literature review example headings

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

Generate accurate APA citations for free

• Knowledge Base
• APA Style 7th edition
• APA headings and subheadings

APA Headings and Subheadings | With Sample Paper

Published on November 7, 2020 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on October 24, 2022.

Headings and subheadings provide structure to a document. They signal what each section is about and allow for easy navigation of the document.

APA headings have five possible levels. Each heading level is formatted differently.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Additional guidelines for apa headings, how many heading levels should you use, when to use which apa heading level, section labels vs headings, sample paper with apa headings, using heading styles in word or google docs.

As well as the heading styles, there are some other guidelines to keep in mind:

• Double-space all text, including the headings.
• Use the same font for headings and body text (e.g., Times New Roman 12pt.).
• Don’t label headings with numbers or letters.
• Don’t add extra “enters” above or below headings.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the length and complexity of your paper, you may not use all five heading levels. In fact, shorter student papers may have no headings at all.

It’s also perfectly fine for some sections in your paper to go as deep as five levels, where others use only heading level 1.

Heading level 1 is used for main sections like “ Methods ”, “ Results ”, and “ Discussion ”. There is no “ Introduction ” heading at the beginning of your paper because the first paragraphs are understood to be introductory.

Heading level 2 is used for subsections under level 1. For example, under “Methods” (level 1) you may have subsections for “Sampling Method” and “Data Analysis” (level 2). This continues all the way down to heading level 5.

Always use at least two subheadings or none at all. If there is just one subheading, the top-level heading is sufficient.

In addition to regular headings, APA works with “section labels” for specific parts of the paper. They’re similar to headings but are formatted differently. Section labels are placed on a separate line at the top of a new page in bold and centered.

Use section labels for the following sections in an APA formatted paper :

• Author note
• Paper title
• Reference page

Instead of formatting every heading individually, you can use the “Styles” feature in Word or Google Docs. This allows you to save the styling and apply it with just a click.

The first time you use APA Style, you need to update the default heading styles to reflect the APA heading guidelines. Click here for the instructions for Microsoft Word and Google Docs .

An added benefit of using the “Styles” feature is that you can automatically generate a table of contents .

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.

Streefkerk, R. (2022, October 24). APA Headings and Subheadings | With Sample Paper. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/apa-headings/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, apa title page (7th edition) | template for students & professionals, creating an apa style table of contents, apa format for academic papers and essays, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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.

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

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 29 August 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.

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

How to harness AI’s potential in research — responsibly and ethically

Career Feature 23 AUG 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Comment 28 AUG 24

Global Faculty Recruitment of School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University

The School of Life Sciences at Tsinghua University invites applications for tenure-track or tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant/Ass...

Beijing, China

Tsinghua University (The School of Life Sciences)

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the fields of energy and resources.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

School of Sustainable Energy and Resources at Nanjing University

ATLAS - Joint PhD Program from BioNTech and TRON with a focus on translational medicine

5 PhD positions for ATLAS, the joint PhD Program from BioNTech and TRON with a focus on translational medicine.

Mainz, Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)

Translational Oncology (TRON) Mainz

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Researcher/Associate Researcher

Xiaoliang Sunney XIE’s Group is recruiting researchers specializing in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Changping Laboratory

Supervisory Bioinformatics Specialist CTG Program Head

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a global leader in biomedical informatics and computational health data science and the world’s largest b...

Bethesda, Maryland (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

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

Quick links

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

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: 

How to write a good literature review 

• 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.

What is the purpose of literature review?

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: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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!    

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 you 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 feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to 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” 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 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.  

Frequently asked questions

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 an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

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).

Free Download

Literature Review Template

The fastest (and smartest) way to craft a strong literature review that lays a solid theoretical foundation and earns marks.

Available in Google Doc, Word & PDF format 4.9 star rating, 5000 + downloads

Step-by-step instructions

Tried & tested academic format

Fill-in-the-blanks simplicity

Pro tips, tricks and resources

What It Covers

This literature review template is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format and structure  for formal academic research projects. It includes the following sections:

• Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
• The introduction section
• The core/body section
• The conclusion /summary
• Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements.  We’ve also included practical examples and links to free videos to help you understand what’s required in each section.

The template can be copied to your Google Drive 0r downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), adaptable to LaTeX.

download your copy now

100% Free to use. Instant access.

I agree to receive the free template and other useful resources.

Download Now (Instant Access)

FAQs: Literature Review Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The literature review chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind. 

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

Additional Resources

If you’re working on a literature review, you’ll also want to check these out…

Literature Review Bootcamp

1-On-1 Private Coaching

The Grad Coach YouTube Channel

The Grad Coach Podcast

Literature Reviews for Medical Sciences

• Introduction

Headings and subheadings

• Heading Levels
• Using Headings and Subheadings
• Special Headings

Level 1 Heading: Centered, Bolded, No Period

          Paragraph will begin on the next line, indented. 

Level 2 Heading: Left-flush, No Indent, Bolded, No Period

           Paragraph will begin on the next line, indented.

Level 3 Heading: Left-Flush, No Indent, Bolded, Italicized, No Period

           Level 4 Heading: Left-Flush, Indented, Bolded, With a Period at the End.  Paragraph will begin on the same line without indentation.

           Level 5 Heading: Left-Flush, Indented, Bolded, Italicized, With a Period at the End.  Paragraph will begin on the same line without indentation.

Always begin with Level 1 Headings for a new section. This is the most important heading, and is used to introduce a new section of your paper, like the introduction, body, and conclusion. Levels 2-5 are considered to be subheadings. You must go in order of the Levels when using headings (start with Level 1 and work your way to Level 5).

Most assignments will only use Levels 1-3 for headings. Levels 4-5 are reserved for complex topics or upper-level research. 

There is no rigid formatting for a body paragraph that uses headings and subheadings. Depending on the complexity of your paper, you may use as many levels of headings as you feel is natural in your paper. As long as your headings are properly formatted in the way listed above, then your paper can be structured with as many/few headings as you like. 

To see an example where these headings are used in proper format, please look at this sample paper . 

Section labels are considered to be special headings. They will always begin on a new page of their own, be bolded, and centered. The following sections of a literature review are considered to be section labels:

• Paper Title

• << Previous: Conclusion
• Next: Citations >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://tamu.libguides.com/literature-reviews

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

When you need an introduction for a literature review

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

What to include in a literature review introduction

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

In some cases, you might include:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

The paper begins with a general introduction and then proceeds to the literature review, designated by the authors as their conceptual framework. Of particular interest is the first paragraph of this conceptual framework, comprising 142 words across five sentences:

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction.

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, 37 creative ways to get motivation to study, minimalist writing for a better thesis, separating your self-worth from your phd work, how to develop an awesome phd timeline step-by-step.

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Common Assignments: Literature Reviews

Basics of literature reviews.

A literature review is a written approach to examining published information on a particular topic or field. Authors use this review of literature to create a foundation and justification for their research or to demonstrate knowledge on the current state of a field. This review can take the form of a course assignment or a section of a longer capstone project. Read on for more information about writing a strong literature review!

Students often misinterpret the term "literature review" to mean merely a collection of source summaries, similar to annotations or article abstracts. Although summarizing is an element of a literature review, the purpose is to create a comprehensive representation of your understanding of a topic or area of research, such as what has already been done or what has been found. Then, also using these sources, you can demonstrate the need for future research, specifically, your future research.

There is usually no required format or template for a literature review. However, there are some actions to keep in mind when constructing a literature review:

• Include an introduction and conclusion . Even if the literature review will be part of a longer document, introductory and concluding paragraphs can act as bookends to your material. Provide background information for your reader, such as including references to the pioneers in the field in the beginning and offering closure in the end by discussing the implications of future research to the field.
• Avoid direct quotations . Just like in an annotated bibliography, you will want to paraphrase all of the material you present in a literature review. This assignment is a chance for you to demonstrate your knowledge on a topic, and putting ideas into your own words will ensure that you are interpreting the found material for your reader. Paraphrasing will also ensure your review of literature is in your authorial voice.
• Organize by topic or theme rather than by author. When compiling multiple sources, a tendency can be to summarize each source and then compare and contrast the sources at the end. Instead, organize your source information by your identified themes and patterns. This organization helps demonstrate your synthesis of the material and inhibits you from creating a series of book reports.
•  Use headings . APA encourages the use of headings within longer pieces of text to display a shift in topic and create a visual break for the reader. Headings in a literature review can also help you as the writer organize your material by theme and note any layers, or subtopics, within the field.
• Show relationships and consider the flow of ideas. A literature review can be lengthy and dense, so you will want to make your text appealing to your reader. Transitions and comparison terms will allow you to demonstrate where authors agree or disagree on a topic and highlight your interpretation of the literature.

Related Multimedia, Social Media, and Other Resources

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation , 14 (13), 1–13. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=pare

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Example
• Next Page: Synthesizing Your Sources
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Method of Research--Research Process

• Explore Web Resources
• Reference Books
• Scholarly Articles
• Set up a Research Account!
• Article Log
• Keywords and Subject Terms
• Trunication and Wild Card Symbols
• Evaluating Information
• Primary and Secondary Sources
• Academic, Popular, and Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Finding Scales, Measurements and Assessments
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Library Guide

AP 7th Edition Headings

You'll want to use headings to structure your lit review. The APA 7th Additions specifies five levels of headings, in descending levels of emphasis (i. e. level 1 headings are the most important and level 5 headings the least).  The number of headings you use will depend on the length and complexity of your paper, but in any case, make sure to begin with a level 1 heading and proceed sequentially to level 2, then level 3, etc.

The introduction to your paper does not begin with a heading of any kind. Note that there cannot be single level 3, 4, or 5 headings. That is, you must have more than one heading at each of those levels.

Level 1 Headings Are Centered, Title Case and Bold With No Closing Period

Start a new, indented paragraph on the next line after Level 1 headings.

Level 2 Headings Are Flush Left (Not Centered and Not Indented) and Are Title Case and Bold With No Closing Period

Start a new, indented paragraph on the next line after Level 2 headings.

Level 3 Headings Are Flush Left (Not Centered and Not Indented) and Are Title Case, Bold, and Italicized, With No Closing Period

Start a new, indented paragraph on the next line after Level 3 headings.

               Level 4 Headings are Indented Left , Title Case and Bold With a Closing Period. Continue writing the paragraph on the same line after Level 4 headings.

          Level 5 Headings are Indented Left , Title Case , Bold, and Italicized With a Closing Period .  Continue writing the paragraph on the same line after Level 5 headings.

Template for APA 7th Edition Papers

• APA 7th Edition Template Here's a handy template for writing papers conforming to the APA 7th Edition, created by our own Prof. William Doverspike. This is a great resource to use when formatting your research papers.

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Library Guide >>
• Last Updated: Jul 22, 2024 11:39 AM
• URL: https://richmont.libguides.com/c.php?g=1062093

Sample Papers

This page contains sample papers formatted in seventh edition APA Style. The sample papers show the format that authors should use to submit a manuscript for publication in a professional journal and that students should use to submit a paper to an instructor for a course assignment. You can download the Word files to use as templates and edit them as needed for the purposes of your own papers.

Most guidelines in the Publication Manual apply to both professional manuscripts and student papers. However, there are specific guidelines for professional papers versus student papers, including professional and student title page formats. All authors should check with the person or entity to whom they are submitting their paper (e.g., publisher or instructor) for guidelines that are different from or in addition to those specified by APA Style.

Sample papers from the Publication Manual

The following two sample papers were published in annotated form in the Publication Manual and are reproduced here as PDFs for your ease of use. The annotations draw attention to content and formatting and provide the relevant sections of the Publication Manual (7th ed.) to consult for more information.

• Student sample paper with annotations (PDF, 5MB)
• Professional sample paper with annotations (PDF, 2.7MB)

We also offer these sample papers in Microsoft Word (.docx) format with the annotations as comments to the text.

• Student sample paper with annotations as comments (DOCX, 42KB)
• Professional sample paper with annotations as comments (DOCX, 103KB)

Finally, we offer these sample papers in Microsoft Word (.docx) format without the annotations.

• Student sample paper without annotations (DOCX, 36KB)
• Professional sample paper without annotations (DOCX, 96KB)

Sample professional paper templates by paper type

These sample papers demonstrate APA Style formatting standards for different professional paper types. Professional papers can contain many different elements depending on the nature of the work. Authors seeking publication should refer to the journal’s instructions for authors or manuscript submission guidelines for specific requirements and/or sections to include.

• Literature review professional paper template (DOCX, 47KB)
• Mixed methods professional paper template (DOCX, 68KB)
• Qualitative professional paper template (DOCX, 72KB)
• Quantitative professional paper template (DOCX, 77KB)
• Review professional paper template (DOCX, 112KB)

Sample papers are covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Chapter 2 and the Concise Guide Chapter 1

Related handouts

• Heading Levels Template: Student Paper (PDF, 257KB)
• Heading Levels Template: Professional Paper (PDF, 213KB)

Other instructional aids

• Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS)
• APA Style Tutorials and Webinars
• Handouts and Guides
• Paper Format

View all instructional aids

Sample student paper templates by paper type

These sample papers demonstrate APA Style formatting standards for different student paper types. Students may write the same types of papers as professional authors (e.g., quantitative studies, literature reviews) or other types of papers for course assignments (e.g., reaction or response papers, discussion posts), dissertations, and theses.

APA does not set formal requirements for the nature or contents of an APA Style student paper. Students should follow the guidelines and requirements of their instructor, department, and/or institution when writing papers. For instance, an abstract and keywords are not required for APA Style student papers, although an instructor may request them in student papers that are longer or more complex. Specific questions about a paper being written for a course assignment should be directed to the instructor or institution assigning the paper.

• Discussion post student paper template (DOCX, 31KB)
• Literature review student paper template (DOCX, 37KB)
• Quantitative study student paper template (DOCX, 53KB)

Sample papers in real life

Although published articles differ in format from manuscripts submitted for publication or student papers (e.g., different line spacing, font, margins, and column format), articles published in APA journals provide excellent demonstrations of APA Style in action.

APA journals began publishing papers in seventh edition APA Style in 2020. Professional authors should check the author submission guidelines for the journal to which they want to submit their paper for any journal-specific style requirements.

Credits for sample professional paper templates

Quantitative professional paper template: Adapted from “Fake News, Fast and Slow: Deliberation Reduces Belief in False (but Not True) News Headlines,” by B. Bago, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, 2020, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 149 (8), pp. 1608–1613 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Qualitative professional paper template: Adapted from “‘My Smartphone Is an Extension of Myself’: A Holistic Qualitative Exploration of the Impact of Using a Smartphone,” by L. J. Harkin and D. Kuss, 2020, Psychology of Popular Media , 10 (1), pp. 28–38 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000278 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Mixed methods professional paper template: Adapted from “‘I Am a Change Agent’: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Students’ Social Justice Value Orientation in an Undergraduate Community Psychology Course,” by D. X. Henderson, A. T. Majors, and M. Wright, 2019,  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology , 7 (1), 68–80. ( https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000171 ). Copyright 2019 by the American Psychological Association.

Literature review professional paper template: Adapted from “Rethinking Emotions in the Context of Infants’ Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Interest and Positive Emotions,” by S. I. Hammond and J. K. Drummond, 2019, Developmental Psychology , 55 (9), pp. 1882–1888 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000685 ). Copyright 2019 by the American Psychological Association.

Review professional paper template: Adapted from “Joining the Conversation: Teaching Students to Think and Communicate Like Scholars,” by E. L. Parks, 2022, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology , 8 (1), pp. 70–78 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000193 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Credits for sample student paper templates

These papers came from real students who gave their permission to have them edited and posted by APA.

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3
• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: FAMU Writing Center >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write a Thematic Literature Review: A Beginner’s Guide

Literature reviews provide a comprehensive understanding of existing knowledge in a particular field, offer insights into gaps and trends, and ultimately lay the foundation for innovative research. However, when tackling complex topics spanning multiple issues, the conventional approach of a standard literature review might not suffice. Many researchers present a literature review without giving any thought to its organization or structure, but this is where a thematic literature review comes into play. In this article, we will explore the significance of thematic reviews, delve into how and when to undertake them, and offer invaluable guidance on structuring and crafting a compelling thematic literature review.

Table of Contents

What is a thematic literature review?

A thematic literature review, also known as a thematic review, involves organizing and synthesizing the existing literature based on recurring themes or topics rather than a chronological or methodological sequence. Typically, when a student or researcher works intensively on their research there are many sub-domains or associated spheres of knowledge that one encounters. While these may not have a direct bearing on the main idea being explored, they provide a much-needed background or context to the discussion. This is where a thematic literature review is useful when dealing with complex research questions that involve multiple facets, as it allows for a more in-depth exploration of specific themes within the broader context.

When to opt for thematic literature review?

It is common practice for early career researchers and students to collate all the literature reviews they have undertaken under one single broad umbrella. However, when working on a literature review that involves multiple themes, lack of organization and structure can slow you down and create confusion. Deciding to embark on a thematic literature review is a strategic choice that should align with your research objectives. Here are some scenarios where opting for a thematic review is advantageous:

• Broad Research Questions: When your research question spans across various dimensions and cannot be adequately addressed through a traditional literature review.
• Interdisciplinary Research: In cases where your research draws from multiple disciplines, a thematic review helps in synthesizing diverse literature cohesively.
• Emerging Research Areas: When exploring emerging fields or topics with limited existing literature, a thematic review can provide valuable insights by focusing on available themes.
• Complex Issues: Thematic reviews are ideal for dissecting complex issues with multiple contributing factors or dimensions.

Advantages of a Thematic Literature Review

With better comprehension and broad insights, thematic literature reviews can help in identifying possible research gaps across themes. A thematic literature review has several advantages over a general or broad-based approach, especially for those working on multiple related themes.

• It provides a comprehensive understanding of specific themes within a broader context, allowing for a deep exploration of relevant literature.
• Thematic reviews offer a structured approach to organizing and synthesizing diverse sources, making it easier to identify trends, patterns, and gaps.
• Researchers can focus on key themes, enabling a more detailed analysis of specific aspects of the research question.
• Thematic reviews facilitate the integration of literature from various disciplines, offering a holistic view of the topic.
• Researchers can provide targeted recommendations or insights related to specific themes, aiding in the formulation of research hypotheses.

Now that we know the benefits of a thematic literature review, what is the best way to arrange reviewed literature in a thematic format?

How to write a thematic literature review

To effectively structure and write a thematic literature review, follow these key steps:

• Define Your Research Question: Clearly define the overarching research question or topic you aim to explore thematically. When writing a thematic literature review, go through different literature review sections of published research work and understand the subtle nuances associated with this approach.
• Identify Themes: Analyze the literature to identify recurring themes or topics relevant to your research question. Categorize the bibliography by dividing them into relevant clusters or units, each dealing with a specific issue. For example, you can divide a topic based on a theoretical approach, methodology, discipline or by epistemology. A theoretical review of related literature for example, may also look to break down geography or issues pertaining to a single country into its different parts or along rural and urban divides.
• Organize the Literature: Group the literature into thematic clusters based on the identified themes. Each cluster represents a different aspect of your research question. It is up to you to define the different narratives of thematic literature reviews depending on the project being undertaken; there is no one formal way of doing this. You can weigh how specific areas stack up against others in terms of existing literature or studies and how many more aspects may need to be added or further looked into.
• Review and Synthesize: Within each thematic cluster, review and synthesize the relevant literature, highlighting key findings and insights. It is recommended to identify any theme-related strengths or weaknesses using an analytical lens.
• Integrate Themes: Analyze how the themes interact with each other, draw linkages between earlier studies and see how they contribute to your own research. A thematic literature review presents readers with a comprehensive overview of the literature available on and around the research topic.
• Provide a Framework: Develop a framework or conceptual model that illustrates the relationships between the themes. Present the most relevant part of the thematic review toward the end and study it in greater detail as it reflects the literature most relevant and directly related to the main research topic.
• Conclusion: Conclude your thematic literature review by summarizing the key findings and their implications for your research question. Be sure to highlight any gaps or areas requiring further investigation in this section.
• Cite and Reference: It is important to remember that a thematic review of literature for a PhD thesis or research paper lends greater credibility to the student or researcher. So ensure that you properly cite and reference all sources according to your chosen citation style.
• Edit and Proofread: Take some time to review your work, ensure proper structure and flow and eliminate any language, grammar, or spelling errors that could deviate reader attention. This will help you deliver a well-structured and elegantly written thematic literature review.

Thematic literature review example

In essence, a thematic literature review allows researchers to dissect complex topics into smaller manageable themes, providing a more focused and structured approach to literature synthesis. This method empowers researchers to gain deeper insights, identify gaps, and generate new knowledge within the context of their research.

To illustrate the process mentioned above, let’s consider an example of a thematic literature review in the context of sustainable development. Imagine the overarching research question is: “What are the key factors influencing sustainable urban planning?” Potential themes could include environmental sustainability, social equity, economic viability, and governance. Each theme would have a dedicated section in the review, summarizing relevant literature and discussing how these factors intersect and impact sustainable urban planning. Close with a strong conclusion that highlights research gaps or areas of investigation. Finally, review and refine the thematic literature review, adding citations and references as required.

In conclusion, when tackling multifaceted research questions, a thematic literature review proves to be an indispensable tool for researchers and students alike. By adopting this approach, scholars can navigate the intricate web of existing literature, unearth meaningful patterns, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields. We hope the information in this article helps you create thematic reviews that illuminate your path to new discoveries and innovative insights.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

WTO / Education / 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, articles, and publications, which is then presented in an organized manner to relate to a specific research problem being investigated.

It highlights the methods, relevant theories, and gaps in existing research on a particular subject. It can be both a summary and synthesis of information on a specific topic. A summary reiterates key information from scholarly sources, while synthesis is a new interpretation or combination of new and old material. 

As a synthesis, it can outline the intellectual progression of knowledge in a particular field or topic, which might involve stating key debates throughout the advancement period.  

Literature Review Examples

Purpose of Literature Review

Literature reviews have different purposes in scholarly articles, research papers , and books, depending on the discipline at hand. First and foremost, reviews are generally meant to showcase the extensive research carried out by an author on a particular topic and their findings, which will form the foundation of the research. It then summarizes the information to show the author’s familiarity with the topic in question.

The review also demonstrates the relationship between the topic being investigated and other topics that were under consideration. Finally, it outlines the gaps in the previous works of other scholars, which create areas of research.

Literature reviews provide a new interpretation of previous scholarly publications and aim to resolve conflicting studies done in the past. In addition, identifying existing gaps in a particular research area illustrates the starting point of the research.

Literature Review vs. Academic Research Paper

A research paper presents new ideas, arguments, and approaches toward a particular topic. The conclusions of a research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data collected by the author and an original study. On the other hand, a literature review is based on the findings of other publications. Thus, the review highlights the author’s understanding of a topic based on the previously conducted research. It is part of a research paper.

Where, When, and Why

The need for a literature review in a publication will vary from one situation to the other and the field/discipline of research. These two factors determine what is expected from the lit review. For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative, highlighting the discrepancies and correspondences between scholars.

It can either be part of a publication or a stand-alone document. As part of a research publication, it is often placed after the introduction to the topic outlining knowledge about a particular topic and critical sources that formed the foundation of the research. As an individual document, it is prepared by students as part of course study to aid the students in familiarizing themselves with different topics in their field of study.

Lit reviews also guide students to help them synthesize theoretical methodologies and frameworks to adopt in academic research . As a publication, literature reviews are used to document existing information about a topic for readers (other scholars) to go through for whatever reasons they may have. Published studies are essentially helpful to new scholars getting into any field of research.

Types of Literature Review

Before looking into how to write a literature review, it is vital to understand the different types. The type will usually depend on the objective approach of the author.

Common types are:  

Argumentative review

An argumentative review is adopted when the research paper or publication is meant to take a contrarian viewpoint on a particular subject. The review analyses an existing argument, philosophical problem, assumption, or conclusion outlined in different studies with an objective to either support or oppose the argument. 

Integrative review

An integrative review integrates secondary data to develop new perspectives and frameworks on a topic. This is more prevalent in research that does not involve primary data. In addition, integrative reviews are more familiar with social sciences.       

Historical review

Historical reviews are used when scholars or authors place a particular idea, concept, theory, or research in a historical context. It examines the idea, theory, or issue from the first time it was discussed and outlines its evolution throughout a given period.  

Methodological review

Methodological reviews look at how a specific theory, concept, results, or findings were developed. Therefore, methodological reviews will analyze the different methods used by different scholars to arrive at conclusions or knowledge about the topic being investigated.

Some of the methods scholars use in different disciplines to obtain information are interviewing, sampling, practical experiments/data collection, research approaches, critical thinking, social experiments, etc.

Methodological reviews are hence used to discuss tested methods of research and ethics that a researcher should be aware of before undertaking their investigations.  

Systematic review

A systematic review is a more detailed and comprehensive review compared to other types of lit reviews. It highlights any existing research evidence associated with a clearly defined research problem or question. The evidence is collected, analyzed, and reported in a summarized but detailed manner. Systematic reviews are popularly presented as a cause-and-effect structure.

Theoretical review

A theoretical review delves into the different theories regarding a particular issue, challenge, concept, or theory. It identifies their inadequacy in explaining the issue or concept at hand. The review then identifies the relationships between the identified theories, and the degree of research done and poses novel hypotheses to be investigated.

Organization of a Literature Review

How an author organizes a literature review will depend on what they aim to achieve. As a consequence, there are multiple ways of organizing it which are discussed below:

Chronological 

A chronological format outlines knowledge on a particular topic based on when the scholarly source of information was published. Starting with the earliest followed up to the most recent chronological order. This format should be used if there is a clear chronological order in the development of the information; therefore, it will not be applicable in some cases. Instead, key turning points, patterns, and events that impacted the direction of the knowledge should be outlined.  

By publication

It can be organized in the scholarly publications reviewed by the author, scholar, or student. The by-publication format should only improve the review and facilitate what the author aims to accomplish. 

Scholars or students can adopt a dominant trend in research, such as history, developmental stages, steps involved in a process, etc.

Methodological

A methodological format is based on the methods used by the researcher. Thus, the order of contents in the lit review will depend on the method they will use to carry out their research, knowledge obtained from the first method appears first, and the rest of the information follows in the same order according to the methods used by the author.  

Literature reviews organized in a thematic format revolve around the subject being investigated in no order. It is, therefore, ordinarily up to the researcher or author to determine how they intend to outline the information. A thematic format will crossover from one period and publication to another, but can sometimes incorporate a chronological order.

Theoretical

Literature reviews organized in a theoretical format have their contents organized in an abstract framework established by the author to discuss different concepts, theories, and concepts and how they relate to the research at hand.

Additional sections

Depending on the objective, other sections do not fit under conventional lit review formats that one may need to add. Below are some of the sections that authors or students can include in the lit review:

• Current situation: The review can have information about the current state of things regarding the topic at hand to facilitate further understanding.
• History: Researchers can summarize the subject under investigation, literature, or concept if the review is not already in chronological format.
• Selection methods: Lit reviews are known to outline the methods or criteria used in selecting the way to present information and scholarly sources referenced in the review.
• Standards: it can also include the standards used in choosing the format to present information in the review and the scholarly literature used in the research.
• Further questions for research: The review can include questions emanating from the review and how the researcher will further explore their research to address the queries raised.

Literature Review Samples

Considerations Before Writing a Literature Review

Preparation is essential when it comes to writing. The objective should be to come up with a review that satisfactorily explores the topic being discussed. The following considerations are steps towards that if incorporated into the writing process:

Authors should seek clarification from mentors or supervisors before commencing the writing process. First, determine what is expected from the lit review. The type and number of sources to be used, the assignment (summarize, synthesize, or critique), and the type of information provided should be clear.

Find models

You should review literature from other authors in the same discipline and evaluate how those authors presented their lit reviews. Previous lit reviews can be used as guides that point authors in the right direction when writing their lit reviews.

Narrow your topic

It is always advantageous to narrow down the research topic to a specific area of research; that way, the number of sources can also be reduced. Even though conducting research will usually involve extensive research on all available materials about a particular topic, having a well-defined topic simplifies the task at hand.

Current sources

Determine if the research project or discipline ought to be based on the most recent findings or information. It is common for knowledge to become obsolete, especially in disciplines where discoveries and new inventions are made fast. If the lit review should be based on current knowledge, limit the sources to the most recent literature. Some disciplines will typically have a limit on how old the sources should be.  

How to Write a Literature Review (Expert Guide)

Once all pre-writing considerations have been taken into account, it is time to write the document. At this point, you should already be aware of what you wish to accomplish with the literature review, and the steps to writing an exemplary lit review are mentioned below:

Problem formulation

First and foremost, clearly define the topic (research area) to be investigated. For students, this will sometimes be given as an assignment. However, the research could be an academic project, which means that the author has to come up with the problem and define it themselves.

Search for relevant studies

Once the problem is clearly expressed, you should search for studies related to the topic, concept, theory, or idea and questions surrounding the topic. Most stand-alone lit reviews will generally attempt to answer a more concentrated question. On the internet, literature can be searched using keywords related to the research area. In addition to keywords, include vital variables such as synonyms and associated terms. The inclusion of Boolean operators and, or not, is also used to narrow down results to more specific publications.

Familiar sources for publications are:

• Google Scholar
• Library catalogue
• Econ lit (economics)
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Inspec (physics, engineering, and computer science )
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)

Before selecting relevant studies, go through their abstract and determine if they fit the scope needed in the investigation. Use a list to note down any chosen works. Select landmark sources in the discipline.

Evaluation of sources/data

The next step is the evaluation stage . Evaluation involves a lot of reading. Evaluation can be done in two stages; overall skimming and thorough reading. During the second stage of this step, be critical, ask questions, and take many notes.

Some of the questions authors or researchers should ask themselves are:

• What is the author’s objective? What problem, concept, or theory are they putting across?
• What are the main concepts?
• What are the methodologies used by the author to arrive at the results and conclusions?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the results and conclusions?

Use credible sources. Most cited sources are preferred as they indicate their influence in the field. Also, keep track of the citations to be later incorporated.

Identify themes, debates, and gaps

While reading the sources, identify key patterns, themes, debates/arguments, and gaps in each literature. These elements help tie the literature to the topic under investigation. Look for consistent patterns, themes, questions, challenges, methods, and inconsistencies in the same. Consistencies present critical information for consideration, while inconsistencies present opportunities for research areas.

Outline the structure

Formatting is part and parcel of a well-written work. Selecting the structure should start by creating an outline with all the information that will go into the lit review, then consider the different types of structures and select the most suitable. Next, take the basic structure of the introduction, body, and conclusion into consideration and start work from there. 

Analysis and interpretation 

Lastly, perform an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the information obtained from the scholarly research and put it into writing. The summarized, synthesized, and critically evaluated information is then written down in well-structured paragraphs that follow the chosen structure. Transition words are used to draw comparisons, connections, and contrasts.

Format 

Ordinarily, a literature review will have three key components: introduction, body, and conclusion. These components should appear in the document in the following order:

Introduction

An introduction should inform the reader which topic is being studied. It gives the reader an overall idea of the purpose and focus of the document. The introduction lets the reader know beforehand the key things that will be highlighted in the document. Therefore, the introduction should be brief and precise.

The next item is the body, where the primary purpose of the lit review is fulfilled. The body should take critical information from all the sources used and comprehensively present them. This is where the author reports the extensive analysis and interpretation results that they gathered from all the sources they reviewed. The body should be categorized into themes, ideas, and concepts within the main topic.

Lastly, a summary of what the lit review entails should be provided as a conclusion. The critical points obtained from examining the sources should be written down and linked to the primary subject of the review. Key points are those that have the most outstanding contribution to the research.

Studies used should be screened based on provenance (author’s credentials or credibility), methodology, objectivity, persuasiveness, and value related to the topic at hand.

Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review

To improve the delivery of information, there are certain elements that authors can incorporate. They are:

Use evidence

The lit review’s findings, interpretations, and general contents should be based on actual evidence or credible literature. Using citations is evidence of authentic information.

Be selective

There will always be a lot of information available from the reviewed sources. Authors should therefore be selective and discuss the key points that focus on the topic. Not all information must be included in the review.  

Word-for-word quotes are acceptable . This is even more so if a critical point or author-specific terminology or knowledge cannot be paraphrased. Quotes should, however, be used sparingly.

Summarize and synthesize

The information obtained from the sources should be summarized, and the author should use it to synthesize new arguments, concepts, or ideas related to their research.

Keep your voice

The literature review should reflect the author’s voice as it is a review of other people’s works. This can be done by starting and ending the paragraphs with an original voice, ideas, and wordings.

Use caution while paraphrasing

Any paraphrased information should be conveyed accurately and in the author’s words. A citation must always be done, even when paraphrasing has been done.

Proofread before submitting or publishing. Go through the document a few times and make the necessary changes. The review should be within the applicable guidelines. Check for language and any other errors and edit accordingly.

Do’s and Don’ts for a Literature Review 

Every researcher wants to introduce their readers to a particular topic in an informative and engaging manner. Below are tips that can be used to this effect.

The following things should be opted by the researcher when writing a lit review:

• Find a focus: Authors should take a direction, idea, concept, or argument and stick to it. The information conveyed should then be made to align with the chosen point of focus. Thus, the review is not simply a list of analyzed sources, but a detailed summary of how different sources have a focal point (intertwined).
• Well-chosen sources: The quality of the information will, to a great extent, be determined by the quality of sources used. Therefore, take time to select suitable sources and more value will be added to the review.
• Create an annotated bibliography: Creating an annotated bibliography is recommended as one reads their sources. The bibliography keeps track of sources and takes notes. This information can be used when writing the final lit review.
• Synthesize research: Information obtained from the relevant studies should be combined to come up with new or original ideas. You should present a new domain based on previous sources’ knowledge, not just restating the information.
• Argumentative approach: Well-written literature reviews will often argue to support an author’s stance on a particular topic. The author can choose to address how the author’s work is filling a particular gap or support one of the scholar’s arguments and perception towards a particular topic. However, this argumentative approach will not work in all situations; it is usually discipline-specific. 
• Convey it to the reader: It should let the reader know the document’s main idea, concept, or argument. This can be done by including a simple statement that compels the reader to think precisely and know what to expect.
• Break out your disciplinary box: The research will often be multi-disciplinary. Literature reviews should then collect interdisciplinary information from multiple sources as they add novel dynamics to the topic under investigation. It should be noted that this does not imply that the researcher should substitute the literature from the topic’s discipline with that from other disciplines. This is usually an improvement strategy that adds substance to the review.
• Look for repeated patterns: Be attentive to pick out repeated ideas, findings, and concepts from different scholars as they will often illustrate agreed research dead-end or a scholarly conclusion.
• Don’t just review for content: When reviewing the literature, examine the content and other writing and presentation techniques. Look out for unique ways information has been presented, methods used, consistent citations, and non-textual elements such as graphs, and figures used to present information. In addition, the researcher identifies theories used to predict, explain, or understand phenomena within the discipline.
• Search Web of Science and Google Scholar: Conduct citation tracking about the leading scholars already identified in the search process. Scholars cited by multiple scholars outside the principal discipline will generally indicate that there are no new publications on the topic.

The following don’ts should be avoided:

• Do not select studies that are not directly related to the topic being investigated.
• Avoid rushing when identifying and selecting sources to use to research the problem.
• Avoid the use of secondary analytical sources. Instead, opt to use sources with primary research studies or data. Secondary analytical sources will often cite primary analytical sources; research should refer to them instead.
• Do not accept other scholarly findings, theories, or interpretations without critically examining and critiquing them.
• Researchers should not outline the search procedures used to identify scholarly sources for reviewing purposes.
• Avoid including isolated statistical findings without illustrating how they were arrived at using chi-squared or meta-analytic methods.
• Do not review studies that only validate the assumptions, stances, and concepts of your thesis; consider contradicting works with alternative and conflicting stances.

Frequently Asked Questions

It is written by researchers, authors, and students who must study literature to gather knowledge on a particular topic they are interested in.

It should be placed right after the introduction of the dissertation. It places the research in a scholarly context by summarizing existing knowledge on the particular topic.

Researchers and authors are not limited in terms of how many sources they can review. Students will usually have a given number of sources to review as an assignment. However, the number of sources referenced in a lit review will vary from one topic or discipline to the other. Some topics have a vast catalog of available sources, while others have minimal sources, especially emerging issues. It is, however, advised that each key point discussed should have at least 2-3 references/sources. For example, a 10-page lit review will have an average of 30 references.

About This Article

Was this helpful?

Great! Tell us more about your experience

Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading.

Education , Guides

20+ free printable graph paper templates – pdf.

Charts , Education

35 printable homeschool schedule templates [free].

Graduation Speech Ideas (18 Outline Examples)

Education , Receipts

14 free school fee receipt templates (word | pdf), thank you for your feedback.

Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us.

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 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

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.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 8
• Characteristics of the studies using realist evaluation to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults: a scoping review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-9166 Shinya Mitani 1 ,
• Hirofumi Ogawara 2 , 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4176-7665 Junji Haruta 4 ,
• Tetsuya Sakakibara 5 ,
• Hiroki Fukahori 6
• 1 Graduate School of Health Management , Keio University , Fujisawa , Japan
• 2 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Human Sciences , Sophia University , Shinjuku-ku , Japan
• 3 Graduate School of Health Care Sciences , Tokyo Medical and Dental University , Bunkyo-ku , Japan
• 4 Medical Education Center/Center for General Medicine Education , Keio University School of Medicine Graduate School of Medicine , Shinjuku-ku , Japan
• 5 Department of Philosophy , Tokyo Woman's Christian University School of Arts and Sciences , Suginami-ku , Japan
• 6 Faculty of Nusing and Medical Care , Keio University , Fujisawa , Japan
• Correspondence to Shinya Mitani; shinya_mitani{at}keio.jp

Objectives Interventions to address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults are increasing. Realist evaluation (RE) helps us understand how these interventions work for their issues. It is significant to obtain implications for further developing such research. We aimed to identify the characteristics of studies using RE to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults by mapping relevant literature.

Design Scoping review.

Data sources MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ICHUSHI (a Japanese database) and Google Scholar were used for searches between 5 January 2022 and 4 January 2024.

Eligibility criteria (1) Showing that most of the participants were older adults or their stakeholders; (2) stating in the research background or aim sections that the target interventions aimed at addressing older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues and (3) using RE to assess these interventions.

Data extraction Data on country of origin, type of research, study design, qualitative data collection and analysis methods, desirable items for RE and intervention aims and purposes were extracted and summarised using descriptive statistics.

Results Fifty-four studies were analysed. Most studies were conducted in the UK (54.5%). Mixed methods were used in 28 studies (51.9%), while only qualitative methods were used in 25 studies (46.2 %). Fourteen intervention aims and purposes were identified: improving dementia care, avoiding emergency admissions, preventing social isolation and promoting family involvement in the care of older adults.

Conclusion RE is useful for promoting an understanding of how interventions work for addressing psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults. RE also promotes the updating of plausible theories that lead to improving interventions. Our findings show the implications of managing time and resources to address the challenge of RE’s time and resource intensiveness and carefully considering the data collection methods to reduce burdens on older adults.

• health policy
• nursing care

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078256

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.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Evidence supporting the use of realist evaluation (RE) was provided by identifying the characteristics of relevant studies.

The methodological implications of conducting studies using RE were offered by discussing the challenges of conducting studies using RE as well as measures to address these challenges.

This study followed the five-stage framework by Arksey and O’Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for the Scoping Review guidelines.

The search was not updated regularly owing to time constraints.

The quality assessment of the relevant studies was not conducted.

Introduction

Healthcare needs of older adults are becoming increasingly complex. 1 In addition to biological factors (eg, cancer pain and advancing chronic diseases), 2 psychosocial factors have become salient. 3 4 Mental diseases of older adults are anticipated. 5 Widespread social isolation and loneliness among older adults are the key risk factors for mental health problems later in life. 6 7 Caregivers’ abuse and ageism cause serious consequences, and around 14% of adults aged 60 years and over live with mental disorders (eg, depression). 2 8 9 Furthermore, there has been a growing need for older adults to discuss and plan where and with whom they would like to spend their end-of-life (EOL) period and which treatments they wish to receive. 10 Studies have shown that the satisfaction of older adults and their families increases significantly when their EOL wishes are met. 11 Older adults’ healthcare issues include psychosocial factors and characteristics that influence an individual psychologically or socially. Psychosocial factors include protective psychosocial resources and other risk factors. The former includes social support, social networks, coping ability and self-esteem. The latter includes vital exhaustion, depression and hopelessness. 12

Interdisciplinary interventions to address psychosocial healthcare issues among older adults are increasing. These interventions address complex issues because they include multiple components. Some of them have used robust designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs). 13–15 Although RCTs are regarded as the gold standard for establishing intervention effectiveness, the effect size does not provide policymakers with information on how these interventions might be replicated in a specific context, or whether the outcomes will be reproduced. 16

To fill this gap, realist evaluation (RE) 17 helps describe intervention outcomes and how they work. 18 RE is rooted in a paradigm that lies between positivism and interpretivism. 19 Realism explains that the real world can be understood using observed objective data and interpretations of human experiences. 17 Using both qual and/or quant methods, 19 20 RE develops, tests and refines the theory of ‘what works, for whom, in what circumstance?’. 20 Realist programme theories can be described in terms of Context (pre-intervention circumstances influencing the mechanisms), Mechanism (processes and stakeholder responses) and Outcome (the main results of the interventions). 17 The context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs) 17 help identify specific contexts and mechanisms leading to outcomes. 18 RE could enable decision-makers to deeply understand the intervention and how it works effectively. 21 22 Despite calls for more methodological guidance, 23 RE has been increasingly used. 24 To the best of our knowledge, literature reviews of studies using RE have focused on the healthcare system, 23 knowledge translation, 25 public health, 26 nursing interventions 27 and health promotion. 28 Most studies have originated in the UK 23 25–28 and have been qualitative. 25 27

In some countries (eg, the UK, Australia and Canada), RE has been used to assess interventions that address older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues. 29–33 This trend may be explained by the fact that an intervention’s sustainability or success for older adults is context-dependent. 34 Context is important because the action of mechanisms depends on the realities of the context. 35 From this context, it is useful to explore the characteristics of studies using RE to assess interventions that address older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues. This exploration could offer implications for promoting RE research to improve the healthcare issues of older adults. However, no literature review has been conducted to date that explores such findings. Given this gap, we aimed to clarify the characteristics of studies using RE to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults by mapping relevant studies.

We conducted a scoping review that systematically identified and mapped the broad evidence available for a particular topic, field, concept or issue. 36 To map a wide range of studies, neither specification of settings and participants nor quality appraisal of relevant studies was conducted. The protocol for this review has not yet been registered. This review was guided by the five-stage framework as discussed ahead. 37

Stage 1: identifying the research question

The population-concept-context framework 38 was used as follows: population as older adults or stakeholders involved in caring for older adults, concept as using RE to assess interventions that address older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues and context as all settings. Although ‘older adults’ were defined as those aged >65 years, the term was applied based on the pertinent definition in each country where the study was conducted. The stakeholders included families, healthcare professionals, policymakers and volunteers. We operationally defined the interventions as interdisciplinary and aimed to address older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues (eg, offering dementia-friendly care, supporting one’s preferred EOL and preventing social isolation).

Stage 2: identifying the relevant studies

MEDLINE (via PubMed) was used to identify relevant studies by using keywords and Medical Subject Headings. A combination of search terms was developed by a librarian ( online supplemental appendix 1 ) and adapted to other databases. After selecting all the relevant studies, citation tracking was performed using the reference lists of the included studies. Finally, grey literature was searched using Google Scholar. The search was limited to the articles published in English or Japanese. The English articles were searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO), PsycINFO (via EBSCO), the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The Japanese articles were searched using Igaku Chuo Zasshi (ICHUSHI) (a Japanese database). No restrictions were applied to the publication year. All searches were performed between January 2022 and January 2024. The final update was on 4 January 2024.

Supplemental material

Stage 3: study selection.

The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) showing that most of the participants were older adults or stakeholders involved in the care of older adults, (2) stating in the research background or aim sections that the target interventions aimed to address older adults’ psychosocial healthcare issues and (3) using RE to assess these interventions.

Studies using surgeries or medical treatments were excluded, as these interventions seemed to be aimed only at addressing biological healthcare issues in older adults. This exclusion lies in the limitations of identifying the mechanism (eg, stakeholders’ reactions) that RE attempts to explore during the processes of target interventions. Reviews, syntheses, protocols, commentaries and books were excluded.

EndNote ( https://www.myendnoteweb.com/ ) was used to manage all literature. After removing duplicates, three reviewers (SM, HO and HF) screened all titles and abstracts. Next, a full-text reading of the selected articles was conducted. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion. If necessary, an independent reviewer participated in the discussion until a consensus was reached. Finally, all reviewers agreed that the selected studies were relevant to this review.

Stage 4: charting the data

The following data were charted in tabular form ( online supplemental appendix 2 ): author(s), publication year, title, journal, country, aims and purposes, participants and sample size, setting, study designs, data collection and analysis methods, intervention names and contents and intervention providers. We also focused on the desirable items for RE to obtain implications for developing research in this domain. Referring to previous literature, 17 25 the presence or absence of the following two items was presented: (1) building initial programme theories (IPTs) or developing theories and (2) using a mixed methods design. Concerning the use of mixed methods, we counted the studies that used mixed methods as part of the same research project (separately from the studies included in this review). After SM charted the data using descriptive statistics, HF and HO verified the form. Furthermore, the intervention aims and purposes were extracted for coding in the next stage, as they were regarded as one of the characteristics of these studies.

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

To clarify the characteristics of the relevant studies, the following data were summarised: country of origin, type of research, study designs used in quantitative or qualitative research, qualitative data collection and analysis methods, desirable items for RE and intervention aims and purposes. To summarise the study designs as well as qualitative data collection and analysis methods, we referred to previous literature. 39 40 To summarise the intervention aims and purposes, the intervention content was iteratively read. Thereafter, these aims and purposes were extracted and coded. Finally, the codes were integrated based on their similarities. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines.

Patient and public involvement

No patient or public involvement was observed in this review.

First, we extracted 746 studies from 6 databases. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full-text reading. This process resulted in 52 studies. Three studies were extracted using Google Scholar. The reading of each full text resulted in two studies. Ultimately, 54 studies were included ( figure 1 ). The key components ( table 1 ) and intervention aims and purposes ( table 2 ) of the studies are summarised.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of the selection process. RE, realist evaluation.

• View inline

Key components of the studies included

Intervention aims and purposes

Key components of the included studies

Most studies were conducted in the UK (57.4%). No such studies were conducted in Asian or African countries. Research using mixed methods was the most frequently performed (51.9%). The study designs used in the quantitative research were divided into experimental and non-experimental. In the former, RCTs and post-test-only designs were used in eight studies (27.6%). In the latter, prospective cohort and descriptive study designs were used in four studies (13.8%). Descriptive qualitative design was the most commonly used study design in qualitative research (60.4%). Interviews (90.1%) and thematic analyses (37.7%) were most frequently used for qualitative data collection and analysis, respectively.

Regarding the desirable items for RE, building IPTs or developing theories were included in 37 studies (68.5%). IPTs were developed in 27 studies (47.7%), whereas theories were developed in 10 studies (20.5%). Of the former, 14 studies built IPTs with a single all-encompassing statement regardless of the CMOs (eg, telecare provides improved safety 24/7 and thus enables people to continue living safely in their own homes for longer). 41 Conversely, eight studies built IPTs specifying CMOs (eg, if relatives are allowed more open visits (C), they can become care partners and become more involved in planning, implementing and delivering aspects of care (M). This may have a positive impact on reducing harm and improving the quality of care (O)). 42 Mixed methods were used in 28 studies (51.9%). Some studies used either quantitative or qualitative methods as part of the same research project (separate from the studies in this review).

Aims and purposes of interventions

Fourteen intervention aims and purposes were identified. Multiple aims and purposes were included in some interventions. ‘Avoiding emergency admissions or reducing the duration of hospital stay’ and ‘improving dementia care’ were the most frequently included.

To avoid emergency admissions or reduce the duration of hospital stay (20.4%), dementia care education was provided to care home staff, 43 and video conferences were introduced to support the staff while responding to emergencies. 44 To improve dementia care (20.4%), a health literacy kit containing important medical and welfare information understandable to people with dementia and their families was developed. 45 Furthermore, dementia-sensitive care was offered by general hospitals. 46 To promote changes in organisations, such as elderly care facilities, task shifts between healthcare staff were performed, 47 and an intentional round was adopted in response to high hospital mortality and patient complaints. 48 To promote independence and care for activities of daily living, computer-based home rehabilitation was implemented for poststroke older patients. 49 Although not more frequently included than the above-mentioned aims and purposes, those regarded as important were also identified. For instance, to prevent adverse events caused by social isolation and loneliness, befriending services were offered to older adults living alone. 29 To promote family involvement in patient care for older adults, the time taken to visit the hospital wards was deregulated. 42

Our review identified the characteristics of 54 studies that used RE to assess interventions addressing psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults. After considering the evidence to support the use of RE, we examined the methodological implications by discussing the challenges of RE research and measures to address these challenges, as well as other implications, from the perspectives of intervention aims and purposes and country of origin.

Evidence to support the use of RE

Our results found interventions were targeting a broad range of psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults, and using RE to assess those interventions helps to understand how they work. Lewis et al 50 assessed how oral care is embedded in routine community-aged care using RE. This indicated that the withdrawal of project resources triggered organisational disengagement, leading to the loss of active oral healthcare. This showed that intervention sustainability for older adults is context-dependent. 34 In identifying contextual factors and the causation of interventions, the use of RE was regarded as useful. A better understanding of these processes contributed to the improvement of interventions. 22 Furthermore, using RE promoted the updating of more plausible theories. As older adults’ healthcare issues are becoming complex, 1 conventional theories may not be valid to explain how interventions work for older adults. To address this gap, the theories were updated by the iterative process of RE. 17 Handley et al 46 assessed dementia-friendly care using mixed methods with RE to test and refine programme theories built using a realist review. This iterativeness provides a more plausible theory on how interventions work to address the ever-changing psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults.

Methodological implications

Time and resource-intensiveness 25 were issues when conducting RE research. Conducting interventions, analyses and evaluations, while facing time and resource constraints, was challenging. 51 52 This may be explained by the fact that RE takes a step-by-step approach, along with its evaluation cycle. 17 Our results presented that the mixed methods were used in 28 studies (51.9%). This result is consistent with previous reviews of studies using RE concerning knowledge translation and nursing interventions. 25 27 Although mixed methods are more than simply collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and insights that are difficult to explore using a single method can be obtained, 53 these methods may increase time and resource-intensiveness.

To address this challenge, managing time and resources (eg, manpower and research grants) can be recommended, 51 52 especially in RE research. Given the growing complexity of psychosocial healthcare needs in older adults, 1 it may be worth considering how to use mixed methods with RE. However, a full RE is not always feasible. 54 According to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES II) quality and reporting standards, 20 the use of mixed methods is not clearly described, although RE is usually a multimethod or mixed method. In this context, building IPTs or developing theories using only qualitative methods may be acceptable under time and resource constraints.

Collecting data from older adults can be challenging. This may be related to their vulnerability, as their condition seems susceptible, especially to long-term evaluations. Although Ofosu et al 55 conducted a feasibility study using RE in older adults with dementia, some participants passed away or withdrew from the intervention.

One possible way to address this challenge may be to carefully consider less burdensome data collection methods for older adults. Specifically, the circumstances under which data collection is performed should be considered. Most studies have reported negative health effects of relocation on older adults with dementia. 56 Given this context, Parker et al 49 conducted RE research in their participants’ homes to collect data in their natural and familiar environments. Grace and Horstmanshof 45 collected data from older adults with dementia and their families. Family provides a sense of security for those with dementia. Furthermore, Rehman et al 57 provided simple and understandable directions to participants with dementia during their intervention. These considerations can reduce the intervention-related burden on older adults and individuals with dementia.

Other implications

The use of RE should be considered in less frequently included intervention aims and purposes. For instance, its use should be promoted to ‘prevent adverse events caused by social isolation and loneliness’. Social isolation and loneliness are common among older adults. 6 The recent COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this issue 58 and its recurrence is expected. 59 As the structure of loneliness is multidimensional and complex, 60 using RE should be promoted to assess interventions to ease social isolation. Its use should also be considered for ‘promoting family involvement in the care of older adults’. In East Asia, advance care planning involves families rather than individuals, 61 and caring for older adults is traditionally undertaken by families without using outsourced services. 62 Given the ongoing ageing in East Asia, the use of RE is desirable to assess interventions that support family involvement in caring for older adults. Meanwhile, ‘avoiding emergency admission and reducing the length of hospital stays’ were the most frequently included. This may be related to the long-term plan of the National Health Service, 63 which is the UK’s publicly funded healthcare system. The plan emphasises support for people to age well and is closely related to ‘avoiding emergency admissions’; some interventions might have been conducted along with the plan.

Promoting the use of RE should be considered in countries other than the UK, where the ageing population is increasing. We clarified the international gap in studies using RE in this domain. Most of these studies were conducted in the UK. This result was consistent with previous reviews of RE research 23 25–28 and may be due to the development of RE in the UK. One possible reason for the low number of such studies in Asia may be the low degree of familiarity with RE. The lack of such studies in Africa may be related to less advanced ageing. 64 Given the expected population ageing in Asia and Africa, 65 promoting the use of RE should be considered in these areas. If RE is not familiar in Asia, disseminating studies on RE may raise its recognition and close international gaps.

Limitations

This review had several limitations. The search was not updated regularly owing to time constraints. Regular updates may have identified new relevant studies. The quality of each study was not assessed, because we focused on mapping a broad range of relevant studies.

We identified the characteristics of studies using RE to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults and provided some implications.

Regarding the methodological implications, management time and resources should be considered, especially when using mixed methods. Furthermore, when RE research involves older adults or people with dementia, careful consideration of the data collection methods is required to minimise the burden on the participants. Other implications are the use of RE to explore and improve interventions that aim to prevent adverse events caused by social isolation and to promote family involvement in caring for older adults. Wider use of RE globally can help to generate more granular details in studies that aim to explore and address psychosocial healthcare issues among older adults.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Rudnicka E ,
• Napierała P ,
• Podfigurna A , et al
• Centers for Disease Control
• Gordon JR ,
• World Health Organization
• Cheng LJ , et al
• Mikton CR ,
• Gassoumis ZD , et al
• Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation
• National Health Service
• Detering KM ,
• Hancock AD ,
• Reade MC , et al
• Nilsson E ,
• Festin K , et al
• Espnes GA ,
• Hong WT , et al
• Leinert C ,
• Braisch U , et al
• Barker M , et al
• Boumans J ,
• Scheffelaar A ,
• van Druten VP , et al
• Westhorp G ,
• Kusters CSL , et al
• Greenhalgh T ,
• Greenhalgh J ,
• Pawson R , et al
• Harvey G , et al
• Gilchrist H ,
• Oliveira JS , et al
• Marchal B ,
• van Belle S ,
• van Olmen J , et al
• Nurjono M ,
• Shrestha P ,
• Lee A , et al
• Salter KL ,
• Lacouture A ,
• Guichard A , et al
• Malengreaux S ,
• Doumont D ,
• Scheen B , et al
• Fakoya OA ,
• McCorry NK ,
• Francis-Coad J ,
• Etherton-Beer C ,
• Bulsara C , et al
• Sampson EL ,
• Leavey G , et al
• Tannenbaum C
• Young-Murphy L
• Campbell A , et al
• Pollock D ,
• Khalil H , et al
• Peters MD ,
• Godfrey CM ,
• McInerney P , et al
• Griffiths J ,
• Hunt C , et al
• Sherriff I ,
• Hennessy CH
• Newbould L ,
• Mountain G , et al
• Horstmanshof L
• Handley M ,
• Lovink MH ,
• Laurant MG ,
• van Vught AJ , et al
• Levenson R , et al
• Hogan M , et al
• Wiechula R ,
• Marcoionni D , et al
• McIntosh J ,
• Loftus L , et al
• Creswell JW ,
• Fetters MD ,
• Ivankova NV
• Astbury B ,
• Connelly J , et al
• Ryman FVM ,
• Erisman JC ,
• Darvey LM , et al
• McFarland A , et al
• Yanguas J ,
• Pinazo-Henandis S ,
• Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ
• Cheng S-Y ,
• Chan HY-L , et al
• National Health Services
• United Nations
• Efstathiou N ,
• Ahmed S , et al
• Gordon AL ,
• Goodman C ,
• Davies SL , et al
• Janssen MM ,
• Lhussier M ,
• Hetherington R
• Wistow G , et al
• Lasseter G ,
• Percival J , et al
• van Boekel LC ,
• Verbiest ME , et al
• Dalkin SM ,
• Kendall N , et al
• Chadborn NH ,
• Meyer J , et al
• Thijssen M ,
• Graff MJL ,
• Lexis MAS , et al
• Aagaard K ,
• Meléndez-Torres GJ ,
• Overgaard C
• Leighton PA ,
• Allen F , et al
• Masterson-Algar P ,
• Burton CR ,
• Rycroft-Malone J , et al
• Schnabel S ,
• van Wijck F ,
• Hill H , et al
• Harding AJE ,
• Parker J , et al
• Sanerma P ,
• Paavilainen E ,
• Åstedt-Kurki P
• Sattar Z (Zeb) ,
• McConnell T ,
• O’Halloran P ,
• Donnelly M , et al
• Wong G , et al
• Couturier Y ,
• Lanneville D ,
• Lane J , et al
• Laba TL , et al
• Fegadolli C
• Maltby J , et al
• Gorenberg J ,
• Tierney S ,
• Whelan HK ,
• Barbour R , et al
• Neubeck L , et al
• Smetcoren A-S ,
• Switsers L , et al
• Jonsson F ,
• Carson DB ,
• Goicolea I , et al
• McNeil-Gauthier AL ,
• Levasseur M

Contributors Conceptualisation and writing—review and editing: SM, HO, JH, TS and HF; formal analysis, investigation, methodology, visualisation and writing of the original draft: SM, HO and HF; project administration: SM and HF; data curation: SM; funding acquisition and supervision: HF; resources, software and validation: NA. SM is the guarantor who accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data and controlled the decision to publish.

Funding This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number JP20H04024) and JST SPRING (grant number JPMJSP2123).

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Longitudinal studies of leadership development: a scoping review

• Open access
• Published: 30 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Felipe Senna Cotrim   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-9820-3434 1 &
• Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0694-2229 1 , 2  

Although various reviews about leadership development (LD) have been published in recent years, no one has attempted to systematically review longitudinal LD studies, which is arguably the most appropriate way to study LD (Day,  Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 561–571, 2011). In this way, the focus of the present scoping review is to understand how true longitudinal LD studies have been investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective. Only business contexts and leadership-associated outcomes are considered. To achieve this, ample searches were performed in five online databases from 1900 to 2021 that returned 1023 articles after the removal of duplicates. Additionally, subject experts were consulted, reference lists of key studies were cross-checked, and handsearch of leading leadership journals was performed. A subsequent and rigorous inclusion process narrowed the sample down to 19 articles. The combined sample contains 2,776 participants (67% male) and 88 waves of data (average of 4.2). Evidence is mapped according to participants, setting, procedures, outcomes, analytical approach, and key findings. Despite many strengths, a lack of context diversity and qualitative designs are noticed. A thematic analysis indicates that LD authors are focused on measuring status, behavioral, and cognitive aspects. Implications for knowledge and future research paths are discussed.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Even though many literature reviews about leadership development (LD) have been published in recent years (e.g., Vogel, Reichard, Batistic, & Cerne, 2020; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Day et al., 2014 ), no one has attempted to systematically review longitudinal LD studies, let alone true longitudinal studies, which is arguably the most appropriate way to study LD (Day, 2011 ). True longitudinal is operationalized in the present study as research involving three or more phases of data collection (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ), since pretest-posttest designs can be limited when it comes to measuring change (Rogosa et al., 1982 ). In addition to the focus on studies using multiple waves of data, the particular interest here is in the underlying methodological choices of those studies. The goal is not only to map elements such as concepts, strategy, participants, settings, analytical approaches and tools, but also to make gaps and inconsistencies more evident in the hope of advancing the science of LD.

The current study relies on the assumption that longitudinal methods are the most appropriate way to study LD as the field was categorized as “inherently longitudinal” (Day, 2011 ). These arguments are partly motivated by the idea that the leader development process is an ongoing and lifelong journey (Day et al., 2009 ), which, in turn, indicates why cross-sectional methods would be less suited. By inspecting the term “leadership development”, it is noted that it refers not only to the science of leadership, but also the science of development, which is concerned with measuring change over time. The development side is underexplored, but the focus should be on both parts of the equation (Day et al., 2014 ). As Day ( 2024 ) recently puts it: “We need a separate field of leader and leadership development apart from the voluminous leadership literature because of the development component” (p. 213). Despite referring to leadership and development as a science above, it seems worth acknowledging that they can be seen as an art too (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010 ). The art of leadership is described by Springborg ( 2010 ) as staying present with one’s senses instead of quickly jumping to conclusions. This line of thinking suggests that practicing the art of leadership means relying on intuition, awareness, and feeling. This is potentially relevant as the complexity of the world cannot be completely understood from scientific operationalizations alone, arts-based practices relate differently with complexity, allowing novel ways of responding to it (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010 ).

Considering the preceding paragraphs, the present research question can be expressed as: how are true longitudinal studies of LD being investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective? To help answer this question, a scoping review was chosen, a type of systematic review that is most suitable when the goal is to map evidence and identify gaps in knowledge (Tricco et al., 2018 ), and not to understand the effectiveness of specific interventions, which is the job of a traditional systematic review (Munn et al., 2018 ). Researchers suggest that scoping reviews should be as comprehensive as possible (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ), thus the process of including articles involved searching multiple online databases, identifying gray literature, cross-checking reference lists of key studies, and handsearching leading leadership journals. Only articles written in English language were admitted. Significant time was spent building a subsequent search strategy and a pre-determined inclusion criteria was followed to arrive at the final sample. The search and inclusion process follows the procedures of the PRISMA statement, the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Moher et al., 2009 ), and particularly the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018 ).

Nineteen studies were further analyzed out of 1,236 identified. A large table (Table 1 ) is presented in the results section mapping the most important methodological information. As recommended (Tricco et al., 2018 ), a thematic analysis is conducted too, followed by a discussion about the emergent themes in longitudinal LD.

Literature review

Leader and leadership development.

Using 2,390 primary works and 78,178 secondary ones, a recent bibliometric review (Vogel et al., 2020 ) maps the LD field in two interesting ways: through a historiography and a co-citation analysis. Historiography indicates that LD originated in actual organizational challenges and needs around 1989 and then transitioned to theory building around 2004 pulled by authentic leadership development scholars. The co-citation analysis indicates that seminal theories in leadership, motivation and learning highly influenced the field, which, in turn, shifted its focus to developmental interventions and processes as well as theoretical frameworks and intra-person developmental efforts such as identity construction (Vogel et al., 2020 ). Still on a broader level, by reviewing 25 years of LD contributions, Day et al. ( 2014 ) explains why LD is young compared to the centenary field of leadership. The former is, by definition, interested in change (development), and the latter, for a significant time of history, has focused on traits, which are harder to change, though not impossible (Bleidorn et al., 2019 ).

Individuals have predisposed levels of leadership ability (Arvey et al., 2007 ) and researchers have been especially interested in intelligence (Judge et al., 2004 ) and personality (Judge et al., 2002 ). Even though genetics will always play a part, leadership training works even more than previously thought regarding reactions, learning, transfer, and actual results, as shown by a meta-analysis (Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Instead of training, McCall ( 2004 ) argues that experiences are at the heart of LD. The challenges associated with experiences is that it is not simple to offer the right experiences to the right executives and that they vary in developmental potential due to contextual circumstances and individual differences. Six years later, McCall ( 2010 ) reinforces his argument, suggesting that companies should bet on what is potentially the most powerful developer of leaders: experience. Within the scope of experiences, some scholars are making the case for “consciousness-raising experiences” in leadership development (Mirvis, 2008 ). They are designed for the mind and heart and characterized by the focus on self, others, and society. Another relevant and more common type of experience in life is education. Evidence from almost half a million students from 600 institutions highlights that leadership knowledge as well as opportunities for application of learned principles are related with an increase in leadership capacity upon conclusion of higher education (Johnson & Routon, 2024 ).

Experiences and trainings are naturally more focused on developing skills and competencies, but some authors understand that these sometimes loosely connected leadership skills should be integrated to a leader identity (Lord & Hall, 2005 ). Indeed, identity has become a more popular aspect of LD (Epitropaki et al., 2017 ) and empirical investigations claim that leader identity is associated with leader effectiveness (Day & Sin, 2011 ).

Day ( 2000 ) makes the important distinction between leader development (developing individuals) and leadership development (developing the collective). In the present work, the use of “LD” incorporates both leader and leadership development. Drawing on this idea, The Center for Creative Leadership defines leader development as “the expansion of a person’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes (Van Velsor et al., 2010 , p. 2)” and leadership development as “the expansion of a collective’s capacity to produce direction, alignment, and commitment (Van Velsor et al., 2010 , p. 20)”. Respecting these distinctions and contributions, Day and Dragoni ( 2015 ) review theoretical and practical arguments and suggest proximal and distal outcomes to indicate whether leadership is developing from an individual level and a team level. For instance, on the individual level, leadership self-efficacy and leader identity are proximal indicators while dynamic skills and meaning-making structures are distal. Regarding the team level, psychological safety and team learning are proximal indicators while collective leadership capacity are distal ones.

LD is also greatly associated with mentoring across publications, for instance, it increases leadership self-efficacy, which, in turn, predicts leader performance (Lester et al., 2011 ), and it also promotes the development of a leader identity (Muir, 2014 ). Interestingly, the effect of mentoring is not only beneficial to mentees in terms of developing (transformational) leadership, but also to mentors (Chun et al., 2012 ). Similarly, a recent study shows that mentors can develop their leader identity and self-efficacy as a result of a mentoring process (Ayoobzadeh & Boies, 2020 ). In the same vein, coaching has been established as an important LD topic (Day, 2000 ). A systematic review shows several methodological challenges associated with executive coaching, but list many evidence-based benefits of the practice in relation to the coachee (e.g. better leadership skills), the organization, and the coach (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018 ).

Feedback seems to be another popular theme within the LD literature, especially 360-degree feedback (Atwater & Waldman, 1998 ), a practice associated with enhanced management competence in corporate environments (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002 ). Within an MBA context, peer feedback decreased self-ratings of leadership competence three and six months later, an effect that was stronger for women than men, suggesting that women align their self-ratings with peer ratings while men have a tendency to inflate their self-images (Mayo et al., 2012 ). Seifert and Yukl ( 2010 ) contribute to the literature by demonstrating that two feedback interventions enhance leader effectiveness compared to only one intervention. Even though a recent meta-analysis related the use of 360-degree feedback during leadership training to higher results compared to single-source feedback, it is also linked to lower levels of learning and transfer (Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). For example, receiving negative feedback from multiple sources could obstruct improvement because it may threaten one’s self-view. These results can be considered thought provoking given how 360 feedback is popular and sometimes taken for granted by organizations.

Longitudinal research

Despite some very early records of longitudinal research overviewing the history and the fundamentals of this methodology, Rajulton ( 2001 ) says that it was not until the 1920s that more significant longitudinal studies started to be found, allowing the science of development and growth to be advanced.

An early definition of longitudinal research is given by Baltes ( 1968 ), he contrasts longitudinal and cross-sectional research and defines the former as observing one sample at different measurement points (pp. 146–147). Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) take a step back, they discern between the terms static and dynamic before attempting to define longitudinal research, they relate the former with cross-sectional methods and the latter with longitudinal ones. Similarly, Rajulton ( 2001 ) states that cross-sectional information is concerned with status, and longitudinal information deals with progress and change in status.

However, one interesting definition offered by Taris ( 2000 ) is that longitudinal research happens when “data are collected for the same set of research units for (but not necessarily at) two or more occasions, in principle allowing for intra-individual comparison across time” (pp. 1–2). Additionally, Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) focus on the quantity of observations when they say that longitudinal research is “research emphasizing the study of change and containing at minimum three repeated observations (although more than three is better) on at least one of the substantive constructs of interest” (p. 97). Acknowledging the two previous definitions and its weaknesses, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) argue that longitudinal research is not necessarily focused on intra-individual analysis and cite examples where two waves of data collection is an appropriate procedure (e.g., prospective design), thus claiming an alternative definition: “longitudinal research is simply research where data are collected over a meaningful span of time” (p. 3).

Although definitions and tools seem to be improving in the past years, it was not always like this. Reflecting on the challenging past decades for the reliability of longitudinal research, particularly the 1960s and 1970s, Singer and Willett ( 2003 ) said that although scientists had always been fascinated with the study of change, it was only after the 1980s that the subject could be studied well due to new methodological tools and models developed.

Given the analytical problems at the time, Rogosa et al. ( 1982 ) clarifies misconceptions about measuring change, especially in terms of the pretest-posttest design, and encourage researchers to use multiple waves of data. They claim that “two waves of data are better than one, but not much better” (p. 744). Contrary to the thinking expressed in previous decades, Rogosa and Willett ( 1983 ) demonstrate the reliability of difference scores, which are typically used in two-wave designs, in the measurement of change for some cases (e.g., individual growth), though they do not claim the score to have high reliability in general.

Coming from an education and psychological perspective, Willett ( 1989 ) demonstrates that significant increases in the reliability of individual growth measures can be harnessed by incrementing data collection with a few additional waves of information beyond two. Aware of the methodological problems and the current conversation, Chan ( 1998 ) proposed an integrative approach to analyze change focused on the organizational context embodying longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). He expressed his ideas in a less technical way, which facilitated the progress of the field.

Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) raise key theoretical, methodological, and analytical questions when it comes to developing and evaluating longitudinal research in management. And using a panel discussion format, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) build on the same structure with the purpose of helping researchers make informed decisions in a non-technical way.

Longitudinal leadership development research

A pioneer initiative of longitudinal LD studies is the Management Progress Study (MPS) initiated by the Bell System (AT&T) in 1956 with the purpose of analyzing the growth, mostly in terms of status, of 422 men (Bray, 1964 ). Interesting follow ups were conducted after 8 and 20 years making this project one of the most popular field researches in management development (Day, 2011 ).

Attempting to longitudinally analyze a new generation of executives in 1977, A. Howard and D. Bray launched the Management Continuity Study (MCS). This ambitious project replicates many aspects of the MPS, but it also addresses weaknesses such as the lack of representation of women and different ethnicities (Howard & Bray, 1988 ). The MCS sample was used by many other longitudinal scholars to obtain stimulating insights, for instance, how successful male and female executives deal with power (Jacobs & McClelland, 1994 ), and the influence of college experiences on progress and performance (Howard, 1986 ).

In parallel with these two major longitudinal efforts, an Eastern perspective contributes significantly to the field of longitudinal LD. The Japanese Career Progress Study originated in 1972 is a sample of 85 male college graduates starting their careers at a leading Japanese department store chain who were followed up after 7 years (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984 ) and 13 years (Wakabayashi et al., 1988 ) mostly in terms of promotion, salary, and performance. The multilevel and mixed-method approach with multiple waves of data revealed, in aggregation, that the organizational assessment of management potential of newcomers, the quality of exchange with superiors, and their early job performance predicted speed of promotion, total annual salary, and annual bonus on the seventh and thirteenth year of tenure. Wakabayashi et al. ( 1988 ), in a summarizing tone, state that the first three years of employment are critical when it comes to later career progress and leadership status up to 13 years.

After these pioneers, more LD longitudinal works started to emerge. Perhaps the biggest contribution to the area is the publication of a special issue in 2011 by the Leadership Quarterly . Authors of the referred issue promote important discussions and advance thought-provoking insights. In particular, the importance of true longitudinal studies, the ones involving three of more waves of data collection (Day, 2011 ), as well as the benefits of analyzing leadership through a long-lens approach (Murphy & Johnson, 2011 ). Specifically, the special issue explored childhood and adolescence factors. For instance, Gottfried et al. ( 2011 ) studied the motivational roots of leadership and found that children and teenagers with higher academic intrinsic motivation are more likely to want to lead as adults. Similarly, Guerin et al. ( 2011 ) found that adolescent extraversion predicts leadership potential over a decade later in adulthood with the relationship being fully mediated by adult social skills. Furthermore, the special issue explored family aspects in relation to LD. Oliver et al. ( 2011 ) are the first to connect family environment in childhood to adulthood leadership. Specifically, they found that a supportive and stimulating family atmosphere led to transformational leadership qualities in adulthood through positive self-concept. Li et al. ( 2011 ) detected that higher family socioeconomic status negatively influences leader advancement for females. The opposite was observed for males.

Apart from the larger longitudinal efforts mentioned above, many independent LD studies that rely on their own longitudinal samples contributed significantly to the field too. They vary greatly in settings and concepts, but some early important contributions seem to be Atwater et al.‘s ( 1999 ) demonstration that military leader emergence and leader effectiveness can be predicted by individual differences such as cognitive ability, physical fitness, and prior influence experience. Focused on the followers instead of the leaders, Dvir et al. ( 2002 ) suggest that transformational leadership training leads to followers’ development and performance. Also, executives’ competence, judged by self and others, significantly improves after multi-rater multi-source feedback (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002 ).

Other notable contributions involve the influence of self-regulation training on LD (Yeow & Martin, 2013 ), mentoring as a tool to develop not only the mentee (Lester et al., 2011 ), but also the mentor (Chun et al., 2012 ), and more unorthodox views such as dark personality traits and performance (Harms et al., 2011 ). However, some authors seem to be not only focused on behavioral, but also cognitive change (e.g., leader identity). Day and Sin ( 2011 ) claim that individuals with a strong leader identity are more effective across time. By using a university sample, Miscenko et al. ( 2017 ) propose that leader identity develops in a J-shaped pattern and that leader identity development is associated with leadership skills development. On the other hand, high-potential executives seem to develop leader identity in a linear and progressive way (Kragt & Day, 2020 ).

Methodology

Type of review and sources of evidence.

Despite being more widely seen, systematic reviews are best suited to approach specific questions addressing effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and feasibility of particular interventions (Munn et al., 2018 ), and given this study’s broader research question, a scoping review was chosen. This method is usually defined as a mapping process (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) or a system for synthesizing evidence (Levac et al., 2010 ). More recently, it was described as a “systematic way to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps” (Tricco et al., 2018 , p. 467). Despite the differences, both types of reviews are quite related, Moher et al. ( 2015 ) even see them as part of the same “family”.

The execution of each step of the current review was guided by the methodology initially laid out by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) and by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and its corresponding checklist (Tricco et al., 2018 ). Following recommendations that a scoping review should be as comprehensive as possible (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ), different sources were used: (1) Online databases were searched (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus); (2) gray literature was identified (e.g., subject experts were consulted); (3) reference lists of key studies were cross-checked; and (4) handsearch of leading leadership journals was performed.

Search strategy for online databases: building search strings and identifying databases

Significant time was spent building the search strings for the present work as this is seen as a wise choice to improve search efficiency (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009 ). According to Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) the process starts by having the research question in mind and identifying the key concepts that are present, in this case, longitudinal , leadership , and development . Based on this initial process, synonyms for each concept were identified. For instance, since the term “leadership” can be often substituted in the literature by management, executive, supervisory, and potentially others, these variations were added to the search string. Similarly, the term “development” can be substituted by training, program, intervention, and potentially others, thus these variations were incorporated as well.

In addition to identifying synonyms, this search strategy took into consideration some other concepts that seem to be highly associated with LD such as coaching, mentoring, and 360-feedback (Day, 2000 ). Hence, these terms plus their variations were incorporated. Finally, the search strategies and the specific keywords of past LD systematic reviews were screened (e.g. Collins & Holton, 2004 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Vogel et al., 2020 ) to verify any potential blind spots concerning the terms to be used here. In practical terms, seven different search strings were necessary to capture the process described. The first search string is completely detailed as follows and the remaining search strings are available in Appendix A .

Search 1: longitudinal AND (“leader* development” OR “manage* development” OR “executive development” OR “supervisory development” OR “team development” OR “human resource$ development”) .

The search strategy and the definition of keywords were verified by a professional librarian at ISEG – University of Lisbon. Feedback and other suggestions were given over a one-hour videocall in March of 2021.

One additional decision when it comes to the search strategy is identifying the databases to be used. Systematic review guidelines seem confident that authors must search more than one database (Liberati et al., 2009 ), others generally suggest that two or more are enough (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008 ), but little guidance is available for precisely deciding when to stop the searches, especially in the context of scoping reviews in social sciences instead of systematic reviews in medical sciences (e.g., Chilcott et al., 2003 ).

Considering this situation, searches started in a highly ambitious way in terms of quantity of databases and search restrictions (e.g., filters), and were iteratively pondered according to the reality of executing the work given the colossal volume of data for two authors with limited resources to go through. The described strategy seems aligned with both earlier (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) and more recent recommendations (Peters et al., 2020 ) for authors writing scoping reviews as it is thought that comprehensiveness should be framed within the constraints of time and resources available to the authors. In this way, five databases were used: Web of Science, PsycARTICLES, Ebsco’s Business Source Complete, JSTOR, and Elsevier’s Scopus. The databases were mostly hand curated based on relevancy for LD. In other words, WoS has been extensively used by authors published in high-caliber leadership journals such as the Leadership Quarterly , and on some cases it is the only source of information (Vogel et al., 2020 ). PsycARTICLES seems unavoidable in psychological research, and it is found in most reviews at top-ranked journals interested in LD such as the Journal of Applied Psychology , for instance. Business Source Complete, Scopus, and JSTOR went through a similar curation process in addition to being well-known and comprehensive sources of information across social sciences disciplines.

Inclusion criteria

Three essential criteria served as pre-requisites for document inclusion in light of the research question.

Method: Is it a true longitudinal study (three or more waves of data) as opposed to a cross-sectional or a pretest-posttest one?

Context: Is the work approaching a business context? This study is interested in understanding longitudinal contributions to LD within a “business context”, which is an umbrella term created to incorporate for-profit and nonprofit companies, public organizations, and graduate students associated with management (e.g., MBA, executive education) or closely related areas (e.g., economics, organizational psychology). In this way, numerous LD studies involving sports, healthcare, and military contexts were naturally excluded from the final sample.

Concepts and measures: Is the study actually measuring change in terms of LD? Only results incorporating LD as a primary variable were considered. In this way, the authors were interested in analyzing leadership-related outcomes (e.g., leadership efficacy, leader identity), and not more distant concepts (e.g., job performance).

Only documents from 1900 until 2021 in English language were considered. Even though LD was not a formal research area in the early or mid-1900s, when the field “all years” is selected before a search in most databases, the range set by default starts in 1900. For clarification purposes, the earliest study analyzed in the present work dates to 1986.

On a more technical note, different filters according to the database at hand were used to refine the results (e.g., subject area, document type). As an example, the present research is not interested in LD in the sports space or document types such as editorials or reviews, thus filters were used to aid this refinement process. This whole procedure is consistent with the idea proposed by Levac et al. ( 2010 ) that the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be iterative and adapted based on the challenges identified.

Additional sources of information

Almost all the way through the screening execution, the authors of this study learned that scoping review researchers are encouraged to explore other sources of information apart from databases (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2020 ). As a result, three à posteriori procedures were used to add evidence: (1) identifying gray literature through contacting subject experts, (2) cross-checking reference lists of important studies, and (3) handsearching key bibliographies and journals. Although the standard procedure for systematic reviews is to include articles from additional sources before the start of the screening process (Liberati et al., 2009 ), it is believed that the inverted execution does not threat the soundness of this work since adding and subtracting results before or after cannot affect the final sum and considering the iterative nature of scoping reviews (Levac et al., 2010 ). The only unfortunate implication observed was an extra load of work given the necessity to do an additional round of screening instead of screening all in once.

When it comes to consulting subject-matter experts, a list of a dozen high-level names was put together (e.g., D. Day, J. Antonakis, C. Lacerenza, L. Dragoni, R. Reichard) and the individual email outreach was executed in June of 2022. The email text to the list of authors included a brief personal introduction, the reason for contact and descriptions of the request, and a gratitude note for the impact of their work on this author’s academic journey.

Despite some prompt and friendly replies from high-caliber authors, including D. Day, who is considered a seminal scholar in LD, and also J. Antonakis, who was the chief editor of the Leadership Quarterly journal at the time of contact, no gray documents could have been added for multiple reasons varying from email bounces, no replies, replies from authors with no suggestions in mind, or irrelevant suggestions for this particular research question.

In addition to the step above, reference lists of key studies were cross-checked. First, pivotal review studies in LD (e.g., Day et al., 2014 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ) had their reference lists analyzed. Then, selected articles were further evaluated and selected based on screening of title, keywords, abstracts, and, ultimately, full-text analysis.

Finally, handsearching, a legitimate process in systematic literature reviews (Liberati et al., 2009 ), including scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ), was performed. Eight journals labeled “dominant” based on a co-citation analysis of LD (Vogel et al., 2020 ) were handsearched as an additional attempt to locate relevant evidence. The Academy of Management Review was part of this list, but naturally excluded from this process as no empirical works would have been found there, so the seven journals analyzed were Leadership Quarterly , Journal of Applied Psychology , Academy of Management Learning & Education , Personnel Psychology , Leadership , Journal of Organizational Behavior , and Journal of Management.

In terms of execution, central terms for the present research question (e.g., leadership development, longitudinal) were typed into the general search boxes of these journals and the list of results were scanned. Documents indicating good fit were further analyzed via screening of abstract and keywords, and full text. When searching the Leadership Quarterly journal, particular attention was devoted to a special issue published in 2011 centered on longitudinal leadership development studies (volume 22, issue 3). The handsearch process generated results as two articles that would not have been found otherwise were included in the sample for respecting the determined criteria (Cherniss et al., 2010 ; Dragoni et al., 2014 ).

Data charting process

Referred to as “data extraction” in systematic reviews, data charting (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) is the process of extracting information from the sample in a scoping review. Even though any information can be charted in practice, researchers ideally should obtain pieces of information that help answer the research question (Levac et al., 2010 ). Given this ponderation and the research question at hand, a data charting framework was created to keep a consistent extraction standard across studies.

Nature of variables (e.g., quantitative, qualitative).

Research strategy (e.g., experiment, survey).

Participants (e.g., sample size, gender distribution).

Setting (e.g., industry, company information).

Intervention (e.g., program characteristics).

Research procedures (e.g., comparator, waves of data).

Outcome measures (e.g., variables, instruments).

Analytical approach (e.g., strategy, techniques).

Despite the primary focus on methodological choices of longitudinal LD studies, it was judged important to also chart the key findings of each study given the underlying motivation of the present research to contribute to the longitudinal LD field. A separate table (Table 2 ) was created to map this information. The data charting process took place with the assistance of Microsoft Excel.

Search results

Taking into consideration the search strategy and the inclusion criteria described previously, the WoS database returned 673 results. PsycARTICLES, in turn, retrieved 84 results. Next, Ebsco’s Business Source Complete returned 332 documents. JSTOR found 49 articles. Lastly, Elsevier’s Scopus retrieved 98 results. In total, 1236 documents were found. After removal of duplicates, a total of 1023 articles were screened given the determined criteria. The screening of titles, abstracts, and keywords removed 810 works, and screening the full text removed another 196 works, resulting in 17 included studies. À posteriori inclusion based on conversations with LD experts and handsearch of bibliographies and journals added another two documents, confirming a final sample of 19 articles. This whole process is illustrated by the flow chart below (Fig. 1 ).

PRISMA flowchart: Search and inclusion process

General characteristics

The table listing the 19 documents and some of their basic characteristics can be found in Appendix B . The works comprise different years, journals, countries, and authors. The first true longitudinal study of LD in a business context was published in 1986 by the Journal of Applied Psychology . One noticeable feature of the table found in Appendix B is the substantial 22-year gap in publications from 1988 to 2010. After 2010, on the other hand, researchers seem to have found more efficient ways to collect longitudinal data, and until 2021, on average 1.42 studies were published every year. Despite the progress, compared to past decades, the number is still quite modest given the importance of true longitudinal studies to the science of LD (Day, 2011 ).

In terms of outlets, eleven different journals represent the sample. The pioneer on the subject and methodology is clearly the Journal of Applied Psychology . The most dominant journal is the Leadership Quarterly with five publications. In terms of countries, the United States lead the list with twelve publications. The United Kingdom has five, Germany and Switzerland have one publication each. Professor D. Day contributes to four articles (2020, 2018, 2017, 2011), which is a considerable achievement given this highly selective sample. Moreover, G. Larson, C. Sandahl, and T. Soderhjelm contributed twice (2017, 2019). All other authors contributed once.

How true longitudinal LD studies have been conducted methodologically and what inconsistencies exist?

The research question is addressed following two recommended stages, a description of the characteristics and a thematic analysis (Levac et al., 2010 ). These two steps are assessed below.

Characteristics

Table 1 helps to address the research question of this study which is to evaluate how true longitudinal studies of LD are being investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective.

First, in terms of the nature of variables and strategy, the vast majority were quantitative (16), two studies utilized mixed methods, and only one used qualitative data (Andersson, 2010 ). This study’s criteria yielded a majority of experimental and survey strategies. However, archival data, narrative inquiry, observation, and action learning are represented as well.

Collectively, the studies form a sample of 2,776 participants. This number represents respondents that answered all longitudinal measures, thus drop-out participants, who have perhaps answered only the first measure and not the following ones, were not counted. In terms of sex, this combined sample is composed by 67% of males. The more recent studies seem to be more balanced in terms of gender though. In total, 88 waves of data were collected across all studies, resulting in an average of 4.2 waves per study. The maximum value observed is 13 waves of data (Middleton et al., 2019 ). The longest study lasted 20 years between first and last data collection (Howard, 1986 ) and the shortest study lasted 4 weeks (Quigley, 2013 ).

When it comes to the contextual settings, 6 publications researched one single company, 7 authors gathered participants from two or more companies, and 6 studies analyzed business students, mostly MBA students with work experience. The targeted companies, to cite only a few examples, were quite diverse, ranging from a large Australian corporation with more than 200,000 employees (Kragt & Day, 2020 ); to a museum leader development program with global participants (Middleton et al., 2019 ); to a multinational Indian-based IT company (Steele & Day, 2018 ); to middle managers of the headquarters of a regional grocery store chain in the United States. As for business students, the sample includes, among others, a top-ranked MBA program at a Spanish business school (Mayo et al., 2012 ); full-time MBA students at a large American university; and a graduate degree at a Dutch business school (Miscenko et al., 2017 ).

No form of intervention was found in 6 studies. The remaining 13 studies applied different LD trainings that varied in (1) length, ranging from 90 minutes to 145 hours; (2) content focus such as self-regulation, influence, feedback, team effectiveness; and (3) methods like lecture, role-play, discussion, readings, coaching.

By taking a look at the LD outcome measures, it is noticed that the two early studies of the sample, the ones that belong to the 1980s, were preoccupied with measuring some form of status, for instance career progress in terms of speed of promotion, and level of management achieved. After 2010, the focus of analysis changes from status to either cognitive outcomes (leader identity, self-perceived role knowledge) or behavioral outcomes (skills, competencies, efficacy). Established instruments and developed measures are both present.

Changing the conversation to the analytical approach of these works, it seems that it was not until 2011 that more appropriate procedures for longitudinal modelers started to emerge. This raises the question if more true longitudinal studies emerged because of more suitable tools available, or if these new tools were created given the importance to research human development in a longitudinal way.

Before 2011, the sample indicates the use of multiple regression equations, correlation analyses, ANOVAs, and ANCOVAs. After that year, an emergence and consolidation of more sophisticated methods is observed, like random coefficient modeling (RCM), latent growth model (LGM), multilevel modeling (MLM), hierarchical multivariate linear modeling (HMLM). In terms of the software tools used to execute these analyses, SPSS, R, HLM, NLME are highlighted.

Despite the present focus on methodologies, it was judged relevant to additionally chart the key findings of the studies included in this review. Table 2 maps this information chronologically by author.

Themes were driven by the concepts, or the objects of analysis being used by scholars and derived by examining the “LD outcome measure” column of Table 1 as well as the full study. Specifically, a summarized thematic analysis was performed (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). Variables were grouped together based on similarity. For instance, self-confidence and leadership efficacy are measuring behavioral change, hence a category called “behavioral” was created. Following this line of thinking, variables such as leader identity and self-perceived role knowledge are measuring cognitive change, thus the category “cognitive”. The same process was applied for the status category. After this procedure, the quantity of studies in each category was simply counted. Some studies are measuring more than one dimension, as shown below in Fig. 2 .

Venn diagram of main themes identified by quantity of studies

As observed, most scholars are, not surprisingly, interested in researching behaviors, maybe because it is an inherent aspect of the organizational behavior field. The behavioral dimension is also the only one to intersect with the other two that emerged. Status outcomes were the primary variable for only two studies. And although no studies analyzed cognitive outcomes alone, researchers seem interested in understanding these factors as it greatly intersects with the behavior sphere. Lastly, only one true longitudinal study of LD measured all three categories (Kragt & Day, 2020 ). Table 3 provides more information based on these themes.

The themes reveal some interesting aspects. First, measuring status as a primary outcome is linked to older publications while the cognitive and behavioral dimensions are more recent concepts of interest. The status dimension is also associated with less waves of data but longer length of study in general. The opposite happens for studies focused on behavioral and cognitive aspects, they are characterized by collecting more waves of data in less time.

Even though the goal of this research is to analyze only business contexts, some diversity is observed in terms of specific setting (e.g., business schools, large companies, partnerships with consultancy firms), and location (e.g., USA, Europe, Australia, Japan, India). Except for India, no developing countries are observed, suggesting a potential research need.

In terms of strategies and interventions, conducting experiments is associated with the more recent studies. A lack is qualitative methods is also noticed. Additionally, the survey strategy is always present across the three themes. No standard regarding the type of intervention is detected, they are mostly trainings with slightly different areas of concentration.

The two studies focusing on status used more general analytic tools such as multiple regression and ANOVA analysis. More sophisticated tools are observed across the other two spheres and their intersections (e.g., LGM, RCM, HLM).

The evidence indicates that the longitudinal LD area is young with the vast majority of studies being published after 2010. The combined sample sums 2,776 participants (67% male) and 88 waves of data. Most of these studies are quantitative, and mostly surveys or experiments. The context, as expected, is very much managerial and composed mostly by large companies and business schools in developed countries. Regarding LD outcomes, three major themes were found, status (e.g., level of leadership attained), behavioral (e.g., leadership effectiveness), and cognitive (e.g., leader identity).

Scoping reviews have the power to map a field of knowledge making gaps more evident (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ). In this way, it is not difficult to notice that no developing countries are represented except from India, smaller companies are also not represented, and women are underrepresented as they compose one third of this review’s combined sample. Considering that leadership is highly contextual (Johns, 2006 ), it is understood that, if supported by insights originated from diverse contexts, the field could make significant progress in terms of bridging LD science and practice (Day et al., 2018 ).

Moreover, it is concerning to see almost no qualitative studies in this review. Despite the challenges associated with conducting longitudinal qualitative research in the social sciences (Thomson & Holland, 2003 ), this methodology has the potential to enrich the LD field with deeper insights. One promising path seems to be multiple perspective qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI) (Vogl et al., 2018 ), a framework created to analyze related individuals (e.g., one’s peers, superiors, subordinates) and to deal with complex and voluminous data. Another hopeful avenue of research for LD is through the underdeveloped area of mixed methods longitudinal research (MMLR) (Vogl, 2023 ). The current study has been relying on the assumption that longitudinal designs are the most appropriate way to study LD (Day, 2011 ). Building on this and being more specific, MMLR may be even more appropriate to understand and explain LD given the complementary insights generated (Vogl, 2023 ). However, applying this type of methodology comes with a series of issues as well as high execution effort that need to be taken into consideration by future scholars (Plano Clark et al., 2015 ).

One additional issue associated with longitudinal research is deciding how many waves of data to collect and what is the ideal length of interval between measurement points (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ). In the present study, it is difficult to recognize any corresponding standard among the experimental studies. Some authors seem to be following the intervention’s length, for instance, Miscenko et al.‘s ( 2017 ) 7-week leadership program collected data at seven weekly time points, but the vast majority of studies do not offer explanations for the choices made. Even though most of these decisions are atheoretical and the ideal time interval is rarely known because it greatly depends on the phenomenon of interest, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) say this is a critical matter because it directly affects the change trajectory. Therefore, the science of longitudinal leadership research could benefit from more information about the decision rationale given the variables at hand. For example, for which kinds of leadership phenomena longer lengths are more valuable and vice versa? How many waves of data would be more suitable according to concept, levels of analysis, or research goals?

Regarding concepts, data shows that scholars are less interested in measuring status-related concepts (e.g., hierarchical level achieved), while behavioral variables are the most popular ones and cognitive variables can be considered emerging. Although each study naturally uses variables that are coherent with their research questions, the three dimensions presented earlier (Fig. 2 ) offer different and valuable perspectives to the development of leaders and leadership, so it is judged beneficial to cross dimensions whenever possible. For example, Kragt and Day ( 2020 ) is the only study that sheds light on status (e.g., promotion), behavior (e.g., managing stress), and cognitive aspects (e.g., leader identity).

As a summary, this paper contributes to theory in several ways. First, through mapping the methods being used to date; second, by identifying inconsistencies and gaps; third, by elaborating on ways in which the leadership field can advance; fourth, by understanding themes in terms of outcome variables; and lastly, through insights for management scholars and practitioners given the exclusive focus on business contexts.

Limitations

The present work is not immune to limitations, as no scientific work is. This study includes documents up to the year 2021, resulting in a three-year gap considering the submission date to this journal. Significant personal circumstances prevented the authors from pursuing publication earlier, so to mitigate this potential limitation, a modest cursory review is presented as described. Searching the Web of Science database from 2022 to 2024 using the seven search strings outlined in Appendix A , a list of 116 documents were gathered. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework (Tricco et al., 2018 ), records were screened (abstract and/or full text) based on the same pre-determined criteria described in the methodology section. Even though 12 records were closely assessed, only 2 peer-reviewed articles respected the parameters. They are identified below followed by a summarized discussion.

“How coaching interactions transform leader identity of young professionals over time” published in the International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring by Hughes and Vaccaro ( 2024 ) was the first record identified. This qualitative exploration utilizing semi-structured interviews before, during and after the coaching experience highlights through narrative inquiry analysis how coaching that is grounded in identity transformation practices are an important mechanism for emerging leaders as they navigate high degrees of professional and personal change in their lives. Despite the small sample size (six coaches), the three-phase data collection can be considered rare in qualitative studies of leadership development, representing a strength.

“Perceived changes in leadership behavior during formal leadership education” published in Public Personnel Management by Sørensen et al. ( 2023 ) was the second record identified. This multilevel three-year study with 62 leaders and 860 respondents found that leadership education has a considerable effect on leadership behaviors when it comes to tasks, relations, and change. Among the highlighted insights is the interesting fact that subordinates rated change in leadership behavior significantly lower compared to superiors and peers.

In addition to the limitations presented so far, scoping reviewers are encouraged to initially conduct the data charting process with at least two scholars working independently (Levac et al., 2010 ) and this was not possible to accomplish in the present study. Although agreeing with the above-mentioned recommendation, it is believed that the findings are not threatened by not executing this step, as the main motivation for it seems to be saving time when it comes to including studies. Thus, the only drawback for the current research was making the data charting process longer than it could have been.

The attempts to include gray literature were restricted to contacting LD subject-experts, which is a valid and effective strategy (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008 ), but there are additional tactics that could potentially lead to a larger sample. One example would be searching online databases for theses and dissertations around the theme. Future studies are encouraged to address that.

The experience of conducting a scoping review was perceived as “too manual”. Despite the confidence in the present results, it is difficult to ensure the inexistence of minor oversights as the process involved multiple Excel documents with dozens of tabs and thousands of lines each. Using a software was unfortunately not an option for the present study, but researchers interested in scoping reviews should consider using one.

The focus of the current review was purposefully restricted to business contexts. Although this is beneficial to the present goal and to obtain more specific insights, it leads to low generalizability power. Including studies from other LD contexts such as healthcare, military, and sports, can offer a good opportunity to learn across disciplines and potentially identify synergies for the benefit of leadership research as a whole.

Future research

Regarding the limitations highlighted above, it is encouraged that LD scholars conducting scoping reviews to focus on working within larger teams of colleagues as some scoping review procedures can be quite lengthy depending on the protocol chosen (e.g., a truly extensive search, data charting). Most of the limitations identified above could have been solved by that. And referring again to how data could not be obtained past 2021 for this study, it is encouraged that researchers engaged with scoping reviews include the most up to date records whenever possible.

Despite the search comprehensiveness demonstrated here, the present sample is relatively small. So, even though it is unknown if a larger sample is possible to achieve given this study’s scope, scholars are still encouraged to try to include more articles. Specifically, through searching more than five online databases, trying to expand the search for gray literature, and, if possible, performing searches in languages in addition to English.

Changing the conversation from the methodology of scoping reviews to the actual methodological contents of the sample, one gap that is easily noticed is the lack of qualitative or mixed-method studies, therefore these designs are encouraged for an enhanced perspective of LD in business contexts. Qualitative research has been growing strong in management science due to the value of their rich insights (Bluhm et al., 2011 ) and it seems that the LD field has plenty of space to leverage this opportunity. This is not to say that more quantitative designs are not needed, but right now it seems that the field can significantly grow from qualitative and mixed-methods contributions.

For sponsored authors or authors with a higher budget and a more numerous team, it would be interesting to conduct a scoping review similar to this one but not restricted to the business context as insights from other fields like health sciences, sports, education, military can help advance the science of LD. It would finally be interesting for a future scoping review of LD to organize the research through levels of analysis, namely intraindividual change, group change, and organizational change.

Even though the most recent studies analyzed by this scoping review worked with more gender balanced samples, male participants are predominant overall, hence future research is encouraged to continue working with a balanced proportion of males and females. Alternatively, all-female samples could leverage new insights as no studies under the current criteria have explored this angle yet. Relatedly, the LD field could unlock novel contributions by going beyond sex in terms of demographic characteristics. For example, age, race, social class, and gender identity are potentially good opportunities to extend knowledge.

The present scoping review intended to understand how true longitudinal studies of LD are being researched and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective. After a rigorous search process ranging from 1900 to 2021, evidence was extracted from 19 peer-reviewed articles set in business contexts and measuring LD change with at least three waves of data. The current study elucidates gaps, patterns, and inconsistencies in terms of many aspects including nature of data, research strategy, participants, waves of data, concepts, analytical techniques, and key findings. Some observed highlights include the pattern to measure behavioral concepts and the emergent interest in measuring cognitive concepts. The procedures of the most recent works are shorter in length and more numerous in waves of data, the opposite was true a few decades ago. More sophisticated analytical techniques have been used in recent years as the field understands LD as a developmental science and art. However, there is an overreliance on quantitative methods leading to a bright future for qualitative and mixed-methods longitudinal researchers. Given the historical gender imbalance in participants studied (combined sample is 67% male), balanced or all-female samples can lead to original insights.

Search strings used in the five online databases .

List of selected studies and basic details .

Data availability

The authors declare that the data is available upon request.

Andersson, T. (2010). Struggles of managerial being and becoming: Experiences from managers’ personal development training. Journal of Management Development, 29 (2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011019305

Article   Google Scholar  

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.693

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Athanasopoulou, A., & Dopson, S. (2018). A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.004

Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (4), 423–426.

Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Camobreco, J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1999). A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 52 (12), 1543–1562.

Ayoobzadeh, M., & Boies, K. (2020). From mentors to leaders: Leader development outcomes for mentors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35 (6), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2019-0591

Bailey, C., & Fletcher, C. (2002). The impact of multiple source feedback on management development: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (7), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.167

Baltes, P. B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11 , 145–171.

Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., Jokela, M., Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., & Roberts, B. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74 (9), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000503

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (8), 1866–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bray, D. W. (1964). The management progress study. American Psychologist, 19 (6), 419–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038616

Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1 (4), 421–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814004

Cherniss, C., Grimm, L. G., & Liautaud, J. P. (2010). Process-designed training: A new approach for helping leaders develop emotional and social competence. Journal of Management Development, 29 (5), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039196

Chilcott, J., Brennan, A., Booth, A., Karnon, J., & Tappenden, P. (2003). The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 7 (23). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta7230

Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 , 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1002/job

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (2), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1099

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1981.10483720

Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.012

Day, D. V. (2024). Developing leaders and leadership: Principles, practices, and processes. Palgrave MacMillan . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59068-9

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2 , 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328

Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.011

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809525

Book   Google Scholar  

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadership Quarterly, 25 (1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Day, D., Riggio, R., Conger, J., & Tan, S. (2018). Call for papers - special issue on 21st century leadership development: Bridging science and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 29 (6), I. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(18)30810-5

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689).

Dragoni, L., Park, H., Soltis, J., & Forte-Trammell, S. (2014). Show and tell: How supervisors facilitate leader development among transitioning leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034452

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069307

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. Leadership Quarterly, 28 (1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Reichard, R. J., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Motivational roots of leadership: A longitudinal study from childhood through adulthood. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.008

Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and extraversion. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.006

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007

Howard, A. (1986). College experiences and managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 530–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.530

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times . Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Hughes, A., & Vaccaro, C. (2024). How coaching interactions transform leader identity of young professionals over time. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 22 (1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.24384/3tw6-r891

Jacobs, R. L., & McClelland, D. C. (1994). Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study of the leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46 (1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.46.1.32

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Johnson, C. D., & Routon, P. W. (2024). Who feels taught to lead? Assessing collegiate leadership skill development. Journal of Leadership Education, 23 (1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/jole-01-2024-0013

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542

Kragt, D., & Day, D. V. (2020). Predicting leadership competency development and promotion among high-potential executives: The role of leader identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (August), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01816

Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241.supp

Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Leadership as art: Variations on a theme. Leadership, 6 (3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010368765

Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10 (3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0047

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (69), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814563.003

Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement: The moderating role of gender. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.009

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16 (4), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.003

Mayo, M., Kakarika, M., Pastor, J. C., & Brutus, S. (2012). Aligning or inflating your leadership self-image? A longitudinal study of responses to peer feedback in MBA teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0069

McCall, M. W. (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (3), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.14776183

McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.x

Middleton, E. D., Walker, D. O., & Reichard, R. J. (2019). Developmental trajectories of leader identity: Role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 26 (4), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818781818

Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising experiences. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 (2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712616

Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. Leadership Quarterly, 28 (5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.004

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Alttman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 (4), 264–269.

Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Muir, D. (2014). Mentoring and leader identity development: A case study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (143), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159416

Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.004

Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.010

Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18 (10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide . https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

Plano Clark, V. L., Anderson, N., Wertz, J. A., Zhou, Y., Schumacher, K., & Miaskowski, C. (2015). Conceptualizing longitudinal mixed methods designs: A methodological review of health sciences research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9 (4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814543563

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Quigley, N. R. (2013). A longitudinal, multilevel study of leadership efficacy development in MBA teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0524

Rajulton, F. (2001). The fundamentals of longitudinal research: An overview. Canadian Studies in Population, 28 (2), 169. https://doi.org/10.25336/p6w897

Rogosa, D. R., & Willett, J. B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability of the difference score in the measurement of change. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20 (4), 335–343.

Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.726

Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A field experiment. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (5), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.012

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. In  Etica e Politica . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof

Sørensen, P., Hansen, M. B., & Villadsen, A. R. (2023). Perceived changes in leadership behavior during formal leadership education. Public Personnel Management, 52 (2), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221136085

Springborg, C. (2010). Leadership as art - leaders coming to their senses. Leadership, 6 (3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010368766

Steele, A. R., & Day, D. V. (2018). The role of self-attention in leader development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12 (2), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21570

Taris, T. W. (2000). A primer in longitudinal data analysis . SAGE Publications Ltd.

Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2003). Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 6 (3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000091833

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Ruderman, M. N. (2010). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass Inc.

Vogel, B., Reichard, R. J., Batistič, S., & Černe, M. (2020). A bibliometric review of the leadership development field: How we got here, where we are, and where we are headed. The Leadership Quarterly , 101381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101381

Vogl, S. (2023). Mixed methods longitudinal research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24 (1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.4012

Vogl, S., Zartler, U., Schmidt, E. M., & Rieder, I. (2018). Developing an analytical framework for multiple perspective, qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21 (2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1345149

Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A 7-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.603

Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.217

Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work Aging and Retirement, 3 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw033

Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49 , 587–602.

Yeow, J. B., & Martin, R. (2013). The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: A longitudinal field experiment. Leadership Quarterly, 24 (5), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.04.004

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FCT - Fundaçao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant UIDB/04521/2020.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lisbon School of Economics and Management (ISEG), University of Lisbon, Rua do Quelhas, 6, Lisboa, 1200-781, Portugal

Felipe Senna Cotrim & Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes

Advance/CSG, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Senna Cotrim .

Ethics declarations

Informed consent, conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

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

Cotrim, F.S., Da Silva Gomes, J.F. Longitudinal studies of leadership development: a scoping review. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06567-4

Download citation

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 30 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06567-4

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

• Leadership development
• Scoping review
• Longitudinal studies
• Business context
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research