Literature Review

Understand the review’s purpose

A literature review critically examines and connects scholarship relevant to a question or problem. It explains how a field has approached that problem, what its evidence supports, and how the proposed study follows from that conversation.

The lecture places synthesis at the centre of this work. A summary tells us what a source says. A synthesis develops relationships among sources: how their concepts align, why their findings differ, or how one study extends another. Those relationships form the review’s argument.

Give the reader a reason to follow

A review can clarify a concept, trace a theoretical debate, compare methods, examine conflicting findings, or justify a new question. It also helps the researcher learn the field’s vocabulary and recognise assumptions that would otherwise pass unnoticed.

In a thesis, a review may occupy a substantial chapter or several connected sections. In a journal article, it may sit within the introduction or a shorter background section. Its length follows the research task, disciplinary expectations, and submission requirements.

Make your analytical contribution visible

The writer chooses the question, defines the scope, evaluates the evidence, and explains the relationships. This is how an authorial voice develops. A clear sentence about the literature should tell the reader what the evidence means for the problem under discussion.

Choose the review approach

A review approach sets the relationship between the question, the search, the evaluation, and the synthesis. Choose it through the kind of knowledge you want to produce and the work required to support that contribution.

The lecture distinguishes reviews that provide background for a project from reviews that form studies in their own right. The categories below help make that choice concrete. Terminology varies across fields, and some labels overlap; explain what the chosen approach entails in your study.

On a small screen, swipe the table horizontally.

A review may also foreground a theoretical question, a methodological issue, or a historical development. These describe analytical emphases that can operate within a broader review design. Grant and Booth and Snyder offer useful introductions to this landscape.

Use reporting guidance appropriately

PRISMA 2020 supports transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Scoping reviews have the PRISMA-ScR extension. Choose conduct guidance suitable for the review’s question and field, then use the relevant reporting guidance to explain the work.

Define the question and scope

A focused question gives the review boundaries and a direction. It helps determine which sources belong, what information to extract, and which relationships the synthesis should explain.

Define the concepts before combining findings

Perceived credibility concerns a judgement that information seems believable or trustworthy. Accuracy concerns whether a claim is correct. Verification concerns practices used to check a claim or source. A study may measure one, several, or a particular operational version of these concepts.

Record the definitions used in each source. A general trust scale, a rating of one video, and a record of opening an original article answer different questions. The review should explain how those differences affect comparisons.

Specify workable boundaries

• Population and setting: Which groups, educational settings, countries, or language contexts matter?
• Phenomenon: What counts as news, a short video, or a feed-based encounter?
• Period: What publication dates or historical periods are relevant, and why?
• Material: Which empirical studies, theoretical works, reviews, dissertations, or reports will be considered?
• Language and access: Which languages can the review examine, and how will unavailable material be recorded?

Use a recent publication window where it fits a rapidly changing practice, while searching for foundational concepts where needed. Record why an older theoretical source remains relevant. The date of an original work and the date of a translation or edition may serve different purposes in the discussion.

Build and refine a search strategy

A search strategy translates the question into concepts, alternative terms, and appropriate sources. It develops through testing: inspect what a search retrieves, identify useful vocabulary, and revise the strategy deliberately.

Build concept blocks

Start with the main concepts rather than a complete research-question sentence. Gather synonyms, related expressions, subject terms, and terms used by authors of closely relevant papers.

In databases that support Boolean searching, OR combines alternatives within a concept; AND combines concept blocks. Quotation marks can search phrases, subject to the database’s rules. Parentheses make the intended grouping visible.

("short video" OR "short-form video" OR "video feed")
AND (credibility OR trustworthiness OR verification OR "source checking")
AND (news OR journalism)

Test spelling variants, local terminology, and relevant platform names. Adapt fields, subject headings, truncation, and phrase syntax to each database. If a closely relevant paper is missing, inspect its vocabulary and indexing to understand why.

Combine complementary search routes

Use a disciplinary database available through your institution, a broader scholarly search service, and sources suited to books, theses, or reports where those matter. Google Scholar can support exploratory searching and citation tracking; its official search help explains its features.

The lecture’s advice to start from a closely related study is useful for building vocabulary and finding core debates. Read its references for earlier work, follow later citations, and test what this route may overlook through independent searches.

Keep a search log

Record citation-searching routes too: the seed paper, whether references or later citations were checked, the date, and the relevant records found. A log helps you update the search and describe how the review was assembled.

Select, organise, and document sources

Source selection turns search results into a relevant body of material. Apply clear criteria, retain the reasons for consequential decisions, and organise the sources so that later claims can be checked.

Separate relevance from evidential strength

A paper may be directly relevant yet offer limited support for a particular claim. Another may use a strong design to answer a different question. First decide whether it belongs within the review’s scope; then examine what its evidence can contribute.

For the running example, an eligible empirical source might concern students encountering news in short-video environments and examine credibility judgements or checking practices. A broader theoretical source could be included for a clearly stated conceptual purpose. Record the role each source serves.

Move from records to full texts

Check titles and abstracts for likely relevance, retrieve full texts, and apply the criteria to the complete material. Record a specific reason when excluding a source at this stage. “Examines advertising credibility rather than news” is more informative than “irrelevant”.

Merge duplicate records and check whether different publications report the same study or dataset. Retain the reports that contribute useful information while keeping the underlying study identity visible. This helps prevent repeated findings from appearing to be independent evidence.

Give every source a dependable record

Save author names, title, year, publication details, DOI or stable URL, and the version read. Link the full text, notes, and source ID. Record page numbers for quotations and other passages you may need to revisit.

A reference manager can support collection, organisation, and citation. The Zotero guide introduces these functions. Check imported metadata against the source: a wrong author, year, or article type can travel into every generated citation.

Explain the process at the appropriate level

A thesis background review benefits from a concise account of its scope and search approach. A standalone systematic or scoping review requires fuller reporting of its planned methods, selection procedures, and synthesis. Consult suitable guidance and explain the procedures actually used.

Read and appraise critically

Critical appraisal asks what a source argues, how it supports that argument, and where its contribution is strongest. It gives each source a considered place within the review.

Use two reading passes

First identify the question, central claim, design, and main conclusion. Then read closely for definitions, sampling, materials, measures, analysis, and limitations. Check tables, figures, and supplementary material when they carry evidence needed for your interpretation.

Evaluate through the study’s purpose

For a survey, examine the recruitment route, wording, operational definitions, missing data, and the scope of inference. For an experiment, examine assignment, comparison conditions, manipulation, outcome measures, and the setting. For an interview study, examine recruitment, context, analytical approach, reflexivity, and the connection between interpretation and extracts.

A small qualitative study may offer detailed understanding of a practice; a large survey may estimate relationships within its sample or population under specified conditions. Explain the contribution each design makes to your question. Use appropriate appraisal tools where the review approach requires them.

Distinguish the claim from its support

If authors claim that viewers “verify news”, check whether they measured reported intentions, recalled behaviour, observed clicks, or assessment of accuracy. Those measures offer different support. Preserve the distinction in your notes and in the review’s wording.

For quantitative findings, record the relevant estimate and uncertainty where available, along with the design and measured outcome. Compare the magnitude and precision of results when appropriate. A count of statistically significant findings alone can conceal important differences.

Read original work and its discussion together

Primary studies help you assess the evidence directly. Review articles help locate debates, vocabulary, and further sources. When discussing a theory, consult the theorist’s work where feasible and examine later interpretations alongside it. Check which edition or translation you used.

Authority, publication venue, recency, and citation history can guide attention. The argument and evidence still need examination. Check for corrections, retractions, or later analyses that materially affect a source you rely on.

Build an evidence matrix

An evidence matrix records comparable information from each source. It lets you inspect relationships across studies while retaining the details needed to judge whether those comparisons are sound.

Useful fields include source ID, citation, question, theoretical perspective, population and setting, design, concept or measure, findings, limitations, and relevance to the review. Add page references and notes that distinguish your interpretation from the authors’ own claims.

Use TCCM to deepen the comparison

The supplementary lecture introduces TCCM: Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Methodology. These dimensions help organise a body of literature and develop a research agenda. Paul and Rosado-Serrano’s review provides an example of the framework in use.

Define the extraction fields for your own review. In this chapter, Characteristics foregrounds the substance being investigated, while Methodology records how it is investigated. For the practice profiles, the distinction between credibility ratings and checking belongs in the content comparison; survey, experiment, interview, and diary belong in the methodological comparison.

After extraction, ask questions across the dimensions. Does a theoretical explanation rely mainly on a particular design? Are findings about a construct drawn from a narrow setting? Which relationship deserves study through another method or context? Use TCCM alongside the review’s search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures.

Fictional practice set: F01–F04 below are invented study profiles. Their reported patterns exist only within this teaching exercise. In your own review, replace each profile with a verified source and a full record of its evidence.

On a small screen, swipe the table horizontally.

Keep the unit of comparison stable

F01 concerns a relationship between reported familiarity and a judgement. F02 tests a source-label comparison. F03 and F04 examine accounts of checking in ordinary settings. Placing them together helps reveal which parts of the broader problem each addresses.

F02’s randomised comparison can support an inference about its presentation manipulation within the test conditions. It provides no direct test of later verification. F03 adds contextual meaning but leaves open how closely participants’ descriptions match every viewing occasion.

Give the notes an analytical column

Synthesise across studies

Synthesis develops a connected account from the reviewed material. It asks where findings converge, where they diverge, and which conceptual or methodological differences help explain the pattern.

Begin with a comparative question

Ask, for example: “What do these studies mean by credibility?”, “Which account of checking appears across settings?”, or “Does the apparent disagreement concern the same outcome?” A good comparative question gives the sources a relationship beyond sharing a keyword.

Move from a source list to an argument

Examine apparent disagreement carefully

A study showing higher credibility ratings after a source label and a study describing infrequent checking may fit together: they concern different outcomes. Establish whether studies ask comparable questions before treating them as competing answers.

Where studies do address comparable outcomes, examine effect estimates, uncertainty, analytical choices, setting, and the evidence behind alternative explanations. Explain unresolved disagreement when the material cannot settle it.

Use concepts to organise the relationship

The practice set could support sections on “cues available within the feed”, “credibility as a judgement”, and “checking as a situated practice”. The analytical connection lies in how these processes relate during a news encounter. That connection should guide both the headings and the transitions.

Develop the research problem

A research problem grows from what the review establishes and what remains worth understanding. Explain the unresolved issue, why it matters, and how a feasible study could address it.

Recognise several forms of contribution

• Conceptual: Clarify concepts that have been merged or defined inconsistently.
• Empirical: Investigate a relationship that the available evidence leaves uncertain.
• Methodological: Study a process using evidence that addresses an important limitation in earlier designs.
• Contextual: Examine a setting whose characteristics may alter the proposed explanation.
• Theoretical: Refine, extend, compare, or test an account of how the phenomenon works.

A contextual contribution needs a reason. For example, a multilingual news environment may raise questions about how students assess a source when a clip and its linked article use different languages. The review would need to establish the relevance of that issue and locate existing work before claiming a gap.

Show the reasoning that connects evidence and proposal

The lecture introduces a useful distinction among evidence, claim, warrant, and backing. The warrant is the reasoning that connects evidence with a claim. Backing supplies support for that reasoning. A qualification states the conditions or limits of the conclusion.

Structure the review around its contribution

A review’s structure guides readers through the relationships needed to understand its conclusion. Choose an order that develops the argument and makes the transition towards your study persuasive.

Choose an organising principle

For the practice example, a conceptual structure with methodological comparison would help keep credibility judgements and checking behaviour distinct while showing their relationship.

Give each section an analytical job

Open with the question or claim the section develops. Compare the relevant sources, assess the evidence, and close by stating what the discussion establishes. The transition should show why the next section follows.

A heading such as “Research by different authors” says little about the argument. A heading such as “From credibility cues to checking practices” identifies a relationship the reader can follow. Name sections after their contribution.

Use the ending to sharpen the study

Bring together the strongest conclusions, the important uncertainties, and the implication for the research question. Explain which conceptual and methodological choices follow. A reader should be able to see how the review shaped the study’s design.

Write, cite, and revise

Clear review writing connects a defensible claim with well-chosen evidence and an explanation of its significance. Accurate attribution lets readers distinguish your synthesis from the work it draws upon.

Build a paragraph around a relationship

Your voice appears in the comparisons, qualifications, and decisions that give the paragraph direction. Use reporting verbs precisely: “describes”, “proposes”, “finds an association”, and “estimates an effect” communicate different relationships between a source and its claim.

Paraphrase from understanding

Read the passage in context, set it aside, and express its meaning in wording that serves your argument. Then compare the paraphrase with the original for accuracy and add the citation. Preserve qualifications that matter to the claim.

Keep exact quotations clearly marked in your notes, with page or location information. Quote selectively when wording itself matters, such as a definition or contested formulation. Follow the required citation style and identify secondary citation when the original source has not been consulted.

Make attribution easy to follow

Place citations close to the claims they support. Check that a citation covers the particular population, outcome, and inference stated in your sentence. Where several sources appear together, ensure each contributes to the relationship being asserted.

The invented F01–F04 labels belong to the teaching exercise. A submitted research review needs real sources, verified details, and the relevant author–date or numbered citation system.

Use tools with a clear purpose

A reference manager organises bibliographic records. A spreadsheet or qualitative analysis tool can help compare extracted information. Search alerts can help maintain coverage during a longer project. Choose tools that support the record you need and check the results they produce.

Revise in three passes

1. Argument: Does each section develop the review question? Are conclusions supported, and are disagreements examined?
2. Evidence: Are concepts, populations, measures, study identities, and limitations represented accurately? Are important alternative perspectives included?
3. Expression and attribution: Are transitions clear, paragraphs focused, paraphrases faithful, and citations complete?

Finally, update the search where needed, check sources that carry major claims, and explain the review’s coverage. Record constraints such as language, dates, databases, and unavailable full texts so readers can assess its reach.

Learn with the videos and review workshop

Use the lecture to revisit the main decisions in building a literature review. Keep your question, search log, and evidence matrix beside you, then turn one comparison into a paragraph.

Main lecture · How to Write Literature Reviews

Open the main lecture on YouTube. The approximate starting points below follow the supplied transcript.

Attempt each task before opening the response

Glossary and further reading

Use these terms to describe your reviewing decisions precisely. The readings extend the lecture’s guidance on search, appraisal, synthesis, argument, and transparent reporting.

Summary

A concise account of a source’s relevant argument, evidence, or findings.

Synthesis

A connected interpretation of relationships across sources that addresses the review question.

Critical appraisal

Examination of a source’s reasoning, methods, evidence, and contribution.

Search strategy

A planned combination of concepts, terms, sources, fields, and limits used to identify relevant material.

Eligibility criteria

Stated conditions for including or excluding material from the review.

Citation searching

Following references to earlier work or later publications that cite a source.

Evidence matrix

A structured record of source characteristics and findings used to support comparison.

Operational definition

The way a concept is represented through a particular measure or analytical procedure.

Research gap

A justified unresolved question or limitation in the reviewed knowledge that motivates further inquiry.

Warrant

The reasoning that connects evidence to a claim.

Backing

Support for the reasoning expressed in a warrant.

Qualification

A statement of the conditions, uncertainty, or limits affecting a claim.

Systematic review

A review using explicit, planned methods to identify, evaluate, and synthesise evidence for a defined question.

Scoping review

A review that maps the scope, characteristics, concepts, or types of evidence in an area.

Meta-analysis

A statistical synthesis of sufficiently compatible quantitative results using appropriate methods.

TCCM

A framework for organising review insights through Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Methodology.

Authorial voice

The writer’s analytical direction expressed through claims, comparisons, interpretations, and qualifications.

Sources and guided reading

1. Dr. USP. (2021). How To Write Literature Reviews [Video]. USP Lectures, YouTube.The accompanying lecture develops summary and synthesis, theoretical choices, searching, note-taking, argumentation, and the writer’s voice.
2. Dr. USP. (2023). TCCM framework for systematic literature reviews: A step-by-step guide [Video]. YouTube.The supplementary lecture develops Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Methodology as dimensions for organising a review and identifying future questions.
3. Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. Author-hosted paper (PDF).Uses TCCM to organise a research agenda. The example comes from international business; adapt its analytical dimensions thoughtfully to media and communication.
4. Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Writing the literature review: A practical guide. Guilford Press.Practical guidance on source evaluation, synthesis matrices, structure, argument, and authorial voice. One of the works discussed in the lecture.
5. Harris, D. (2020). Literature review and research design: A guide to effective research practice. Routledge.Connects reviewing with the development of a research question, scholarly perspective, and writing practice.
6. Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2025). The literature review: Six steps to success (5th ed.). Corwin.An updated edition of the guide introduced in the lecture, covering topic selection, argumentation, searching, surveying, critique, and writing.
7. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.An overview of review approaches and the design and evaluation of reviews as research studies.
8. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.Compares review types through search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis. Read its typology alongside guidance specific to your chosen approach.
9. PRISMA. PRISMA 2020. See also the 2021 statement paper.Reporting checklists, explanation, and flow-diagram templates for systematic reviews. Reporting guidance should accompany appropriate review methods.
10. PRISMA. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. See the 2018 checklist and explanation.Reporting guidance for scoping reviews.
11. Cochrane. (2025). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Detailed methodological guidance developed for intervention reviews, including search design, documentation, and distinguishing studies from reports. Apply its guidance in relation to the type and field of your review.
12. Google Scholar. Search help.Official guidance on searching, related articles, citation tracking, access routes, and alerts.
13. Zotero. The basics.Official guidance on collecting, organising, annotating, and citing research sources.