Types of Literature Review, Explained: Which one do you need for your PhD?
Okay. So you've been told you need to write a literature review for your PhD.
Fair enough. You knew that was coming.
Then you start looking into HOW to write one, and all of these WORDS start emerging from the mist.
Thematic. Systematic. Scoping. Narrative. Critical. Conceptual.
WHAT?!
You thought there was just one type of literature review.
It’s like taking your grandma to Starbucks, and she just wants “a coffee” and you’re like, “Grandma…. No.” There’s not just one type of coffee in the same way there’s not just one type of literature review.
Whilst Grandma is deciding between a cortado and a flat white, you're now wondering whether you're supposed to be doing a systematic review, whether a thematic literature review is something completely different, and whether you need one of those PRISMA flowcharts everyone's talking about. PRISMA, like WTF?! It sounds like something you see at the science museum.
Well, let's sort this out.
This is the first blogpost in my series, Which Type of Literature Review is Right for My Research? (imaginative title, I know!). 😂
Across the series, we're untangling the different types of literature review to help you figure out which approach makes sense for YOUR research.
I want to start with something that causes an enormous amount of unnecessary confusion.
Not all these labels describe the same kind of thing. You know the flat white you get at your local café is a bit of a variation shall we say on the one you get at Starbucks? Yeah, it’s a bit like that.
Two different literature review decisions
When researchers talk about different literature reviews, they sometimes mix up TWO questions.
What kind of review am I conducting?
How am I going to organise and present what I've learned?
These decisions are connected, but they're not identical.
For example, imagine you're researching doctoral students' experiences of supervision.
You might write a conventional PhD literature review examining research on supervisory relationships, power, independence and feedback. You might organise that review THEMATICALLY.
Someone else might come along and conduct a systematic qualitative evidence review on doctoral students' experiences of supervision. Their synthesis might ALSO identify themes.
As such, both reviews might involve themes, but they aren't necessarily using the same review methodology.
Great. So helpful. Thanks, academia. 🙄
That's the distinction I want you to remember. It's a bit like choosing your coffee and then deciding how you want it made. Two decisions. Although, unlike your PhD literature review, nobody's going to ask you to defend your flat white in a viva. Hopefully.
Meet the main literature review contenders
Let's have a quick look at some of the main approaches.
Traditional or narrative literature review
The traditional or narrative literature review is familiar territory for many PhD researchers. You're looking at what other researchers have said about your topic and how their work helps explain why your own research matters.
The terms traditional and narrative aren't used identically everywhere, by the way. Academic terminology does like to keep us on our toes.
Systematic review
You're trying to answer a specific question by following a clear process for finding relevant research, deciding which studies to include, assessing them and bringing their findings together.
Clue’s in the name - systematic - there’s a system to go along with. Think of the barista who follows a precise process. You can't just chuck some instant coffee in a mug, give it a stir and announce you've made an espresso.
Scoping review
A scoping review helps you get a picture of what research is already out there on a particular topic.
What's been studied? How have researchers approached it? What have they focused on? And are there areas that haven't had much attention yet?
You’re kind of scanning the horizon here, dipping your toe in the water, having a first little wander around on the beach. Enough analogies? Good, let’s move on.
Critical, conceptual or theoretical reviews
Then we've got critical, conceptual and theoretical reviews. These are about taking a closer look at the ideas behind the research. You might question things other researchers have taken for granted, explore different ways of understanding something, or compare and contrast theories that try to explain what's going on.
Thematic literature reviews
Hang on, what about thematic?
Well, thematic means you're organising your literature review around the main ideas you've found across the research, rather than discussing one study after another.
But - it isn't automatically a separate review methodology competing with all the others.
I know. Academic terminology. What a delight.
Three questions to ask yourself before deciding what type of literature review you need
Okay then, now we’ve gone through the coffee menu, how do you work out what YOU need?
I'd start with three questions.
Number one: What is this review supposed to achieve?
Are you looking at what's already known about your topic to help explain where your own research fits in? A traditional or narrative literature review might be what you need.
Are you trying to answer a particular question by bringing together findings from existing studies? A systematic review might be the way to go.
Or are you trying to get a picture of what research has been done in an area that's still developing? A scoping review might be a good fit.
Start with the purpose.
Number two: What kind of process does that purpose require?
Do you need to follow a particular process for finding research and deciding which studies to include?
Are there specific rules or guidelines you need to follow?
Can you explain why you've included the research you have, without claiming you've covered everything if you haven't?
Remember, searching several databases doesn't automatically make something a systematic review. Sorry. 😉
Number three: What does your discipline expect?
What's expected in one subject might be quite different from another. A PhD researcher in health sciences, for example, might be expected to approach their literature review differently from someone in sociology or education.
Have a look at some good PhD theses in your field and talk to your supervisor about what your literature review actually needs to do.
The thing that might be giving you the biggest headache is that lots of people are talking about different types of literature review and nobody has actually explained what they mean by the label they're using. You’re just nodding along because you don’t want to ask the ‘stupid’ question. It’s like going, “Yeah, yeah, love a cortado”, whilst not having a bloody clue what one actually is - and then having to gulp it down even though you think it’s gross so you don’t look like a silly banana. So, ASK people what they mean, okay?
Remember these two decisions:
What kind of review are you conducting?
How are you going to organise and synthesise the literature?
Before you order the academic equivalent of a triple-shot, oat-milk, half-caf, extra-hot, upside-down caramel macchiato, make sure it's actually what you need.
Across this series, we're looking at the main approaches individually so you can understand what each involves.
If you're wondering whether a conventional narrative literature review is what your PhD needs, that’s the next blogpost in this series.
Right. I'll see you in the next one.
Until then…
📩 GET MY EMAILS
If you like how I explain stuff and enjoy (or don’t mind!) my sprinkles of weirdness, you’d be most welcome to join my free email community. I’ll send you one message a week that will help you think about a PhD problem in a new way and reassure you that you’re not going bonkerpants. Click to join the email community.
🏪 DEGREE DOCTOR SHOP
If you’re like, “I don’t have time for emails, I love your explanations, show me your wares and TAKE MY MONEY!”, then here’s my price list and shop. 😉