literature review in a research proposal

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Concept Mapping
• Writing a Proposal
• For Faculty

Need help? Ask a librarian

Tools for All Writers

• Reading, Writing, Speaking
• Citing Sources
• Library Searching

Templates for Proposal Writing

• Template 1 from Drew University
• Template 2 from Rutgers University (Saracevic)

Content of a proposal for a thesis or any research project

Full Pdf  from Rutgers University

• What do you call this investigation?
• What problem or area will you investigate in general?
• Why is this problem important to investigate?
• What was previously done in relation to this problem? What were some of the significant studies? (Literature review)
• What theory or model is going to guide your research?
• What will you specifically investigate or do in the framework of that problem? What are your specific research questions or hypotheses?
• How will each research question be addressed ? What methods will you use for each research question?
• How will the results be analyzed?
• What are the deliverables? What can or will be gained by investigation of this problem?

Avoid Patchwriting

• << Previous: Concept Mapping
• Next: For Faculty >>
• Last Updated: Apr 29, 2024 4:24 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.njit.edu/literaturereview

How to Prepare a Research Proposal and Literature Review

All HDR candidates are required to prepare a research proposal and literature review for their first Research Progress Review. If you are a PhD candidate, this will be your Confirmation Review. 

Your research proposal and literature review should be a comprehensive outline of your research topic and show how you will make an original contribution to knowledge in your field. Your Review panel will use your research proposal and literature review to assess the viability of your research project, and to provide you with valuable feedback on your topic, methodology, research design, timeline and milestones. 

UNSW Academic Skills provides a detailed description of how to develop and structure your research proposal. 

Your Faculty and/or School may have particular requirements, and you should contact your Postgraduate Coordinator or your supervisor if you’re unsure of what is required.  

Additional Resources

All disciplinary areas A guide for writing thesis proposals - UNSW Academic Skills Confirmation – not as big a deal as you think it is? - the Thesis Whisperer

Humanities and Social Sciences Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences – Raymond Talinbe Abdulai and Anthony Owusu-Ansah, SAGE Open, Jul-Sep 2014  Template for writing your PhD Confirmation document in Sociology and Anthropology - S A Hamed Hosseini

Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine How to prepare a research proposal – Asya Al-Riyami, Oman Medical Journal Writing a scientific research proposal – author unknown

• Find a degree
• Ask a Question
• Getting Started
• International
• Find a Researcher/Area
• Apply for a Higher Degree Research Program
•   UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia
•   Telephone +61 2 9385 5500
•   Maps

Graduate Research School, Level 2, Rupert Myers Building (South Wing), UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Telephone +61 2 93855500 Dean of Graduate Research, Professor Jonathan Morris. UNSW CRICOS   Provider Code:  00098G  TEQSA Provider ID : PRV12055  ABN:  57 195 873 179

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

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 research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

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 .

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. 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

15 Literature Review Examples

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

How To Write A Research Proposal

Link Copied

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Imagine this: you're sitting in your cluttered dorm room, surrounded by piles of books and stacks of notes. It's the middle of the night, and you're desperately trying to piece together your thoughts for that looming research proposal deadline. The pressure is on – you know this research proposal could be the ticket to kickstarting your academic career or securing that much-needed funding for your groundbreaking research idea. But how to write a research proposal? Don't worry, you're not alone. Making a research proposal can seem daunting, but fear not – with the right approach, it's entirely achievable. In this blog, we'll take you through each step of writing a research proposal, from understanding the basics to putting together a winning research proposal that grabs attention and gets results. 

What is a research proposal used for, and why is it important?

A research proposal is important because it helps determine if there is enough expertise to support your research area. It is a key part of evaluating your application, showing that your project is feasible and fits within the institution's strengths. However, the proposal is just the beginning. Your ideas will likely change as you delve deeper into your research, but it provides a clear starting point. This initial plan helps both you and the institution understand the potential direction and significance of your research, laying solid foundations for your future. 

What Things to keep in mind while writing a research proposal?

Academics often need to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might need to write one when applying to grad school or before starting your thesis or dissertation. A proposal helps you shape your research plans and shows why your project is valuable to funders, educational institutions, or supervisors.

• Relevance: Show your reader why your project is interesting, unique, and important.
• Context: Show that you are comfortable and knowledgeable in your field. Make it clear that you understand the current research on your topic.
• Approach: Explain why you chose your methodology. Show that you've thought carefully about the data, tools, and steps needed to do your research.
• Achievability: Make sure your project can be done within the time frame of your program or funding deadline.
• Tone: When you write research proposals or any academic work, keep it formal and objective. Remember, being clear and to the point is important. Keep your writing concise; being formal doesn't mean using fancy language.

How long should my research proposal be?

Usually, research proposals for bachelor’s and master’s theses are just a few pages. But for bigger projects like Ph.D. dissertations or asking for funding, they can be longer and more detailed. The main aim of a research proposal is to explain what your research will do clearly. So, while the length of the proposal matters less, what’s really important is that you cover all the necessary information in it.

Sections of a research proposal

Research proposals usually have a simple layout. To meet the goals we talked about earlier, here’s how to write a research proposal:

If your proposal is really long, you might want to add a summary and a list of what's inside to help your reader find their way around. Just like your dissertation or thesis, your proposal should have a title page with the following

• The title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your school and department

Introduction section of research proposal

The beginning of your proposal is like the first pitch for your project. Make it clear and brief, explaining what you want to do and why.

In your introduction:

• Introduce your topic
• Provide background and context
• Explain the problem you're addressing and your research questions

To help you with your introduction, include:

• Who might care about your topic (like scientists or policymakers)
• What's already known about it
• What's still unknown
• How your research will add new information
• Why do you think this research matters

Literature review

As you begin, it's important to show that you know about the key research on your topic. A good literature review tells your reader that your project is based on solid existing knowledge. It also shows that you're not just repeating what others have said but adding something new.

In this part, explain how your project fits into the ongoing discussion in the field by:

• Comparing different theories, methods, and debates
• Looking at the strengths and weaknesses of different ideas
• Saying how you'll use past research in your own work - whether you'll build on it, challenge it, or bring it together with new ideas

If you're not sure where to start, check out our guide on writing a literature review.

Background significance

Your background section sets the stage for your research. Here, you explain why your topic matters and what questions you're trying to answer. It's like showing the backstory of your project, giving readers a clear picture of why it's worth their attention. In your research proposal, it's crucial to cover:

• Background and why your research is important
• Your field of study
• A brief look at existing research
• The main arguments and changes happening in your area

Research design, methods, and schedule

After looking at existing research, it's time to talk about your plans in this methodology section of a research proposal. One key thing to remember when learning how to write a research proposal is to include details about your research methods, like how you'll collect data and analyse it. Here's what your materials and methods in research proposal should cover:

• What kind of research you'll be doing - qualitative or quantitative, and whether you're gathering new data or using existing data.
• Whether your research is experimental, looking at connections, or describing things.
• Details about your data - if you're in social sciences, who you're studying and how you'll pick them.
• The tools you'll use to gather data - like experiments, surveys, or observations, and why they're right for your research.

When figuring out how to write a research proposal, start by clearly stating your research question and explaining why it's important and don't forget to include:

• Your timeline for the research.
• How much money do you need?
• Any problems you might face and how you'll deal with them.

Suppositions and Implications

Even though you won't know your research results until you do the work, you should have a clear idea of how your project will help and contribute to your field. Knowing how to write a research proposal also involves explaining the potential impact of your study. This part of your research proposal is extremely crucial because it explains why your research is necessary.

In this section on how to write a research proposal, make sure you cover the following:

• How your work might challenge current ideas, theories and assumptions in your field.
• Why your research is a good starting point for future studies.
• How your findings could be useful for professionals, teachers, and other researchers.
• The problems your research could potentially help solve.
• Any rules or guidelines that could change because of what you find.
• How your research could be used in schools or other places, and how that'll make things better.

Basically, in this section of a research proposal, you're not saying exactly what you'll find. Instead, you're explaining why whatever you discover will be important.

When applying for research funding, it's likely you'll need to provide a thorough budget. This demonstrates your projected costs for different aspects of your project. Be sure to review the funding body's guidelines to see what expenses they're willing to fund. For each item in your budget, include:

• Cost : How much money do you need?
• Why : Why do you need this money for your research?
• Source : How did you figure out this amount?

When you're making your budget, think about:

• Travel : Do you need to go somewhere to get your data? How will you get there, and how long will it take? What will you do there?
• Materials : Do you need any special tools or tech?
• Help : Do you need to hire someone to help with your research? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

In this section of a research proposal, you tie everything together. Your conclusion section, much like the conclusion paragraph of an essay, gives a quick rundown of your research proposal and strengthens the purpose you've laid out. It reminds the reader of the main points and emphasises why your research matters. It's your final chance to leave a lasting impression and make a case for the importance of your work.

Bibliography

Writing a bibliography is essential alongside your literature review. In this part of your research proposal structure, unlike the review, where you explain why you chose your sources and sometimes even question them. The bibliography just lists your sources and who wrote them.

Citing depends on the style guide, like MLA , APA , or Chicago . Each has its own rules, even for unusual sources like websites or speeches. If you don't need a full bibliography, a references list with just the sources you cited is enough. If unsure, ask your supervisor.  Be sure to include:

• A list of references to important articles and texts you talked about in your research proposal.
• Choose sources that fit well with your proposed research.

Editing and proofreading a research proposal

When writing a research proposal, use the same six-step process you apply to all your writing tasks. Once you've drafted it, give it some time to cool off before proofreading. This helps you spot errors and gaps more effectively, ensuring a polished final version. Taking breaks between writing and revising enhances the quality of your work.

Common mistakes to avoid when writing a research proposal

When you’re writing a research proposal, avoid these common pitfalls: 

Being too wordy

Remember, being formal doesn't mean using fancy words. In fact, it's best to keep your writing short and direct. The clearer and more concise you are about your purpose and goals, the stronger your proposal will be.

Failing to cite relevant sources

When you do research, you contribute to what we already know about your topic. Your proposal should mention important past research in your field and explain how your work relates to it. This shows not just why your work matters but also that you know your stuff. Referencing landmark studies gives your proposal credibility and strengthens your argument.

Focusing too much on minor issues

Your research likely has many important reasons behind it, but you don't need to list them all in your proposal. Including too many details can distract from your main goal, making your proposal weaker. Focus on the big, key issues you'll address. Save the smaller details for your actual research paper. Keeping your proposal focused strengthens your argument and makes it more effective.

Failing to make a strong argument for your research

Overloading your proposal with too many minor issues can weaken it significantly, as this approach is more subjective than others. Essentially, a research proposal is a form of persuasive writing. While it's presented objectively, the aim is to convince the reader to support your work. This applies universally whether your audience is your supervisor, department head, admissions board, funding provider, or journal editor. Keeping your proposal focused enhances its persuasiveness.

Polish your writing into a stellar proposal

When you're seeking approval for research, especially when funding is involved, your proposal needs to be perfect. Spelling mistakes, grammar errors, or awkward wording can hurt your credibility. Even if you've edited carefully, it's essential to double-check. Your research deserves the strongest proposal possible to make the best impression and secure the support it needs.

If you're unsure how to write a research proposal, don't worry! There are plenty of resources and examples available to guide you through the process. We hope this blog helped you answer your question of “how to write a research proposal”. Practice is key when learning how to write a research proposal, so don't be afraid to ask for feedback and revise your proposal until it's clear and compelling.  

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write an abstract for a research proposal, what is the research proposal format , how to write a proposal for a research paper, how to write a dissertation proposal, how to write a phd proposal.

Your ideal student home & a flight ticket awaits

Follow us on :

Related Posts

20 Top Prettiest Colleges in the US!

Discover 10 Best Dental Schools in the US in 2024!

15 Highest Paying Jobs for English Majors in 2024!

Planning to Study Abroad ?

Your ideal student accommodation is a few steps away! Please fill in your details below so we can find you a new home!

We have got your response

amber © 2024. All rights reserved.

4.8/5 on Trustpilot

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by students

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by Students

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
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

A new intervention to prevent social isolation in people with complex communication needs

• João Canossa Dias 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Ana Mineiro 2 , 3   na1 &
• Saskia Damen 4   na1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  12742 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Health care
• Medical research

While implementing communication interventions, practitioners follow diverse theoretical models. Different conceptual orientations influence the way professionals embrace the subject of communication and its disorders. This research project explores the co-creation and validation of a new model and intervention program to analyze and improve communication between persons with Complex Communication Needs and their caregivers. The methodology incorporated a comprehensive narrative review, as foundation for the new model and intervention proposal. Succeeding this stage, the team implemented an online Delphi Panel to improve and validate these results, involving 17 international renowned experts. Following the Appropriateness Method, 25 indications were subject to scrutiny and rated as appropriate with minimal values of disagreement among the evaluators. Qualitative feedback was used to improve the research products. Quality assurance measures were taken to ensure quality and transparency of the results. A new conceptual framework of atypical interpersonal communication and intervention program result from the investigation. The new model is inspired by the Transactional model and principles of Dialogism. The intervention consists of consultations with caregivers, using video analysis and a dialogical methodology to enhance communication. The next research phase is to pilot-test the intervention program with clinicians supporting persons with disability at risk of social isolation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Preliminary psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the emotional outburst questionnaire

Who do we trust and how do we cope with COVID-19? A mixed-methods sequential exploratory approach to understanding supportive messages across 35 cultures

Italians locked down: people’s responses to early COVID-19 pandemic public health measures

Introduction.

To define communication clearly and completely seems to be impossible and, probably, a never-ending endeavor 1 . The existence of various conceptualizations should be recognized as inevitable and natural, though it should not be considered inconsequential. The adoption of distinctive points of view will guide clinicians towards different directions, emphasizing certain aspects of communication in detriment of others 2 . Whilst intervening in the field of communication, professionals may adopt one of the three main “theoretical categories” through which the process of human communication may be analyzed 3 :

Communication as a unidirectional process from sender to receiver;

Communication as a two-way process of meaning construction between communicators;

Communication as an omnidirectional and diachronic meaning negotiation between partners.

Following the first perspective is the Linear Model of communication, according to which the sender creates and encodes a message, sending it through a channel to a receiver. In order share the intended information, the sender uses a code shared with the receiver. This entity decodes the information, while dealing with distractions that disrupt transmission, in this model identified as noise 4 . Noise within the process interferes with the success of communication, impacting the way messages are sent and received, and potentially creating failure 5 . Below, in Fig.  1 , the Linear Model of Communication is graphically illustrated.

Original illustration of the Linear Model of Communication prepared by the authors, based in the literature review 4 , using the software Canva.

Though the Linear Model of communication may represent specific communicate contexts (e.g., mass communication), it is hardly representative of the dynamic and complex nature of interpersonal communication, calling for a supplementary theoretical approach to analyze this phenomenon. Theories understanding communication as a two-way process are framed within the Interactional Model of Communication, valuing how actors engage in conversations and converge while sharing information 3 . Here, communication is conceptualized as an ongoing flow in two directions—from sender to receiver and from receiver to sender—in opposition to how it was represented in the linear perspective. A communicator can perform the role of either sender or receiver in the interaction, but never simultaneously. Another element that is crucial to the interactional conceptualization is feedback, the response to a message, which takes place after the message is received. One additional feature of this model is that each actor in communication presents with an individual field of experience—i.e., the person’s culture, experiences, and heredity—that influences the ability to communicate with others. Noise is present in the interactional context and may inhibit the effectiveness of communication 5 . The presented illustration—Fig.  2 —represents the interactional understanding of the communicative exchange.

Original illustration of the Interactional Model of Communication prepared by the authors, based in the literature review 5 , using the software Canva.

An interactional understanding of the communicative process represents more closely how in-person communication between humans may function (e.g., in communicative exchanges mediated by technology), although it does not represent completely the synchronized process of two individuals interacting with each other, occupying simultaneously the roles of sender, receiver and interpreter. The Transactional Model assumes this perspective of communication as an omnidirectional and diachronic process of meaning negotiation. Interaction between partners plays a fundamental role in this multidirectional process of meaning co-creation 3 , implying that the communicators are focused on the ongoing interaction and meaning making over time, instead of concentrating on the transmission of individual messages between each other. According to this lens, participants send and receive messages and feedback simultaneously and not in a unidirectional or back-and-forth modality 4 . In cooperation, all participants are responsible for the effectiveness of the interaction and, not only do the communicators influence each other, it is assumed that messages are interdependent and sequential, with the influence of one message over the others 5 . As partners communicate, their separate fields of experience tend to merge, in an active effort for mutual understanding and co-construction of shared meaning 5 . A broad notion of noise embraces the existence of different types of distorting variables in the exchange 4 and misunderstandings are seen as more than the interference of noise in the chain of messages/feedback; individuals should incorporate where the other in the relationship is coming from, in order to build shared meaning, and misunderstandings often rise when the partners have difficulty in doing so 5 . One last feature of the transactional archetype should be highlighted: transactional communication is considered diachronic. Instead of focusing on the transmission of messages/feedback, in a linear or circular way, the transactional paradigm brings the attention to growing interaction between communicators, developing over time 3 . The relevance of time is anchored in Dance’s Helical Model of Communication 6 , which explains that communicators improve their messages/feedback with several trials; whenever one communicates, the subject expands his abilities and the circles of communication grow continuously, similarly to the geometry of a helix, with increasingly wider circles. A visual representation of the Transactional Model of communication is presented as Fig.  3 .

Original illustration of the Transactional Model of Communication prepared by the authors, based in the literature review 4 , 5 , using the software Canva.

The Transactional Model of Communication appears to be the conceptual framework that better systematizes the complexity of interpersonal communication. Aligned with this model, Karen Bunning’s defines communication as a process between two or more persons, who are “working together”, coordinating their actions and reactions in response to each other and to the context 7 . Interestingly, Pearson, Nelson, Titsworth and Hosek 8 embrace the idea of communication as a “project”, stating that “ communication is considered a process because it is an activity, an exchange or a set of behaviours—not an immutable product” (p.8–9). Embedded in the Dialogical philosophy, Linell 9 asserts that communication ought to be acknowledged in the form of communicative projects, described as “ other-oriented and jointly accomplished communicative actions, typically but not necessarily carried out in external interpersonal interaction ” (p. 178). The projects assume the form of two or more communicators interacting over sequences of acts, looking to establish a communicative fact that is mutually understood. These viewpoints emphasize the co-constructive nature of the communicative process (i.e., meaning-making and negotiation between communicators), and the first 7 argues that its success depends on both sides—the “speaker” and the “listener”—and highlights the importance of the context for communication to be effective; in fact, part of the meaning comes from the context where the interaction takes place.

Having defined communication, in the context of interpersonal exchanges, it matters to investigate the other dimension of this process: communication disorders or miscommunication. Communication disorders are broadly defined by the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) as impairments in “ the ability to receive, send, process, and comprehend concepts or verbal, nonverbal and graphic symbol systems ”, ranging in severity from mild to profound. A communication disorder may be developmental or acquired and may result in a primary disability or be secondary to other disabling condition 10 . From the point of view of Dialogism, difficulties in communication may be understood in a broader perspective, regarded as miscommunication. In this case, difficulties in communication are collectively and reciprocally generated, frequently because of misinterpretations of the partners’ intentions and related to different fields of experience 11 . Pondering the adoption of a transactional understanding of interpersonal communication, the expression Complex Communication Needs (CCN) may bring a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, meaning that some individuals may not demonstrate all the communication skills required to fulfill their needs in different contexts 12 . This may happen because they do not use speech to communicate functionally, as a result of some kind of disability, relying on alternative forms of communication, such as gestures or graphic symbols 13 . It may also be the case that some of these people may be unintelligible to unfamiliar partners and/or they may struggle understanding the way others communicate 12 .

Although CCN tend to be linked to an individuals’ developmental or acquired disability 12 , the skills, sensitivity, patience, and honesty of their partners may have an enormous impact in the success or failure of the communicative exchanges 14 . According to Iacono 15 (p.83), “ as the complexity of the disability increases, so does the complexity of communication needs and of finding an alternative system ” for the person to be an active participant in communication. The author goes further, explaining that “ people with disabilities must also rely on the skills of others to help them to be a part of a conversation ”, reinforcing the idea that communication is a two-way process, and, for the same reason, it should be seen as a two-way effort. As Dias 16 concludes from a Grounded Theory study with caregivers of persons with complex disability, CCN may be present, but communication may certainly be successful, rich and diverse, depending on how supportive the communication context will be. There are, however, descriptions from persons with disability explaining that frequently partners without disability tend to dominate communication exchanges and limit the participation of the partner with CCN, by asking too many questions, occupying the majority of the conversational turns, providing few opportunities for the use of alternative systems of communication, interrupting frequently, and not always confirming the content of shared messages 17 .

Considering how impactful a disability may be in the person’s communication profile, one should not be surprised that many persons with complex disabilities are at risk of being socially isolated. In 2008, Sheridan Forster 18 stated that the scarce research available on the topic indicated some of these people would only benefit from few minutes of social interaction daily, at the school or day service they would spend their time in. Recent investigation 19 reinforces this finding, reporting that adults with disability experience social isolation and loneliness at significantly higher rates than those without disability, with damaging impact to their well-being. Looking at the situation of children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD) in specific, it was found that loneliness was related to negative consequences in terms of mental health, behavior, and emotional development, with long-term effect into their adult life 20 . According to the same authors, the lack of research on the topic of loneliness and children with NDD reveals that this issue is not yet considered to be of significant matter. There is, nonetheless, research 21 reinforcing how critical it is to address the communication needs of persons with disabilities at an early age, considering the negative impact that may exist not only for their social participation, but also in terms of language, cognitive and literacy development, access to education, and, most of all, overall quality of life.

In a research project 22 aiming to make information available to support improvements in best practices in communication with people with the most complex needs, several approaches to improve communication exchanges were highlighted, namely:

Capturing and sharing fundamental information, using Communication Passports;

Implementing formal approaches such as Intensive Interaction, Music Therapy, use of symbols, narrative approaches …;

Implementing informal strategies; and

Staff training.

Bearing in mind the relevance of communication partners in the success (or failure) of communicative exchanges, it matters to explore training approaches that enhance the skills of caregivers as communication agents. In a study about partners of adults with profound disability, Hanley, Dalton, Martin and Lehane 23 concluded that the attitude, personal characteristics, familiarity with the other person and knowledge about alternative forms of communication were factors that could enhance or hinder communication exchanges. Their review provided important insights on the need to clarify the role and responsibilities of communication partners of persons with severe disability, reinforced the role of specialized professionals—i.e., Speech and Language Therapists (SLT’s)—and made evident the professionals’ need of additional training to better support the partners of communicators with the more complex needs. Bortoli and collaborators 24 explore the perception of SLT’s regarding the implementation of communication intervention with students with multiple and severe disability, receiving feedback from research participants about the high level of expertise required for this kind of work. The required level of skill appears to develop over time, with ongoing professional development and opportunities to access formal education to update skills and knowledge and ensure evidence-based practices.

Research 24 (p. 66) points in the direction of complexity when it comes to understanding communication processes and intervention with pupils with severe disability. According to the Complexity Theory, communication may be explained as “ a complex dynamic process that is embedded within not only individuals’ characteristics but also broader and equally complex contexts or systems such as institutions and cultures ”. Even though the research refers to other studies in the field of Speech and Language Therapy where the complexity paradigm was approached, to date it had not been applied to the understanding of communication intervention with students with multiple and severe disabilities. This finding is in line with Simmons and Watson’s work 25 , who have concluded that the dominant conceptual frameworks utilized to comprehend persons with the most complex disability are tendentially simplistic, reductive, and objectifying, overlooking how complex and dynamic the lifeworld of this population may be. On the other hand, embracing the complexity of communication with persons with the more complex disabilities, following theoretical views that flow in that direction, may have beneficial results in how clinicians perceive this phenomenon and positive impact on the intervention procedures. In her essay on the topic, Nafstad 26 concludes: “communication as viewed in terms of dialogical theory can help professional carers overcome the mainstream idea that it takes conventional linguistic skills to overcome the pain of the isolation”.

Reflecting upon the reviewed literature, and aligned with the authors’ professional experiences, the researchers identified the urge to develop a project to design an intervention approach to work with caregivers of persons with CCN, embracing how complex the process of interpersonal communication really is. For this reason, the conceptualization and implementation of such intervention should be grounded in a Transactional Model of communication and instilled by principles of Dialogism; such intervention was not found to exist to date. Bearing this in mind, the researchers considered that co-creating a new model and intervention program starting from the best evidence available from the literature, combined with contributions from highly specialized professionals, would correspond to the team’s research objectives. These are, as followed:

To co-create and validate a theoretical model to illustrate and explain the complex process of interpersonal communication with individuals with CCN, following the Transactional Model of communication and principles of Dialogism;

To co-create and validate an intervention program, informed by the newly established theoretical model, to support professionals in their work with communication partners of persons with complex communication needs.

By doing so, the expectation is to create resources to support communication specialists in their interventions and having a positive impact in the lives of persons with CCN.

The research methodology incorporated a two-stages process to co-create a new model and intervention program and to improve and validate these results, based on relevant literature and incorporating input from specialists in the field. The first step consisted of a thorough literature review on the topics of communication sciences and CCN. Succeeding this stage, the research team engaged in a panel with international experts to improve and validate the new model and intervention program.

Narrative literature review: development of the new model and intervention program

To achieve the goal of co-creating a novel model and intervention proposal, the researchers invested in an extensive literature review on the topic of communication sciences, focusing on interpersonal communication. In clinical research, reviews are useful when developing practice guidelines, summarizing relevant theoretical knowledge on the topic under study 27 . From the two main options, systematic or non-systematic revision 27 , the team opted for the second one. As the name indicates, non-systematic or narrative reviews do not follow a systematic procedure, weaving together important literature based on the exposure, expertise, and experience of the authors 28 . Restricting the focus on a well-defined subject and defining clear inclusion criteria for the literature search 27 were strategies utilized to ensure quality of the review work. Literature was selected during the third quarter of 2020, considering the criteria of being books or scientific papers published within the previous ten years (2010-2020). According to the authors’ judgement, publications representing meaningful perspectives published before 2010 were also considered, given its “historical” importance to understand communication theory and models.

In the co-creation of the theoretical model, the corpus of research suggested three main theoretical “inclinations” that would serve the purpose of explaining communication between caregivers and individuals with complex communication needs. The Transactional Model of Communication illustrates the multidirectional, diachronic, and continuous-in-time nature of interpersonal communication 3 . Dialogism, as a philosophical stance, argues that it is impossible to effectively understand communication, if communication acts are analyzed in isolation from its sequence and disconnected from the context; there is a contingent and co-creative feature in communication exchanges, justifying a dialogical conceptualization of interactions in the form of communicative projects 9 , 11 , 29 . Lastly, the complexity approach would enable the exploration of the multifaceted interactions between variables at different levels, and how these influence each other during communication processes with persons with severe disability 24 .

A grounded theory research 16 , previously developed by the first author, analyzed communication exchanges between persons with atypical communication profiles, due to a disability or NDD, and their caregivers. This research provided the nine fundamental categories of atypical interpersonal communication that served as basis for the first version of the new model: (i) sensory information, (ii) emotional coregulation, (iii) dyadic/triadic foci of attention, (iv) active participation in shared activities, (v) communicative initiations, (vi) balanced exchange of communicative turns, (vii) communicative intentionality, (viii) developmental proximity and support and (ix) meaning negotiation and co-creation. Following the three mentioned theoretical pillars of Transactionality, Dialogism and Complexity, the researchers reorganized these nine components into the Complex of Continuous Communication (CCC). As the CCC graphical representation was finalized and its narrative explanation written, this part of the research was submitted and accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the field of philosophical sciences 30 , reinforcing its adequateness as theoretical framework.

Inspired by the CCC model, the researchers started developing the intervention proposal to support communication specialists in their clinical intervention with caregivers of persons with CCN. Three existing and validated intervention programs were thoroughly explored and guided the creation of the new suggestion:

The Intensive Interaction approach 31 , 32 , considering its focus on improving the Fundamental Principles of Communication with persons with severe disability;

The HOP—Hanging Out Program 18 , and its Portuguese version ToP—Programa Tempo Partilhado 33 , which advocates for caregivers to intentionally and regularly spend time and fully dedicate their attention to the communicative exchange with their partners with disability;

The Video Interaction Guidance 34 , which focuses on video analysis to promote positive changes on the relationship between dyads, favoring communication and reinforcing the support provided to caregivers.

The mentioned intervention methods, along with others explored during the literature review, were important sources of information and inspiration. However, these approaches did not provide the professional with a specific theoretical model of atypical interpersonal communication based in the transactional and dialogical perspectives, such as the CCC model, or have the Interactional Model of communication theoretical foundation; for this reason, the development of a program based on the CCC model was seen as advantageous The intervention program was prepared, including a descriptive explanation of all the processes and procedures and a set of templates to serve as supporting documents for its implementation. Since the theoretical background was the CCC model, the intervention proposed was entitled Program 3 C .

Panel of experts: improvement and validation of the CCC model and of the program 3 C

Once the proposals for the theoretical model and intervention program were finalized, the researchers proceeded to its improvement and validation using a panel of experts (PE) methodology and following the Delphi Method (DM). This research design has gained popularity and acceptance within the scientific community, as a method to reach consensus in deciding on the appropriate lines of action, particularly in educational and health research 35 . It generally involves assembling groups of experts who reply to several rounds, responding to specific questions and aiming to reduce dispersion and reach consensus on best-practices 35 . Even though the approach does not allow for the generation of large-samples quantitative data, it delivers a scientific methodology suited to complex and multifaceted issues that benefit from subject matter experts’ insight 36 .

Being the authors’ intention to include international experts, a modified online version of the DM was considered as an adequate procedure. The work of Khodyakov and colleagues 37 validated this option, reiterating that the online DM may be used to involve stakeholders in different moments, allowing for greater scalability, reducing costs, and enhancing the participation of different specialists. The specific contours of the PE were defined according to the RAND/UCLA user’s manual 38 , the original guide to the Appropriateness Method that specifies every step of the process. The authors of this approach believe that combining the best available scientific evidence (through the presentation of results of a literature review) with the collective judgement of experts (via the discussion with a panel) would be effective in providing a statement regarding the appropriateness of performing specific procedures at the level of patient-specific needs 38 . Posterior work, within the clinical setting 39 , 40 , validated the use of RAND’s Appropriateness Method, for its successful application in consulting professionals to inform the development of professional guidance and achieving evidence-based recommendations. Following the method, two rounds were necessary to achieve consensus and rate the appropriateness of the CCC model and Program 3 C .

According to the Appropriateness Method, the number of panelists should be from seven to fifteen, with the “magical” number of nine being referred in the literature. Some variation around this size is acceptable, since it brings to the panel enough cognitive diversity, while being small enough to allow everyone to be involved in the discussions 38 . On the look for different perspectives, the research team invested in the dissemination of a Call for Experts using an Invitation Letter (IL) distributed mostly via e-mail, social networks and asking support to representative national (e.g., Portuguese Society of Speech and Language Therapy, Higher Educations Institutions in the field of Health Sciences) and international organizations (e.g., Communication Matters, International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication) in the field of CCN and communication intervention. Moreover, the main researcher took part in research events connected to the topic, fora where potential experts would be present. Criteria for including experts from the Academia was defined—(i) holding a PhD degree and (ii) being involved in research projects on the topic of CCN within the last five years. To include the perspective of those in the field, experts from the professional practice were also selected, following the specialist criteria from the Portuguese legislation 41 —(i) having ten or more years of field experience and (ii) holding a relevant Curriculum Vitae in the field of expertise. As spontaneous applications from experts were received, additional information about the panel process was sent to each candidate. In case of fulfillment of the inclusion criteria, the administrative requirements were the collection of socio-demographic information to characterize the group of participants and the signing of an Informed Consent Form and Non-Disclosure Agreement.

For the first round, a presentation of the CCC Model and of the Program 3 C were organized using Microsoft PowerPoint, and shared with the experts, as well as PDF files of the eight templates needed for the intervention. A Review Questionnaire (RQ) was used to support the analysis, composed of 25 questions, each referring to a concept/model, explanation, instruction, process, template, or organizational aspect of the program. Instructed by the Appropriateness Method 38 , a nine-points Likert scale—with one (Completely Inadequate) being the minimum level of adequacy, and nine (Completely Adequate) being the maximum—was used, along with blank boxes to collect the experts’ supplementary qualitative input. The reasonable period of four weeks was defined as deadline for the first analysis.

Prior to round number one, all the materials were subjected to a pilot-test 37 with four respondents that were excluded from the sample, from which several improvements were implemented. It should be noted that all documentation used and material for analysis was linguistically reviewed by a professional specialized in the working language (English) and a native speaker of the same language, to avoid interferences of any linguistic imprecision in the analysis. As the best-practices 37 , 38 recommended, different strategies were used to facilitate communication between researcher and experts, specifically: integration of explanatory videos within the materials prepared for analysis; follow-up e-mail after the delivery of the materials for analysis; regular reminders of the tasks and deadlines; telephone and e-mail communications for clarifications, between the main researcher and the panel; revision of the answers received; and e-mail messages to provide missing ratings.

A group of 17 experts actively participated in the first round; Appendix 1 presents a table with the demographic characterization of the recruited. Having received their answers, each item under analysis (hereafter designated as indication) was evaluated as “Appropriate” (A), “Uncertain” (U) or “Inappropriate” (I), following the RAND/UCLA manual’s definitions 38 . An indication should be rated as A whenever the median of the panel’s responses is of 7–9, without disagreement between the experts. To judge the level of agreement between experts, the measure of dispersion utilized was the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS), considering that it is applicable to any panel size and with good evaluations in terms of sensitivity and specificity. To calculate the IPRAS, the used formula was:

\({\text{IPRAS }} = {\text{ IPRr }} + \, \left( {{\text{AI }}*{\text{ CFA}}} \right),\) where,

IPRr is the Interpercentile Range required for disagreement when perfect symmetry exists, with a value of 2,35;

AI is the Asymmetry Index; and

CFA is the Correction Factor for Asymmetry, with a value of 1,5.

The software Microsoft Excel was used to calculate the necessary measures and all the calculations followed the RAND/UCLA’s guidelines 38 . In summary, when the IPRAS of a particular indication is smaller than the IPR of that same indication, such indication is rated with disagreement.

To follow the Appropriateness Method, the second round of the panel was held synchronously, so that the experts would have opportunity to interact, exchange ideas and adjust their rating. Prior to the second round, each participant received an Individual Rating Sheet (IRS) with own ratings and the possibility to compare those with the average, median, mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD) and frequencies of answers for each value in the rating scale. The rating in terms of appropriateness and disagreement were also presented; a sample of an IRS is presented below (Fig. 4 ). Even though it is not considered part of the method, a synthesis of the main findings from the experts’ qualitative feedback was shared in the IRS. This content was prepared using thematic analysis 42 , with the goal of enriching the guided discussion to be held during round number two; a sample of the qualitative feedback is presented in Fig. 4 .

Samples of feedback for the experts after round 1—quantitative data (left) and qualitative data (right)—using the software Microsoft Excel (left) and the software Canva (right).

The second round of the panel was held synchronously with 13 participants, in December 2022, with the definition of two different dates and schedules using the online Doodle tool. Considering the participation of experts from different countries and time zones, the panel members were involved in two different online sessions using the software Zoom. The main researcher led the discussion session, using a dynamic Microsoft PowerPoint presentation and the sum of all the IRS. All indications were rated a second time, by the experts, with more detailed discussions around items with lower median value or higher MAD value. The expert’s rating was collected using the RQ, this time in an online version using Google Forms. The session as recorded and, to facilitate note taking and time management, an assistant researcher was supporting the main researcher. Finalized the second round, each indication was once again evaluated according to its Appropriateness level and Agreement between experts, using the IPRAS.

A Post-Panel Questionnaire, prepared according to the Appropriate Method manual, was sent to gather input about the experts’ experience in the panel, concerning: the review of material about the Program 3 C ; the first-round rating process; the online focus group meeting; and the overall impression of the experience. The experts’ answer was based on a five-points Likert scale, “1” being the lowest valuation and “5” being the highest. A total of nine participants responded to the post-panel enquiry, sharing high levels of satisfaction in relation to their participation in the process (average answer of 4, 56) and indicating that their participation had mostly met their expectations (average answer of 4). When asked about the role of the moderator in facilitating the live discussions, the assessment was equally positive (average answer of 4, 89), as well as in relation to how informative was the focus groups (average answer of 4, 67) and how argumentative these sessions were (average answer of 4). It became apparent throughout the process, and it was confirmed by the survey, that the review phase was not considered to be easy (average rating of 3) and was seen as an onerous task (average answer of 3, 11). Even so, additional input from the respondents enlightened that the process was taken positively by most of the participants:

I think the process has been really worthwhile. Through the process I have gained a greater understanding of the intended audience of the program. (…) The thing that I have valued most has been the opportunity to talk with other people about their perceptions, at times having my questions validated by others, but also demonstrating a breadth of views.

I think and believe that panels and discussion are very productive, after and before filling the different tasks.

Beforehand of any initiative by the researchers, the research project was submitted for scrutiny and validation by the Ethics Committee on Health (ECH) of the Institute of Health Sciences of the Portuguese Catholic University. Validation was granted after clarifications provided by the first author, ensuring that any experimental protocols were approved by the ECH and all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Two main products resulted from the research process: (i) the Complex of Continuous Communication Model and (ii) the intervention Program 3 c . Both are comprehensively presented over the next section.

The complex of continuous communication model

As a theoretical model to illustrate how interpersonal communication emerges and evolves between people with and without CCN, the CCC rescues the omnidirectionality notion from the Transactional Model of Communication 4 , 5 , representing communication as a “multiple-way avenue” and presuming that the relationship between communicators is characterized by mutual influences in a process of co-creation of shared meaning. The model also incorporates the diachronic concept from the same paradigm 3 , meaning that communication is unrepeatable and may continuously “grow” in time, with the added experience from the partners; a helical shape is used in the graphical representation of the model, to display this idea. The CCC model focuses on the representation of communication complexity developing over time, representing the growing degrees of coordination between partners, and between the dyad and the context (i.e., persons, objects, or activities). It also depicts the use and understanding of increasingly sophisticated forms of communication, starting from the (undesirable) absence of initiatives/responses from the partners in isolation, to mild changes in their behaviors while in interaction with each other, triadic interactions involving elements from the context, and exchange of potentially communicative behaviors or even gestures and words 43 . The CCC model is depicted in the following image (Fig.  5 ).

Original illustration of the Complex of Continuous Communication Model prepared by the authors using the software Canva.

The four levels of complexity—Sharing, Interacting, Communicating and Languaging —indicate different types of exchanges that may be co-created between the communication partners. As indicated by the arrows on the right, the partners may “navigate” amidst these four stages, depending on the skills, preferences and needs of the dyad; there is no demand or “pressure” to communicate at a “higher” level, if there is quality in the exchange and gratification from all parties. The three words on the left—People, Places and Project—represent the variables in the context that contribute to the meaning that is being negotiated. Across the four levels representative of interaction and communication, nine variables – Sensations, Emotions, Attention, Active Participation, Spontaneity, Balance, Coherence, Proximity and Narratives – are the fundamental components that make up the communicate exchanges co-created by the communicators, building on findings from previous research 16 .

The analysis by the experts after the second round granted validation to both indications – the model itself and its narrative explanation – as the rating by the respondents corresponded to higher values – median of eight – and there was no significant dispersion amongst the answers. The concept and explanation of Atypical Communication Profile, present in the first version of the model, were considered appropriate in the overall quantitative evaluation. Even so, the higher dispersion, the lower value of median (seven) and, most of all, the feedback from the discussion during the live round with experts supported the decision of removing these items. The main reasons for this exclusion were the attempt to reduce the use of jargon and the fact that the concept did not add much to the program’s theoretical knowledge and could be read as judgmental of the value of different communication profiles. Table 1 presents the results after the second round, with the answers from the 13 experts (E), the median values and the final rating in terms of Appropriateness and Agreement.

Some positive remarks from experts about the CCC model underscore its:

Coherence – as mentioned by one of the experts, “ the concepts described are fully framed in the model, revealing coherence ”.

Clarity – one expert expressed that “ if the purpose is to explain the levels, I think it does this quite well ”;

Readability – “ the reading of the whole theoretical basis proved to be very fluid ”, in one of the experts’ opinion;

Dynamism – statements like “ the model is simplified and described in dynamic terms as co-creative relationships growing gradually in complexity and diversity ”, reinforce this characteristic.

Particular improvements were made to the model, according to the discussion held during the synchronous group sessions, specifically:

The elimination of the concept of Atypical Communication Profile, as it was considered potentially judgmental and not of added value;

The reconfiguration of the elliptical shape horizontally, not to use a vertical perspective which could lead to the belief that higher levels were necessarily better and needed for communication to be enriching and satisfactory for the involved;

The representation of two partners, instead of only one, in the stage of isolation, reinforcing the difference between being alone and being isolated from communication;

The use of numbers to identify each different level, to facilitate reading and interpreting the model.

Some other suggestions emanated from the analysis, such as the use of videos or case descriptions to illustrate the different levels of engagement, the importance of clarifying that there is no “right” or “wrong” level to communicate and that progression across levels will not be linear or predictable, and the interest in further exploring some concepts and nuances in the used terminology (e.g., “ refer in more detail to what is meant by joint attention ?”).

The Program 3 C

Regarding its structure, the finalized version of the Program 3 C – after the literature review and two rounds of experts – consists of an intervention with a minimum length of five moments of consultations between the professional and the caregiver(s) of the person with CCN. The minimal length of the program was defined considering the need for the participants to experience the different processes of the program: (i) First Contact Interview, (ii) introduction to the of 3 C interactions, (iii) implementation of the 3 C Guided Reflection, (iv) Video Analysis and (v) Final Contact. According to the experts’ input, the program’s implementation would come to an end as a joint decision between the professional and the caregiver(s), depending on how the intervention was meeting the needs and expectations of the last; for this reason, the maximum number of sessions was determined to be flexible. The program’s sessions are intended to be implemented on a weekly basis.

The initial session of the Program 3 C is devoted to use the First Contact Interview template to promote an important moment to gather in-depth information about the profile, expectations and needs of the caregiver(s) and person with CCN. This first exchange is also dedicated to the presentation of the program and introduction of its theoretical foundations (i.e., the CCC model). A major component of the program – the 3 C interactions – is explored in the introductory session, with the caregiver(s) receiving guidelines to implement regular moments of 1:1 interaction with the person with CCN being cared for.

In the first consultation (#1), the practice of the 3 C interactions is further explored, with the introduction of the 3 C “journaling” process and the presentation of the template designed for this purpose (the 3 C Interaction Journal ). The caregivers are instructed to keep notes on the regular moments of 3 C interactions previously introduced and the professional takes the opportunity to present two important concepts of the intervention: (i) the three different possible interaction scenarios and how to interpret them; and (ii) ideas on how to initiate and how to respond during the 3 C interactions. These are merely theoretical frameworks to assist decision-making and reflection by the caregivers, about communication exchanges with the person with CCN.

With the succeeding session—Consultation #2—the goal is to elevate the reflection about the 3 C interactions, using the 3 C Interaction Map for Guided Reflection template, to support the caregiver(s) in understanding what is positive and what needs to be improved in the interaction with the person with CCN, having the different levels of complexity and the nine components of the CCC model as conceptual background. In this same session, the professional provides guidance to caregivers on how to prepare videos for the video analysis process ahead.

The following meetings constitute the core of the Program 3 C . In each of them the specific categories and levels of engagement of the CCC model are explored, within a dialogue with the caregivers and having video analysis of high-quality communicative exchanges as "landscape" for the conversations. Distinct templates may be used to support the video analysis, and the goal definition process is introduced and practiced, using the 3 C Interaction Goal Definition template, to level up the quality and diversity of 3 C interactions. The dialogical inclination of the program inspires the co-creation of new ways of sharing, interacting, communicating and “languaging” between the caregiver(s) and the person with CCN, with the professional being expected to describe what is observed in the video footage, appraise the best communication moments, probe to support reflection by the caregiver(s) and challenge in findings new ways to diversity and enrich communication exchanges. Within this dialogue, the caregivers are expected to recognize and acknowledge strengths and points for improvement and gain new insights and ideas to explore new possibilities of communication.

The last session is devoted to reviewing the program and finalizing the intervention, with a shared decision of ending the program’s implementation, continuing with it, or moving on to alternative or supplementary approaches; for this end, the Final Contact template was prepared. Depending on specific needs, there is the possibility of extending the number of sessions to further address levels of involvement or components of the CCC model and/or to involve other experts to address specific topics (e.g., involving a sensory integration specialist). A graphical representation of the different phases of the program is presented below (Fig.  6 ).

Original illustration of the Structure of the Program 3 C prepared by the authors using the software Microsoft Powerpoint.

Past the second round with the experts, all the 21 indications under analysis were rated as Appropriate, most of them with a median rating of eight. Indications referred to specific aspects of the Program 3 C : procedures and working instructions; the concepts underlying the program; the templates being used; the profile of the practitioner; and organizational aspects around the Program 3 C . Below, Table 2 presents the results of the quantitative evaluation after the first and second rounds with the experts, designating each indication undergoing evaluation.

Several improvements were made succeeding the input from the two rounds with the experts. The main amendments made to the Program 3 C were:

The definition of five as the minimal number of sessions for the program to be implemented, so that the professional and caregivers would have the opportunity to experience the different processes inherent to the intervention;

The designation of a flexible length of the program, without a fixed maximum number of sessions (in the proposal, a fixed number of 11 sessions was determined), being the continuation or termination of the intervention jointly defined depending on the needs and expectations of the participants;

The reduction of templates used while working with caregivers, with the elimination of the 3 C Interaction Individual Reflection template, thus reducing the administrative demand to be requested, since the opinion of the panel yielded that the number of notes and reflections from the first version of Program 3 C could be seen as a burden;

The simplification of the 3 C Interaction Journal template, making it more “user friendly” and less relatable to a demanding or “academic” task;

The creation of a supporting template for the professional to analyze and improve collaboration with caregivers, considering ethical concerns brought in the experts’ discussion about how to deal with situations in which there would not be a productive collaboration process;

The redesigning of some visual supports presented to the caregivers, to better depict the transactional and dialogical nature of the intervention and enhance the relevance of trying to incorporate input from the person with CCN in the dialogues to enrich communication exchanges.

Although opportunities for improvements were evident, the program benefited from overall acceptance from the panel, with positive remarks emanating from the thematic analysis. By way of illustration, the feedback from three experts is transcribed:

“The program you offer is significant and relevant to many people with communication difficulties. One can see how much thought has been invested in building the program and how much it rests on theoretical foundations. The idea of supporting caregivers over time while they experience interaction events with atypical communicators is excellent.”; “I think the strengths of this program relies in the fact that it is continuous (not just one or two training sessions) and requires caregivers to be active learners. It is good practice to base it on theory – I would anticipate that discussions would cover a wider scope in practice.”; “Very interesting to use dialogue as a strategy for training sessions”.

Additional deliberations were made and are left as input to be considered during the first pilot study using the program, for instance: the value of implementing the programs with groups of caregivers, to promote peer-support and reduce the pressure of a 1:1 intervention; the need to ensure professionals have enough background knowledge on the topic of CCN; and the concern that the individual implementation of the proposed intervention may be considered expensive by the service provider.

The goal of this investigation was to co-create a conceptual model to explain and improve interpersonal communication between caregivers and their partners with CCN. The CCC, as a conceptual model to analyze atypical communication, represents different levels of complexity in interaction/communication, with a simple terminology based on caregivers’ vocabulary and illustrated by a clear graphical representation. A second objective was to propose a dynamic and responsive intervention program, based on the new model, to support communication interventionists, namely SLT, in their work supporting caregivers. Through the validation of the suggested model and program with an experts’ panel, the team considers both research goals to have been achieved.

According to recent research 44 , there is a paucity of methods to conduct a detailed analysis of communication behaviors of individuals with CCN. This gap challenges researchers and clinicians to develop novel models and approaches, reinforcing the added value of the present project. As expressed by the experts, the model shows strengths in terms of being a dynamic, clear and coherent explanation of different levels of interaction and communication, passible to be used with caregivers of persons with CCN. Nevertheless, the enquiry with the experts emphasized opportunities for improving the model:

One panelist mentioned that “ in a communication process in which one partner has a disability, both partners become communicatively disabled .” It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that it matters to reinforce this notion of shared responsibility, when it comes to effective communication, as it was theoretically acknowledged previously in this text 14 , 16 , 23 and aligned with the biopsychosocial conceptualization of disability 45 .

The CCC model anchors part of the analysis in the concept of communicative intentionality and this was pointed out as an aspect worthy of reflection. The input from one respondent emphasized that “ historically (…) we've been too eager to say it – a communicative behavior – is not partner directed, partly because it fails to meet particular behavioral requirements ”. Referring to Carter and Iacono’s work 46 , there is meaningful inconsistency in how professionals and researchers judge the intentionality of communicative attempts of “early communicators”, making it fundamental for this judgement to be based on strong theoretical archetypes and unbiassed and published clinical criteria.

Related to the previous point and following the dialogical orientation of the model, one expert suggested to “ reserve judgement of the intention of the communicator but accept the pragmatic function possibilities/interpretations/negotiations ”. This is the perspective to consider when adopting the CCC model, which might not be entirely clear in the proposal.

Lastly, it is accepted that the model shows the fragility of not representing in detail the context in which communication takes place, as stated by one panel participant. While the importance of taking an ecological and activity-based approach in the intervention with persons with severe disability is widely known and recognized 47 , this model “only” refers to the persons, places, and projects (i.e., actions, activities) in the context. It does not, however, entail comprehensive features of the setting, as other contemporary models do 44 . It was the option of the authors to focus the analysis on the growing communicative relationship between partners, with no intent of lessening the importance of other foci and without disregarding the use of other models and approaches to include different dimensions in the analysis.

As for the Program 3 C , it was found that it follows a structure comparable to other validated intervention proposals 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 in terms of the type of participants, number and scheduling of the sessions, integration of theoretical component parallel to a practical implementation of strategies, and use of video analysis as a working process. To work with caregivers with such approach appears to be a promising practice, as expressed by one of the participants in the panel: “ the focus on empowering the role of parents/caretakers as communication partners is really needed and highly appropriate (…) it is important they have options in time to be really engaged and understand the model (…) in my experience, understanding the conceptual structure in an intervention model can really help them interact/communicate with their child ”. In order to work in the area of communication with relatives of children with multiple disabilities, Flink, Johnels, Broberg and Thunberg 52 created a training program consisting of eight sessions, incorporating a balanced theoretical and practical component to explore topics such as communication, characteristics of good communication partners, introduction to augmentative communication, among others. This intervention, tested with several families, was positively evaluated, not only for the learning achieved, but also for the peer support within the group, echoing some of the positive aspects of Program 3 C . Even though the appropriateness and agreement score were very positive, specific improvements were made to the Program 3 C , as explored in a previous section of the paper.

Lastly, it matters to focus an important concern raised by one of the experts: “ What is the role of your focused person – i.e., the person with CCN – in this co-creative process? (…) Do they get a role? Do they get an input? Should they feature here ?”. To “give voice” to the person with CCN during the intervention should be a major concern in a program like the Program 3 C . Some suggestions surfaced from the group dialogue:

Whenever possible, to directly ask the person with CCN about the preferred moments of communication and engagement;

To use storytelling to share about the communication experiences under analysis;

To consider that the video footage under analysis, where the person with CCN is featured, is a way to bring his contribution into the dialogue.

Having in mind that the target population are persons with complex disability (e.g., severe autism, profound intellectual and multiple disability, congenital deafblindness), the group concluded that additional measures would be challenging in many of the cases. Voiced by one of the experts: “ it’s good in principle to make a space for that individual to have some input if that’s possible ”. Having this in mind, the visual representation of the dialogical process of video analysis was reviewed to ensure the person with CCN is represented and as a reminder of bring his contribution into the dialogue whenever and however that is possible.

It matters to acknowledge the crucial role of the caregivers and how the positive outcome of the intervention depends on them. This was valued during the experts’ discussions—“ The idea of supporting caregivers over time while they experience interaction events with atypical communicators is excellent ”. It does ask from the professionals to presume competence and give significance to the input of caregivers while analyzing communication exchanges and making decisions on how to enhance them. Though at times the information given by caregivers may seem like intuitive or from a “sixth sense”, research has shown that the parents’ knowledge may be crucial in the understanding improving care for people with multiple disability 53 . The argument of “presuming competence” has for long been object of reflection by professionals, when it comes to acknowledge the perspective of persons with a disability 54 and to adopt inclusive approaches in the field of communication 55 . Let the Program 3 C , anchored in a transactional understanding of communication and inspired by the dialogical philosophy, be a resource center to work with caregivers, presuming they may be(come) the most competent of communication partners for whom look after. When questioned about the importance of a genuine cooperation with professionals, parents identified seven elements for the ideal partnership, including the professional’s preparation to work with persons with disability and their expertise on the topic being covered 56 . With its clear structure and flexible features, it is plausible to assume that the Program 3 C may support communication specialists building their capacity to work with caregivers and contributing to their expertise in the field of communication processes and intrinsic complications and barriers.

Lastly, the option for using the DM to develop an expert-based judgment is based on positive results from previous research, and based on the assumption that the multitude of perspectives within a group of experts will produce valid results, especially when the subject under study involves subjective expertise and has a complex and multidisciplinary nature 35 , 57 . The use of modified and online Delphi Panels offers a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional in-person modality. Even though it has been widely used in Health research, its diversified utilization calls for caution and requires the application of high-quality assurance criteria to guarantee reliable findings 40 . Aware of this limitation, specific recommendations from the literature 38 , 40 have been followed, explicitly: using validated reporting templates from the RAND/UCLA manual; establishing measures of process quality, through a quality evaluation questionnaire for the experts; and utilizing an online platform that would allow the engagement, interaction and sharing among the panelists. Additional precautions were taken with the recruitment of experts to ensure cognitive diversity, by involving participants with diverse backgrounds and from different countries, as well as with the option for a clear definition and quantitative measure to outline consensus, for the sake of the transparency of the results 57 .

Data availability

The data generated and analyzed during this study is included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Additional raw datasets analyzed during the current study may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A. & Oetzel, J. G. Foundations of communication theory. In Theories of Human Communication (eds Littlejohn, S. W. et al. ) 3–18 (Waveland Press, 2021).

Google Scholar  

Andersen, P. A. When one cannot not communicate: A challenge to motley’s traditional communication postulates. Commun. Stud. 42 , 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368346 (2009).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ruler, B. V. Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 12 , 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452240 (2018).

Adler, R. B. & Proctor, R. F. II. A first look at interpersonal communication. In Looking Out Looking in (eds Adler, R. B. & Proctor, R. F., II.) 2–37 (Wadsworth, 2011).

West, R. & Turner, L. H. Thinking about communication: definitions, models, and ethics. In Introducing Communication Theory. Analysis and Application (eds West, R. & Turner, L. H.) 3–25 (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010).

Dance, F. E. X. Toward a theory of human communication. In Human Communication Theory: Original Essays (ed. Dance, F. E. X.) 288–309 (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).

Bunning, K. Making sense of communication. In Profound Intellectual Multiple Disabilities: Nursing Complex Needs (eds Palwyn, J. & Carnaby, S.) 46–61 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

Pearson, J. C., Nelson, P. E., Titsworth, S. & Hosek, A. M. Introduction to human communication. In Human Communication (eds Pearson, J. C. et al. ) 2–25 (McGraw-Hill Education, 2017).

Linell, P. Social interaction and power. In Rethinking language, Mind and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making (ed. Linell, P.) 177–219 (Information Age Publishing, 2009).

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Definitions of communication disorders and variations. Relevant paper. Preprint at https://www.asha.org/policy/rp1993-00208/ (1993).

Linell, P. Meanings and understandings. In Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making (ed. Linell, P.) 221–236 (Information Age Publishing, 2009).

The State of Queensland. Complex communication needs. Preprint at https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/58540/complex-communication-needs.pdf (2018).

Beukelman, D. R. & Light, J. C. Augmentative alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. In Augmentative Alternative Communication (eds Beukelman, D. R. & Light, J. C.) (Brookes Publishing, 2020).

Blackstone, S. W. & Berg, M. H. Concepts in social networks. In A Communication Inventory for Individuals with Complex Communication Needs and Their Communication Partners (eds Blackstone, S. W. & Berg, M. H.) (Attainment Company, 2012).

Iacono, T. What it means to have complex communication needs. Res. Pract. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2014.908814 (2014).

Dias, J. Compromising with Communication—The Map of a Journey: The Journey of Parents and Professionals on the Way of Improving Communication with Children with Complex Communication Profiles (University of Groningen, 2015).

Muller, E. & Soto, G. Conversation patterns of three adults using aided speech: Variations across partners. Augment. Altern. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281181 (2002).

Forster, S. Hanging out program. Interaction for people at risk of isolation. Preprint at https://sheridanforster.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/hop-a5.pdf (2008).

Emerson, E., Fortune, N., Llewellyn, G. & Stancliffe, R. Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study. Disabil. Health J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100965 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kwan, C., Gitimoghaddam, M. & Collet, J. Effects of social isolation and loneliness in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities: A scoping review. Brain Sci. 10 , 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10110786 (2020).

Drager, K., Light, J. & McNaughton, D. Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. J. Pediatric Rehabilit. Med. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM20100141 (2010).

Goldbart, J. & Caton, S. Communication and people with the most complex needs: What works and why this is essential. Preprint at https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/198309/1/Mencap%20Comms_guide_dec_10.pdf (2010).

Hanley, E., Martin, A., Dalton, C. & Lehane, E. Communication partners experiences of communicating with adults with severe/profound intellectual disability through augmentative and alternative communication: A mixed methods systematic review. J. Intellect. Disabil. 27 , 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295221115914 (2022).

Bortoli, T., Arthur-Kelly, M., Mathisien, B. & Balandin, S. Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of implementing communication intervention with students with multiple and severe Disabilities. Augment. Altern. Commun. 30 , 55–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.881916 (2014).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Simmons, B. & Watson, D. Preface. In The Pmld Ambiguity Articulating The Life-Worlds of Children With Profound And Multiple Learning Disabilities (eds Simmons, B. & Watson, D.) (Karnac Books, 2014).

Nafstad, A. Communication as cure. Communicative agency in persons with congenital deafblindness. J. Deafblind Stud. Commun. 1 , 1 (2015).

Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med. Writ. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329 (2015).

Kraus, S. et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 16 , 2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8 (2022).

Linell, P. A dialogical notebook: Afterthoughts after rethinking. Preprint at http://ipkl.gu.se/digitalAssets/1475/1475848_163-adialogical-notebook.pdf (2014).

Dias, J. C. & Mineiro, A. & Damen, S, Atypical interpersonal communication: looking for and through a different lens. Philosophy Study 10 , 12. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2020.12.003 (2020).

Firth, G. Intensive interaction: A research review. Mental Health Learn. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.5920/mhldrp.2006.3153 (2006).

Berridge, S. & Hutchinson, N. Staff experience of the implementation of intensive interaction within their places of work with people with learning disabilities and/or autism. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12783 (2021).

Dias, J. C., Monteiro, I., Soares, S. & Mineiro, A. ToP: tempo partilhado . Interação social para pessoal em risco de isolamento. Preprint at https://fcse.lisboa.ucp.pt/pt-pt/asset/6316/file (2021).

Kennedy, H. What is video interaction guidance (VIG). In Video Interaction Guidance: A Relationship-Based Intervention to Promote Attunement, Empathy and Wellbeing (eds Kennedy, H. et al. ) 20–42 (Jessica Kingsley Publication, 2011).

Avella, J. R. Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 11 , 305–321 (2016).

Grisham, T. The Delphi technique: A method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545 (2009).

Khodyakov, D. et al. Practical considerations in using online modified-delphi approaches to engage patients and other stakeholders in clinical practice guideline development. Patient Patient-Cent. Outcomes Res. 13 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00389-4 (2020).

Fitch, K. et al. The rand/ucla appropriateness method user’s manual. Preprint at https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.html (2001).

Tyler, N. et al. Developing best practice guidance for discharge planning using the rand/ucla appropriateness method. Front. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.789418 (2021).

Sparks, J. B. et al. Planning and reporting effective web-based rand/ucla appropriateness method panels: Literature review and preliminary recommendations. J. Med. Int. Res. https://doi.org/10.2196/33898 (2022).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Portugal, Assembleia da República. Regime jurídico do título de especialista a que se refere o artigo 48.º da Lei n.º 62/2007. Diário da República I Série , n.º 168/2009, 31 set 2009, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/62-2007-640339 .

Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B. Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. Ireland J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 9 , 3 (2017).

Brady, N. et al. Development of the communication complexity scale. Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0099) (2011).

Dhondt, A., Keer, I. V., Nijs, S., Van der Putten, A. & Maes, B. In search of a novel way to analyze early communicative behavior. Augment. Altern. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1928283 (2021).

World Health Organization. Icf browser. Preprint at http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/ (2017).

Carter, M. & Iacono, T. Professional judgments of the intentionality of communicative acts. Augment. Altern. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281261 (2012).

Amaral, I. et al. Intervenção centrada em actividades. In Impact mdvi. Participação e actividade para alunos com multideficiência e deficiência visual: Uma abordagem educativa centrada em actividades para alunos com multideficiência e deficiência visual (eds Amaral, I. et al. ) 8–12 (Edition Bentheim, 2006).

Ingersoll, B. & Dvortcsak, A. Project impact: An overview. In Teaching Social Communication to Children with Autism and Other Developmental Delays (eds Ingersoll, B. & Dvortcsak, A.) 3–15 (Guilford Press, 2019).

Lok, J. S. Y., Qi, X. & To, C. K. S. Using the more than words program with Chinese families: A case-control study. Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.792758 (2021).

Kamble, M. W., Cassettari, C. & James, D. M. Communication skills and communicative autonomy of prelinguistic deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Application of a video feedback intervention. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01983 (2020).

Damen, S., Prain, M. I. & Martens, M. A. W. Video-feedback interventions for individuals with congenital deafblindness: A systematic review. J .Deafblind Stud. Commun. https://doi.org/10.2182/jdbsc.6.36191 (2020).

Flink, A. R., Johnels, J. A., Broberg, M. & Thunberg, G. Examining perceptions of a communication course for parents of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2020.1721160 (2020).

Kruithof, K., Willems, D., Etten-Jamaludin, F. V. & Olsman, E. Parents’ knowledge of their child with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: An interpretative synthesis. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12740 (2020).

Biklen, D. & Burke, J. Presuming competence. Equity Excellence Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500540376 (2006).

Heyworth, M., Chan, T. & Lawson, W. Perspective: Presuming autistic communication competence and reframing facilitated communication. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864991 (2022).

Oulton, K., Sell, D. & Gibson, F. Hospitalized children with intellectual disability: Parents as partners in their care. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12713 (2020).

Niederberger, M. & Spranger, J. Delphi technique in health sciences: A map. Front. Public Health https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00457 (2020).

Download references

This work was financially supported by National Funds through FCT— Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia , I.P., under the project UIDB/04279/2020.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: João Canossa Dias, Ana Mineiro and Saskia Damen.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Rehabilitation and Inclusion, ARCIL, 3200-065, Lousã, Portugal

João Canossa Dias

Institute of Health Sciences, Portuguese Catholic University, 1649-023, Lisboa, Portugal

João Canossa Dias & Ana Mineiro

Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Health (CIIS), 1649-023, Lisboa, Portugal

Ana Mineiro

Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9700 AB, The Netherlands

Saskia Damen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J. C. D. conceived the research project under the supervision of A.M. and S.D. J.C.D. conducted the survey and group discussions for the panel of experts. J.C.D. and A.M. analyzed the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Canossa Dias .

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.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., 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

Cite this article.

Canossa Dias, J., Mineiro, A. & Damen, S. A new intervention to prevent social isolation in people with complex communication needs. Sci Rep 14 , 12742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63519-5

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63519-5

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

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

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