about/strategic-plan-2021-2024/ > (2024).

Nuthi, K. The EU’s Latest Proposal is Another Step Toward More Public Sector Open Data in Europe , < https://datainnovation.org/2022/06/the-eus-latest-proposal-is-another-step-toward-more-public-sector-open-data-in-europe/ > (2022).

Pine, K. & Mazmanian, M. Emerging insights on building infrastructure for data-driven transparency and accountability of organizations. iConference 2015 Proceedings (2015).

Longo, J., Kuras, E., Smith, H., Hondula, D. M. & Johnston, E. Technology use, exposure to natural hazards, and being digitally invisible: Implications for policy analytics. Policy Internet 9 , 76–108 (2017).

Criado-Perez, C. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. 411 pages (Chatto & Windus, 2019).

Gbedemah, S. F., Eshun, F., Frimpong, L. K. & Okine, P. Domestic water accessibility during COVID-19: challenges and coping strategies in Somanya and its surrounding rural communities of Ghana. Urban Gov. 2 , 305–315 (2022).

Jacobsen, J. K. S., Leiren, M. D. & Saarinen, J. Natural hazard experiences and adaptations: a study of winter climate-induced road closures in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Nor. J. Geogr. 70 , 292–305 (2016).

Comes, T. AI for crisis decisions. Ethics Inf. Technol. 26 , 1–14 (2024).

Yuan, F. et al. Smart flood resilience: harnessing community-scale big data for predictive flood risk monitoring, rapid impact assessment, and situational awareness. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac7251 (2021).

Future of Life Institute. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act , < https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ >

Ruijer, E., Porumbescu, G., Porter, R. & Piotrowski, S. Social equity in the data era: a systematic literature review of data‐driven public service research. Public Adm. Rev. 83 , 316–332 (2023).

Sung, W. A Study on the effect of smartphones on the digital divide. In Proc of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 276–282 (2015).

Blake, A., Hazel, A., Jakurama, J., Matundu, J. & Bharti, N. Disparities in mobile phone ownership reflect inequities in access to healthcare. PLOS Digit. Health 2 , e0000270 (2023).

Ortiz, J. et al. Giving voice to the voiceless: The use of digital technologies by marginalized groups. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2019).

Soden, R. et al. The importance of accounting for equity in disaster risk models. Commun. Earth Environ. 4 , 386 (2023).

Esmalian, A., Dong, S. & Mostafavi, A. Susceptibility curves for humans: empirical survival models for determining household-level disturbances from hazards-induced infrastructure service disruptions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 66 , 102694 (2021).

Holguin-Veras, J., Perez, N., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N. & Aros-Vera, F. On the appropriate objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistics models. J. Oper. Manag. 31 , 262–280 (2013).

Khan, M. T. I., Anwar, S., Sarkodie, S. A., Yaseen, M. R. & Nadeem, A. M. Do natural disasters affect economic growth? The role of human capital, foreign direct investment, and infrastructure dynamics. Heliyon 9 , e12911 (2023).

Wise, R. M., Capon, T., Lin, B. B. & Stafford-Smith, M. Pragmatic cost–benefit analysis for infrastructure resilience. Nat. Clim. Change 12 , 881–883 (2022).

de Bruijn, K. M. et al. Flood risk management through a resilience lens. Commun. Earth Environ. 3 , 285 (2022).

Teodoro, J. D., Doorn, N., Kwakkel, J. & Comes, T. Flexibility for intergenerational justice in climate resilience decision-making: an application on sea-level rise in the Netherlands. Sustain. Sci. 18 , 1355–1365 (2023).

Clements, R., Alizadeh, T., Kamruzzaman, L., Searle, G. & Legacy, C. A systematic literature review of infrastructure governance: cross-sectoral lessons for transformative governance approaches. J. Plan. Lit. 38 , 70–87 (2022).

Seyedrezaei, M., Becerik-Gerber, B., Awada, M., Contreras, S. & Boeing, G. Equity in the built environment: a systematic review. Build. Environ. 245 , 110827 (2023).

Oelz, M., Dhir, R. K. & Harsdorff, M. Indigenous peoples and climate change: from victims to change agents through decent work. International Labour Office, Gender, Equality and Diversity Branch , 1–56 (2017).

Berrang-Ford, L. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 989–1000 (2021).

Masterson, J. & Cooper, J. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).

Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 , 216–224 (1969).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CMMI-1846069 (CAREER) and the support of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. We would like to thank the contributions of our undergraduate students: Nhat Bui, Shweta Kumaran, Colton Singh, and Samuel Baez.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban Resilience.AI Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Natalie Coleman, Xiangpeng Li & Ali Mostafavi

TPM Resilience Lab, TU Delft, Delft, South Holland, the Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors critically revised the manuscript, gave final approval for publication, and agree to be held accountable for the work performed therein. N.C. was the lead Ph.D. student researcher and first author, who was responsible for guiding data collection, performing the main part of the analysis, interpreting the significant results, and writing most of the manuscript. X.L. was responsible for guiding data collection, figure creations, and assisting in the manuscript. T.C. and A.M. were the faculty advisors for the project and provided critical feedback on the literature review development, analysis and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Coleman .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Coleman, N., Li, X., Comes, T. et al. Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions. npj Nat. Hazards 1 , 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x

Download citation

Received : 10 November 2023

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.

• DOI: 10.1108/jpmh-04-2024-0055
• Corpus ID: 272230078

Defining mental health literacy: a systematic literature review and educational inspiration

• Shengnan Zeng , Richard Bailey , +1 author Xiaohui Chen
• Published in Journal of Public Mental… 2 September 2024
• Psychology, Education

56 References

A systematic review of the limitations and associated opportunities of chatgpt, deductive qualitative analysis: evaluating, expanding, and refining theory, conceptualising and measuring positive mental health literacy: a systematic literature review, mental health education integration into the school curriculum needs to be implemented, review: school-based mental health literacy interventions to promote help-seeking - a systematic review., public opinion towards mental health (the case of the vologda region), quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value, mental health literacy: it is now time to put knowledge into practice, clarifying the concept of mental health literacy: protocol for a scoping review, positive mental health literacy: a concept analysis, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Insights from 20 years (2004–2023) of supply chain disruption research: trends and future directions based on a bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. sample creation.

• Only papers published in international journals were retrieved, while other types of publications were not considered;
• Similarly, only papers written in English were considered.
• The paper’s metadata: authors, journal, bibliographic data, publication year, document title, and document type (article vs. review);
• The authors’ keywords;
• The publication option (traditional vs. open access);
• Funding information.

3.2. Descriptive Analyses

3.3. keyword analysis and trend.

• Authors often use slightly different terms to express the same concept. This is the case for singular or plural forms, British or American spelling of words, usage of capital letters/lower case letters, usage of hyphenation, or abbreviations (e.g., COVID vs. Coronavirus);
• Acronyms can sometimes be used as keywords instead of the full text.
• Well-established (‘core’), with high frequency and high persistence. They are expected to denote themes that have long been studied by many authors in the field;
• Intermittent, with low frequency and high persistence. Terms in this category denote themes that have been known for many years, but have been studied with low continuity;
• Phantom/emerging, with low frequency and low persistence. These topics could be relatively new to the research field or could describe themes that have progressively disappeared;
• Trendy, with high frequency and low persistence. These topics are relatively new but have already attracted the attention of many researchers.
• The subset of keywords that were observed in all periods of analysis, as these terms are expected to reflect relevant themes to the selected field of research. For those terms, their classification across the four periods was mapped, so as to delineate a trend in the interest toward the specific theme;
• The subset of keywords with a minimum frequency of 30, thus indicating a high recurrence of the related topics in the targeted field of research. These keywords were first grouped by macro-areas; then, their trend in time was evaluated jointly with that of some core topics of the targeted field of research to identify possible correlations.

4.1. Descriptive Analyses

4.2. keyword analysis and trend.

• Query-related terms: as the query settings expressively included terms such as “supply chain” and “disruption”, these terms (and their combination “supply chain disruption”) were grouped in a single query-related category;
• COVID-relates terms: this category includes the terms “COVID-19” and “COVID-19 pandemic”;
• Disruption-related terms: these terms are semantically related to the topic of “disruption”, which, however, is not necessarily used as a keyword. Those terms are supply disruption; pandemic; disruption risk; disruption management; uncertainty; ripple effect; demand disruption; and disaster;
• Risk- or resilience-related terms: this category includes terms that were not used in the query settings but that appear to be related to the more general theme of risk management or resilience, whose relationship with supply chain disruptions is obvious. These terms include (supply chain) resilience, (supply chain) risk management, (supply chain) risk, robustness; resilient supply chain, supply risk, reliability, risk assessment; or vulnerability;
• Supply chain-related terms: as per the classification made previously, these terms do not strictly refer to disruptions, but to more general problems in the area of supply chain or supply chain management. These terms include supply chain management, supplier selection, logistics, supply chain design, supply chain network, global supply chain, supply chain network design, collaboration, supply chain coordination, or inventory management;
• Sustainability-related terms: the sustainability perspective includes four terms, namely sustainability, closed-loop supply chain, climate change, and circular economy;
• Technology-related terms: this category includes terms such as Industry 4.0, artificial intelligence, machine learning, additive manufacturing, or blockchain;
• Tools and methodologies: this group of terms includes typical engineering tools and techniques, such as simulation, game theory, (robust) optimization, stochastic programming, system dynamics, case study, or multi-criteria decision making;
• Interrelated topics: terms in this category do not strictly refer to the area of supply chain disruptions, nor the more general area of risk or supply chain management. Rather, they introduce complementary topics, such as food security, food supply chain, small and medium enterprises, innovation, agility, or systematic review.

5. Discussion

6. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Strazzullo, S.; Shehri, K.A.; Farag, T.; El-Garaihy, W.H. Supply Chain Practices for a Sustainable Value Chain. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2023 , 51 , 130–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pirie, N.W. The world food supply. Futures 1976 , 8 , 509–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burns, J.F.; Sivazlian, B.D. Dynamic analysis of multi-echelon supply systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1978 , 2 , 181–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liao, S.H.; Widowati, R. A Supply Chain Management Study: A Review of Theoretical Models from 2014 to 2019. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021 , 9 , 173–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jayarathna, C.P.; Agdas, D.; Dawes, L.; Yigitcanlar, T. Multi-Objective Optimization for Sustainable Supply Chain and Logistics: A Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 13617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seo, Y.; Jung, S.; Hahm, J. Optimal reorder decision utilizing centralized stock information in a two-echelon distribution system. Comput. Oper. Res. 2002 , 29 , 171–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lysova, N.; Solari, F.; Caccamo, D.; Suppini, C.; Montanari, R. Periodic Review Inventory Management with Budget Constraints: Discrete-Event Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis. In Proceedings of the ECMS 2023 Proceedings edited by Enrico Vicario, Romeo Bandinelli, Virginia Fani, Michele Mastroianni, Florence, Italy, 20–23 June 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, W. Demand Forecast of Railway Transportation Logistics Supply Chain Based on Machine Learning Model. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Syst. Approach 2023 , 16 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, F.; Wu, D.; Yu, H.; Shen, H.; Zhao, Y. Understanding the role of big data analytics for coordination of electronic retail service supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021 , 35 , 1392–1408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kazancoglu, I.; Ozbiltekin-Pala, M.; Kumar Mangla, S.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Jabeen, F. Role of flexibility, agility and responsiveness for sustainable supply chain resilience during COVID-19. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 362 , 132431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mcgaughey, R.E.; Gunasekaran, A. The Y2K problem: Manufacturing inputs at risk. Prod. Plan. Control 1999 , 10 , 796–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Overby, J.; Rayburn, M.; Hammond, K.; Wyld, D.C. The China Syndrome: The impact of the SARS epidemic in Southeast Asia. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2004 , 16 , 69–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hendry, L.C.; Stevenson, M.; MacBryde, J.; Ball, P.; Sayed, M.; Liu, L. Local food supply chain resilience to constitutional change: The Brexit effect. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019 , 39 , 429–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.J. The labour surplus and COVID-19: The outlook for Chinese migrant low-skilled workers. Account. Financ. 2021 , 62 , 577–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naz, F. Impact of Ukraine War on Global Energy and Food Supply Chains: A Case Study of South Asia. Strateg. Stud. 2023 , 42 , 38–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rose, A.; Chen, Z.; Wei, D. The economic impacts of Russia–Ukraine War export disruptions of grain commodities. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2023 , 45 , 645–665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mostafa, N.A.; Hussein, A.A.; Elsheeta, M.; Romagnoli, G. Impacts of COVID-19 and the Russian–Ukrainian Conflict on Food Supply Chain: A Case Study from Bread Supply Chain in Egypt. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdirad, M.; Krishnan, K. Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Eng. Manag. J. 2020 , 33 , 187–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D.; Rozhkov, M. Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip effect? An integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 1285–1301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alvarenga, M.Z.; de Oliveira, M.P.V.; de Oliveira, T.A.G.F. The impact of using digital technologies on supply chain resilience and robustness: The role of memory under the COVID-19 outbreak. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023 , 28 , 825–842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bianco, D.; Bueno, A.; Godinho Filho, M.; Latan, H.; Miller Devós Ganga, G.; Frank, A.G.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. The role of Industry 4.0 in developing resilience for manufacturing companies during COVID-19. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2023 , 256 , 108728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fagundes, M.V.C.; Teles, E.O.; Vieira de Melo, S.A.B.; Freires, F.G.M. Decision-making models and support systems for supply chain risk: Literature mapping and future research agenda. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2020 , 26 , 63–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2004 , 15 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bak, O.; Shaw, S.; Colicchia, C.; Kumar, V. A Systematic Literature Review of Supply Chain Resilience in Small–Medium Enterprises (SMEs): A Call for Further Research. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023 , 70 , 328–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K. A systematic literature review on supply chain resilience in SMEs: Learnings from COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2022 , 40 , 1172–1202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devi, Y.; Srivastava, A. Addressing sustainability during and post-COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A literature review and bibliometric analysis to explore the future avenues. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022 , 30 , 3225–3252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agrawal, S.; Kumar, D.; Singh, R.K.; Singh, R.K. Coordination issues in managing the reverse supply chain: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022 , 30 , 1259–1299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aamer, A.; Sahara, C.R.; Al-Awlaqi, M.A. Digitalization of the supply chain: Transformation factors. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2022 , 14 , 713–733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arji, G.; Ahmadi, H.; Avazpoor, P.; Hemmat, M. Identifying resilience strategies for disruption management in the healthcare supply chain during COVID-19 by digital innovations: A systematic literature review. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2023 , 38 , 101199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erboz, G.; Abbas, H.; Nosratabadi, S. Investigating supply chain research trends amid Covid-19: A bibliometric analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2022 , 46 , 413–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Araujo, R.; Fernandes, J.M.; Reis, L.P.; Beaulieu, M. Purchasing challenges in times of COVID-19: Resilience practices to mitigate disruptions in the health-care supply chain. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2022 , 16 , 368–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shah, H.M.; Gardas, B.B.; Narwane, V.S.; Mehta, H.S. The contemporary state of big data analytics and artificial intelligence towards intelligent supply chain risk management: A comprehensive review. Kybernetes 2021 , 52 , 1643–1697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Llaguno, A.; Mula, J.; Campuzano-Bolarin, F. State of the art, conceptual framework and simulation analysis of the ripple effect on supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 60 , 2044–2066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pujawan, I.N.; Bah, A.U. Supply chains under COVID-19 disruptions: Literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2021 , 23 , 81–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkar, P.; Mohamed Ismail, M.W.; Tkachev, T. Bridging the supply chain resilience research and practice gaps: Pre and post COVID-19 perspectives. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2022 , 15 , 599–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tortorella, G.; Fogliatto, F.S.; Gao, S.; Chan, T.K. Contributions of Industry 4.0 to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021 , 33 , 547–566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moosavi, J.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Dulebenets, M.A. Supply chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recognizing potential disruption management strategies. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022 , 75 , 102983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Naghshineh, B.; Carvalho, H. The implications of additive manufacturing technology adoption for supply chain resilience: A systematic search and review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022 , 247 , 108387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardoso, B.; Cunha, L.; Leiras, A.; Gonçalves, P.; Yoshizaki, H.; de Brito Junior, I.; Pedroso, F. Causal Impacts of Epidemics and Pandemics on Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R.; Kummitha, R.K.R. Contributions of Smart City Solutions and Technologies to Resilience against the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abu Hatab, A.; Krautscheid, L.; Boqvist, S. COVID-19, Livestock Systems and Food Security in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of an Emerging Literature. Pathogens 2021 , 10 , 586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riera, R.; Bagattini, Â.M.; Pacheco, R.L.; Pachito, D.V.; Roitberg, F.; Ilbawi, A. Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review. JCO Glob. Oncol. 2021 , 7 , 311–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abideen, A.Z.; Sundram, V.P.K.; Pyeman, J.; Othman, A.K.; Sorooshian, S. Food Supply Chain Transformation through Technology and Future Research Directions—A Systematic Review. Logistics 2021 , 5 , 83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etemadi, N.; Borbon-Galvez, Y.; Strozzi, F.; Etemadi, T. Supply Chain Disruption Risk Management with Blockchain: A Dynamic Literature Review. Information 2021 , 12 , 70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farooq, M.U.; Hussain, A.; Masood, T.; Habib, M.S. Supply Chain Operations Management in Pandemics: A State-of-the-Art Review Inspired by COVID-19. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurtu, A.; Johny, J. Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review. Risks 2021 , 9 , 16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Habibi Rad, M.; Mojtahedi, M.; Ostwald, M.J. The Integration of Lean and Resilience Paradigms: A Systematic Review Identifying Current and Future Research Directions. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Svoboda, J.; Minner, S.; Yao, M. Typology and literature review on multiple supplier inventory control models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021 , 293 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bui, T.D.; Tsai, F.M.; Tseng, M.L.; Tan, R.R.; Yu, K.D.S.; Lim, M.K. Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: A data driven analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 26 , 373–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bier, T.; Lange, A.; Glock, C.H. Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain structures: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 1835–1856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Zhang, X.; Feng, L.; Yang, W. Disruption risks in supply chain management: A literature review based on bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3508–3526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fischer-Preßler, D.; Eismann, K.; Pietrowski, R.; Fischbach, K.; Schoder, D. Information technology and risk management in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020 , 50 , 233–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duong, L.N.K.; Chong, J. Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3488–3507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vieira, A.A.C.; Dias, L.M.S.; Santos, M.Y.; Pereira, G.A.B.; Oliveira, J.A. Supply chain data integration: A literature review. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020 , 19 , 100161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Li, K.X. The Psychological Causes of Panic Buying Following a Health Crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 3513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Golan, M.S.; Jernegan, L.H.; Linkov, I. Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: Systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2020 , 40 , 222–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aamer, A.; Eka Yani, L.P.; Alan Priyatna, I.M. Data Analytics in the Supply Chain Management: Review of Machine Learning Applications in Demand Forecasting. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020 , 14 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gligor, D.; Bozkurt, S.; Russo, I.; Omar, A. A look into the past and future: Theories within supply chain management, marketing and management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 170–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gligor, D.; Gligor, N.; Holcomb, M.; Bozkurt, S. Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2019 , 30 , 467–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aboah, J.; Wilson, M.M.J.; Rich, K.M.; Lyne, M.C. Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 271–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Queiroz, M.M.; Telles, R.; Bonilla, S.H. Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 25 , 241–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghadge, A.; Weiß, M.; Caldwell, N.D.; Wilding, R. Managing cyber risk in supply chains: A review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 25 , 223–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aryal, A.; Liao, Y.; Nattuthurai, P.; Li, B. The emerging big data analytics and IoT in supply chain management: A systematic review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018 , 25 , 141–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feak, C.; Swales, J. Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review ; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haghani, M. What makes an informative and publication-worthy scientometric analysis of literature: A guide for authors, reviewers and editors. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2023 , 22 , 100956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bottani, E.; Solari, F.; Lysova, N. Sample of Papers about “Supply Chain” AND Disruption ; Mendeley Data; Università degli Studi di Parma: Parma, Italy, 2024; p. V1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amini, H.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Ramesht, M.H. Development of regional foresight studies between 2000: An overview and co-citation analysis. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2021 , 9 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartley, J. Academic Writing and Publishing ; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015 , 67 , 967–972. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fadlalla, A.; Amani, F. A keyword-based organizing framework for ERP intellectual contributions. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2015 , 28 , 637–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bigliardi, B.; Casella, G.; Bottani, E. Industry 4.0 in the logistics field: A bibliometric analysis. IET Collab. Intell. Manuf. 2021 , 3 , 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Chai, L. Three new bibliometric indicators/approaches derived from keyword analysis. Scientometrics 2018 , 116 , 721–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ivanov, D. Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 136 , 101922. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rinaldi, M.; Bottani, E. How did COVID-19 affect logistics and supply chain processes? Immediate, short and medium-term evidence from some industrial fields of Italy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2023 , 262 , 108915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bordons, M.; González-Albo, B.; Moreno-Solano, L. Improving our understanding of open access: How it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership. Scientometrics 2023 , 128 , 4651–4676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bontekoning, Y.M.; Macharis, C.; Trip, J.J. Is a new applied transportation research field emerging?—A review of intermodal rail–truck freight transport literature. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2004 , 38 , 1–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ngai, E.W.T.; Moon, K.K.L.; Riggins, F.J.; Yi, C.Y. RFID research: An academic literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008 , 112 , 510–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casella, G.; Filippelli, S.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E. Radio frequency identification technology in logistics: A review of the literature. Int. J. RF Technol. 2022 , 12 , 69–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroéconomie 2020 , 68 , 171–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D. Ripple effect and supply chain disruption management: New trends and research directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 102–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raja Santhi, A.; Muthuswamy, P. Industry 5.0 or industry 4.0S? Introduction to industry 4.0 and a peek into the prospective industry 5.0 technologies. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2023 , 17 , 947–979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thilmany, D.; Canales, E.; Low, S.A.; Boys, K. Local Food Supply Chain Dynamics and Resilience during COVID-19. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020 , 43 , 86–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suryawanshi, P.; Dutta, P.; Varun, L.; Deepak, G. Sustainable and resilience planning for the supply chain of online hyperlocal grocery services. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 28 , 496–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Solari, F.; Lysova, N.; Romagnoli, G.; Montanari, R.; Bottani, E. Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Solari F, Lysova N, Romagnoli G, Montanari R, Bottani E. Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Solari, Federico, Natalya Lysova, Giovanni Romagnoli, Roberto Montanari, and Eleonora Bottani. 2024. "Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals