is background and literature review the same

What is the Background in a Research Paper?

An effective Background section in your manuscript establishes the context for your study. And while original research requires novel findings, providing the necessary background information for these findings may be just as important. It lets your readers know that your findings are novel, important, and worthy of their time and attention.

Updated on October 3, 2022

A good Background section explains the history and nature of your research question in relation to existing literature – a “state of the art.” This section, along with the rationale, helps readers understand why you chose to study this problem and why your study is worthwhile. This article will show you how to do this.

Read on to better understand the:

• Real purpose of the Background section
• Typical length of a Background section and its placement
• Elements of an effective Background

What is the Background section of a research paper?

The Background section is an essential element of every study, answering:

• What do we already know about the topic?
• How does your study relate to what's been done so far in your field?
• What is its scope?
• Why does the topic warrant your interest and their interest?
• How did you develop the research question that you'll later introduce?

In grant writing, a Background section is often referred to as the “state of the art,” and this is a useful term to have in mind when writing this part of your paper.

What comes next?

After you make the above points,

• Formulate your research question/hypothesis . Research aims and objectives should be closely related to how you'll fill the gap you've identified in the literature. Your research gap is the central theme of your article and why people should read it.
• Summarize how you'll address it in the paper . Your methodology needs to be appropriate for addressing the “problem” you've identified.
• Describe the significance of your study . Show how your research fits into the bigger picture.

Note that the Background section isn't the same as the research rationale. Rather, it provides the relevant information the reader needs so they can follow your rationale. For example, it

• Explains scientific terms
• Provides available data and statistics on the topic
• Describes the methods used so far on your topic. Especially if these are different from what you're going to do. Take special care here, because this is often where peer reviewers focus intently.

This is a logical approach to what comes after the study's background. Use it and the reader can easily follow along from the broader information to the specific details that come later. Crucially, they'll have confidence that your analysis and findings are valid.

Where should the background be placed in a research paper?

Usually, the background comes after the statement of the problem, in the Introduction section. Logically, you need to provide the study context before discussing the research questions, methodology, and results.

The background can be found in:

The abstract

The background typically forms the first few sentences of the abstract. Why did you do the study? Most journals state this clearly. In an unstructured (no subheadings) abstract, it's the first sentence or two. In a structured abstract, it might be called the Introduction, Background, or State-of-the-Art.

PLOS Medicine , for example, asks for research article abstracts to be split into three sections: Background, Methods and Findings, and Conclusions. Journals in the humanities or social sciences might not clearly ask for it because articles sometimes have a looser structure than STEM articles.

The first part of the Introduction section

In the journal Nature , for example, the Introduction should be around 200 words and include

• Two to three sentences giving a basic introduction to the field.
• The background and rationale of the study are stated briefly.
• A simple phrase “Here we show ...”, or “In this study, we show ....” (to round out the Introduction).

The Journal of Organic Chemistry has similar author guidelines.

The Background as a distinct section

This is often the case for research proposals or some types of reports, as discussed above. Rather than reviewing the literature, this is a concise summary of what's currently known in the field relevant to the question being addressed in this proposed study.

How long should the Background section be?

As mentioned, there's no set length for the Background section. It generally depends on the journal and the content of your manuscript. Check the journal's author guidelines, the research center, granting agency, etc. If it's still not clear or if the instructions are contradictory, email or phone them directly.

The length of your background will depend on:

The manuscript length and content

A book-length study needs a more extensive Background than a four-page research article. Exploring a relatively unknown method or question might also need a longer Background.

For example, see this Frontiers article on the applications of artificial intelligence for developing COVID-19 vaccines. It has a seven-paragraph long Background (1,200 words) in a separate section. The authors need to discuss earlier successful uses of machine learning for therapy discovery to make a convincing case.

An academic paper published in an international journal is usually around 5,000 words. Your paper needs to be balanced, with appropriate text lengths used for the different sections: It would make no sense to have a 300-word introduction and then 4,000 words for the methods, for example. In a 5,000-word manuscript, you'll be able to use about 1,500 for the introduction, which includes the background.

How much you need to show your understanding of the topic

A lengthy grant application might need a longer Background (sub-)section. That's because if they're going to grant you money, they need a very good reason to. You'll need to show that the work is both interesting and doable. The Background is where you can do this.

What should the Background of a research manuscript include?

The Background of a research paper needs to show two things:

The study's territory ( scope )

First, provide a general overview of the field. Scientists in most disciplines should find it relatively easy to understand. Be broad, keep it interesting. Don't go into the specifics of your particular study.

Let's look at two examples:

• one from basic research (seeking to generate new knowledge)
• one from applied research (trying to solve or improve existing processes or products)

Applied research

This Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article explores how AI can help discover treatments for COVID-19.

The background of the study can be found (i) in the abstract and (ii) in a separate section discussed at the end of this article. The abstract starts with this general overview: “SARS-COV-2 has roused the scientific community with a call to action to combat the growing pandemic.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 ). This is broad, and it's interesting. This is a topic that many researchers (even from outside this specific area) may want to learn more about.

Think of any theories, models, concepts, or terms (maybe borrowed from different disciplines) that may be unfamiliar to your reader. Be sure to clarify them in plainer language, if necessary.

For example, this systematic review looks at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care. The Background is in the Introduction section. It starts by defining what burnout is:

• “Burnout is defined as a syndrome related to work that involves three key dimensions.” ( Hodkinson et al., 2022 )

The authors go on to explain its three aspects: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment.

Basic research

Imagine you're investigating how universities' moves to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted students' learning outcomes in the United Kingdom. The overview could be:

• The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown generated tremendous challenges across the higher education sector. University campuses were forced to close. Face-to-face teaching and assessment transitioned into a virtual format.

2. The niche in the field (motivation)

To establish the niche in your field, describe what drove you to explore this specific topic.

• Explain how (un)successfully previous studies have investigated the problem.
• Note the knowledge gap or present a problem with a currently used process/practice/product.

After setting the stage, the abstract of the Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article identifies a problem:

• “At the time of this writing, there are as yet no novel antiviral agents or approved vaccines available for deployment as a frontline defense.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

The authors need to support their claim that computational methods can help discover new COVID-19 treatments. They do so by referring to previous research findings:

• “In the last decade, machine learning-based models, trained on specific biomolecules, have offered inexpensive and rapid implementation methods for the discovery of effective viral therapies.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

Going back to the study on students' learning outcomes after universities introduced e-learning. The background section will next identify and describe the current knowledge gap and your proposed method of fixing it. It may be something like:

• Existing literature and studies by the UK Department for Education reveal x + y changes and effects on teaching and learning. Yet they provide little to no information on students' learning outcomes. Understanding the impact of online teaching and assessments on student outcomes is key to adopting future teaching practices and ensuring students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not left behind.

How is the background different from the literature review?

Both the background and literature review sections compile previous studies that are relevant and important to the topic.

Despite their similarities, they're different in scope and aims.

Overall, the research background could be seen as a small part of the detailed critical discussion in the literature review. Almost always, primary research articles do not include a detailed literature review.

How is the Background different from the Introduction section?

Although often part of the Introduction, the Background differs from the Introduction in scope and aim.

Breakdown of the Background in published articles

Consider this systematic review looking at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care.

The Background is placed in the Introduction section. It's critical, consistent, and logically structured, moving from general to specific information.

You can also check out the summary paragraph breakdown provided by Nature. (Nature's “summary paragraph” is essentially an abstract.)

And if you're looking for some help, or have an article that's finished but needs a pre-submission review click here to connect with one of our expert AJE editors.

Gareth Dyke, PhD

Director of Global Content

See our "Privacy Policy"

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Background of The Study

Definition:

Background of the study refers to the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being studied. It provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and the significance of the study.

The background of the study usually includes a discussion of the relevant literature, the gap in knowledge or understanding, and the research questions or hypotheses to be addressed. It also highlights the importance of the research topic and its potential contributions to the field. A well-written background of the study sets the stage for the research and helps the reader to appreciate the need for the study and its potential significance.

How to Write Background of The Study

Here are some steps to help you write the background of the study:

Identify the Research Problem

Start by identifying the research problem you are trying to address. This problem should be significant and relevant to your field of study.

Provide Context

Once you have identified the research problem, provide some context. This could include the historical, social, or political context of the problem.

Review Literature

Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic. This will help you understand what has been studied and what gaps exist in the current research.

Identify Research Gap

Based on your literature review, identify the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research aims to address. This gap will be the focus of your research question or hypothesis.

State Objectives

Clearly state the objectives of your research . These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Discuss Significance

Explain the significance of your research. This could include its potential impact on theory , practice, policy, or society.

Finally, summarize the key points of the background of the study. This will help the reader understand the research problem, its context, and its significance.

How to Write Background of The Study in Proposal

The background of the study is an essential part of any proposal as it sets the stage for the research project and provides the context and justification for why the research is needed. Here are the steps to write a compelling background of the study in your proposal:

• Identify the problem: Clearly state the research problem or gap in the current knowledge that you intend to address through your research.
• Provide context: Provide a brief overview of the research area and highlight its significance in the field.
• Review literature: Summarize the relevant literature related to the research problem and provide a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge.
• Identify gaps : Identify the gaps or limitations in the existing literature and explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps.
• Justify the study : Explain why your research is important and what practical or theoretical contributions it can make to the field.
• Highlight objectives: Clearly state the objectives of the study and how they relate to the research problem.
• Discuss methodology: Provide an overview of the methodology you will use to collect and analyze data, and explain why it is appropriate for the research problem.
• Conclude : Summarize the key points of the background of the study and explain how they support your research proposal.

How to Write Background of The Study In Thesis

The background of the study is a critical component of a thesis as it provides context for the research problem, rationale for conducting the study, and the significance of the research. Here are some steps to help you write a strong background of the study:

• Identify the research problem : Start by identifying the research problem that your thesis is addressing. What is the issue that you are trying to solve or explore? Be specific and concise in your problem statement.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the relevant literature on the topic. This should include scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are directly related to your research question.
• I dentify gaps in the literature: After reviewing the literature, identify any gaps in the existing research. What questions remain unanswered? What areas have not been explored? This will help you to establish the need for your research.
• Establish the significance of the research: Clearly state the significance of your research. Why is it important to address this research problem? What are the potential implications of your research? How will it contribute to the field?
• Provide an overview of the research design: Provide an overview of the research design and methodology that you will be using in your study. This should include a brief explanation of the research approach, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• State the research objectives and research questions: Clearly state the research objectives and research questions that your study aims to answer. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
• Summarize the chapter: Summarize the chapter by highlighting the key points and linking them back to the research problem, significance of the study, and research questions.

How to Write Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are the steps to write the background of the study in a research paper:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the research problem that your study aims to address. This can be a particular issue, a gap in the literature, or a need for further investigation.
• Conduct a literature review: Conduct a thorough literature review to gather information on the topic, identify existing studies, and understand the current state of research. This will help you identify the gap in the literature that your study aims to fill.
• Explain the significance of the study: Explain why your study is important and why it is necessary. This can include the potential impact on the field, the importance to society, or the need to address a particular issue.
• Provide context: Provide context for the research problem by discussing the broader social, economic, or political context that the study is situated in. This can help the reader understand the relevance of the study and its potential implications.
• State the research questions and objectives: State the research questions and objectives that your study aims to address. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study and its purpose.
• Summarize the methodology : Briefly summarize the methodology you used to conduct the study, including the data collection and analysis methods. This can help the reader understand how the study was conducted and its reliability.

Examples of Background of The Study

Here are some examples of the background of the study:

Problem : The prevalence of obesity among children in the United States has reached alarming levels, with nearly one in five children classified as obese.

Significance : Obesity in childhood is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.

Gap in knowledge : Despite efforts to address the obesity epidemic, rates continue to rise. There is a need for effective interventions that target the unique needs of children and their families.

Problem : The use of antibiotics in agriculture has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses a significant threat to human health.

Significance : Antibiotic-resistant infections are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and are a major public health concern.

Gap in knowledge: While there is a growing body of research on the use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of resistance and the most effective strategies for reducing antibiotic use.

Edxample 3:

Problem : Many low-income communities lack access to healthy food options, leading to high rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

Significance : Poor nutrition is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Gap in knowledge : While there have been efforts to address food insecurity, there is a need for more research on the barriers to accessing healthy food in low-income communities and effective strategies for increasing access.

Examples of Background of The Study In Research

Here are some real-life examples of how the background of the study can be written in different fields of study:

Example 1 : “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of diabetes in recent years. This has led to an increased demand for effective diabetes management strategies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new diabetes management program in improving patient outcomes.”

Example 2 : “The use of social media has become increasingly prevalent in modern society. Despite its popularity, little is known about the effects of social media use on mental health. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health in young adults.”

Example 3: “Despite significant advancements in cancer treatment, the survival rate for patients with pancreatic cancer remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify potential biomarkers that can be used to improve early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Proposal

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in a proposal:

Example 1 : The prevalence of mental health issues among university students has been increasing over the past decade. This study aims to investigate the causes and impacts of mental health issues on academic performance and wellbeing.

Example 2 : Climate change is a global issue that has significant implications for agriculture in developing countries. This study aims to examine the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change and identify effective strategies to enhance their resilience.

Example 3 : The use of social media in political campaigns has become increasingly common in recent years. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of social media campaigns in mobilizing young voters and influencing their voting behavior.

Example 4 : Employee turnover is a major challenge for organizations, especially in the service sector. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence employee turnover in the hospitality industry and explore effective strategies for reducing turnover rates.

Examples of Background of The Study in Thesis

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in the thesis:

Example 1 : “Women’s participation in the workforce has increased significantly over the past few decades. However, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated industries such as technology. This study aims to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in the technology industry, with a focus on organizational culture and gender bias.”

Example 2 : “Mental health is a critical component of overall health and well-being. Despite increased awareness of the importance of mental health, there are still significant gaps in access to mental health services, particularly in low-income and rural communities. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based mental health intervention in improving mental health outcomes in underserved populations.”

Example 3: “The use of technology in education has become increasingly widespread, with many schools adopting online learning platforms and digital resources. However, there is limited research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and engagement. This study aims to explore the relationship between technology use and academic achievement among middle school students, as well as the factors that mediate this relationship.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are some examples of how the background of the study can be written in various fields:

Example 1: The prevalence of obesity has been on the rise globally, with the World Health Organization reporting that approximately 650 million adults were obese in 2016. Obesity is a major risk factor for several chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. In recent years, several interventions have been proposed to address this issue, including lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective intervention for obesity management. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different interventions for obesity management and identify the most effective one.

Example 2: Antibiotic resistance has become a major public health threat worldwide. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. The inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the main factors contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. Despite numerous efforts to promote the rational use of antibiotics, studies have shown that many healthcare providers continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This study aims to explore the factors influencing healthcare providers’ prescribing behavior and identify strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing practices.

Example 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern communication, with millions of people worldwide using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media has several advantages, including facilitating communication, connecting people, and disseminating information. However, social media use has also been associated with several negative outcomes, including cyberbullying, addiction, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on mental health and identify the factors that mediate this relationship.

Purpose of Background of The Study

The primary purpose of the background of the study is to help the reader understand the rationale for the research by presenting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem.

More specifically, the background of the study aims to:

• Provide a clear understanding of the research problem and its context.
• Identify the gap in knowledge that the study intends to fill.
• Establish the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field.
• Highlight the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.
• Provide a rationale for the research questions or hypotheses and the research design.
• Identify the limitations and scope of the study.

When to Write Background of The Study

The background of the study should be written early on in the research process, ideally before the research design is finalized and data collection begins. This allows the researcher to clearly articulate the rationale for the study and establish a strong foundation for the research.

The background of the study typically comes after the introduction but before the literature review section. It should provide an overview of the research problem and its context, and also introduce the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.

Writing the background of the study early on in the research process also helps to identify potential gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation, which can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design. By establishing the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field, the background of the study can also help to justify the research and secure funding or support from stakeholders.

Advantage of Background of The Study

The background of the study has several advantages, including:

• Provides context: The background of the study provides context for the research problem by highlighting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem. This allows the reader to understand the research problem in its broader context and appreciate its significance.
• Identifies gaps in knowledge: By reviewing the existing literature related to the research problem, the background of the study can identify gaps in knowledge that the study intends to fill. This helps to establish the novelty and originality of the research and its potential contribution to the field.
• Justifies the research : The background of the study helps to justify the research by demonstrating its significance and potential impact. This can be useful in securing funding or support for the research.
• Guides the research design: The background of the study can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design by identifying key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem. This ensures that the research is grounded in existing knowledge and is designed to address the research problem effectively.
• Establishes credibility: By demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the research problem, the background of the study can establish the researcher’s credibility and expertise, which can enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the research.

Disadvantages of Background of The Study

Some Disadvantages of Background of The Study are as follows:

• Time-consuming : Writing a comprehensive background of the study can be time-consuming, especially if the research problem is complex and multifaceted. This can delay the research process and impact the timeline for completing the study.
• Repetitive: The background of the study can sometimes be repetitive, as it often involves summarizing existing research and theories related to the research problem. This can be tedious for the reader and may make the section less engaging.
• Limitations of existing research: The background of the study can reveal the limitations of existing research related to the problem. This can create challenges for the researcher in developing research questions or hypotheses that address the gaps in knowledge identified in the background of the study.
• Bias : The researcher’s biases and perspectives can influence the content and tone of the background of the study. This can impact the reader’s perception of the research problem and may influence the validity of the research.
• Accessibility: Accessing and reviewing the literature related to the research problem can be challenging, especially if the researcher does not have access to a comprehensive database or if the literature is not available in the researcher’s language. This can limit the depth and scope of the background of the study.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Writing the parts of scientific reports

19 Writing the literature review or background chapter

The more advanced you are in your studies, the more important it will be to make the connection between your own research and the research of others. Therefore, when you begin a project or have identified a research question, you usually go and search for relevant work done by others.

The literature review consists of two parts (Ridely, 2012): the finished product which is part of a thesis and the process which is searching and critically reading the work done by others, which is often called literature search or in this book literature – based research .  So, the purpose of what is called literature review is initially often to read around the subject, to explore the field and gain a thorough understanding of current work and perspectives. However, this reviewing of literature is an ongoing activity and lasts until the day you complete the final draft because understanding and comparing with existing literature can help you to analyse and interpret your results.

Purpose of the literature review

The purposes of a literature review can be summarized as follows:

• To provide a historical background for your research.
• To explore the current context in which your research is situated by referring to debates, issues or questions in the field, which helps to show the significance of a problem for research.
• To identify a discussion of relevant theories and concepts, which you then will probably draw on.
• To gain an overview of relevant methodology or methods used to collect and analyse data in a particular field.
• To clarify and introduce relevant terminology to be used in your research.
• To identify relevant research and to show how your work extends or challenges it.
• To establish a gap in the work in the field.
• To provide supporting evidence for a problem or claim.

When is a specific literature review chapter required?

Even though no research can be done without knowledge of and referring to relevant research of others, your (primary) purposes and whether you will write a dedicated chapter with the title Literature review depends on the kind of research project and the conventions within your discipline. There is for example a significant difference between applied and theoretical research, where more extensive and critical literature reviews are expected. There are further significant differences between research done at the beginning of your university studies or for a BA, BSc, MA, MSc or PhD thesis. For a Master or PhD thesis a high level of awareness of the research done in your field and deep and broad discussion of it is expected.

However, the insights from your literature review will strongly influence the content of other chapters, such as the Background (if you include such a section in your study) or the Methodology section . As already mentioned, you very often refer to theory (i.e. literature) when analysing and interpreting data in the Discussion section .

Overall structure

If you include a separate chapter with the title literature review, you can follow the principle below. As always organize your writing along a general-to-specific pattern:

Academic Writing in a Swiss University Context Copyright © 2018 by Irene Dietrichs. All Rights Reserved.

Literature Searching

Literature Searching vs. Literature Review

You may hear about conducting a literature search and literature review inter-changeably. In general, a literature search is the process of seeking out and identifying the existing literature related to a topic or question of interest, while a literature review is the organized synthesis of the information found in the existing literature.

In research, a literature search is typically the first step of a literature review. The search identifies relevant existing studies and articles, and the review is the end result of analyzing, synthesizing, and organizing the information found in the search.

When writing a research paper, the literature review gives you a chance to:

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

References/Additional Resources

  Baker, J. D. (2016). T he Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review . AORN Journal, 103(3), 265–269.

  Patrick, L. J., & Munro, S. (2004). The Literature Review: Demystifying the Literature Search. The Diabetes Educator, 30(1), 30–38. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Major Steps in a Literature Search >>

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

What is the difference between a PhD thesis literature review and theory framework?

Sep 15, 2020

If you ’ re anything like the PhD students we interact with on a day to day basis, you probably struggle to wrap your head around and write either your theory framework and lit review chapters. You may even struggle with both.

You ’ re not alone. Around 80% of the students we coach need guidance on one or both of these topics.

But don ’ t despair – there isn ’ t anything wrong with you. It ’ s particularly hard to understand how the two chapters differ from one another, principally because they share a number of similarities.

In this guide we ’ ll explain the differences between a theoretical framework and a literature review in your PhD. Elsewhere I ’ ve explained the purpose of both the lit review chapter and theory framework chapter , so I won ’ t go into too much detail here. Rather, I will focus on the things that differentiate them so you can better understand what goes where and avoid repeating yourself and putting the wrong things in the wrong places.

You ’ ll see that broadly speaking, the literature review is backward-looking and the theory framework is forward-looking. That is, the lit review looks at what ’ s already been written about your topic in order to highlight a gap that you ’ re going to fill, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach you are going to take to fill that gap.

Simple, right?

The difference between a theory framework and a lit review chapter

It’s not quite so simple. There ’ s a bit more to it than that.

Let ’ s elaborate on the forward-backward analogy a little more:

Your literature review is there to make the case for your research. It ’ s there to problematise the existing literature in order to highlight a gap in that literature that your research will then aim to fill, driven by your research questions and research aims and objectives.

In that chapter, your job is to tell the reader what ’ s wrong with the existing understanding of your topic. It may be that there are methodological flaws, or that there are gaps in our empirical understanding. Or, it may be that the particular perspective or approach taken is somehow problematic. Whatever it is, your job in the chapter is to articulate that problem, and then situate your research question as your path to fixing that problem.

I often use the analogy of a company looking to develop a new type of mobile phone. In order to be able to do so, they need to have a good understanding of how old mobile phones are made, principally to understand what problems there are with those existing designs and to see where things can be improved. Your PhD is the same. To be able to make an original contribution to knowledge to your field – that ’ s the goal of a PhD, after all – you need to know what it is that your field is discussing and, crucially, what problems there are with those discussions.

Literature review: backward-looking – what came before your research and what is wrong with it? Theory framework: forward-looking – what theoretical approach can you use to answer your research questions?

So how does that compare to the theory framework?

Well, once you ’ ve made the case for your research and situated it in response to a problem, you start to look forward and tell the reader how you will go about fixing that problem. Your theory framework (and your methods) chapters are where you do that. It ’ s your job here to explain the perspective you’ve used to gather and make sense of your data.

Literature review: backward-looking – what came before your research and what is wrong with it?

Theory framework: forward-looking – what theoretical approach can you use to answer your research questions.

Hello, Doctor…

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

Why is this so confusing?

Part of the confusion lies in how similar the two chapters can be. For example, you will likely be discussing theory and concepts in your lit review, and you will likely be reviewing some literature in your theory framework chapter.

But it ’ s important to bear in mind the underlying purpose of each chapter. Even though you might be talking about theory in your lit review chapter, you are doing so in order to articulate the problem with that literature. And in order to develop your theory framework, it ’ s inevitable that you ’ ll have to review the literature that uses and discusses the theory and its underlying concepts.

Wrapping up

So next time you ’ re struggling to work out whether something belongs in your literature review or theory framework chapter, ask yourself a simple question: are I seeking to make the case for my research (in which case, it goes in the lit review), or is it outlining the conceptual approach I will take to answer the questions and collecting or analysing that data (in which case, it goes in the theory framework).

Master your lit review & theory framework.

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

Share this:

Submit a comment cancel reply.

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Anke Stallwitz 2  

1164 Accesses

The theoretical background introduces and critically comments on definitions, theories and explanatory approaches in relation to problematic and non-habitual, controlled drug use; deficiency-oriented theories of drug use; characteristics of traditional samples used in drug and specifically heroin studies; qualitative drugs research; drug cultures; international location-specific drugs research; published and unpublished empirical evidence of drug use on the Shetland Islands; an explication of the laboratory situation of the Shetland Islands; and the research aim of the present study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abraham, M. D. (1999). Illicit drug use, urbanization, and lifestyle in the Netherlands. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (3), 565–586.

Google Scholar  

Abraham, M. D., Cohen, P. D. A., van Til, R. J., & de Winter, M. A. L. (1999). Licit and illicit drugs in the Netherlands 1997 . Amsterdam: CEDRO.

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. (1982). Treatment and rehabilitation . London: HMSO.

Agar, M. (1973). Ripping and running: A formal ethnographic study of urban heroin addicts . New York: Seminar Press.

Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. J. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44 , 635–655.

Article   Google Scholar  

Albertín-Carbó, P., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Hartnoll, R. L. (2001). Psychosocial considerations for the prevention of HIV infection in injecting drug users. Qualitative Health Research, 11 , 26–39.

Aldaz, E., Wagner, F., Diaz, D. B., Lopez, A., & Collado, M. E. (2002). Social cohesion, cultural identity, and drug use in Mexican rural communities. Substance Use & Misuse, 37 (5–7), 715–747.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.

Anderson, S., & Frischer, M. (1997). Drug misuse in Scotland: Findings from the 1993 and 1996 Scottish crime surveys (Crime and criminal justice findings, Vol. 17). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Angelucci, F., Ricci, V., Pomponi, M., Conte, G., Mathé, A. A., Tonali, P. A., & Bria, P. (2007). Chronic heroin and cocaine abuse is associated with decreased serum concentrations of the nerve growth factor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 21 (8), 820–825.

Baier, C. (2004). Substitutionsbehandlung Opiatabhängiger im ländlichen Bereich. Eine qualitative Interview-Studie mit Patienten und Ärzten . Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.

Ball, N., McBride, A. J., Pates, R. M., & Arnold, K. (2001). Needle fixation, the drug user’s perspective: A qualitative study. Addiction, 96 (7), 1049–1058.

Barnard, M. A. (1993). Needle sharing in context: Patterns of sharing among men and women injectors and HIV risks. Addiction, 88 , 805–812.

Barnard, M. A., Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing drug use among young people in Shetland . Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.

Barrett, J. S., Shi, J., Xie, H., Huang, X., Fossler, M. J., & Sun, R. (2008). Globalization of quantitative pharmacology: First international symposium of quantitative pharmacology in drug development and regulation. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 48 , 787–792.

BBC News. (2004, January 23). Record heroin seizure in Shetland . Retrieved March 22, 2004, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3424171.stm

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: Free Press.

Beckerleg, S. (2004). How ‘cool’ is heroin injection at the Kenya coast. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 11 (1), 67–77.

Bennett, J., Stevens, G., Walker, A., Williams, H., Winter, A., & Hamilton-Deeley, V. (2006). A coordinated response to the high drug death rate in Brighton & Hove. Probation Journal, 53 , 265–277.

Bernstein, D. A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Berridge, V., & Edwards, G. (1987). Opium and the people . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Biernacki, P. (1986). Pathways from heroin addiction: Recovery without treatment . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10 (2), 141–163.

Blackwell, J. S. (1983). Drifting, controlling and overcoming: opiate users who avoid becoming chronically dependent. Journal of Drug Issues, 13 (2), 219–223.

Blum, R. H. (1967). Drugs, behavior, and crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374 (1), 135–146.

Boekhout van Solinge, T. (2001). Op de pof: Cocaïnegebruik en gezondheid op straat . Amsterdam: Stichting Mainline.

Boland, P. (2008). British drugs policy: Problematizing the distinction between legal and illegal drugs and the definition of the ‘drugs problem’. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 55 (2), 171–187.

Brown, R. (2004). Heroin dependence. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 103 (4), 20–26.

Brown, E. J., & Smith, F. B. (2006). Place and space. The where and why of drug-use location among rural African American women. Journal of Family Nursing, 12 (2), 185–200.

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (2009). Subkultur. Retrieved July 07, 2009, from http://www1.bpb.de/popup/popup_lemmata.html?guid=M7LG1W

Caiata, M. (1996). Integrierte Drogenabhängigkeit. Eine Pilotstudie über sozial integrierte GebraucherInnen von Heroin. Abhängigkeiten, 2 , 25–30.

Carter, C. S. (2002). Prenatal care for women who are addicted: Implications for gender-sensitive practice. Affilia, 17 , 299–313.

Cattan, M., Bagnall, A.-M., Akhionbare, K., & Burrell, K. (2008). Injecting equipment schemes for injecting drug users. Qualitative evidence review . Leeds: Metropolitan University.

CDT. (2005). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2004/2005 . Lerwick: CDT.

Chengzheng, Z., Zhimin, L., Dong, Z., Yanhong, L., Jianhui, L., Yilang, T., Zeyuan, L., & Jiwang, Z. (2004). Drug abuse in China. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1025 , 439–445.

Cheung, Y. W. (2000). Substance abuse and developments in harm reduction. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162 , 1697.

Cohen, P. D. A. (1989). Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non-deviant subcultures . Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Cohen, P. (1990). Drugs as a social construct . Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1992). Loss of control over cocaine: Rule or exception? Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, November, 3–7, 1992.

Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1993). Ten years of cocaine. A follow-up study of 64 cocaine users in Amsterdam . Amsterdam: Department of Human Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1994). Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non deviant subcultures. Addiction Research, 2 (1), 71–94.

Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1995). Cocaine use in Amsterdam II. Initiation and patterns of use after 1986 . Amsterdam: Department of Human Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam/Collins.

Crawford, G. A., Washington, M. C., & Senay, E. C. (1983). Careers with heroin. The International Journal of the Addictions, 5 , 701–715.

Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dalgarno, P., & Shewan, D. (2005). Unobtrusive drug use. Addiction Research and Theory, 13 (3), 259–265.

Daniulaityte, R., Carlson, R., & Siegal, H. A. (2007). “Heavy users”, “controlled users”, and “quitters”: Understanding patterns of crack use among women in a midwestern city. Substance Use & Misuse, 42 (1), 129–152.

Davies, D. L. (1962). Normal drinking in recovered alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 23 , 93–104.

Davies, J. B. (1992). The myth of addiction . Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Davies, J. B. (1997). Drugspeak: The analysis of drug discourse . Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Davy, J., Giddings, D., & Christo, G. (2003). Reasons for injecting and not injecting: a qualitative study to inform therapeutic intervention. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 10 (1), 95–104.

Day, C., Conroy, E., Lowe, J., Page, J., & Dolan, K. (2006). Patterns of drug use and associated harms among rural injecting drug users: Comparisons with metropolitan injecting drug users. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14 (3), 120–125.

de la Fuente, L., Barrio, G., Royuela, L., & Bravo, M. J. (2006). The transition from injecting to smoking heroin in three Spanish cities. Addiction, 92 (12), 1749–1763.

Dean, A. (1990). Culture and community: Drink and soft drugs in the Hebridean youth culture. The Sociological Review, 38 (2).

Dean, A. (1995). Space and substance misuse in rural communities. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 15 (1–3), 134–155.

Dean, A. (2001). Complexity and substance misuse. Addiction research & Theory, 9 (1), 19–41.

Decorte, T. (2000). A qualitative study of cocaine and crack use in Antwerp, Belgium: Some ethical issues. In J. Fountain (Ed.), Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research (EMCDDA scientific monograph series, Vol. 4, pp. 285–290). Lissabon: EMCDDA.

Decorte, T. (2001). Quality control by cocaine users: Underdeveloped harm reduction strategies. European Addiction Research, 7 (4), 161–175.

Decorte, T. (2002). Mécanismes d’autorégulation chez les consommateurs de drogues illégales. Etude ethnographique sur des consommateurs de cocaïne et de crack à Anvers (Belgique). In C. Faugeron & M. Kokoreff (Eds.), Société avec drogues. Enjeux et limites (pp. 35–62). Ramonville-Ste-Agne: Edition Erès.

Decorte, T. (2007). The taming of cocaine: Cocaine use in European and American cities . Brüssel: VUB University Press.

Dehue, T. (2002). A Dutch treat: Randomized controlled experimentation and the case of heroin-maintenance in the Netherlands. History of the Human Sciences, 15 , 75–98.

Dickerson, J. W. T., & Stimson, G. (Eds.). (1995). Health in the inner city: Drugs in the city . London: The Royal Society of Health.

Domingo-Salvany, A., Hartnoll, R. F., & Anto, J. M. (1993). Opiate and cocaine consumers attending Barcelona emergency rooms: A year survey. Addiction, 88 , 1247–1256.

Donnermeyer, J. F. (1992). The use of alcohol, marihuana and hard drug s by rural adolescents: A review of recent research. In R. Edwards (Ed.), Drug use in rural American communities . Binghampton: Harrington Park Press.

Donnermeyer, J. F., Scheer, S. D., & Borden, L. M. (2000). The relationship between family factors and adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9 (1), 105–115.

EMCDDA. (2001). Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index37275EN.html

EMCDDA. (2009a). Problem drug use. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators/pdu

EMCDDA. (2009b). Drug situation. Country overview: United Kingdom. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/uk#headersection

Falck, R. S., Carlson, R. G., Siegal, H. A., & Wang, J. (1996). Attitudes toward needle ‘sharing’ among injection drug users: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Human Organization, 55 (3), 361–369.

Feldman, H. W. (1968). Ideological supports to becoming and remaining a heroin addict. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 9 (2), 131–139.

Fischer, B., Turnbull, S., Poland, B., & Haydon, E. (2002). Drug use, risk and urban order: examining supervised injection sites (SISs) as ‘governmentality’. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 15 (5), 357–365.

Fitzgerald, N., Stewart, D., & Mackie, C. A. (2002). A qualitative study of drug education in secondary schools in north-east Scotland: Background and methodology. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 9 (3), 253–265.

Forsyth, A. J. M., & Barnard, M. (1999). Contrasting levels of adolescent drug use between adjacent urban and rural communities . Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow.

Fountain, J. (Ed.). (2000). Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research (EMCDDA scientific monograph series, Vol. 4). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fountain, J., & Griffiths, P. (1999). Synthesis of qualitative research on drug use in the European Union: Report on an EMCDDA project. European Addiction Research, 5 , 4–20.

Fries, C. J. (2009). Bourdieu’s Reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research: An application to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (4), 326–348.

Frischer, M. (1995). Mapping the nature and extent of drug use in a community: The Glasgow experience. In J. W. T. Dickerson & G. Stimson (Eds.), Health in the inner city: Drugs in the city (pp. 66–79). London: The Royal Society of Health.

Frisher, M., Heatlie, H., & Hickman, M. (2007). Validating estimates of problematic drug use in England. BMC Public Health, 7 , 286.

Gardner, B. W., & Peck, D. F. (1996). Drug use in the Scottish highlands. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 3 (3), 285–294.

Gerra, G., Fantoma, A., & Zaimovic, A. (2006). Naltrexone and buprenorphine combination in the treatement of opiod dependence. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 20 (6), 806–814.

Giertsen, H. (2005). In-depth and insightful: Review of Philip Lalander’s ‘Hooked on heroin. Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. In Nordic studies on alcohol and drugs, English Supplement. Nordisk Alkohol- & Narkotikatidskrift, 22 , 181–185.

Giggs, J., Bean, P., Whynes, D., & Wilkinson, C. (1989). Class a drug users: Prevalence and characteristics in grater Nottingham. British Journal of Addiction, 84 , 1473–1480.

GK Quest Akademie. (2009a). Erste Ergebnisse. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.kiss-heidelberg.de/kiss-heidelberg/de/6/3/hintergrund/ergebnisse.aspx

GK Quest Akademie. (2009b). Literaturliste (zu kontrolliertem Substanzkonsum). Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.kiss-heidelberg.de/kiss-heidelberg/de/6/2/hintergrund/literatur.aspx

Gleason, P. M., Veum, J. R., & Pergamit, M. R. (1991). Drug and alcohol use at work: A survey of young workers. Monthly Labor Review, 114 (8), 3–7.

Godlaski, T., Schoeneberger, M. L., Leukefeld, C. G., & Hiller, M. L. (2006). Substance abuse among rural and very rural drug users at treatment entry. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32 (1), 87–110.

Goldberg, T. (1999). Demystifying drugs: A psychosocial perspective . London: Macmillan Press.

Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution and illicit drug use. Addiction Research & Theory, 13 (3), 217–229.

Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of self-regulation . Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.

Halpin, J. (2008). Rock bottom: Heroin use is on the rise. Anchorage Daily News , June 22, 2008.

Hammersley, R. (1994). Use of controlled drugs in Scotland: Findings from the 1993 Scottish Crime Survey (Crime and criminal justice findings, Vol. 3). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Hammersley, R. (2005). Editorial: Theorizing normal drug use. Addiction Research and Theory, 13 (3), 201–203.

Hardenbergh, D., Stillner, V., Kraus, R. F., & Leukefeld, C. G. (1999). Drug use in very rural Alaska villages. Substance Use & Misuse, 34 (4–5), 579–593.

Harding, W. M., & Zinberg, N. E. (1977). The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals and social sanctions for controlled drug use. In B. M. DuToit (Ed.), Drugs, rituals and altered states of consciousness . Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Haves, W., & Schneider, W. (1992). Kontrollierter Gebrauch illegaler Drogen. Forschungsstand und Konsequenzen (unpublished manuscript) . Münster: Universität Münster.

Haw, S. (1985). Drug problems in Greater Glasgow . Glasgow: SCODA/Standing Conference on Drug Abuse.

Haw, S., & Liddel, D. (1988). Drug problems in Edinburgh district . London: SCODA/Standing Conference on Drug Abuse.

Hay, G., & Gannon, M. (2006). Capture-recapture estimates of the local and national prevalence of problem drug use in Scotland. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 17 , 203–210.

Hay, G., McKeganey, N., & Hutchinson, S. (2001). Estimating the national and local prevalence of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive report . Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Environmental Health.

Hay, G., Gannon, M., McKeganey, N., Hutchinson, S., & Goldberg, D. (2005). Estimating the national and local prevalence of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive report . Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow.

Hay, G., Gannon, M., MacDougall, J., Millar, T., Eastwood, C., & McKeganey, N. (2006). Local and national estimates of the prevalence of opiate use and/or crack cocaine use (2004/2005). In N. Singleton, R. Murray, & L. Tinsley (Eds.), Measuring different aspects of problem drug use: Methodological developments . London: Home Office.

Hay, G., Gannon, M., Casey, J., & McKeganey, N. (2009). Estimating the national and local prevalence of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive Report . Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow.

Heather, N., & Robertson, I. (1982). Controlled drinking. In Behavioural psychotherapy (Vol. 10, pp. 376–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heather, N., & Robertson, I. (1997). Problem drinking . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henderson, S. (2000). Sticks and smoke: Country cousins and close communities. Druglink, 15 (1), 12–15.

Herrmann, U., Nydegger, B., & Estermann, J. (1997). Heroin und Kokain – Möglichkeiten des sozial integrierten Gebrauchs. In Akzept e.v. (Eds.), DrogenVisionen. Dokumentationsband zum 4. akzept Bundeskongress, 12.–15. September 1996 in Saarbrücken, 12. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (2003). Shetland Islands economic update. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/HIE-shetland-area-economic-profile-2003.pdf

Hooker, K. (2004). Heroin on increase, said drug workers and police. The Shetland Times , Lerwick, Scotland, February 27, 2004, p. 13.

Hurrelmann, K., & Bründel, H. (1997). Drogengebrauch, Drogenmissbrauch . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Hyman, S. E., & Malenka, R. C. (2001). Addiction and the brain: The neurobiology of compulsion and its persistence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2 (10), 695–703.

ISD Scotland. (1999–2009). Drug misuse statistics Scotland . Edinburgh: ISD.

Izugbara, C. O. (2005). The socio-cultural context of Adolescents’ notions of sex and sexuality in rural south-eastern Nigeria. Sexualities, 8 , 600–617.

Jobes, P. C., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Barclay, E. M. (2002). Drug-related offenses and the structure of communities in rural Australia. Substance Use & Misuse, 37 (5–7), 631–661.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1993). National survey results on drug use from the monitoring the future study, 1975–1992 . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Jones, I. G., Cooke, C., & MacDonald, S. (1997). Alcohol, tobacco and other drug use amongst secondary school children in Fife, Scotland. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 4 (3), 243–253.

Judd, A., Rhodes, T., & Davis, M. (2004). Hepatitis C and its risk management among drug injectors in London: Renewing harm reduction in the context of uncertainty. Addiction, 99 (5), 621–633.

Jungaberle, H. (2007). Qualitative Drogen- und Suchtforschung – am Beispiel eines kulturpsychologischen Forschungsprojekts. In B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt-Semisch (Eds.), Sozialwissenschaftliche Suchtforschung . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kelley, M. S., & Chitwood, D. D. (2004). Effects of drug treatment for heroin sniffers: A protective factor against moving to injection? Social Science & Medicine, 58 (10), 2083–2092.

Kemmesies, U. E. (2004). Zwischen Rausch und Realität: Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen Milieu . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Killias, M., Aebi, M. F., & Ribeaud, D. (2000). Learning through controlled experiments: Community service and heroin prescription in Switzerland. Crime & Delinquency, 46 , 233–251.

Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128 (1), 78–87.

Klee, H., & Morris, J. (1994). Crime and drug misuse: Economic and psychological aspects of the criminal activities of heroin and amphetamine injectors. Addiction Research & Theory, 1 (4), 377–386.

Klingemann, H. (2006). Arbeitsbericht zur ExpertInnentagung zum Thema “Kontrolliertes Trinken ”. 16.2.2006 in der Forel Klinik.

Klingemann, H., & Carter Sobell, L. (2006). Selbstheilung von der Sucht . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Klingemann, H., Room, R., Rosenberg, H., Schatzmann, S., Sobell, L., & Sobell, M. (2004). Kontrolliertes Trinken als Behandlungsziel – Bestandesaufnahme des aktuellen Wissens. Literatur und Expertenbericht zum Modul A . Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) und Eidgenössische Kommission für Alkoholfragen (EKA).

Knight, K. R., Rosenbaum, M., Kelley, M. S., Irwin, J., Washburn, A., & Wenger, L. (1996). Defunding the poor: The impact of lost access to subsidized methadone maintenance treatment on women injection drug users. Journal of Drug Issues, 26 (4), 923–942.

Koester, S., Anderson, K., & Hoffer, L. (1999). Active heroin injectors’ perceptions and use of methadone maintenance treatment: Cynical performance or self-prescribed risk reduction? Substance Use & Misuse, 34 , 2135–2153.

Kolte, B., & Schmidt-Semisch, H. (2005). Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum: Ein prekäres Paradigma? In A. Legnaro & A. Schmieder (Eds.), Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum – Drogenkonsum als Lebenskontrolle (Jahrbuch Suchtforschung, Vol. 5). Münster/Hamburg/London: LIT Verlag.

Korf, D. J., & Nabben, T. (1999). Cocaine and crack in Amsterdam: Diverging subcultures. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (3), 627–651.

Körkel, J. (2004). Abstinenz und kontrolliertes Trinken: Sich ergänzende Ziele in der Suchtbehand­lung. In J. Rink (Ed.), Auf der Suche nach der Kontrolle. Von der Abstinenzabhängigkeit zur Kontrollabhängigkeit. Beiträge zum Wandel der Zieldiskussion in der Suchtkrankenhilfe (pp. 66–93). Geesthacht: Neuland.

Körkel, J. (2005). Kontrollierter Alkoholkonsum – Strategien der Risikominimierung. In J.-H. Heudtlass & H. Stöver (Eds.), Risiko mindern beim Drogengebrauch (pp. 164–188). Frankfurt a.M.: Gesundheitsförderung – Verbrauchertips – Beratungswissen – Praxishilfen.

Körkel, & GK Quest. (2005). Internetshop. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.gk-quest.de/shop/de/0/0/materialien/suche.aspx?q=k%C3%B6rkel%20%26%20gk%20quest%202005

Körkel, J., Langguth, W., Schellberg, B., & Neu, B. (2002). Kontrolliertes Trinken als Ziel und als Weg. Zwei Fallvignetten. Suchttherapie, 3 , 106–111.

Korte, S. (2007). Rauschkontruktion . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden.

Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Repräsentativerhebung zum Gebrauch psychoaktiver Substanzen bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland 2000. Sucht, 47 (Sonderheft).

Kraus, L., Pabst, A., & Müller, S. (2008). Epidemiologie substanzbezogener Störungen: Eine alters- und geschlechtsspezifische Betrachtung. Sucht Aktuell, 15 (2), 8–13.

Kuntz, H. (2000). Der rote Faden in der Sucht. Neue Ansätze in Theorie und Praxis . Weinheim: Beltz.

Kuntz-Melcavage, K. L., Brucklacher, R. M., Grigson, P. S., Freeman, W. M., & Vrana, K. E. (2009). Gene expression changes following extinction testing in a heroin behavioral incubation model. BMC Neuroscience, 7 (10), 95.

Laging, M. (2004). Riskanter Suchtmittelkonsum bei Jugendlichen. Entstehungszusammenhänge, Möglichkeiten der Identifizierung und Prävention . Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.

Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world . Oxford/ New York: Berg/Oxford International.

Lamnek, S. (1994). Neue Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens . München: UTB.

Legnaro, A., & Schmieder, A. (Eds.). (2006). Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum – Drogenkonsum als Lebenskontrolle . Berlin: LIT Verlag.

Lempens, A., van de Mheen, D., & Barendregt, C. (2003). Homeless drug users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Profile, way of life, and the need for assistance. Substance Use & Misuse, 38 (3–6), 339–375.

Leukefeld, C. J., Clayton, R. R., & Myers, J. A. (1992). Rural drug and alcohol treatment. In R. Edwards (Ed.), Drug use in rural American communities . Binghampton: Harrington Park Press.

Leukefeld, C. G., Logan, T. K., Clayton, R. R., Martin, C., Zimmerman, R., Cattarello, A., Milich, R., & Lynam, D. (1998). Adolescent drug use delinquency, and other behaviors. In T. P. Gullotta, G. R. Adams, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Delinquent violent youth – Theories and interventions . London: Sage.

Leukefeld, C. G., Narevic, E., Hiller, M. L., Staton, M., Logan, T. K., Gillespie, W., Webster, J. M., Garrity, T. F., & Purvis, R. (2002). Alcohol and drug use among rural and urban incarcerated substance abusers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46 (6), 715–728.

Levine, H. G. (2002). The secret of worldwide drug prohibition. The varieties and uses of drug prohibition. The Independent Review, 7 (2), 165–180.

Levine, H. G., & Reinarman, C. (1993). From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from American alcohol policy for drug policy. In Bayer Ronald & Oppenheimer Gerald (Eds.), Confronting drug policy (pp. 160–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levran, O., Londono, D., O’Hara, K., Nielsen, D. A., Peles, E., Rotrosen, J., Casadonte, P., Linzy, S., Randesi, M., Ott, J., Adelson, M., & Kreek, M. J. (2008). Genetic susceptibility to heroin addiction: A candidate gene association study. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 7 (7), 720–729.

Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C. G., Farabee, D., McDermeit, M., Dennis, M. L., Wechsberg, W. M., Inciardi, J. A., Surratt, H. L., Compton, W. M., Cottler, L. B., Klein, H., Hoffman, J. A., & Desmond, D. (2001). Real and perceived HIV risk by population density: An exploratory examination. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (4), 889–904.

Loxley, W., & Carruthers, S. (2002). Attitudes of novice heroin injectors towards non-injecting routes of administration to prevent the transmission of blood-borne viruses. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 13 (1), 69–74.

Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37 (2–3), 135–148.

MacIntosh, T. W. (1994). Recreational and problem drug user survey, an assessment of the extent, nature and context of drug use in Shetland – Recommendations to the Shetland Alcohol Group . Lerwick: Shetland Alcohol Group.

MAINLINE. (1996). Control it – Naar meer zelfcontrole bij drugsgebruikers . Amsterdam: Selbstverlag.

Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study . London: University of London Press.

Mariak, V. (1991). Strategien der Ausgrenzung: Der Kampfbegriff “kriminelle Drogensubkultur” und das Beispiel Hamburger Heroinkonsumenten . Frankfurt a. M: Lang.

McDonald, M. (Ed.). (1994). Gender, drink and drugs . Oxford: Berg.

McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. (2000). Addicts’ Narratives of recovery from drug use: Constructing a non-addict identity. Social Science & Medicine, 50 (10), 1501–1510.

McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. P. (2002). Beating the dragon: The recovery from dependent drug use . Harlow: Prentice Hall.

McKeganey, N. P., & Barnard, M. A. (1992). Selling sex: Female street prostitution and HIV risk behaviour in Glasgow. AIDS Care, 4 (4), 395–408.

McKeganey, N. P., Friedman, S., & Mesquita, F. (1997). The social context of injectors risk behaviour. In G. Stimson et al. (Eds.), Drug injecting and HIV infection: Global dimensions and local responses . London: World Health Organisation.

McMurran, M. (1994). The psychology of addiction . London: Taylor & Francis.

McSweeney, T., & Turnbull, P. J. (2007). Exploring user perceptions of occasional and controlled heroin use: A follow-up study . York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Miller, P., & Plant, M. (1996). Drinking, smoking and illicit drug use among 15 and 16 years olds in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 313 , 394–397.

Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing. Preparing people for change . New York: Guilford Press.

Mojtahedzadeh, V., Razani, N., Malekinejad, M., Vazirian, M., Shoaee, S., Saberi Zafarghandi, M., Hernandez, A., & Mandel, J. (2008). Injection drug use in rural Iran: Integrating HIV prevention into Iran’s rural primary health care system. AIDS & Behavior, 12 (Sup 1), 7–12.

Moore, K., & Miles, S. (2004). Young people, dance and the sub-cultural consumption of drugs. Addiction Research & Theory, 12 (6), 507–523.

Murphy, S. B., Reinarman, C., & Waldorf, D. (1989). An 11-year follow-up of a network of cocaine users. British Journal of Addiction, 84 , 427–436.

Nadelmann, E. (1990). Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society. International Organization, 44 (4), 479–526.

Neaigus, A., & Sifaneck, S. J. (2001). The ethnographic accessing, sampling and screening of hidden populations: Heroin sniffers in New York City. Addiction Research & Theory, 9 (6), 519–543.

Nguyen, V. T., & Scannapieco, M. (2008). Drug abuse in Vietnam: a critical review of the literature and implications for future research. Addiction., 103 (4), 535–543.

NIDA. (2005). Heroin: Abuse and addiction (Research Report no. 5). Maryland: NIH Publications.

NIDA. (2009). National institute on drug abuse: The science of drug abuse & addiction. Frequently asked questions . Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/tools/faq.html

Niebaum, I. (2001). Leitlinien in der schulischen Suchtprävention . Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.

Noller, P., & Reinicke, H. (1987). Heroinszene: Selbst- und Fremddefinitionen einer Subkultur . Frankfurt (M.)/New York: Campus Verlag.

Nurco, D. N., Schaffer, J. W., & Cisin, I. H. (1984). An ecological analysis of the interrelationships among drug abuse and other indices of social pathology. International Journal of the Addictions, 19 , 441–451.

Nutt, D. J. (2003). Death and dependence: Current controversies over the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 17 (4), 355–364.

Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet, 369 (9566), 1047–1053.

Oser, C. B., Mooney, J. L., Staton-Tindall, M., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2009). The drugs-violence nexus among rural felony probationers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 (8), 1285–1303.

Parker, H., Bakx, K., & Newcombe, R. (1988). Living with heroin: The impact of a drugs epidemic on an English community . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Pearson, G. (2001). Normal drug use: Ethnographic fieldwork among an adult network of recreational drug users in inner London. Substance Use & Misuse, 36 (1&2), 167–200.

Peele, S. (1985). The meaning of addiction . Lexington: Heath.

Peters, V., Oetting, E. R., & Edwards, R. W. (1992). Drug use among rural youth. Drugs & Society, 7 (12), 9–30.

Peterson, G. M., Northeast, S., Jackson, S. L., & Fitzmaurice, K. D. (2007). Harm minimization strategies: Opinions of health professionals in rural and remote Australia. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 32 (5), 497–504.

Pfister, G., & Klein, G. (1991). Subkultur. In G. Reinhold (Ed.), Soziologie-Lexikon (pp. 598–601). München/Wien: Oldenbourg.

Plant, M., & Miller, P. (1999). Use and perceived ease of obtaining illicit drugs among teenagers in urban, suburban and rural schools: A UK study. Journal of Substance Use, 4 (1), 24–28.

Polli, E., Ketterer, H., & Weber, E. (1989). Kursprogramm kontrolliertes Trinken. Suchtprobleme und Sozialarbeit, 3 , 125–133.

Powell, D. H. (1973). A pilot study of occasional heroin users. Archives of General Psychiatry, 28 (4), 586–594.

Preble, E., & Casey, J. J. (1969). Taking care of business. International Journal of the Addictions, 4 (1), 1–24.

Prins, E. H. (1995). Maturing out. An empirical study of personal histories and processes in hard-drug addiction . Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

QED. (2005). Qualitative European drugs research network homepage. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.qed.org.uk/

Quensel, S. (1973). Wie wird man kriminell? Verlaufsmodell einer fehlgeschlagenen Interaktion zwischen Delinquenten und Sanktionsinstanz. In H. Giesecke (Ed.), Offensive Sozialpädagogik . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Razali, K., Amin, J., Dore, G. J., & Law, M. G. [on behalf of the HCV Projections Working Group]. (2009). Modelling and calibration of the hepatitis C epidemic in Australia. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 18 (3), 253–270.

Reinarmann, C., & Levine, H. G. (1997). Crack in context: America’s latest demon drug. In C. Reinarmann & H. G. Levine (Eds.), Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice (pp. 1–17). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Renton, A., Rhodes, T., Mikhailova, L., Sarang, A., Lowndes, C. M., Rylkov, A., & Khutorskoy, M. (2003). Situational factors influencing drug injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in Togliatti city, Russian federation: A qualitative study of micro risk environment. Social Science & Medicine, 57 (1), 39–54.

Rhodes, T. J. (1995). Theorising and researching ‘risk’: Notes on the social relations of risk in heroin users’ lifestyles. In P. Aggleton, P. Davies, & G. Hert (Eds.), AIDS: Safety, sexuality and risk . London: Taylor and Francis.

Rhodes, T., Watts, L., Davies, S., Martin, A., Smith, J., Clark, D., Craine, N., & Lyons, M. (2007). Risk, shame and the public injector: A qualitative study of drug injecting in South Wales. Social Science & Medicine, 65 (3), 572–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.033

Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Heselbrock, M., & Wish, E. (1980). Vietnam veterans three years after Vietnam: How our study changed our view of heroin. In L. Brill & C. Winick (Eds.), The yearbook of substance use and abuse (pp. 213–230). New York: Human Sciences Press.

Rosenburg, H., & Melville, J. (2005). Controlled drinking and controlled drug use as outcome goals in British treatment services. Addiction Research and Theory, 13 (1), 85–92.

Ross, A. J., Heim, D., Bakshi, N., Davies, J. B., Flatley, K. J., & Hunter, S. C. (2004). Drug issues affecting Chinese, Indian and Pakistani people living in Greater Glasgow. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 11 (1), 49–65.

Rothman, R. B., Long, J. B., Bykov, V., Xu, H., Jacobson, A. E., Rice, K. C., & Holaday, J. W. (1991). Upregulation of the opioid receptor complex by the chronic administration of morphine: A biochemical marker related to the development of tolerance and dependence. Peptides, 12 , 151–160.

Rumgay, J. (2003). Drug treatment and offender rehabilitation: Reflections on evidence, effectiveness and exclusion. Probation Journal, 50 , 41–51.

Samson, L., Singh, R., & Barua, P. (2001). Qualitative research as a means of intervention development. Addiction Research & Theory, 9 (6), 587–599.

Sánchez, J., Chitwood, D. D., & Koo, D. J. (2006). Risk factors associated with the transition from heroin sniffing to heroin injection : A street addict role perspective. Journal of Urban Health, 83 (5), 896–910.

Schippers, G. M., & Cramer, E. (2002). Kontrollierter Gebrauch von Heroin und Kokain. Suchttherapie, 3 , 71–80.

Schmidt-Semisch, H., & Nolte, F. (2000). Drogen . Hamburg: Rotbuch-Verlag.

Schneider, W. (1984). Biographie und Lebenswelten von Langzeitcannabiskonsumenten. Eine ereignisbezogene Deutungsanalyse im Vergleich . Berlin: Express Edition.

Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world . Chicago: Northwestern University Press (first published 1932).

Scottish Executive. (2004). Urban rural classification 2003–2004. Environment and Rural Affairs Department. [electronic document] http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/seurc.pdf

Scottish Executive. (2006). Urban rural classification 2005–2006 . Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Government. (2009). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) . 2009 General report. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. [electronic document] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/289599/0088642.pdf

Shakib, S., Nichter, M., Quintero, G., Nichter, M., & Mock, J. (2004). Qualitative research: Contributions to the study of drug use, drug abuse, and drug use(r)-related interventions. Substance Use & Misuse, 39 (10–12), 1907–1969.

Shalev, U., Grimm, J. W., & Shaham, Y. (2002). Neurobiology of relapse to heroin and cocaine seeking: A review. Pharmacological Reviews, 54 (1), 1–42.

Sharma, H. K. (1996). Socio-cultural perspective of substance use in India. Substance use and misuse, 31 , 1689–1714.

Shaw, V. N. (2006). China under reform: Social problems in rural areas. China Report, 42 , 341–368.

Shetland Health Board. (1996). Cited in: Barnard, M. Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing drug use among young people in Shetland . Unpublished report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.

Shetland Islands Council. (2008). Shetland in Statistics. Lerwick: Shetland Islands Council, Economic Development Unit.

Shetland Islands Council. (2009a). Culture. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.shetland.org/culture

Shetland Islands Council. (2009b). Ports and harbours in Shetland. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/ports/

Shetland Islands Council. (2009c). Central Island community profile. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/communityplanning/documents/Central.1doc.pdf

Shetland Islands Council. (2010). Information about Shetland. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/jobs/aboutshetland.asp

Shewan, D., & Dalgarno, P. (2005). Evidence for controlled heroin use? Low levels of negative health and social outcomes among non-treatment heroin users in Glasgow (Scotland). British Journal of Health Psychology, 10 (1), 33–48.

Simon, M. (2009). Halting Alaska’s New Heroin Epidemic, KTVA Alaska Broadcasting Company Inc., Anchorage , June 27, 2009. http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93589

Spence, R. T., Maxwell, J. C., & Bohman, T. M. (2004). Differences in characteristics of heroin inhalers and heroin injectors at admission to treatment: A preliminary study using a large database of client records. Substance Use & Misuse, 39 (6), 993–1012.

Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use and Misuse, 38 (10), 1539–1549.

Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals. Therapeutic Communities, 28 (3), 256–272.

Stallwitz, A., & Shewan, D. (2004). A qualitative exploration of the impact of cultural and social factors on heroin use in Shetland (Scotland). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36 (3).

Stephens, R. C., & Lo, C. C. (2002). Arrestees’ perceived needs for substance-specific treatment: Exploring urban-rural differences. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28 (4), 623–642.

Stierle, C. (2005). Entscheidung zu Crack? Eine handlungstheoretische Erklärung des Crackkonsums . Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.

Strang, J., Boys, A., Dobson, J., & Marsden, J. (2002). ‘Rich man’s speed’: A qualitative study of young cocaine users. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 9 (2), 195–210.

Strathdee, S. A., Sherman, S. G., Smith, L., & Laney, G. (2002). Social influences on the transition to injection drug use among young heroin sniffers: A qualitative analysis. Internatinal Journal of Drug Policy, 13 (2), 113–120.

Strieder, C. (2001). Kontrollierter Gebrauch illegalisierter Drogen: Funktion und Bedeutung des Gebrauchs illegalisierter Drogen im gesellschaftlichen Kontext . Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.

Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., Kurtz, S. P., & Kiley, M. C. (2004). Sex work and drug use in a subculture of violence. Crime & Delinquency, 50 (1), 43–59.

Szasz, T. (1975). Ceremonial chemistry . New York: Anchor.

Szene. (2009). In Babylon Wörterbuch. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://woerterbuch.babylon.com/Szene%20%28Soziologie%29 , July 4, 2009

Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community . New York/London: Columbia University Press.

Taylor, S. (2006). The misuse of drugs – A profile of Shetland . Lerwick: NHS Shetland [electronic document] http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/BoardpaperDrugstatsJan06.pdf

The Shetland News. (2004 April 15). Four years for Lerwick heroin dealer . Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/archives

Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trujillo, M. L. (2006). A northern New Mexican ‘Fix’. Shooting up and coming down in the greater española valley, New Mexico. Cultural Dynamics, 18 (1), 89–112.

Tunnell, K. D. (2006). Socially disorganized rural communities. Crime Media Culture, 2 (3), 332–337.

Türk, D., & Bühringer, G. (1999). Psychische und Soziale Ursachen der Sucht. Der Internist, 40 , 583–589.

Verthein, U., Bonorden-Kleij, K., Degkwitz, P., Dilg, C., Köhler, W. K., Passie, T., Soyka, M., Tanger, S., Vogel, M., & Haasen, C. (2008). Long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment in Germany. Addiction, 103 , 960–966.

Visit Shetland. (2009). Major events. Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.visitshetland.com/major-events/up-helly-aa

von Aarburg, H.-P. (1998). Heroindampfscheibenwirbel. Eine kulturanthropologische Studie des Folienrauchens in Zürich zwischen 1990 und 1995 . Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.

Waitzfelder, B., Engel, C., & Gilbert, F. (1998). Substance abuse in Hawaii: Perspectives of key local human service organizations. Substance Abuse, 19 (1), 7–22.

Waldorf, D., & Biernacki, P. (1981). The natural recovery from opiate addiction: some preliminary findings. Journal of Drug Issues, 11 (1), 61–76.

Warburton, H., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2005). Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a problem? London: King’s College.

Ward, J., Power, R., Jones, S., & Kearns, G. (1996). An ethnography of risk management amongst illicit drug injectors and its implications for the development of community-based interventions. Sociology of Health & Illness, 18 (1), 86–106.

Wargo, M. J., Solomon, J., Oppenheim, J. Sharma, S., & Rom, M. (1990). Rural drug abuse: Prevalence, relation to crime, and programs . Gaithersburg: GAO Report to Congressional Requestors.

Weber, G., & Schneider, W. (1992). Herauswachsen aus der Sucht illegaler Drogen . Münster: Institut für Soziologie/Sozialpädagogik.

Weber, G., Schneider, W., Engemann, S., Gerlach, R., & Haves, W. (1997). Herauswachsen aus der Sucht illegaler Drogen . Münster: INDRO.

Webster, P. (2004). Introduction to: The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals and social sanctions for controlled drug use. W. Harding & N. E. Zinberg, from: Drugs, rituals and altered states of consciousness , B. M. du Toit, (Ed.). (1977), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. In The psychedelic library , March 23, 2004. http://www.psychedelic-library.org/zinsubcl.htm

Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (1996). Rural crime and justice: Implications for theory and research. Crime & Delinquency, 42 , 379–397.

Western Isles Health Board. (1996). Cited in: Barnard, M. Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing drug use among young people in Shetland . Unpublished report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.

Wills, J. (1991). A place in the sun: Shetland and oil . Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company.

Winick, C. (1962). Maturing out of narcotic addiction. UN Bulletin on Narcotics, 14 (1), 1–7.

World Health Organisation. (1992). ICD-10 classifications of mental and behavioural disorder: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines . Geneva: World Health Organisation.

Wright, N. M. J., Tompkins, C. N. E., & Sheard, L. (2007). Is peer injecting a form of intimate partner abuse? A qualitative study of the experiences of women drug users. Health & Social Care in the Community , 15 (5), 417–425. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/hscc/2007/00000015/00000005/art00003-aff_2

Yinger, M. (1960). Contraculture and subculture. American Sociological Review, 25 , 625–635.

Zheng, X., Tian, C., Choi, K.-H., Zhang, J., Cheng, H., Yang, X., Li, D., Lin, J., Qu, S., Sun, X., Hall, T., Mandel, J., & Hearst, N. (1994). Injecting drug use and HIV infection in southwest China. AIDS, 8 (8), 1141–1148.

Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting. The basis for controlled intoxicant use . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Zinberg, N. E., & Jacobson, R. C. (1975). The social basis of drug abuse prevention. In Developments in the field of drug abuse. Proceedings of the National Drug Abuse Conference, 1974 (pp. 3–13). Cambridge: Schenkman.

Zinberg, N. E., Jacobson, R. C., & Harding, W. M. (1975). Social sanctions and rituals as a basis for drug abuse prevention. American Journal Drug of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2 (2), 165–182.

Zinberg, N. E., Harding, W. M., & Winkeller, M. (1981). A study of social regulatory mechanisms in controlled illicit drug users. In H. Shaffer & M. E. Burglass (Eds.), Classic contributions to the addictions (pp. 277–300). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Evangelische Hochschule Freiburg (Protestant University of Applied Sciences Freiburg), Bugginger Str. 38, 79114, Freiburg, Germany

Anke Stallwitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Stallwitz, A. (2012). Theoretical Background and Literature Review. In: The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug Cultures. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_2

Published : 15 March 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-3860-7

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-3861-4

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

Literature review and theoretical framework are two indispensable components of research . Both are equally important for the foundation of a research study.

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is Literature Review       – Definition, Features 2.  What is Theoretical Framework      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework      – Comparison of Key Differences

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a vital component of a research study. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In other words, a literature review is a review of the literature in the related subject area. A literature review makes a case for the research study. It analyzes the existing literature in order to identify and highlight a gap in the literature.

Moreover, a good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge of relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the  methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

Furthermore, the structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay . Overall, literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, identify a gap in the research area, place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the research component that introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It is also the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill the research gap identified by the literature review. Moreover, it is the structure that holds the structure of the research theory.

The researcher may not easily find the theoretical framework within the literature. Therefore, he or she may have to go through many research studies and course readings for theories and models relevant to the research problem under investigation. In addition, the theory must be selected based on its relevance, ease of application, and explanatory power.

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A literature review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area, while a theoretical framework is a component in research that introduces and describes the theory behind the research problem.

Moreover, the literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under investigation in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap. Therefore, a literature review is backwards-looking while theory framework is forward-looking.

In conclusion, the main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

1. Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.” La Trobe University: Bundoora (1992). 2. “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework .” Research Guide.

Image Courtesy:

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Point of Care Ultrasound for Diagnosis and Management in Heart Failure: A Targeted Literature Review

Background: Cardiac point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has shown increasing utility as a tool for diagnosing and managing heart failure (HF). Within cardiology, volume assessment leveraging visualization of the inferior (IVC) is a central aspect of care, as IVC size correlates with central venous pressure. This targeted literature review aimed to examine the existing literature assessing the use of POCUS in diagnosis and management of HF patients utilizing POCUS-based IVC measurement either alone or in combination with secondary methods. Methods: A targeted PubMed and Ovid database search up until August 28, 2023 using a keyword search was completed. Studies that did not include IVC assessment with POCUS in HF were excluded. Results: The initial search using both PubMed and Ovid resulted in 370 journal publications. After exclusion criteria were used 15 studies were included in the review. Studies were grouped into three categories: 1) how well POCUS was able to identify HF, 2) whether POCUS-based findings correlated with other measures evaluating HF and was able to predict the effect of diuretic administration, and 3) whether POCUS-based findings served as a good prognostic indicator. The 5 studies that evaluated HF identification with POCUS found that both diagnostic sensitivity and specificity may reach 90%-100% when IVC measurement was coupled with a lung ultrasound assessing the presence of B-lines or effusion. Five studies assessing POCUS findings correlating with other HF measures and diuretic effect found that IVC diameter changed significantly with diuretic administration (p&lt;0.05). All 6 studies assessing POCUS as a predictor of long-term mortality or hospital readmission found measures that achieved statistical significance with p&lt;0.05. Conclusions: Including POCUS as standard-of-care both as a diagnostic tool in the emergency department and a management tool in in-patient and out-patient facilities may improve the treatment of HF. 

Author Biographies

Alan kwan, smidt heart institute, cedars-sinai hospital.

Dr Kwan is a cardiologist and physician-scientist with clinical and research cardiovascular imaging training. His research interests include novel techniques, risk markers, and multidisciplinary collaboration in translational within multimodality cardiac imaging.

Susan Cheng, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Hospital

Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH is the Erika J. Glazer Chair in Cardiovascular Health and Population Science, director of Cardiovascular Population Sciences, and director of Public Health Research in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai. Dr. Cheng is a cardiologist, echocardiographer, and clinician-scientist who leads research programs aimed at uncovering the drivers of cardiovascular aging in women and men. She received her bachelor's degree from Harvard College, a medical degree from McMaster University, master's of medical science from MIT, and masters of public health from Harvard. Dr. Cheng completed Osler internal medicine training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and cardiology training at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, where she then served as cardiology faculty and associate director of the Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory. She is co-director of the Framingham Heart Study Echocardiography Laboratory and co-director of the international Bioactive LipidsNet Consortium. Dr. Cheng has served on the editorial boards of major cardiovascular and imaging journals as well as on leadership committees for the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. She has chaired and contributed to American Heart Association scientific statements on research methods, heart disease statistics, and the cardiovascular care of older adults. Dr. Cheng has authored over 350 publications and her work has been recognized with multiple awards and supported by continuous NIH funding.

• Full Text Online

Additional Files

• Supplementary Material

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 Sabina Yampolsky, Alan Kwan, Susan Cheng, Ilan Kedan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Author(s) retain the copyright for their work. At the time of submission to POCUS Journal the author(s) grant the journal a limited and non revokable right to publish in the Journal under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

• Français (Canada)

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Supported by Queen’s University Library's  Journal Hosting Service .

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Air Pollution in Low And Middle-Income Countries: Levels, Health Effects and Interventions

Long-term health effects of outdoor air pollution on asthma and respiratory symptoms among adults in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review and metaanalysis Provisionally Accepted

• 1 University of Bergen, Norway

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Few studies have investigated the association between long-term exposure to outdoor air pollution and the risk of asthma and respiratory symptoms in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).Objective: To systematically evaluate the epidemiological evidence regarding the associations between long-term exposure to outdoor air pollution and respiratory symptoms in LMICs.We searched for literature published between January 1946 and September 2022 We searched for literature up to September 2022 in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science (Core Collection). The air and gaseous pollutants studied included particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and black carbon (BC), and exposure was 1-year duration or more. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with a random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR) estimates. A rerun of the databases was conducted in November 2023 with no eligible studies found.Of the 1346 studies identified, only six met our inclusion criteria, and these six reported PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 with asthma as the main outcome. Three of these included studies were further included in the meta-analysis because they had data on the same exposure and outcome (PM2.5 and asthma). The main result of our study showed a borderline significant association between a 10 µg/m 3 increase in exposure to PM2.5 and an increased risk of asthma (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93, 1.50). There was evidence of considerable heterogeneity (I 2 =75.87%). The regressionbased Egger test for small-study effects showed no significant publication bias among these three studies.Our results indicate that long-term exposure to PM2.5 increases the risk of asthma in LMICs, but studies are scarce and there is a large need for more research in LMICs in this field.

Keywords: Air Quality, Ambient air pollution, Asthma, Environmental Health, LMICs, respiratory symptoms, Public Health

Received: 08 Dec 2023; Accepted: 22 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Abbah, Xu and Johannessen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Ane Johannessen, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

People also looked at