phd literature review

A Guide to Writing a PhD Literature Review

Written by Ben Taylor

Most PhD projects begin with a literature review, which usually serves as the first chapter of your dissertation. This provides an opportunity for you to show that you understand the body of academic work that has already been done in relation to your topic, including books, articles, data and research papers.

You should be prepared to offer your own critical analysis of this literature, as well as illustrating where your own research lies within the field – and how it contributes something new / significant to your subject.

This page will give you an overview of what you need to know about writing a literature review, with detail on structure, length and conclusions.

Depending on the nature of your PhD, this work could comprise books, publications, articles, experimental data and more. This body of work is collectively known as the ‘scholarly literature’, on your subject. You won’t have to tackle any novels, poetry or drama during this review (unless, of course, you’re actually studying a PhD in English Literature, in which case that comes later).

The purpose of the PhD literature review isn’t just to summarise what other scholars have done before you. You should analyse and evaluate the current body of work , situating your own research within that context and demonstrating the significant original contribution your research will make.

Planning your PhD literature review

Your supervisor will be able to give you advice if you’re not quite sure where to begin your review, pointing you in the direction of key texts and research that you can then investigate. It’s worth paying attention to the bibliographies (and literature reviews!) of these publications, which can often lead you towards even more specialist texts that could prove invaluable in your research. At the same time, it’s important not to let yourself fall down an academic rabbit hole – make sure that the books and articles you’re surveying are genuinely relevant to your own project.

You should aim to include a broad range of literature in your review, showing the scope of your knowledge, from foundational texts to the most recent publications.

The note-taking process is crucial while you’re in the early stages of your literature review. Keep a clear record of the sources you’ve read, along with your critical analysis of their key arguments and what you think makes them relevant to your research project.

How long should a literature review be?

The length of a PhD literature review varies greatly by subject. In Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences the review will typically be around 5,000 words long, while STEM literature reviews will usually be closer to 10,000 words long. In any case, you should consult with your supervisor on the optimum length for your own literature review.

Structuring a PhD literature review

When you begin to write your PhD literature review, it’s important to have a clear idea of its outline. Roughly speaking, the literature review structure should:

Introduce your topic and explain its significance
Evaluate the existing literature with reference to your thesis
Give a conclusion that considers the implications of your research for future study

The main body of your literature review will be spent critiquing the existing work that scholars have done in your field. There are a few different ways you may want to structure this part of the review, depending on the subject and the nature of your dissertation:

Chronologically – If your research looks at how something has changed over time, it may make sense to review the literature chronologically, tracking the way that ideas, attitudes and theories have shifted. This might seem like quite a simple way to structure the review, but it’s also imperative to identify the common threads and sticking points between academics along the way, rather than merely reeling off a list of books and articles.
Thematically – If your dissertation encompasses several different themes, you might want to group the literature by these subjects, while also emphasising the connections between them.
Methodologically – If you are going to be working with experimental data or statistics, it could be a good idea to assess the different methods that previous scholars have used in your field to produce relevant literature.

Whichever technique you use to structure your literature review, you should take care not to simply list different books, articles and research papers without offering your own commentary.

Always highlight the similarities (and differences) between them, giving your analysis of the significance of these relationships, connections and contrasts.

Writing up a PhD literature review

The process of writing a literature review is different to that of writing the bulk of the dissertation itself. The aim at this point isn’t necessarily to illustrate your own original ideas and research – that’s what the dissertation is for – but rather to show the depth of your knowledge of the field and your ability to assess the work of other scholars . It’s also an opportunity for you to indicate exactly how your dissertation will make an original contribution to your subject area.

These are some tips to bear in mind when writing a literature review:

Avoid paraphrasing – instead, offer your own evaluation of a source and its assertions
Follow a logical path from one source or theme to the next – don’t make leaps between different books or articles without explaining the connection between them
Critically analyse the literature – challenge assumptions, assess the validity of argument and write with authority
Don’t be too broad in your scope – it can be easy to get carried away including every piece of related literature you come across, but it’s also important not to let your review become too sprawling or rambling

The fact that you usually begin your literature review right at the start of a PhD means that it’s likely you’ll come across plenty more relevant books and papers during the course of your research and while writing the dissertation. So, it’s useful to think of this first draft as a work-in-progress that you keep up-to-date as you write your thesis.

Finishing a PhD literature review

As you come to the end of your dissertation, it’s vital to take a close look at your initial literature review and make sure that it’s consistent with the conclusions that you’ve reached. Of course, a lot can change over the course of a PhD so it’s entirely possible that your research led you in a different direction than you imagined at the beginning.

The conclusion of your literature review should summarise the significance of the survey that you’ve just completed, explaining its relevance for the research your dissertation will undertake.

Literature reviews and PhD upgrade exams

The literature review is usually one of the first sections of a PhD to be completed, at least in its draft form. As such, it is often part of the material that you may submit for your PhD upgrade exam . This usually takes place at the end of your first year (though not all PhDs require it). Involves you discussing your work so far with academics in your department to confirm that your project is on track for a PhD. The feedback you get at this point may help shape your literature review, or reveal any areas you’ve missed.

Doing a PhD

For more information on what it’s like to do a PhD, read our guides to research proposals , dissertations and the viva . Or, search for your perfect PhD course on our website.

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
Hear about our upcoming study fairs
Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

What Is a PhD Literature Review?
Doing a PhD

A literature review is a critical analysis of published academic literature, mainly peer-reviewed papers and books, on a specific topic. This isn’t just a list of published studies but is a document summarising and critically appraising the main work by researchers in the field, the key findings, limitations and gaps identified in the knowledge.

The aim of a literature review is to critically assess the literature in your chosen field of research and be able to present an overview of the current knowledge gained from previous work.
By the conclusion of your literature review, you as a researcher should have identified the gaps in knowledge in your field; i.e. the unanswered research questions which your PhD project will help to answer.
Quality not quantity is the approach to use when writing a literature review for a PhD but as a general rule of thumb, most are between 6,000 and 12,000 words.

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

First, to be clear on what a PhD literature review is NOT: it is not a ‘paper by paper’ summary of what others have done in your field. All you’re doing here is listing out all the papers and book chapters you’ve found with some text joining things together. This is a common mistake made by PhD students early on in their research project. This is a sign of poor academic writing and if it’s not picked up by your supervisor, it’ll definitely be by your examiners.

The biggest issue your examiners will have here is that you won’t have demonstrated an application of critical thinking when examining existing knowledge from previous research. This is an important part of the research process as a PhD student. It’s needed to show where the gaps in knowledge were, and how then you were able to identify the novelty of each research question and subsequent work.

The five main outcomes from carrying out a good literature review should be:

An understanding of what has been published in your subject area of research,
An appreciation of the leading research groups and authors in your field and their key contributions to the research topic,
Knowledge of the key theories in your field,
Knowledge of the main research areas within your field of interest,
A clear understanding of the research gap in knowledge that will help to motivate your PhD research questions .

When assessing the academic papers or books that you’ve come across, you must think about the strengths and weaknesses of them; what was novel about their work and what were the limitations? Are different sources of relevant literature coming to similar conclusions and complementing each other, or are you seeing different outcomes on the same topic by different researchers?

When Should I Write My Literature Review?

In the structure of your PhD thesis , your literature review is effectively your first main chapter. It’s at the start of your thesis and should, therefore, be a task you perform at the start of your research. After all, you need to have reviewed the literature to work out how your research can contribute novel findings to your area of research. Sometimes, however, in particular when you apply for a PhD project with a pre-defined research title and research questions, your supervisor may already know where the gaps in knowledge are.

You may be tempted to skip the literature review and dive straight into tackling the set questions (then completing the review at the end before thesis submission) but we strongly advise against this. Whilst your supervisor will be very familiar with the area, you as a doctoral student will not be and so it is essential that you gain this understanding before getting into the research.

How Long Should the Literature Review Be?

As your literature review will be one of your main thesis chapters, it needs to be a substantial body of work. It’s not a good strategy to have a thesis writing process here based on a specific word count, but know that most reviews are typically between 6,000 and 12,000 words. The length will depend on how much relevant material has previously been published in your field.

A point to remember though is that the review needs to be easy to read and avoid being filled with unnecessary information; in your search of selected literature, consider filtering out publications that don’t appear to add anything novel to the discussion – this might be useful in fields with hundreds of papers.

How Do I Write the Literature Review?

Before you start writing your literature review, you need to be clear on the topic you are researching.

1. Evaluating and Selecting the Publications

After completing your literature search and downloading all the papers you find, you may find that you have a lot of papers to read through ! You may find that you have so many papers that it’s unreasonable to read through all of them in their entirety, so you need to find a way to understand what they’re about and decide if they’re important quickly.

A good starting point is to read the abstract of the paper to gauge if it is useful and, as you do so, consider the following questions in your mind:

What was the overarching aim of the paper?
What was the methodology used by the authors?
Was this an experimental study or was this more theoretical in its approach?
What were the results and what did the authors conclude in their paper?
How does the data presented in this paper relate to other publications within this field?
Does it add new knowledge, does it raise more questions or does it confirm what is already known in your field? What is the key concept that the study described?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study, and in particular, what are the limitations?

2. Identifying Themes

To put together the structure of your literature review you need to identify the common themes that emerge from the collective papers and books that you have read. Key things to think about are:

Are there common methodologies different authors have used or have these changed over time?
Do the research questions change over time or are the key question’s still unanswered?
Is there general agreement between different research groups in the main results and outcomes, or do different authors provide differing points of view and different conclusions?
What are the key papers in your field that have had the biggest impact on the research?
Have different publications identified similar weaknesses or limitations or gaps in the knowledge that still need to be addressed?

Structuring and Writing Your Literature Review

There are several ways in which you can structure a literature review and this may depend on if, for example, your project is a science or non-science based PhD.

One approach may be to tell a story about how your research area has developed over time. You need to be careful here that you don’t just describe the different papers published in chronological order but that you discuss how different studies have motivated subsequent studies, how the knowledge has developed over time in your field, concluding with what is currently known, and what is currently not understood.

Alternatively, you may find from reading your papers that common themes emerge and it may be easier to develop your review around these, i.e. a thematic review. For example, if you are writing up about bridge design, you may structure the review around the themes of regulation, analysis, and sustainability.

As another approach, you might want to talk about the different research methodologies that have been used. You could then compare and contrast the results and ultimate conclusions that have been drawn from each.

As with all your chapters in your thesis, your literature review will be broken up into three key headings, with the basic structure being the introduction, the main body and conclusion. Within the main body, you will use several subheadings to separate out the topics depending on if you’re structuring it by the time period, the methods used or the common themes that have emerged.

The important thing to think about as you write your main body of text is to summarise the key takeaway messages from each research paper and how they come together to give one or more conclusions. Don’t just stop at summarising the papers though, instead continue on to give your analysis and your opinion on how these previous publications fit into the wider research field and where they have an impact. Emphasise the strengths of the studies you have evaluated also be clear on the limitations of previous work how these may have influenced the results and conclusions of the studies.

In your concluding paragraphs focus your discussion on how your critical evaluation of literature has helped you identify unanswered research questions and how you plan to address these in your PhD project. State the research problem you’re going to address and end with the overarching aim and key objectives of your work .

When writing at a graduate level, you have to take a critical approach when reading existing literature in your field to determine if and how it added value to existing knowledge. You may find that a large number of the papers on your reference list have the right academic context but are essentially saying the same thing. As a graduate student, you’ll need to take a methodological approach to work through this existing research to identify what is relevant literature and what is not.

You then need to go one step further to interpret and articulate the current state of what is known, based on existing theories, and where the research gaps are. It is these gaps in the literature that you will address in your own research project.

Decide on a research area and an associated research question.
Decide on the extent of your scope and start looking for literature.
Review and evaluate the literature.
Plan an outline for your literature review and start writing it.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

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.

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

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.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

Research management

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

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

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 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

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship

The NOMIS Foundation ETH Fellowship Programme supports postdoctoral researchers at ETH Zurich within the Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life ...

Zurich, Canton of Zürich (CH)

Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life at ETH Zurich

13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University

GRK2727/1 – InCheck Innate Immune Checkpoints in Cancer and Tissue Damage

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE) and Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

Medical Faculties Mannheim & Heidelberg and DKFZ, Germany

Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology

Open faculty positions at the state key laboratory of brain cognition & brain-inspired intelligence.

The laboratory focuses on understanding the mechanisms of brain intelligence and developing the theory and techniques of brain-inspired intelligence.

Shanghai, China

CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List
PLoS Comput Biol
v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

be thorough,
use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

the major achievements in the reviewed field,
the main areas of debate, and
the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to write a good PhD literature review?

I am in the early stages of my PhD and I am trying to put together a literature review of my topic. My intention is that this review will eventually be included in my thesis, something like " the chapter that describes the state of the art in the domain ."

My subject is soft matter physics and a large number of theses have already been written this topic. When looking at the literature reviews included in these other works I've noticed that:

The sequence of ideas is often the same (this makes sense, so why not?)
Cited papers are always the same, even though 20 years elapsed between the first and last thesis. Moreover, papers from the 30's are cited but no one in my lab seems to have a copy available?

My hypothesis is that these theses are derived from some sort of a Mother of All Thesis , and that paraphrasing the work of the previous student is OK.

So, what makes a good literature review?

How do you notice that a literature review is sloppy?

PS: I posted this question because I assume many of you have experience with this process either in your own PhD work, or as a supervisor where you have had to deal with paraphrasing of your students.

PS2: I am not asking about making proper citations, LaTeX+BibTeX handles that like a charm.

literature-review

I am not sure if your question fits here, if I remove the term "soft matter physics" this can be applied to any thesis in the natural sciences. In general I would recommend against a "review thesis" and keep this section rather short. You should cite only the relevant literature for your scientific argument, not what the whole field generated over the last decades. – Alexander Commented Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16
It's a very good point but I think writing a good literature review is specific to a given domain... I fear that good practices in social science or biology may not apply to physics, but I may be wrong on that point. – Pascail Commented Oct 12, 2013 at 12:22
The relevance of such a section is a very good starting point, I like the idea of citing only literature relevant to the scientific discussion that comes after the results. Won't it sound too superficial, like "Well you're talking about elasticity but you don't even cite Landau's work ?" – Pascail Commented Oct 12, 2013 at 12:29

4 Answers 4

The purpose and expectations of a PhD literature review is likely to vary from field to field. My PhD was in Physics, but my views might be taken to apply generally.

There is likely to be some repetition or paraphrasing between students in the same research group, when it comes to the literature review. However, perhaps the comments below might help.

A literature review should be an enjoyable to read (!) introduction, survey and guide to the state of the art. You want to introduce your reader to the field (assuming a clever, but non-expert reader), setting out what has gone before, and perhaps to some extent showing where the gaps are in the research - raising the opportunity for you to present your research as that which fills a gap (Next chapter: "Aims and Objectives", or similar).

My primary hallmarks of a poor, or sloppy literature review is that papers are listed without any helpful context . A dreary literature review, to me, is a listing of papers that we all already know about, without any guide to the reader why the trail leads me to hold the present thesis. No-one much likes reading a dry chronology of papers. I personally, want to be told the story of the research and the literature review plays an important part of that story.

The opportunity exists here to review the field - what are the general trends in the literature? For example, Paper A was the first to introduce the theory that drove the authors of Paper B to perform experiment Z which is now the standard technique. However, Paper C suggests that an alternative method may be more effective, etc.

Note that your review shouldn't attempt to be a complete review of the field - whole standalone papers are written on this, usually by invitation. Your PhD literature review should be more focused, but still a recounting of the Story So Far.

Since your literature review is to be a nice, focused review of the path to your contribution, it is likely that you will read far more papers than you will need to cite in your literature review. Those papers that do not contribute to the Story So Far can be excluded from your literature review. Going off on a tangent, like in any story, can lose and confuse your readers. If you feel a need to refer to these papers, perhaps you can refer to a decent review article which discusses them in detail, for the interested reader.

I think Nikolas' answer is already pretty great. I'm not doing physics, but I'll try and stay as general as I can. Here's some specific advice I got from my supervisor and things I realized while doing my own lit review:

It is normal for a big section of referenced papers to be the same across a lot of survey / literature review papers. Those would be the papers that first introduced a problem, a concept, an approach.

In addition to the seminal papers from your (sub)field, you usually want to describe the current state-of-the art . This would be based on current papers based on the original problem, concept or approach that adopt the problem for a different environment, apply a concept for a different purpose or represent an improvement to the approach.

For example, in Computer Science, it would be okay to talk about a structure or a problem ( seminal paper ) and then talk about the current best algorithm(s) to solving the problem ( state-of-the-art ) without mentioning every single "evolution step" of the algorithm.

Basically, to sum up and dump up these two points: you cite the "first" and the "last" paper dealing with the same thing. Of course, there's exceptions to this: if there's any groundbreaking papers between the "first" and the "last" paper, sometimes intermediate papers can also be viewed as "seminal papers" for the subject/field.

This might depend slightly on the type of document you want to produce, but usually it is okay for you to explain the technique / method in detail, while for practical uses of the technique, you just mention (and cite) several successful applications of the technique without going in to detail about how exactly the method was adopted.

Finally, if your goal is to publish your literature review as a survey paper (which is usually worth a shot), you should think about how to "get a new spin on things".

Every paper, including survey papers, is supposed to be a scientific contribution. That means that you have to find something that makes your survey useful , or in some context better, then all the existing surveys. This might be a change of context in which the methods are examined, it might cover more material, offer new classifications of the methods or new links between them.

I would say you have to think of at least one type of reader (a reader with one type of goal) who will take your review and say: "That's it!" , while he can not say that any of the current surveys out there are exactly "it" for him.

References and bibliography are to be read and digested in a progressive manner. References that might have been not so intuitive become useful over time as we gain more experience. One needs to document them in any suitable way and:

Add new references and connections with current work.
Track these references and revisit them when and where you touch base again with them.
Revise the entry with new information or clearer understanding of the subject.
Remove any parasite or related paper that you think is no more directly related to your work - clear clutter up - this is important to stop accumulating lots of bibliography which can become non specific!
All of the references you might accumulate may not be useful for the final bibiliography. There is need to sort or classify these references as biblio, self learning references, state of art, related (first order, second order) and so on and so forth.

Doing this using a wiki would be advisable - and if there is a team involved group updates would be preferable! Basically one needs a good sense of organization while writing the thesis.

Sorting the refs into specific usage is a great help ! – Pascail Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 11:18
1 While it is all great advice, somewhat similarly to Vaidyanathan's answer , I feel like it's more focused on how to organize the bibliography during one's PhD and not how to do a lit review. It does mention using this for the final bibliography , but I would say putting this in the more specific context of the question would make for a much better answer. – penelope Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 13:05

There are couple of points i like to make from my perspective.

Bibliography is something which evolves during your PhD. I would recommend not to write it at the first place. As you read more and more, relevant to your area in Soft matter, you can keep adding it to your bibliography

Soft matter is a really huge area. One who works on Molecular dynamics may not even touch crystal defects while writing his bibliography. In that way it is really topic specific and not the entire area.

You said, you saw some say 30 papers in every thesis. This is not because of magic, this is only because they are path breaking. If you are in MD area (which is mine), and you are using a thermostat, it is 99.9999 % sure that you cite Nose-Hoover paper. It is no magic.

There is no point in saying none from my lab is cited. It depends on how many groups are working in that "specific" area and what impact had the papers published from your lab made in their research.

This all points out to the fact that one does not simply write a bibliography of an entire area :)

I'm sorry for the downvote but I do not feel like this answers the right question at all. It is all useful advice, just not the answer to "How do I write a lit review?" but rather "How do I organize/keep my bibliography collection?" . – penelope Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 12:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd thesis citations literature-review ..

Featured on Meta
Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

What does "Two rolls" quote really mean?
Why is it spelled "dummy" and not "dumby?"
Does a party have to wait 1d4 hours to start a Short Rest if no healing is available and an ally is only stabilized?
Why is notation in logic so different from algebra?
Kyber prime modulus p and base generator g
Can you equip or unequip a weapon before or after a Bonus Action?
Confusion about time dilation
"It never works" vs "It better work"
Riemannian metric for which arbitary path becomes a geodesic
Can I counter an opponent's attempt to counter my own spell?
What does 'ex' mean in this context
Replacing jockey wheels on Shimano Deore rear derailleur
An instructor is being added to co-teach a course for questionable reasons, against the course author's wishes—what can be done?
How to change upward facing track lights 26 feet above living room?
Text wrapping in longtable not working
Best approach to make lasagna fill pan
Determine the rank of a matrix expression
Stained passport am I screwed
How should I tell my manager that he could delay my retirement with a raise?
In which town of Europe (Germany ?) were this 2 photos taken during WWII?
Is a stable quantifier-free language really possible?
How to run only selected lines of a shell script?
Why is LiCl a hypovalent covalent molecule?
What does "dare not" mean in a literary context?

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

Understanding the “ why “
Finding the relevant literature
Cataloguing and synthesising the information
Outlining & writing up your literature review
Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

Finding the most suitable literature
Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

Open Access Theses & Dissertations
Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

Logging reference information
Building an organised catalogue
Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
How has the research developed over time?
Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Mind mapping is a useful way to plan your literature review.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

How to write a PhD literature review WITHOUT using AI (Part 2: Writing about the literature)

by James Hayton, PhD
September 2nd, 2024

Need help? Book a free introductory session

How to write a phd literature review without using ai (part 1: understanding the literature).

In this video I’m going to talk about how to write a PhD literature review without using AI. In part one I explained why I think this is necessary and I explained how to start building your foundational knowledge of the literature, so if you haven’t seen it yet, watch part one first because you need to understand the literature before you can write about it with any confidence.

As I said in part one, if you want a process that you can just follow from start to finish without thinking or using your own judgement, it doesn’t exist, but there are some general principles you can follow and adapt to your own needs.

The 3 basic rules when writing a literature review

When I was writing my own thesis, I set myself three basic ground rules for writing about the literature.

The first rule is you do not talk about anything you haven’t read and understood . My assumption was that anything I put in my thesis I needed to be able to defend, so I stuck to the literature I knew and was comfortable talking about.

The second rule was that the literature had to be good enough to get into my thesis . Instead of thinking I had to include as much as possible, I took an exclusive approach, only including the best and most relevant sources.

The more sources there were on a topic, the stricter I would be with this exclusivity. If there were only a few sources then I would lower the bar, but if there were thousands then I would only take the very best.

And the third rule was that if there was any doubt about whether a paper met rules one and two, I would leave it out.

It’s not about the number of references

These rules reduced the number of references, but a literature review is not about showing how much you’ve read. Anybody can just add more references, but if you want to show understanding then it’s about thoughtful selection of the best and most relevant sources.

These rules will also naturally limit the scope of any literature review you write, but it’s usually better to have a focussed review of literature you understand than to broaden it just for the sake of it. Focusing on the areas where you’re strongest will also make it easier to write and easier to defend.

One of the most common mistakes is to focus on the areas where you’re weakest and to put more references in just in case the examiner wants to see them, but all this does is attract the reader’s attention and invite more difficult questions in the defence.

You need to know what you want to say about the literature before you start to write

The final rule is that you need to have some idea of what you want to say before you start writing .

Some people will tell you to just start writing and then sort it out later, but if you don’t know what you want to say you have no basis for choosing relevant literature or relevant details. This means that everything is potentially relevant, and the literature review will turn into a monster that will grow and grow as it feeds off your soul.

And then if you manage to complete a draft—and that’s a big if—if you didn’t know what you wanted to say when writing, the reader then has to do the work of interpreting it.

Knowing what you want to say in advance gives the writing some focus and purpose, while also giving yourself a basis for making confident decisions as you write.

What do you want to say in your literature review?

So the fundamental question is; what do you want to say about the literature? What are the most important points you want to get across to the reader? And just like when I spoke about getting to know the literature , the answers will vary depending on the context and what you’re trying to do.

For example if you’re writing a research proposal, then the most important points would probably be to establish that your own research is of interest to the field and has potential to provide some new and useful insights.

We might show this by focusing on how others have approached the same or similar problems or questions, then establishing why there’s a need for your research. This could be a gap in the literature, where there’s something important that hasn’t been done, or it could be that many people have looked at the issue before, but there’s some limitation that means there’s a need to approach it in a different way. You need to be clear in your own mind about what the gap or limitation or need is, then you can choose appropriate literature to show the best of what’s been done and how you plan to add to it.

Again, I’m assuming you know what your research is, but if you want to know how to develop a project idea then leave a comment below and I’ll cover it in another video.

Other points of focus

If you’re not writing a proposal but writing a review doing a meta analysis of prior results, it has a different focus. You’d need to set clear and strict criteria for inclusion and read the papers and do the meta analysis before you write, so you know where you’re going.

Maybe you want to write about the development of an idea, in which case you might want to focus on key developments in the field. Maybe you want to detail alternative approaches to a specific problem, in this case you might focus on the best representative examples of the different approaches. Or perhaps you want to cover different sides in an ongoing debate, in which case the focus might be on explaining the opposing arguments.

What’s your point of view on the literature?

The choices you make will depend in part on what you’re trying to achieve, but they’ll also depend on your point of view.

For example, if there are many different definitions of a term, the goal should be to arrive at the definition you use for your project. If you know what definition you want to use, based on the reading and thinking you’ve done, you can construct an argument that leads the reader to that conclusion.

How to structure sections of your literature review

This brings us to the next key point. If you understand structure in writing, you can make deliberate choices as you write, saving huge amounts of time.

Again, a lot of the advice on writing structure is poor, with advice like using the PEER system, where you make a point or use a topic sentence, then give evidence and explanation then repeat the point or use a linking sentence. This structure might work for some paragraphs, but there’s more to writing than just points and evidence. There are relationships between ideas, not just within paragraphs but across whole documents. The link from one paper to another doesn’t necessarily happen between the paragraphs. It can be established through context, which we’ll come to in a moment.

Others may tell you that you have to say everything three times : so you say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you’ve just said. Far from making it easier to read, this usually makes the writing unnecessarily repetitive. You don’t see that kind of structure in journalism or good non-fiction writing because it isn’t necessary. A skillful writer can make their point once and move on, only repeating points where it’s useful to do so, and assuming that the reader is smart enough to go back over a section if they forget what you’ve said, just like you can go back over sections of this video.

Example structure: Starting with an observation of the literature

So let’s look at an example structure that you can use and adapt to your own needs. You can start by first making an observation about the literature, then providing examples. So let’s say there’s a long-running debate in the field about the causes of some phenomenon and nobody agrees on an explanation, a bit like the example I gave in the last video.

A simple statement like;

“There has been a long-running debate as to the causes of x, with two main competing explanations.”

Sets the context and the focus for the paragraphs to follow. You don’t need to patronise the reader by explicitly signposting that the following section will discuss the two sides, because it’s clearly implied. Then you can choose the best sources to represent each side of the debate. If we say;

“The most influential early explanation was put forward by Green…”

Then the reader knows the importance of this source before we’ve explained anything about what Green proposed.

Have the confidence to state your own observations of the literature

A quick note here is that if you noticed that Green was heavily cited and influential, have the confidence to put forward that observation yourself. You don’t need to find another source that says Green was influential. In fact, if you say, “according to Brown, the most influential early explanation was that of Green…” it might give the impression that you don’t have a view of your own and weaken your argument in the eyes of the reader.

Supporting references

So we can present Green’s view, and possibly some examples of later literature that supports it. And how much detail you go into here might depend on how important it is for your work, or it might depend on the format, because you might have limited space in a journal article. You could summarize the evidence in a single sentence, or give 10 pages, but the key is that these examples serve as evidence of Green’s hypothesis, so they are in support of a clear and specific point.

Vary the detail

Another quick side note here: You don’t have to give equal weight to every section of your literature review. You can cover some parts in great detail, others briefly. If you decide to cover something briefly, you can then refer the reader to other sources that cover it in more detail. The line, “for a detailed review of x, see …” can save you a lot of time if there’s an area of the literature that’s not crucial to your work and has been covered extensively elsewhere. Just remember that the quality of your references reflects back on you, so if you’re going to recommend a source, make sure it’s a good one.

How to link sections of the literature

So this covers one side of the debate, but what about the other? We need to provide a setup for the reader, and one of the best ways to do this is to think in terms of problems and responses .

Let me explain. If Green’s work had a big influence on the field, there has to be a reason why somebody else proposed an alternative. There has to be some gap or limitation or need they were responding to. This could be something that Green overlooked or that the theory doesn’t account for, or it could be that it was based on a simplifying assumption, or it could be that new data calls it into question. So if you then say something like;

“Despite the success of Green’s theory in explaining …, recent evidence has suggested that in (these other circumstances), the theory fails to…

A study by Brown…”

Now, without any detail, you probably expect that the study will present evidence that undermines Green’s theory in some way. Then maybe this leads to the alternative…

To account for this, Blue proposed…

This presents Blue’s work as a response to the problem or limitation with Green’s work.

Adding detail

Then you can talk about the evidence that supports Blue’s hypothesis or what effect Blue’s work had on the field and the developments or debates or new questions it led to.

You have a choice as to where you want to lead the reader and how much detail you give, based on what you think is most important or interesting.

This kind of structure, starting with an observation of the literature, can be adapted depending on what you want to say. For example, you could present an idea and say something like; “evidence for this is mixed”. Having made that observation, you can then present some of the evidence that supports the idea and the evidence that counters it, then describe what kind of research is being done to try to settle the issue.

Instead, you might observe that there are many contradictory definitions of a term, or many different techniques for measuring something. You might observe that until 2015 it was widely believed that… however in recent years… Or it could be that there is strong evidence to support a specific point. Put the observation first, and everything else gets easier.

Example structure: Starting with a problem, question or need

A variation of this structure is to present a problem or question or need and then how the literature has responded. This works because all academic research is a response to a problem or question or need, and putting this first gives a reason for the literature to exist and for the reader to be interested.

And within the discussion of these responses, you can again use your own observations to summarize vast areas of literature. So you could state a problem, then say;

“there are three main approaches to this taken in the literature”

And as you go through those approaches, it helps if you have a point of view about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives.

These kinds of structures allow you to present complex information in a way that’s easy to follow, because they’re based on universal principles of narrative structure. And once you get the idea, you start to see the same stories appear in every single academic domain. And this understanding is what allows me to help students from such a wide range of disciplines.

How to plan and prepare for your literature review

So how do you plan a literature review in this way?

The process I would usually advise is to start by creating an initial mind map of the literature (or a specific area of the literature) based on your knowledge and your observations. This allows you to quickly get ideas on paper in a way that’s much faster than typing and that allows you to be as messy as you like.

You can include your observations and some of the key papers, and you can identify points you need to double check, or important gaps where you may have to go back and find specific sources.

Then you can prepare the bulk of your references and double check that they say what you think they say in advance, rather than typing and then coming back months later to try to find sources that back up what you want to say.

From mind-map to bullet points

From that initial mind-map, you can then plan a bullet point structure with the key points you want to make, with your observations of the literature and the most important sources you want to cite. This bullet-point structure can change as you write, because thinking deeply about what you want to say and how you want to express it often leads to new insights or connections, or because you might change the order of sections, or you might decide to cut certain parts if they aren’t important.

You don’t need a perfect plan before you start writing, as long as you have some idea of where you want to lead the reader and the most important points and papers, and you make deliberate decisions as you go, you’ll be ahead of the vast majority.

I think that’s a good place to stop, but again I know I’ve skipped over some points quite quickly and I know that much of what I’ve said will contradict the advice you may have heard. So if you have any doubts or questions or if you think this approach wouldn’t work for you, let me know in the comments and I’ll do my best to help.

And if you found this post useful, please share it with someone who needs it.

How to write your PhD literature review without using AI (part 1)

Signposting in academic writing (a rant)

How to improve your academic writing

This video by Write Science on how to write a literature review without AI

Stay up to date

I offer one to one coaching in academic writing. Click below to learn more and book your introductory session.

share this with someone who needs it:

PhD: An uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life

By james hayton (2015).

PhD: an uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life is your essential guide to the basic principles every PhD student needs to know.

Applicable to virtually any field of study, it covers everything from finding a research topic, getting to grips with the literature, planning and executing research and coping with the inevitable problems that arise, through to writing, submitting and successfully defending your thesis.

Useful links

About james hayton, phd, latest phd tips, academic writing coaching.

AI-free zone

All the text on this site (and every word of every video script) is written by me, personally, because I enjoy writing. I enjoy the challenges of thinking deeply and finding the right words to express my ideas. I do not advocate for the use of AI in academic research and writing, except for very limited use cases.

Why you shouldn't rely on AI for PhD research and writing

The false promise of AI for PhD research

Doing a literature review using digital tools (with Notion template)

I’ve recently revamped my literature review workflow since discovering Notion . Notion is an organization application that allows you to make various pages and databases. It’s kind of like your own personal wiki- you can link your pages and embed databases into another page, adding filters and sorting them using user-set properties. The databases are what I use the most. I’ve essentially transferred all of my excel sheets into Notion databases and find it much easier to filter and sort things now. In this post, I’ll go through how I do my literature review and share a Notion template that you can use.

I like to organize my literature review using various literature review tools along with two relational Notion databases: a ‘literature tracker’ and a ‘literature notes’ matrix. You can see a flow chart of my literature review process below (it’s inspired by this post by Jenn’s Studious Life and the three pass method for reading papers which I wrote about last week in this post ):

As you can see, this process involves a couple of decision points which helps me focus on the most important papers. This is an iterative process that keeps me up to date on relevant research in my field as I am getting new paper alerts in my inbox most days. I used this method quite successfully to write the literature review for my confirmation report and regularly add to it for the expanded version that will become part of my PhD thesis. In this post, I’ll break down how this works for me and how I implement my Notion databases to synthesise the literature I read into a coherent argument.

You can click on the links below to navigate to a particular section of this article:

The literature search

The literature tracker, the literature synthesis matrix, writing your literature review, iterating your literature review, my literature review notion template, some useful resources.

This is always the first step in building your literature review. There are plenty of resources online all about how to start with your search- I find a mixture of database search tools works for me.

The first thing to do when starting your literature review is to identify some keywords to use in your initial searches. It might be worth chatting to your supervisor to make a list of these and then add or remove terms to it as you go down different research routes. You can use keyword searches relevant to your research questions as well tools that find ‘similar’ papers and look at citation links. I also find that just looking through the bibliographies of literature in your field and seeing which papers are regularly cited gives you a good idea of the core papers in your area (you’ll start recognising the key ones after a while). Another method for finding literature is the snowballing method which is particularly useful for conducting a systematic review.

Here are some digital tools I use to help me find literature relevant to my research questions:

Library building and suggestions

Mendeley was my research management tool of choice prior to when I started using Notion to organize all of my literature and create my synthesis matrix. I still use Mendeley as a library just in case anything happens to my Notion. It’s easy to add new papers to your library using the browser extension with just one click. I like that Mendeley allows you to share your folders with colleagues and that I can export bib.tex files straight from my library into overleaf documents where I’m writing up papers and my thesis. You do need to make sure that all of the details are correct before you export the bib.tex files though as this is taken straight from the information plane. I also like to use the tag function in Mendeley to add more specific identifiers than my folders.

Mendeley is also useful for finding literature related to those in your library- I’ve found quite a few interesting papers through the email updates they send out each week with ‘suggested papers’. You can also browse these suggestions from within Mendeley and use its interface to do initial keyword searches. The key is to just scan the titles and then decide whether it’s worth your time reading the abstract and then the rest of it. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of papers being published every day so being picky in what you read is important (and something I need to work on more!).

Some similar tools that allow you to build a library and get literature recommendations include Zotero , Researcher , Academia , and ResearchGate . It’s up to you which one you use for your own purposes. One big factor for me when choosing Mendeley was that my supervisor and colleagues use it so it makes it much easier to share libraries with them, so maybe ask your colleagues what they use before settling on one.

Literature databases and keyword alerts

There are a variety of databases out there for finding literature. My go-to is Web of Science as it shows you citation data and has a nice interface. I used this to begin my initial literature search using my keywords.

The other thing you can do with these kinds of tools is set up email alerts to get a list of recent work that has just been published with any keywords you set. These alerts are usually where I find papers to read during journal club with my supervisor. You can customize these emails to what suits you- mine are set to the top 10 most relevant new papers for each keyword weekly and I track around 5 words/phrases. This allows me to stay on top of the most recent literature in my field- I have alerts set up on a variety of services to ensure that I don’t miss anything crucial (and alerts from the ArXiv mean I see preprints too). Again, you need to be picky about what you read from these to ensure that they are very relevant to your research. At this stage, it’s important to spend as little time as possible scanning titles as this can easily become a time suck.

Web of Science literature keyword search

Some of the other tools I have keyword (and author) email alerts set up on are: Scopus , Google Scholar , Dimensions , and ArXiv alerts . I set 10 minutes maximum aside per day to scan through any new email alerts and save anything relevant to me into my literature tracker (which I’ll come to more later).

Literature mapping tools

There are loads of these kinds of tools out there. Literature mapping can be helpful for finding what the seminal papers are in your field and seeing how literature connects. It’s like a huge web and I find these visual interfaces make it much easier to get my head around the relationships between papers. I use two of these tools during the literature search phase of the flowchart: Citation Gecko and Connected Papers .

Citation Gecko builds you a citation tree using ‘seed papers’. You can import these from various reference management software (like Mendeley), bib.tex files or manually search for papers. This is particularly useful if your supervisor has provided you with some core papers to start off with, or you can use the key papers you identified through scanning the bibliographies of literature you read. My project is split into fairly clear ‘subprojects’ so these tools help me see connections between the various things I’m working on (or a lack of them which is good in some ways as it shows I’ve found a clear research gap!).

You can switch between different views and add connecting papers as new seed papers to expand your network. I use this tool from time to time with various different papers associated with my subprojects. It’s helped me make sure I haven’t missed any key papers when doing my literature review and I’ve found it to be fairly accurate, although sometimes more recent papers don’t have any citation data on it so that’s something to bear in mind.

Connected Papers uses a ‘similarity’ algorithm to show paper relationships. This isn’t a citation tree like Citation Gecko but it does also give you prior and derivative works if you want to look at them. All you do is put one of your key papers into the search box and ‘build a graph’. It will then show you related papers, including those which don’t have direct citation links to the key paper. I think this is great for ensuring that you’re not staying inside an insular bubble of the people who all cite each other. It also allows me to see some of the research which is perhaps a bit more tangential to my project and get an overview of where my work sits within the field more broadly.

I like Connected Paper’s key for the generated tree and that it shows where related papers connect between themselves. Again, it’s helpful for ensuring that you haven’t missed a really important work when compiling your literature review and doesn’t just rely on citation links between papers.

This is where I record the details of any paper I come across that I think might be relevant to my PhD. In some ways, it’s very similar to Mendeley but it’s a version that sits within Notion so I have some more customised filtering categories set up, like my ‘status’ field where I track which pass I am on.

Here’s what my literature tracker looks like:

The beauty of Notion is that you can decide which properties you want to record in your database and customize it to your needs. You can sort and filter using these properties including making nested filters and using multiple filters at once. This makes it really easy to find what you’re looking for. For example, say I’m doing my literature review for my ‘FIB etching’ subproject and want to see all of the papers that I marked as relevant to my PhD but haven’t started reading yet. All I need to do is add a couple of filters:

And it filters everything so that I’m just looking at the papers I want to check out. It’s this flexibility that I think really gives Notion the edge when it comes to my literature review process.

The other thing I really like about using Notion rather than excel is that I can add different database views. I especially like using the kanban board view to see where I’m at with my reading workflow:

When I add something to the literature tracker database, I scan the abstract for keywords to add and categorize it in terms of relevant topics. It’s essentially the first pass of the paper, so that involves reading the title, abstract, introduction, section headings, conclusions, and checking the references for anything you recognise. After this is done, I decide whether it’s relevant enough to my PhD to proceed to do a second pass of the paper, at which point I will progress to populating my literature notes database.

Once I’ve decided that I want to do a second pass on a paper, I then add it to the ‘literature notes’ database. This is part of the beauty of Notion: relational databases. I have ‘rollup’ properties set in the literature notes database which shows all of the things I added during my first pass and allows me to filter the matrix using them. You can watch the video below to see exactly how to add a new paper to the ‘notes’ database from the ‘tracker’ database:

During the second pass, I populate the new fields in the ‘notes’ database. These are:

I also have various themes/questions/ideas as properties which I add a few notes on for each relevant paper. I then complete my ‘questions for critical engagement’ which are on the entry’s ‘Notes’ page and are stored in the ‘Article Template’. If you want to read more about this process, check out my ‘how to read a scientific paper’ post .

By, doing this I create a synthesis matrix where I can see a breakdown of the key aspects of each paper and can scan down a column to get an overview of all of the papers I have read. For example, if I wanted to see all of the papers about Quantum Point Contacts to get an idea of what previous work has been done so that I can identify my research gap, I can filter using the tag property and can then see the notes I wrote for each entry, broken down by section. I also have tags for my research questions or themes, materials used, experimental techniques, fabrication techniques, and anything else that comes to mind really! The more tags I have for a paper, the easier it is to filter when I want to find a specific thing.

The other property I have included in the literature notes database is ‘Key connected papers’. This is a relation but is within the database itself. So it means that I can link to the page of other papers in the literature matrix. I’ve found this to be useful for connecting to what I call ‘core’ papers. I can also filter using this property, allowing me to see my notes on all of the papers I’ve read that are related to a certain ‘core’ paper. This helps with synthesising all of the information and forming my argument.

For those papers most relevant to my research (the ‘core’ papers) I’ll also do a third pass which involves reimplementing the paper in my own words. This is quite a time-consuming task so not many papers reach this stage, but those which I have done a third pass on are the ones I know really well. My hope is that this will stand me in good stead for my viva. This process also helps me refine my research questions further as I gain a deeper understanding of the field.

I find that writing up a review is extremely intimidating, but having the literature matrix makes this process that bit easier. I won’t go into too many details as there are already loads of resources out there going into the details of writing up a review, but here’s a brief overview of my own process:

Identify your research themes

Using your literature matrix, review each research theme or question and decide which ones you are going to focus on. These will form the different sections of your literature review and help you write your thesis statement(s). You can also think about how your questions link to ensure that you’re telling a coherent story with your review.

Choose and summarize literature related to each theme

For each section, gather up the most important related literature and summarize the key points of each source. A good literature review doesn’t need to cover all the literature out there, just the most significant sources. I try to stick to around 10 or fewer key sources per section.

Critical evaluation of sources

This is where you utilize the ‘questions for critical engagement’. Make sure you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the studies you’re writing about. By doing this, you can establish where our knowledge is lacking which will come in helpful later when establishing a research gap.

Analyse each source in relation to other literature

Try to make sure that you are telling a coherent story by linking between your sources. You can go back to the literature matrix here and use it to group similar studies to compare and contrast them. You should also discuss the relevance of the source’s findings in relation to the broader field and core papers.

Situate your research in a research gap

This is where you justify your own research. Using what you have laid out in the rest of the review, show that there is a research gap that you plan to fill and explain how you are going to do that. This should mean that your thesis flows nicely into the next section where you’ll cover the materials and methods you used in your research project.

In some ways, a literature review never really ends. As you can see in the flowchart at the beginning of this post, I regularly update and revise my literature review as well as refining my research questions. At this point in my PhD, I think that most of my research questions are quite well defined, so I’m mostly just adding any newly published work into my review. I don’t spend much time reading literature at the moment but I’m sure I’ll return to it more regularly when I’m in the write-up phase of my PhD. There is a balance to be had between reading and writing for your literature review and actually getting on with your own research!

Here’s the link to my Notion Literature Review Template . You can duplicate it and adapt it however you want, but this should save you some time setting up the initial databases if you’d like to use my method for organizing your own literature review.

Here are some resources on how to do a literature review that I’ve found useful during my PhD:

The Literature Review: Step-by-Step Guide for Students
3 Steps to Save You From Drowning in Your Literature Review
How to write a literature review
How to become a literature searching ninja
Mind the gap
7 Secrets to Write a PhD Literature Review The Right Way

If you like my work, I’d love your support!

11 thoughts on “Doing a literature review using digital tools (with Notion template)”

Thank you so much for your insight and structured process. This will help me a lot kicking off my Master Thesis.

The perfect method to organize the literature that I have read and will read in the future. I am so glad to have found your website, this will save me from thrashing around in the swamp of literature. I was already feeling the limits of my memory when I was doing my master thesis and this will be so helpful during my PhD.

Thank you so much for this detailed post! Lily 🙂

Thank you very much for this. I’m doing my undergrad atm and reading a lot of papers. This seems like an excellent way of tracking everything.

Thank you, you made my beginning less stressful. I like your system and i helped me a lot. I have one question (more might come later), What do you mean by " journal club with my supervisor."

This piece is really really helpful! I started from this one and went through the rest blog writings. I agree on many points with Daisy. I had an unhappy experience of PhD two years ago and now just started a new one in another country. I will take it as an adventure and enjoy it.

This is an AMAZING template. I've found this so helpful for my own workflow. Thank you so much!

I found this post really helpful. Thank you.

thank you very much!

Hi! Thank you very much for posting this guide and sharing your notion template! I do have a question—do you manually enter the references into Notion, or is there any way to speed up the process? Ta x

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review is an academic text that surveys, synthesizes, and critically evaluates the existing literature on a specific topic. It is typically required for theses, dissertations, or long reports and serves several key purposes:

Surveying the Literature : It involves a comprehensive search and examination of relevant academic books, journal articles, and other sources related to the chosen topic.
Synthesizing Information : The literature review summarizes and organizes the information found in the literature, often identifying patterns, themes, and gaps in the current knowledge.
Critical Analysis : It critically analyzes the collected information, highlighting limitations, gaps, and areas of controversy, and suggests directions for future research.
Establishing Context : It places the current research within the broader context of the field, demonstrating how the new research builds on or diverges from previous studies.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can take various forms, including:

Narrative Reviews : These provide a qualitative summary of the literature and are often used to give a broad overview of a topic. They may be less structured and more subjective, focusing on synthesizing the literature to support a particular viewpoint.
Systematic Reviews : These are more rigorous and structured, following a specific methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular question. They aim to minimize bias and provide a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence.
Integrative Reviews : Similar to systematic reviews, but they aim to generate new knowledge by integrating findings from different studies to develop new theories or frameworks.

Importance of Literature Reviews

Foundation for Research : They provide a solid background for new research projects, helping to justify the research question and methodology.

Identifying Gaps : Literature reviews highlight areas where knowledge is lacking, guiding future research efforts.

Building Credibility : Demonstrating familiarity with existing research enhances the credibility of the researcher and their work.

In summary, a literature review is a critical component of academic research that helps to frame the current state of knowledge, identify gaps, and provide a basis for new research.

The research, the body of current literature, and the particular objectives should all influence the structure of a literature review. It is also critical to remember that creating a literature review is an ongoing process - as one reads and analyzes the literature, one's understanding may change, which could require rearranging the literature review.

Paré, G. and Kitsiou, S. (2017) 'Methods for Literature Reviews' , in: Lau, F. and Kuziemsky, C. (eds.) Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach . Victoria (BC): University of Victoria.

Perplexity AI (2024) Perplexity AI response to Kathy Neville, 31 July.

Royal Literary Fund (2024) The structure of a literature review. Available at: https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/ (Accessed: 23 July 2024).

Library Services for Undergraduate Research (2024) Literature review: a definition . Available at: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our?p=302677 (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

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.

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

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

Frequently asked questions

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Annotated Bibliography	Literature Review
Purpose	List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source.	Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic.
Focus	Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings.	Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature.
Structure	Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic.	The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument.
Length	Typically 100-200 words	Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters
Independence	Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources.	The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic.

References

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

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

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

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

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).

What is the purpose of a PhD literature review?

Jan 18, 2021

Have you checked out the rest of The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back.

Situate your research in the broader a context

Make the case for your research, educating you in your discipline .

Your PhD thesis. All on one page.

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis.

How does the literature review relate to your research questions?

Conclusion .

PhD Literature Review & Theory Framework Survival Pack

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

What is a Living Literature Review?

Table of contents.

The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult.

One response to this challenge is “living literature reviews”. At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.

Living literature reviews aim to be accessible to readers unfamiliar with a field while maintaining rigor. Unlike news articles that often focus on single, sensational studies, these reviews provide a broader perspective, synthesizing findings from multiple sources. They differ from traditional academic literature reviews by avoiding paywalls, dense jargon, and lengthy formats that pose barriers to non-specialists. Moreover, because they don’t assume familiarity with the assumptions of a field, living literature reviews aim to describe how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions are. This transparency allows readers to better understand the research methodology and form their own judgment on the strength of the findings.

Living literature reviews also help readers assess a field by relying on a single individual to provide a consistent voice, perspective, and expert curatorial taste. While these individuals collaborate with other experts in their fields, having one consistent author allows readers to gauge how much they trust the author’s judgment over time.

Finally, living literature reviews leverage digital platforms for hosting and distribution. Websites allow for post-publication corrections and updates, enabling a level of currency that traditional print reviews can’t match. Complementing these, email newsletters and podcasts extend the reach and convenience of learning about academic research.

By making research accessible to a broader audience, living literature reviews can facilitate interdisciplinary connections and inform policy work. They offer insights into work happening in adjacent fields, potentially inspiring collaborations and novel research directions.

Open Philanthropy supports several living literature reviews:

New Things Under the Sun by Matt Clancy: social science research on science and innovation
Existential Crunch by Florian Jehn: academic literature on societal collapse
Some Are Useful by Tom Gebhart: how AI and machine learning are used in different parts of science
Good Questions Review by Paul Kellner: the relationship between academic research and policy impact

We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews . We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their proposed area. Our support typically allows authors to dedicate a quarter to a third of their time to the project.

If you’re interested in launching your own living literature review, we encourage you to reach out. For more information on how to submit a pre-proposal, please contact [email protected] .

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa

Open access
Published: 06 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Oluwatomilayo Omoya ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0545-5341 1 ,
Udeme Samuel Jacob ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3234-8226 2 ,
Olumide A. Odeyemi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6041-5027 3 &
Omowale A. Odeyemi 4

Given the growing demand to produce PhD holders in Africa, it is crucial to grasp the intricacies faced by PhD candidates. This review aimed to synthesise the existing studies that explore the perspectives of candidates pursuing or completing a PhD in Africa. In conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, a scoping review guide developed by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) was used. Multiple databases were searched, including EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. Of the 51 articles that were retrieved, 12 were included in the review from various African countries. All articles were screened for quality before inclusion. The studies explored the types and characteristics of the included articles. The studies were descriptively mapped using qualitative content analysis, which revealed five themes: the sociodemographic profile of the PhD candidates, funding, resources and training, supervision experiences, and coping mechanisms. There is evidence on sociodemographic characteristics, challenges posed by funding, inadequate resources, and supervisor–candidate relationships, the research addressing why African candidates are studying at a later age, gender-specific environmental and cultural barriers, and coping strategies used during candidature is comparatively limited. Consequently, further investigations in these areas are crucial to better support PhD candidates in Africa.

Explore related subjects

Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees are considered to be a high priority in many continents, including Africa because they contribute to research output, innovation, economic and scientific growth (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; ASSF, 2010 ). Furthermore, doctoral education is viewed as a driver for the strengthening of economic knowledge, and the development of capital driven by academia has been described as pivotal for the continent of Africa (ASSF, 2010 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Academic capital is the knowledge gained at a higher level of education with ideas and creativity that informs societal, economic, and scientific growth (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ). However, study delays, longer completion times, high attrition rates, low research training capacity and productivity pose challenges that impair the contribution of academic knowledge (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ).

In Africa, there has been an increase in the recognition of the need for investment in research and innovation, driven by African-led researchers to provide relevant solutions that address challenges within Africa (HIRSA, 2019 ). Reports by the British Council in partnership with the German Academic Exchange Service study included reports from six African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ). The report commissioned a study that surveyed research and doctoral training capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. Several challenges were common across these countries. One of these was the limited source of funding to sustain quality PhD training, which was reflected in the experiences of the PhD candidates. Reports have indicated that candidates are generally satisfied with their programmes, but improvements are required in terms of funding, research infrastructure, and supervision (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 , Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ). Supervision was reported to lack quality, especially due to supervisor shortages, and at times, candidates worked with supervisors who were not necessarily interested in their area of focus (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ). As such, this has an impact on the quality of education, research output, and the challenges experienced in PhD training within universities.

A PhD is challenging regardless of the setting. Within the context of Africa, it appears that most PhD candidates are a cohort who work within the industry even though collaboration between academia and industry in Africa is lacking, especially in PhD training, which tends to follow a traditional, discipline-focused approach (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Nyemba et al., 2021 ; Osiru et al., 2022 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). However, candidates may have to maintain full-time employment due to a lack of funding to support their PhD. Collaborations with international institutions are an important factor that has driven positive research output in some African countries (Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ), for example, South Africa has reported an increase in its research output due to strong international collaboration as well as national policies with strategic plans and visons (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ). The number of PhD programmes available in some universities appears to have increased over the past decade, but several of these universities have noted low completion and high attrition rates (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ; Herman & Sehoole, 2018 ; Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ), for example, in Ethiopia, the completion rate has not consistently grown even though the number of programmes available has increased (Nega & Kassaye, 2018 ). Like Ethiopia, Kenya has a 5 to 50% attrition rate in its various institutions (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ). At six Ghanaian universities, a total of 42,246 candidates were enrolled from 2012–2013, and only 65 of those candidates graduated (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ). These statistics show that intentional efforts are needed to address the challenges that doctoral candidates encounter.

Research output on a global level, from Africa currently occurs at a low rate of approximately 2%, indicating that Africa’s research capacity is lacking compared to that of other Western countries (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018 ; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ). In addition, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) strategy for research in Africa has shown that improving global health and economic development is based on high-quality research and the best scientific evidence (WHO, 2012 ). While efficiency in research capacity and output in Africa has been identified as a priority, there are still gaps in education, health care, food insecurity, and skills. Thus, knowledge-driven by research outputs has been indicated to stimulate growth in various organisations and sectors (Whitworth et al., 2008 ; WHO, 2012 ). For growth to occur, the training of PhD candidates has been identified as a strategy to alleviate some of the poor outcomes in Africa’s health and economic development (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022 ; Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ).

Efforts to boost Africa’s research abilities are being made by various organisations and government bodies. Studies have examined ways to strengthen Africa’s research capacity and its integration into policies (Bates et al., 2014 ; Dean et al., 2015 ; Mugabo et al., 2015 ). One of these studies suggests setting goals early, collaborative planning with diverse teams, assessing current capacity, making action plans, and evaluating progress until capacity is strengthened (Bates et al., 2014 ). Research collaboration with international organisations as an initiative to improve research capacity has been shown to benefit both sides (Dean et al., 2015 ). The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) model is a key player in boosting research capacity. It focuses on restructuring and strengthening African Universities to produce skilled local scholars (Ezeh et al., 2010 , Balogun et al., 2021 ). Evaluations of the CARTA model show its significant impact on doctoral training, networking, equitable resource provision, research quality, and supervisory satisfaction (Christoplos et al., 2015 ; Balogun et al., 2021 ; Adedokun et al., 2014 ). Moreover, investments in informatics, bioinformatics, and data science training in Mali are enhancing research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, fostering scientific innovation and knowledge dissemination (Shaffer et al., 2019 ).

The training of PhD candidates was largely identified as one of the major focus areas to strengthen research capacity (Balogun et al., 2021 ; Bates et al., 2014 . Mugabo et al., 2015 ; Fonn et al., 2016 ; Adedokun et al., 2014 ). In the training of PhD candidates, personalised development plans, quality assurance in PhD training, institutional polices, research facilities, and student well-being were often identified as gaps for needing improvement. Some of the common suggestions identified to address these gaps include improving internet access, providing dedicated office spaces for PhD candidates, training supervisors, and increasing the number of supervisors. Similarly, CARTA’s model of training PhD candidates emphasises collaboration to strengthen African universities’ research capacity and infrastructure.

Research examining the perspectives of doctoral students reveals that despite finding aspects of their programmes challenging, they also perceive them as valuable opportunities for personal growth and development (Nyarigoti, 2021 ; Sibomana, 2021 ). These challenges often serve as catalysts for growth and advancement. Successful doctoral students attribute their achievements to their confidence in tackling difficult tasks with determination. However, female doctoral students express encountering obstacles related to gender biases in both social and professional domains, hindering the fulfilment of their PhD aspirations. Additionally, African students relocating to other African countries for their PhDs report a unique experience of feeling like outsiders despite being in an African country (Herman & Meki Kombe, 2019 ). There is a need to understand more about the challenges faced by PhD and doctoral candidates in the African context. It is important to determine whether improvements have been made to further inform the research capacity and training of PhD candidates in Africa. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to map out the available literature on the challenges faced by PhD candidates in Africa to identify gaps and inform future research, policy, and practice.

A scoping review was undertaken to map out the current available literature on the experiences of PhD candidates in Africa. A scoping review protocol that guided the process is available as an open-access publication (Omoya et al., 2023 ). The proposed scoping review was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s ( 2005 ) six-step framework in conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020 ). The six-step framework includes the following steps: (1) developing the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting the study; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising, and reporting results; and (6) consultations (not required in this review). The JBI approach to conducting and reporting scoping reviews and the meta-analyses extension checklist (Fig. S1 ) for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) are attached for consistency in reporting (Tricco et al., 2018 ).

Research question

The scoping review question was developed using the JBI population, concept, and context (PCC) mnemonic as well as the Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) framework for identifying a research question. The research question was developed from the need to produce knowledge that informs the challenges facing doctoral training in African Universities. From this research question, the title of the review was structured to reflect the PCC mnemonics. For example, in the PCC mnemonic, P stands for the population, and in this review, these are the “PhD candidates”. C is a concept, that is the “challenges facing doctoral training”, and the C-context is “Africa”. The scoping review question was titled “Exploring perspectives: A scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa . ”.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In the second step, the identification of the relevant studies was assessed against the eligibility criteria as well as the objectives and aims of the scoping review detailed in the previously published protocol (Omoya et al., 2023 ). The inclusion criteria were research studies examining participants who had undertaken their PhD in Africa, studies that focused on the barriers and facilitators that have impacted doctoral training in Africa, and research studies written in English Language with a 20-year limit range. Studies that focused on the experiences of PhD candidates and supervisors were included, and studies that compared the experiences of people who undertook their PhD in Africa and outside of Africa were included if they contained information relating to the experiences of doing a PhD in Africa. Studies were excluded if they were based on the perspectives of postgraduate students who were not doing a PhD, if they focused only on PhD candidates outside of Africa, if they were research studies not written in the English Language, or if they were reviews or expert reports. Studies that focused on the evaluation of training programmes provided to PhD candidates during their candidature were excluded.

Search strategy

Within the second step of the framework, an in-depth process of the search process was performed, and the search terms were identified. The first search was initiated on August 08, 2023, across multiple databases: EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. These databases were selected for a comprehensive overview across various disciplines. The initial search of the literature was performed with no inclusion or exclusion criteria applied.

Search terms

The search methods used the following keywords and phrases in combination: (“Experiences of doing a PhD”, OR “Attitudes”, OR “Lived Experience” OR “Perception”) AND (“PhD Candidate in West Africa” OR “Doctoral Candidate in Africa” OR “PhD Students in Sahara” OR “Doctoral Students in Nigeria”) AND (“West Africa” OR “South Africa” OR “Sahara” OR “Dark Continent” OR “East Africa” OR “North Africa”). As recommended by the JBI review methods, a three-step search strategy was employed. The first step utilised the use of EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. From this search, a list of keywords and phrases was generated by analysing the title and abstract of the identified studies. The second step of the database search was undertaken using the newly generated keywords across all the databases. Truncations were used in the second search to capture variations in terminologies and plural wordings in articles from different settings. Finally, a manual search of the reference lists and bibliographies of the articles was performed to identify other relevant studies. The full search strategy for one database, MEDLINE (OVID), is attached (Fig. 1 ).

Data base search. Data base search diagram showing the full search strategy of one database: MEDLINE (OVID)

Article selection

In accordance with the third step of the framework, relevant articles were selected and imported into Covidence. Duplicates were removed, and an initial title screen was performed (OO 1 ). The results obtained were then screened by examining their titles and abstracts (OO 1 , USJ, OO 3 ). The full texts of the studies were retrieved and further reviewed against the inclusion criteria (OO 1 , OO 2 , USJ). At this stage, three members of the research team (OO 1 , OO 2 , USJ) independently screened the articles, and any disagreements were resolved by unanimous decision (OO 1 , USJ, OO 2 ) and independently by another member of the research team (OO 3 ). The quality of the review was ensured by using Covidence to search for and remove duplicate articles. Evaluation of each article was based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted all the data (OO 1 ). A flowchart of the review using PRISMA showed the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction (Fig. 2 ).

PRISMA flowchart. The PRISMA flow chart is the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that shows the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction

Data extraction

An adapted quality assessment tool by Hawker et al. ( 2002 ) was used to screen the 12 included studies (Table I ). All the included articles were rated as high-quality ranging between a score of 33–36. The data were extracted (OO 1 ) and reviewed by the research team (USJ, OO 2 , OO 3 ) for consistency and to ensure that the extracted data matched the aim of the scoping review. The data were incorporated into a template data extraction instrument using the JBI methodology guidance for scoping reviews (Tables 1 and 2 ). The draft data extracted in the scoping protocol were used, and no modifications were made throughout the process (Omoya et al., 2023 ) Footnote 1 . The descriptions of the data extracted into Table I included the author, date and location, title of the article, aims/purpose, sample size and setting, journal type, methodology, and key findings. This step allowed for a visual representation of the major findings of each article and how they address the aims of the scoping review.

A total of 51 articles were retrieved and imported into Covidence. After duplicates were removed and a brief tile screen was performed, 20 studies were subjected to the title and abstract screening stage. A total of 16 studies underwent full-text review, and 12 studies were included, as shown in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 2 ). Of the 12 studies included 33% ( N = 4) used mixed methods, 58% ( N = 7) were qualitative studies, and 8% ( N = 1) were descriptive quantitative studies. The studies were from different parts of Africa. There were two studies with participants from various African countries; others were evenly distributed, with two studies each from Ethiopia, Uganda, and South Africa. One study each was from Kenya and Nigeria. Two other studies, one from Ethiopia and one from Tanzania, collaborated with authors from South Africa. More articles were published in journals that focus on higher education, such as Higher Education Policy , Higher Education Research & Development , and the Journal of Education and Practice , Transformation in Higher Education , Higher Education , Innovations in Education and Teaching International . All the authors in the study worked in academia and higher education.

Sociodemographic profile of PhD candidates

Of the included articles, 75% ( N = 9) focused on the impact of gender and age on the experiences of PhD candidates. The number of male candidates was significantly greater in most of the studies than was the number of female candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ); however, studies that focused on women indicated that the challenges faced by doctoral students vary according to gender (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Most of the candidates were within the age bracket of 30–45 years (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Most of the participants were identified as African but from different ethnic groups within the same African country. This was prominent in studies from South Africa that included participants who identified as Afrikaans, Coloured, or White (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). One of the studies reported the marital status of the candidates in their study, and most of the candidates identified themselves as married with children (Bireda, 2015 ). According to a study of African and European candidates, African candidates were more likely to be married with children than their European counterparts (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ).

Many of the articles reported on funding and financial challenges experienced by PhD candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Bireda, 2015 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The availability of scholarships for African doctoral students studying in Africa was commonly reported to be low. The lack of funding was a barrier to the depth, scope, and quality of the research produced (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Four studies reported on initiatives such as fee waivers, partial funding, travel, and thesis (proof reading, printing, and editing) grants that were more available but insufficient to reduce financial pressure and the need to work full-time while studying (Bireda, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The need for training on how to access funding opportunities and grant writing was reported in three studies (Bireda, 2015 ;Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Three studies (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b : Mkhize, 2023 ) reported the emotional, psychological, and social factors that stemmed from financial uncertainties for women due to the unique set of challenges involved in balancing personal and professional roles.

Resources and training

Similar to insufficient funding, 67% ( N = 8) of the included studies described how the unavailability of institutional resources impacted the experiences of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). The most reported resources that were lacking included information and communication technology services, library and electronic search resources, lack of provision for learners with disabilities, unequipped laboratory and clinical facilities, lack of personal and study workspaces, noise pollution, insufficient physical library space, and other general services (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ) . However, a university based in South Africa reported that their institution had good support and resources (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ), for example, access to internet services, library resources, and office spaces. Additionally, workshop training was available on key topics, such as methodologies, literature reviews, and proposal writing, and was found to be beneficial. Five articles reported on the specific resources and training needs of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). In the study by Muriisa ( 2015 ) and Tamrat and Fetene ( 2022 ), participants reported specific training needs on the literature review process and writing, proposal writing, in-depth information on methodologies, software used for data analysis, the publication process, and securing dissertation grants. However, resources to facilitate these requests were unavailable, and when additional training was provided, it was often unplanned, rarely organised, and not institutionally initiated. In the study by (Muriisa 2015 ), participants requested training on how to access funds and write grants. One of the studies (Bireda, 2015 ) examined the experiences of PhD candidates enrolled in distance learning; candidates in their study requested access to resources and training on academic and writing skills, digital literacy, and research software because they were not readily available. Two studies reported on the pre-training and unpreparedness of PhD candidates who enrolled in PhD programmes and struggled to meet the demands of writing a thesis (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

Supervision experiences

Supervision experiences during the PhD programme were identified in 75% ( N = 9) of the studies (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Craig et al., 2023 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). These studies provided various descriptors to characterise the experiences of participants. Two studies from Kenya and Ethiopia reported on supervisors’ lack of expertise and experience in the areas they were allocated to provide supervision (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Two other studies from Uganda and Ethiopia reported that the qualifications required to be able to undertake supervision were not met at some universities (Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Supervisors also had excessive workloads, teaching, and administrative responsibilities with significant time constraints, which were reported as reasons for supervisory challenges in three studies (Craig et al., 2023 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ).

One study compared African and European candidates’ supervisory experiences and reported that African respondents rated their supervisors highly more than European students did even though supervisory meetings were less frequent (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). In another study from Uganda, although most participants seemed satisfied with their supervision experiences, they still raised issues such as those of other studies including lack of communication and disengagement from student research (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ), low levels of support, delays in providing feedback, unhelpful feedback, inappropriate guidance (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ), and difficulty finding a suitable supervisor (Craig et al., 2023 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Four articles reported more specifically on the common style of supervision experienced in the African context (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Two studies (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ) described the context and setting of the research environment as unconducive due to power imbalances between supervisors and students. Two studies from South Africa (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) provided a different view of supervision. The supervisory relationship was based on effective communication, trust, and mutual respect, which contributed to successful completion. Eight of those studies (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) explored the causes of delays and completion times. A supportive relationship was reported as a major precursor for timely completion (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Other common causes of delays were related to students juggling work with family commitments (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). However, the supervisory challenges and factors impacting the completion times experienced by female doctoral candidates were distinct (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). In South Africa, female doctoral candidates’ experiences were more challenging due to reports of racism, classism, xenophobia, and patriarchy (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ).

Five studies explored the role of supervisors (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) and the role of PhD candidates (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ). These roles were described from the perspective of the supervisors and PhD candidates. PhD candidates expected supportive supervisors who provided encouragement in tough times (Bireda, 2015 ; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ) and supervisors who shared beneficial information, e.g., access to funding, professional development, and conference attendance (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Supervisors expect PhD students to be accountable, take initiative (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ), have good writing skills (Mbogo et al., 2020 ), and be able to work independently (Mbogo et al., 2020 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

Coping mechanism

Four studies have reported on various strategies used by PhD candidates to address challenges concerning funding, resources, training, and supervisor support (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). In the study by Fetene and Tamrat ( 2021 ), students who had had similar experiences with these challenges in the past were supportive of how to access funding; they also gave tips on supervisor rapport building and shared library resources. In the study by Tsephe and Potgieter ( 2022 ), which examined contributors to African women’s doctoral graduate success, factors including family/spousal support and a belief in God were important for coping when they encountered difficulties. As a coping mechanism, self-efficacy and education resilience are personal attributes that candidates believe are important for survival and contribute to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Even though research productivity was low, research self-efficacy scores were high (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ). Most respondents believe that they have the individual capacity and resilience to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. Two studies examined mental and emotional health (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Emotional difficulties were present at times, but participants rarely felt depressed . One study by Fetene and Tamrat ( 2021 ) discussed the coping strategies used by doctoral candidates in more detail, for instance, students adopted various coping mechanisms, such as diligently fostering positive relationships with their supervisors. Additionally, some resorted to utilising libraries beyond their institution, particularly those with dependable internet access, to obtain articles and research materials. Some also reached out to colleagues abroad, requesting assistance in downloading articles relevant to their field of study (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ). Other strategies include the use of YouTube videos to self-teach and gain knowledge in certain areas of research (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ). Some students stay with their families in the same household rather than paying rent in different locations or saving enough capital before commencing their programmes (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ).

The impact of sociodemographic factors: age

In this review, sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, and ethnic group were commonly reported. However, in some articles (Bireda, 2015 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ), the challenges faced by doctoral students varied according to these demographic factors. African students were often reported to be within the higher age bracket due to personal life challenges and barriers that prevented enrolment in a PhD at an earlier age (Fetene & Yeshak, 2022 ;Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a , 2022b ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). This review revealed that doctoral students from Africa were studying later in life and reported a longer time between qualifications. Access to training and the ability to receive funding are also impacted by age, and funders have restrictions on the age limit for which students are eligible (Balogun et al., 2021 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ).

Most African candidates are mature-age students, with an average age of 45 years reported (Scherer & Sooryamoorthy, 2022 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). Most PhD students, at the time of enrolment, will have the responsibilities of family and work, which can impact their ability to devote the time needed for their PhD studies (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Furthermore, most candidates are left with no choice due to the economic climate but to seek additional work to supplement their income and support their family (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). However, in South Africa, the percentage of graduates under the age of 30 was greater for white graduates than for their black counterparts (ASSF, 2010 ; Cloete et al., 2016 ). There is an inherent need for resources and interventions for PhD candidates in Africa with the knowledge that a high percentage of candidates are within the higher age brackets and need to juggle family and work commitments. Although the impacts of age on the experiences of African PhD candidates have been adequately reported, further research should focus on exploring the specific reasons why African candidates are studying at a later age so that interventions can be tailored to meet the needs of potential candidates.

The impact of sociodemographic factors: gender

Current evidence has shown that women may face a unique set of challenges during their PhD (Bireda, 2015 ; Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although the number of women enrolling is increasing in some African Universities, many others still report low enrolments. Moreover, African candidates were more likely to be married and have had children (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). The traditional role of caretaking combined with the role of a PhD candidate tends to increase stress and cause delays in study (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although progress has been made in strengthening research capacity, as evidenced by The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA), that focused on addressing the practical needs of African women by providing support for gender roles that can inhibit their participation in training (Khisa et al., 2019 ). However, there is a greater need for support that is gender-responsive. According to a report by the British Council and DAAD ( 2018 ) examining several selected African countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa), the number of females enrolling in PhD training is increasing, but the attrition rate is still significantly high (Ayee, 2022 ; Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a , 2022b ). The reasons for this difference were attributed to the cultural responsibilities and expectations that women give priority to family rather than professional accomplishments (El Allame et al., 2022 ).

Similarly, in an Ethiopian study, the underrepresentation of female doctoral students was found to be significant at all postgraduate levels, including doctoral studies (Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ). In other countries, such as Mozambique, Ghana, and Uganda, female students enrolled in a doctoral study was still lower than that of men (Ayee, 2022 ; Etomaru et al., 2023 ; Mariano et al., 2022 ). The disproportionate representation of women in PhD training in Africa signifies the need for additional investigations to address the inadequate participation of women in research and innovation. Balancing personal and professional roles is challenging, and support that meets African women’s needs during their PhD candidature is warranted. Moreover, in countries where apartheid and colonisation policies still permeate into present times, the experiences of women during their PhD were challenging, and women candidates rarely completed on time (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). Black women felt that they were looked down on, undermined, and underestimated in a structural system that worked to exclude them (Mkhize, 2022a , 2022b ; Mkhize, 2023 ). Beyond the need to further understand the expectations placed on women academics, an opportunity exists to explore the environmental and cultural barriers that are oppressive to the needs of women during their PhD journeys.

The role of supervisors

The significant impact that supervisors have on the successful completion of a PhD has been reported in several studies. With respect to the supervisory experiences of students, studies have shown an increased chance of completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ); longer duration (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ); or an increase in attrition rate (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ) based on the supervisor–student relationship. For PhD candidates, having a relationship with their supervisor based on mutual respect was one of the highest reported accounts of successful completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Although, evidence has shown that some African Universities have increased the amount of PhD enrolment and the availability of potential supervisors, but completion rate has remained low (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Jowi, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ). This difference was attributed to the style of supervision used in most African institutions, which is often characterised by power imbalances between the supervisor and the supervisee (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Mkhize, 2023 ; Muriisa, 2015 ).

In addition to the supervisor–student relationship, expectations are placed on each other’s roles. Like PhD candidates, supervisors also had expectations of their students. Nonetheless, when expectations are clearly communicated immediately from the onset, successful completion, and a smooth relationship are achieved (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Muriisa, 2015 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Furthermore, supervisors’ expectations are based on the approach that a PhD is an independent study and largely driven by the student; students should be accountable, motivated, and take initiative (Muriisa, 2015 ). Based on these insights into supervisory experiences, the importance of defined expectations and joint understanding of roles is a facilitator in the completion of doctoral studies. In a report exploring the research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa that surveyed alumni to determine their satisfaction with their PhD programmes, the top aspects that indicated how satisfied they were with their training were based on competence, capacity, and quality of supervision, as well as the professional relationships they had with their supervisors (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ). Overall, the high workload of supervisors also impacts the quality of supervision (Dime, 2018 ; Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ).

Therefore, reforms and policies to enhance the quality of supervision are warranted. Recommendations have been made for establishing ethical guidelines for supervisors to alleviate issues around hierarchical organisational culture and poor supervisory practices (Barasa & Omulando, 2018 ; British Council & DAAD, 2018 ). Additionally, potential PhD candidates need to be aware of expectations regarding workload, research capacity, and the knowledge of the research itself. To boost research capacity, the professional development of supervisors by providing training and courses has been reported in some South African Universities (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ). Even though there is recognition of the need for training potential supervisors, the impacts of the training that has been provided in some contexts have not often been reported (Lindtjørn et al., 2019 ; Maluwa et al., 2019 ). More research exploring the evaluation and benefits of these professional trainings are needed. A recent study by Alio et al. ( 2021 ) investigated the enhancement of research capabilities for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. The report highlighted certain African nations including Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya, Angola, and Ethiopia have addressed their limited research capacity by investing in training initiatives to enhance research skills. These efforts aim to improve the standard of research activities and productivity. Training such as this is crucial because it is important that both supervisors and students have the resources needed to support them in order to fulfil their roles.

The relationship between coping strategies and research productivity

In this review, various survival strategies that are used as coping mechanisms are commonly linked to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Generally, PhD productivity and success tend to be linked to institutional and governmental practices, whereas most African institutions have inefficient systemic practices and relatively low government budgetary allocations to facilitate completion and productivity (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018 ; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016 ). Therefore, to enhance research productivity, African candidates must develop their own coping mechanisms and strategies outside of institutions. In one study, one of the coping mechanisms that accounted for success for African women who completed their PhD was their belief in God (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The women in the study stated that their belief in God played a significant role in their success and completion. As a coping mechanism, the women believed that God had orchestrated their undertaking of a PhD and that God would see them through, and even when they encountered any difficulties, their belief in God was a source of strength not to give up but rather to keep going (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). Despite the strong association between the belief in God and the completion of a PhD, the available literature in this area is scarce. A qualitative exploration of this phenomenon will inform supervisors, stake holders, international collaborators, and government bodies of some specific aspects that contribute to success for African PhD candidates.

In two other studies, a strong sense of self-efficacy was used as a coping strategy that contributed to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ). The PhD candidates’ self-efficacy was demonstrated through their belief and confidence in their own abilities. Candidates who rated their research self-efficacy believed they could conceptualise research that was feasible, collect data, analyse data, and disseminate findings, with the individual capacity to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. However, most of the issues surrounding research productivity were external factors and were out of their own control, for example, issues such as publications, grants, and funding for projects were not always supported by their home institution. Despite these issues, resilience has been demonstrated, and other ways to achieve success have been sought by individual candidates (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022 ), for example, other coping mechanisms and survival strategies candidates used involved seeking international collaborations and networks that provide access to funding and resources (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ). Some African Universities have partnered with international collaborators to develop PhD programmes and research profiles (Jowi, 2021 ). Collaborations with international agencies and institutions can support partial or fully funded scholarships, access to equipment, subject expertise, and training to enhance the quality of PhD programmes (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018 ; British Council & DAAD, 2018 ; Dimé, 2018 ). Currently, there is a lack of evidence on the coping mechanisms and strategies of African PhD candidates. Further research examining the capabilities that enable research productivity may assist in informing the development of specific interventions for PhD candidates in Africa. A qualitative approach to exploring the coping strategies of African PhD candidates may inform the practice of higher institutions and supervisors of the support needed to ensure success.

Limitations

A limitation of the review lies in the overrepresentation of research articles from some African countries as opposed to others. The second limitation is the exclusion of articles that were not in English since the reviewers cannot use resources to interpret articles published in languages other than English. The review was limited to peer-reviewed literature, and gray literature was not included. The review acknowledges that Africa is vast in numerous sociocultural values and norms that impact people’s experiences, and this review does not attempt to minimise these experiences. Thus, this review should be interpreted in light of the fact that some of these distinctive values and norms from various African settings might not have been captured here.

The literature examining the experiences of pursuing a PhD in Africa reflects a combination of challenges and achievements that significantly influence the journey toward completion and the attainment of a doctoral degree. These factors encompass the sociodemographic characteristics of PhD candidates, financial obstacles, insufficient resources and training, supervisory encounters, and the coping strategies employed by those undertaking PhD programmes. The distinct sociodemographic, cultural, and institutional contexts present opportunities for comprehending the specific issues within the African higher education landscape. Resources and interventions are essential for African PhD candidates, particularly as many are older and must balance family and work commitments, necessitating further research into the specific reasons behind their delayed study to tailor interventions accordingly. While there has been notable progress in the number of women obtaining PhDs, environmental and cultural barriers that hinder women’s academics during their PhD journeys still exist. Systematic and institutional barriers need to be acknowledged and addressed to foster women’s contribution to knowledge-based economic growth. For supervisors and student relations, training with the necessary resources for fulfilling their roles is crucial. Subsequent research should delve into understanding some of the specific environmental and cultural barriers impacting potential candidates from diverse backgrounds, genders, and ethnicities. Addressing the identified needs of doctoral students, such as inadequate investment in research funding, substandard infrastructures, and systemic challenges, requires collaborative initiatives involving academic institutions, government bodies, and international partners to enhance the quality of PhD training in Africa. By doing so, a supportive system can be fostered that effectively caters to the diverse needs of doctoral students.

Authors with same initials and superscript numbering for differentiation:

OO 1 Oluwatomilayo Omoya

OO 2 Olumide Odeyemi

OO 3 Omowale Odeyemi

Academy of Science of South Africa. (2010). The PhD study: An evidence-based study on how to meet the demands for high-level skills in an emerging economy. Pretoria ASSAF. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://research.assaf.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11911/34/2010_assaf_phd_study.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Adedokun, B., Nyasulu, P., Maseko, F., Adedini, S., Akinyemi, J., Afolabi, S., et al. (2014). Sharing perspectives and experiences of doctoral fellows in the first cohort of consortium for advanced research training in Africa: 2011–2014. Global Health Action, 7 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.25127

Article Google Scholar

Adekunle, A. P., & Madukoma, E. (2022). Research self-efficacy and research productivity of doctoral students in universities in Ogun State. Library Philosophy and Practice , 1–23.

Akudolu, L. R., & Adeyemo, K. S. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www2.daad.de/medien/der-daad/analysen-studien/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_nigeria_report.pdf

Alabi, G., & Mohammed, I. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_ghana_report.pdf

Alio, D., Agea, J. G., Egeru, A., Okwakol, M. J. N., & Adipala, E. (2021). Strengthening research capacity for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. The Seventh Africa Higher Education Week and Ruforum Triennial Conference 6-10 December, 19 (1), 1070-1080.

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

Asongu, S. A., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2018). PhD by publication as an argument for innovation and technology transfer: With emphasis on Africa. Higher Education Quarterly, 72 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12141

Ayee, J. R. (2022). Doctoral education in Ghana: Retrospect and prospects. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 137–158). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-8

Chapter Google Scholar

Balogun, F. M., Malele-Kolisa, Y., Nieuwoudt, S. J., Jepngetich, H., Kiplagat, J., Morakinyo, O. M., et al. (2021). Experiences of doctoral students enrolled in a research fellowship program to support doctoral training in Africa (2014 to 2018): The consortium for advanced research training in Africa odyssey. PLoS One, 16 (6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252863

Barasa, P. L., & Omulando, C. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from http://41.89.205.12/bitstream/handle/123456789/399/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_kenya_report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Bates, I., Boyd, A., Smith, H., & Cole, D. C. (2014). A practical and systematic approach to organisational capacity strengthening for research in the health sector in Africa. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-11

Bireda, A. D. (2015). Challenges to the doctoral journey: A case of female doctoral students from Ethiopia. Open Praxis, 7 (4), 287–297.

Bitzer, E., & Matimbo, F. (2017). Cultivating African academic capital–Intersectional narratives of an African graduate and his PhD study supervisor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (6), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.243

British Council & DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst german academic exchange service) (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/h233_07_synthesis_report_final_web.pdf

Christoplos, I., Zwi, A., & Lindegaard, L. S. (2015). Evaluation of the Consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA). Sida Decentralised Evaluation . Retrieved May 10, 2024, from https://www.sida.se/publications

Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2016). Doctoral education in South Africa . African Minds.

Book Google Scholar

Craig, W., Khan, W., Rambharose, S., & Stassen, W. (2023). The views and experiences of candidates and graduates from a South African emergency medicine doctoral programme. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13 (2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2023.03.005

Dean, L., Njelesani, J., Smith, H., & Imelda, B. (2015). Promoting sustainable research partnerships: a mixed-method evaluation of a United Kingdom-Africa capacity strengthening award scheme. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0071-2

Dimé, M. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Senegal report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_senegal_report.pdf

El Allame, Y. E. K., Kassou, I., & Anas, H. (2022). Doctoral education in Morocco: Current status, challenges and future prospects. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 159–181). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-9

Etomaru, I., Bakkabulindi, K. F. E., & Balojja, T. D. (2023). Trajectory of doctoral education and training in Uganda. Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01006-y

Ezeh, A. C., Izugbara, C. O., Kabiru, C. W., Fonn, S., Kahn, K., Manderson, L., et al. (2010). Building capacity for public and population health research in Africa: The consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) model. Global Health Action, 3 (1), 5693. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v3i0.5693

Fetene, G. T., & Tamrat, W. (2021). The PhD journey at Addis Ababa University: Study delays, causes and coping mechanisms. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16 , 319–337. https://doi.org/10.28945/4744

Fetene, M., & Yeshak, M. Y. (2022). Doctoral education at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 81–104). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-5

Fonn, S., Egesah, O., Cole, D., Griffiths, F., Manderson, L., Kabiru, C., et al. (2016). Building the capacity to solve complex health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa: CARTA’s multidisciplinary PhD training. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 107 (4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.107.5511

Gurib-Fakim, A., & Signe, L. (2022). Investment in science and technology is key to an African economic boom. Africa in focus. Retrieved October 31,2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2022/01/26/investment-in-science-and-technology-is-key-to-an-african-economic-boom/#:~:text=The%20picture%20is%20particularly%20bleak,0.1%20percent%20of%20all%20patents

Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (9), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302238251

Health Research and Innovation Strategy for Africa. (2019): 2018-2030. Africa Union Development Agency-NEPAD. Retrieved November 11, 2023, from file:///C:/Users/ades0009/OneDrive%20-%20Flinders/Scoping%20review%20articles/English-%20HRISA_compressed.pdf

Herman, C., & Meki Kombe, C. L. (2019). The role of social networks in the transitional experiences of international African doctoral students at one university in South Africa. Higher Education Research & Development, 38 (3), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1556618

Herman, C., & Sehoole, C. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: South Africa report. International Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_south_africa_report_1_.pdf

Jowi, J. O. (2021). Doctoral training in African universities: Recent trends, developments and issues. Journal of the British Academy, 9 (1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/009s1.159

Khisa, A. M., Ngure, P., Gitau, E., Musasiah, J., Kilonzo, E., Otukpa, E., & …& Fonn, S. (2019). Gender responsive multidisciplinary doctoral training program: The consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) experience. Global Health Action, 12 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1670002

Lindtjørn, B., Tadesse, M., & Loha, E. (2019). Developing a sustainable PhD programme: Experiences from southern Ethiopia. In T. Halvorsen, K. S. Orgeret, & R. Krovel (Eds.), Sharing knowledge transforming societies: The Norhed programme 2013–2020 (1st ed., pp. 442–456). African Minds.

Google Scholar

Maluwa, A., Maimbolwa, M., Haruzivishe, C., Katowa-Mukwato, P., Odland, J. O., Pedersen, B. S., & Chirwa, E. (2019). Promoting professionalisation in nursing and midwifery. In T. Halvorsen, K. S. Orgeret, & R. Krovel (Eds.), Sharing knowledge transforming societies: The Norhed programme 2013–2020 (1st ed., pp. 214–230). African Minds.

Mariano, E., Manuel, C. J., Januário, F., Amâncio, H., & Capurchande, R. (2022). Challenges of doctoral programmes in Mozambique: Experiences from the case of Eduardo Mondlane University. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 61–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-4

Mbogo, R. W., Ndiao, E., Wambua, J. M., Ireri, N. W., & Ngala, F. W. (2020). Supervision challenges and delays in completion of PhD programmes in public and private universities: Experiences of supervisors and graduate students in selected universities in Nairobi, Kenya. European Journal of Education Studies, 6 (11), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3653866

Mkhize, N. (2022a). The state of doctoral training in South Africa: Current and emerging practices. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 36–60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-3

Mkhize, Z. (2022b). ‘They are just women, what do they know?’: The lived experiences of African women doctoral students in the mathematics discipline in South African universities. Transformation in Higher Education, 7 , 218–228. https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v7i0.218

Mkhize, Z. (2023). Is it transformation or reform? The lived experiences of African women doctoral students in STEM disciplines in South African universities. Higher Education, 86 (3), 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00918-5

Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2016). In pursuit of the African PhD: A critical survey of emergent policy issues in select sub-Saharan African nations, Ethiopia, Ghana and South Africa. Policy Futures in Education, 14 (6), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316641567

Mugabo, L., Rouleau, D., Odhiambo, J., Nisingizwe, M. P., Amoroso, C., Barebwanuwe, P., et al. (2015). Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0017-8

Muriisa, R. K. (2015). The state of doctoral education in social sciences in Uganda: Experiences and challenges of doctoral training at Mbarara university of science and technology 2003-2010. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (10), 204–213.

Nega, M., & Kassaye, M. (2018). Research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia report. International higher education. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/research_and_phd_capacities_in_sub-saharan_africa_-_ethiopia_report.pdf

Nyarigoti, N. (2021). Lived experiences of women with PhDs in Kenya. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12 (1), 36–53.

Nyemba, W. R., Mbohwa, C., & Carter, K. F. (2021). Bridging the academia industry divide: Innovation and industrialisation perspective using systems thinking research in sub-Saharan Africa . EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70493-3

Omoya, O., Jacob, U. S., Odeyemi, O. A., & Odeyemi, O. A. (2023). A scoping review protocol of the lived experiences of doing a PhD in Africa. PLoS One, 18 (9), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290701

Osiru, M., Nguku, E., Nyagah, B., Oremo, C., Tambo, E. G., Cheo, A. E., ... & Mainguy, G. (2022). PhD programs in Africa: The arrows, the targets and the archers. UNESCO world higher education conference (WHEC2022) https://repository.rsif-paset.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/268/PhD%20programs%20in%20Africa%20-%20the%20arrows,%20the%20targets%20and%20the%20archers.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 10 Mar 2022

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Scoping reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (2020 version) . JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

Scherer, C., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2022). Understanding higher education in Africa from distinct geographies: Reflections on the episteme of doctoral education. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 18–35). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-2

Shaffer, J. G., Mather, F. J., Wele, M., Li, J., Tangara, C. O., Kassogue, Y., et al. (2019). Expanding research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa through informatics, bioinformatics, and data science training programs in Mali. Frontiers in Genetics, 10 , 331.1-33113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00331

Sibomana, E. (2021). How to get through a PhD journey: A personal reflection and experience. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12 (1), 111–125.

Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022a). Moving forward: Revitalising doctoral training in Africa. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 184–198). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183952-10

Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022b). Doctoral training in Africa: Taking stock. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (1st ed., pp. 1–17). Routledge.

Stackhouse, J., & Harle, J. (2014). The experiences and needs of African doctoral students: Current conditions and future support. Higher Education Policy, 27 , 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2014.2

Tamrat, W., & Fetene, G. T. (2022). The achilles-heel of doctoral education in African higher education institutions: An Ethiopian university in perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 41 (4), 1294–1308. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901664

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (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

Tsephe, L., & Potgieter, C. (2022). African female doctoral graduates account for success in their doctoral journeys. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 78 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i1.7911

Whitworth, J. A., Kokwaro, G., Kinyanjui, S., Snewin, V. A., Tanner, M., Walport, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2008). Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. The Lancet, 372 (9649), 1590–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61660-8

World Health Organization. (2012). The WHO strategy on research for health. WHO library cataloguing-in-publication data. Retrieved November 11, 2023, from https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2020-11/WHO_Strategy_on_research_for_health.pdf . Accessed 10 Mar 2024

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their invaluable feedback and contributions that have strengthened the manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia

Oluwatomilayo Omoya

Department of Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Udeme Samuel Jacob

University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Olumide A. Odeyemi

Centre for Child & Adolescent Mental Health (CCAMH), University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Omowale A. Odeyemi

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the work; conceptualization: Oluwatomilayo Omoya and Olumide A. Odeyemi; literature search, data analysis, and interpretation of the data: Oluwatomilayo Omoya; Udeme Samuel Jacob, Olumide A. Odeyemi, and Omowale A. Odeyemi; writing—original draft preparation: Oluwatomilayo Omoya; writing—review and editing: Oluwatomilayo Omoya, Udeme Samuel Jacob, Olumide A. Odeyemi, and Omowale A. Odeyemi; writing—revision and editing: all authors; and supervision: Oluwatomilayo Omoya

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oluwatomilayo Omoya .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Consultations

No consultations were required for the scoping review, and this review did not contribute to a degree award.

Supplementary information

(DOCX 55 kb)

(DOCX 24.4 KB)

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

Omoya, O., Jacob, U.S., Odeyemi, O.A. et al. Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01264-4

Download citation

Accepted : 03 July 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01264-4

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

Higher education
PhD candidates
PhD supervisors
Lived experiences
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Literature review outline [Write a literature review with these
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
How to Write a PhD Literature Review
Write a PhD literature review in 9 steps
🎉 Literature review phd. Literature Review Tips: 5 Steps to an
FREE 12+ Sample Literature Review Templates in PDF, Word

VIDEO

PhD Literature Review
PhD synopsis Demo... for PhD interview guide... PhD
PhD Literature Review Tips
PhD student ChatGPT prompts for a more critical literature review #phdlife
Literature Review and Research gap for PhD/Research Paper using Sci Space-Copilot AI tool
Literature Review for Research Paper

COMMENTS

A Guide to Writing a PhD Literature Review
Learn how to conduct, structure and write a literature review for your PhD dissertation. Find out what a literature review is, how long it should be, how to plan and analyse it, and how to conclude it.
What Is a PhD Literature Review?
A literature review is a critical analysis of published academic literature on a specific topic for your PhD research. Learn the purpose, structure, length and tips for writing a literature review that demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies the gaps in knowledge.
Write a PhD literature review in 9 steps
Learn how to conduct a critical assessment of the literature in your field and relate it to your research topic. Follow the nine steps from picking a broad topic to writing up your review with examples and tips.
PDF Writing an Effective Literature Review
at each of these in turn.IntroductionThe first part of any literature review is a way of inviting your read. into the topic and orientating them. A good introduction tells the reader what the review is about - its s. pe—and what you are going to cover. It may also specifically tell you.
Writing a Literature Review
Writing a Literature Review. 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 ...
PDF LITERATURE REVIEWS
2. MOTIVATE YOUR RESEARCH in addition to providing useful information about your topic, your literature review must tell a story about how your project relates to existing literature. popular literature review narratives include: ¡ plugging a gap / filling a hole within an incomplete literature ¡ building a bridge between two "siloed" literatures, putting literatures "in conversation"
PDF Guide to Writing a Literature Review for Doctoral Students
ing your research. The pyramid: you might want to start with a broader overview of relevant literature, before narrowing towards discussing the texts or studies closest. to your own topic. Structure it around your main research questions and look at how others have addressed the. e (Thomson, 2016).Once you start writing, remember to try to ...
How to write a superb literature review
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 ...
How to 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.
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply: be thorough, use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and. look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis ...
The word "literature review" can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature - i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or ...
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Learn how to organise your literature review chapter for your dissertation or thesis with three options: chronological, thematic or hybrid. Find out the benefits and drawbacks of each approach and get a free template to help you structure your review.
How to write a good PhD literature review?
23. The purpose and expectations of a PhD literature review is likely to vary from field to field. My PhD was in Physics, but my views might be taken to apply generally. There is likely to be some repetition or paraphrasing between students in the same research group, when it comes to the literature review.
How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template)
Step 1: Find the relevant literature. Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that's relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal, you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.. Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature ...
How to write a PhD literature review: three tips to make life easier
Your PhD literature review is never going to be easy. From my own experience during my PhD, and through conversations with the hundreds of PhD students I've coached and worked with, the literature review chapter is, in many ways, the hardest chapter to write. A methods chapter or a results chapter has fairly clearly defined boundaries, making ...
PDF The Thesis Writing Process and Literature Review
Look at more recent work citing these works (e.g., Web of Science). In writing the review, chronology is often important. Capture the. essence of the works you draw on. See Turco's "Token Theory" section. Provide supporting quotes when necessary. Avoid citing aspects of the works that aren't central (common mistake!).
How to write a PhD literature review WITHOUT using AI (Part 2: Writing
PhD: An uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life By James Hayton (2015) PhD: an uncommon guide to research, writing & PhD life is your essential guide to the basic principles every PhD student needs to know. Applicable to virtually any field of study, it covers everything from finding a research topic, getting to grips with the literature, planning and executing research and coping with ...
Doing a literature review using digital tools (with Notion template)
Here are some resources on how to do a literature review that I've found useful during my PhD: The Literature Review: Step-by-Step Guide for Students; 3 Steps to Save You From Drowning in Your Literature Review; How to write a literature review; How to become a literature searching ninja; Mind the gap
How to be critical in a PhD literature review
To outline the methods used by others when discussing similar problems. It is the first and second purposes that require critical thinking skills, because you want to be evaluating each work you read and act as an investigator. A quick and easy way to do so is to ask five standard questions of each thing you read: 1.
LSBU Library: Literature Reviews: What is a Literature Review?
The research, the body of current literature, and the particular objectives should all influence the structure of a literature review. It is also critical to remember that creating a literature review is an ongoing process - as one reads and analyzes the literature, one's understanding may change, which could require rearranging the literature ...
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
What is the purpose of a PhD literature review?
The main purpose of a literature review is to situate your research in a broader context. No academic research exists in a vacuum. Most often, new academic research builds upon old academic research. By reviewing the state of the art, and what existing studies have found, you are able to better understand how your research can build upon it.
What is a Living Literature Review?
Good Questions Review by Paul Kellner: the relationship between academic research and policy impact; We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews. We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their ...
Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing
Design. A scoping review was undertaken to map out the current available literature on the experiences of PhD candidates in Africa. A scoping review protocol that guided the process is available as an open-access publication (Omoya et al., 2023).The proposed scoping review was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework in conjunction with the Joanna Briggs ...

On this page

Planning your PhD literature review

How long should a literature review be?

Structuring a PhD literature review

Writing up a PhD literature review

Finishing a PhD literature review

Literature reviews and PhD upgrade exams

Doing a PhD

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

Select your nearest city

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your account

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

When Should I Write My Literature Review?

How Long Should the Literature Review Be?

How Do I Write the Literature Review?

1. Evaluating and Selecting the Publications

2. Identifying Themes

Structuring and Writing Your Literature Review

Browse PhDs Now

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

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

How to write a superb literature review

Access options

Updates & Corrections

Related Articles

Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology

NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship

13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University

Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology

Quick links

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Acknowledgments

Funding Statement

Stack Exchange Network

How to write a good PhD literature review?

4 Answers 4

You must log in to answer this question.

Hot Network Questions

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

Overview: The Literature Review Process

But first, the “why”…

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

2.1 – Log the reference information

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue