← Back to Resources

Writing a literature review

Academic Writing, Reading Research and Presenting

A common misconception: a literature review is a list of summaries, one paragraph per paper, stacked one after another. Read enough of these and it becomes obvious why they're unsatisfying — they tell you what a set of papers say individually, but never what the field as a whole actually looks like. A good literature review does something harder and more useful: it synthesises.


What a literature review is actually for

A literature review positions your work within an existing body of research. It should answer, for a reader who knows the general area but not your specific project: what's already known, where do researchers agree and disagree, what approaches have been tried, and — critically — what gap does your project actually fill? That last question is often the entire point: a literature review's job is frequently to justify why your project needs to exist at all.

Summary vs. synthesis

A summary-style review says "Paper A found X. Paper B found Y. Paper C found Z." A synthesis-style review says "Several studies (A, B) support X, though C found conflicting evidence, possibly because C used a different population/method — this disagreement is exactly the gap our project addresses." The second version requires you to have actually thought about how the sources relate to each other, not just read them individually. This is the difference that separates a strong literature review from a weak one, and it's worth the extra effort it takes.

A practical process

  1. Search broadly, then narrow. Use the strategies in Finding and Evaluating Credible Sources to build an initial pool of candidate papers, then apply the three-pass method to quickly filter down to the ones actually worth a deep read.
  2. Take structured notes per source as you read (see Note-Taking Systems for Research) — not just "what it says," but how it relates to other sources you've already read.
  3. Organise by theme, not by source. Once you have a good set of notes, group them by idea or sub-topic rather than by paper. This is usually the single biggest shift that turns a list of summaries into an actual review — your headings should be themes ("approaches to X," "limitations of Y"), not paper titles.
  4. Identify the gap. Once organised by theme, the gaps tend to become visible on their own: an under-explored combination of methods, a population or context nobody's studied yet, a disagreement nobody's resolved. Name this gap explicitly — it's usually the bridge into your own project's motivation.
  5. Write, then revise for flow. A first draft organised by theme will often still read a bit choppy. A revision pass focused specifically on transitions between paragraphs — "while X argue this, Y take a different view because..." — does a lot of work to make it read as a coherent argument rather than a collection of notes.

Why is this important?

Beyond satisfying an assignment requirement, a genuinely well-done literature review does real work for your project: it prevents you from unknowingly rebuilding something that already exists, it gives you a vocabulary and set of comparison points for evaluating your own results later, and it's usually the section a supervisor reads most carefully to judge whether you actually understand the space you're working in.

Tips

References

Video: How to Write a Literature Review — Scribbr

USC Libraries — Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: The Literature Review