about empirical literature review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 2 Chapter 3: What is Empirical Literature & Where can it be Found?

In Module 1, you read about the problem of pseudoscience. Here, we revisit the issue in addressing how to locate and assess scientific or empirical literature . In this chapter you will read about:

• distinguishing between what IS and IS NOT empirical literature
• how and where to locate empirical literature for understanding diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Probably the most important take-home lesson from this chapter is that one source is not sufficient to being well-informed on a topic. It is important to locate multiple sources of information and to critically appraise the points of convergence and divergence in the information acquired from different sources. This is especially true in emerging and poorly understood topics, as well as in answering complex questions.

What Is Empirical Literature

Social workers often need to locate valid, reliable information concerning the dimensions of a population group or subgroup, a social work problem, or social phenomenon. They might also seek information about the way specific problems or resources are distributed among the populations encountered in professional practice. Or, social workers might be interested in finding out about the way that certain people experience an event or phenomenon. Empirical literature resources may provide answers to many of these types of social work questions. In addition, resources containing data regarding social indicators may also prove helpful. Social indicators are the “facts and figures” statistics that describe the social, economic, and psychological factors that have an impact on the well-being of a community or other population group.The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are examples of organizations that monitor social indicators at a global level: dimensions of population trends (size, composition, growth/loss), health status (physical, mental, behavioral, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality, fertility/child-bearing, and diseases like HIV/AIDS), housing and quality of sanitation (water supply, waste disposal), education and literacy, and work/income/unemployment/economics, for example.

Three characteristics stand out in empirical literature compared to other types of information available on a topic of interest: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/replicability/reproducibility. Let’s look a little more closely at these three features.

Systematic Observation and Methodology. The hallmark of empiricism is “repeated or reinforced observation of the facts or phenomena” (Holosko, 2006, p. 6). In empirical literature, established research methodologies and procedures are systematically applied to answer the questions of interest.

Objectivity. Gathering “facts,” whatever they may be, drives the search for empirical evidence (Holosko, 2006). Authors of empirical literature are expected to report the facts as observed, whether or not these facts support the investigators’ original hypotheses. Research integrity demands that the information be provided in an objective manner, reducing sources of investigator bias to the greatest possible extent.

Transparency and Replicability/Reproducibility.   Empirical literature is reported in such a manner that other investigators understand precisely what was done and what was found in a particular research study—to the extent that they could replicate the study to determine whether the findings are reproduced when repeated. The outcomes of an original and replication study may differ, but a reader could easily interpret the methods and procedures leading to each study’s findings.

What is NOT Empirical Literature

By now, it is probably obvious to you that literature based on “evidence” that is not developed in a systematic, objective, transparent manner is not empirical literature. On one hand, non-empirical types of professional literature may have great significance to social workers. For example, social work scholars may produce articles that are clearly identified as describing a new intervention or program without evaluative evidence, critiquing a policy or practice, or offering a tentative, untested theory about a phenomenon. These resources are useful in educating ourselves about possible issues or concerns. But, even if they are informed by evidence, they are not empirical literature. Here is a list of several sources of information that do not meet the standard of being called empirical literature:

• your course instructor’s lectures
• political statements
• advertisements
• newspapers & magazines (journalism)
• television news reports & analyses (journalism)
• many websites, Facebook postings, Twitter tweets, and blog postings
• the introductory literature review in an empirical article

You may be surprised to see the last two included in this list. Like the other sources of information listed, these sources also might lead you to look for evidence. But, they are not themselves sources of evidence. They may summarize existing evidence, but in the process of summarizing (like your instructor’s lectures), information is transformed, modified, reduced, condensed, and otherwise manipulated in such a manner that you may not see the entire, objective story. These are called secondary sources, as opposed to the original, primary source of evidence. In relying solely on secondary sources, you sacrifice your own critical appraisal and thinking about the original work—you are “buying” someone else’s interpretation and opinion about the original work, rather than developing your own interpretation and opinion. What if they got it wrong? How would you know if you did not examine the primary source for yourself? Consider the following as an example of “getting it wrong” being perpetuated.

Example: Bullying and School Shootings . One result of the heavily publicized April 1999 school shooting incident at Columbine High School (Colorado), was a heavy emphasis placed on bullying as a causal factor in these incidents (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017), “creating a powerful master narrative about school shootings” (Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017, p. 3). Naturally, with an identified cause, a great deal of effort was devoted to anti-bullying campaigns and interventions for enhancing resilience among youth who experience bullying.  However important these strategies might be for promoting positive mental health, preventing poor mental health, and possibly preventing suicide among school-aged children and youth, it is a mistaken belief that this can prevent school shootings (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017). Many times the accounts of the perpetrators having been bullied come from potentially inaccurate third-party accounts, rather than the perpetrators themselves; bullying was not involved in all instances of school shooting; a perpetrator’s perception of being bullied/persecuted are not necessarily accurate; many who experience severe bullying do not perpetrate these incidents; bullies are the least targeted shooting victims; perpetrators of the shooting incidents were often bullying others; and, bullying is only one of many important factors associated with perpetrating such an incident (Ioannou, Hammond, & Simpson, 2015; Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017; Newman &Fox, 2009; Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017). While mass media reports deliver bullying as a means of explaining the inexplicable, the reality is not so simple: “The connection between bullying and school shootings is elusive” (Langman, 2014), and “the relationship between bullying and school shooting is, at best, tenuous” (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017, p. 940). The point is, when a narrative becomes this publicly accepted, it is difficult to sort out truth and reality without going back to original sources of information and evidence.

What May or May Not Be Empirical Literature: Literature Reviews

Investigators typically engage in a review of existing literature as they develop their own research studies. The review informs them about where knowledge gaps exist, methods previously employed by other scholars, limitations of prior work, and previous scholars’ recommendations for directing future research. These reviews may appear as a published article, without new study data being reported (see Fields, Anderson, & Dabelko-Schoeny, 2014 for example). Or, the literature review may appear in the introduction to their own empirical study report. These literature reviews are not considered to be empirical evidence sources themselves, although they may be based on empirical evidence sources. One reason is that the authors of a literature review may or may not have engaged in a systematic search process, identifying a full, rich, multi-sided pool of evidence reports.

There is, however, a type of review that applies systematic methods and is, therefore, considered to be more strongly rooted in evidence: the systematic review .

Systematic review of literature. A systematic reviewis a type of literature report where established methods have been systematically applied, objectively, in locating and synthesizing a body of literature. The systematic review report is characterized by a great deal of transparency about the methods used and the decisions made in the review process, and are replicable. Thus, it meets the criteria for empirical literature: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/reproducibility. We will work a great deal more with systematic reviews in the second course, SWK 3402, since they are important tools for understanding interventions. They are somewhat less common, but not unheard of, in helping us understand diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Locating Empirical Evidence

Social workers have available a wide array of tools and resources for locating empirical evidence in the literature. These can be organized into four general categories.

Journal Articles. A number of professional journals publish articles where investigators report on the results of their empirical studies. However, it is important to know how to distinguish between empirical and non-empirical manuscripts in these journals. A key indicator, though not the only one, involves a peer review process . Many professional journals require that manuscripts undergo a process of peer review before they are accepted for publication. This means that the authors’ work is shared with scholars who provide feedback to the journal editor as to the quality of the submitted manuscript. The editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ feedback:

• Accept as is
• Accept with minor revisions
• Request that a revision be resubmitted (no assurance of acceptance)

When a “revise and resubmit” decision is made, the piece will go back through the review process to determine if it is now acceptable for publication and that all of the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. Editors may also reject a manuscript because it is a poor fit for the journal, based on its mission and audience, rather than sending it for review consideration.

Indicators of journal relevance. Various journals are not equally relevant to every type of question being asked of the literature. Journals may overlap to a great extent in terms of the topics they might cover; in other words, a topic might appear in multiple different journals, depending on how the topic was being addressed. For example, articles that might help answer a question about the relationship between community poverty and violence exposure might appear in several different journals, some with a focus on poverty, others with a focus on violence, and still others on community development or public health. Journal titles are sometimes a good starting point but may not give a broad enough picture of what they cover in their contents.

In focusing a literature search, it also helps to review a journal’s mission and target audience. For example, at least four different journals focus specifically on poverty:

• Journal of Children & Poverty
• Journal of Poverty
• Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
• Poverty & Public Policy

Let’s look at an example using the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice . Information about this journal is located on the journal’s webpage: http://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/journal-of-poverty-and-social-justice . In the section headed “About the Journal” you can see that it is an internationally focused research journal, and that it addresses social justice issues in addition to poverty alone. The research articles are peer-reviewed (there appear to be non-empirical discussions published, as well). These descriptions about a journal are almost always available, sometimes listed as “scope” or “mission.” These descriptions also indicate the sponsorship of the journal—sponsorship may be institutional (a particular university or agency, such as Smith College Studies in Social Work ), a professional organization, such as the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) or the National Association of Social Work (NASW), or a publishing company (e.g., Taylor & Frances, Wiley, or Sage).

Indicators of journal caliber.  Despite engaging in a peer review process, not all journals are equally rigorous. Some journals have very high rejection rates, meaning that many submitted manuscripts are rejected; others have fairly high acceptance rates, meaning that relatively few manuscripts are rejected. This is not necessarily the best indicator of quality, however, since newer journals may not be sufficiently familiar to authors with high quality manuscripts and some journals are very specific in terms of what they publish. Another index that is sometimes used is the journal’s impact factor . Impact factor is a quantitative number indicative of how often articles published in the journal are cited in the reference list of other journal articles—the statistic is calculated as the number of times on average each article published in a particular year were cited divided by the number of articles published (the number that could be cited). For example, the impact factor for the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice in our list above was 0.70 in 2017, and for the Journal of Poverty was 0.30. These are relatively low figures compared to a journal like the New England Journal of Medicine with an impact factor of 59.56! This means that articles published in that journal were, on average, cited more than 59 times in the next year or two.

Impact factors are not necessarily the best indicator of caliber, however, since many strong journals are geared toward practitioners rather than scholars, so they are less likely to be cited by other scholars but may have a large impact on a large readership. This may be the case for a journal like the one titled Social Work, the official journal of the National Association of Social Workers. It is distributed free to all members: over 120,000 practitioners, educators, and students of social work world-wide. The journal has a recent impact factor of.790. The journals with social work relevant content have impact factors in the range of 1.0 to 3.0 according to Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), particularly when they are interdisciplinary journals (for example, Child Development , Journal of Marriage and Family , Child Abuse and Neglect , Child Maltreatmen t, Social Service Review , and British Journal of Social Work ). Once upon a time, a reader could locate different indexes comparing the “quality” of social work-related journals. However, the concept of “quality” is difficult to systematically define. These indexes have mostly been replaced by impact ratings, which are not necessarily the best, most robust indicators on which to rely in assessing journal quality. For example, new journals addressing cutting edge topics have not been around long enough to have been evaluated using this particular tool, and it takes a few years for articles to begin to be cited in other, later publications.

Beware of pseudo-, illegitimate, misleading, deceptive, and suspicious journals . Another side effect of living in the Age of Information is that almost anyone can circulate almost anything and call it whatever they wish. This goes for “journal” publications, as well. With the advent of open-access publishing in recent years (electronic resources available without subscription), we have seen an explosion of what are called predatory or junk journals . These are publications calling themselves journals, often with titles very similar to legitimate publications and often with fake editorial boards. These “publications” lack the integrity of legitimate journals. This caution is reminiscent of the discussions earlier in the course about pseudoscience and “snake oil” sales. The predatory nature of many apparent information dissemination outlets has to do with how scientists and scholars may be fooled into submitting their work, often paying to have their work peer-reviewed and published. There exists a “thriving black-market economy of publishing scams,” and at least two “journal blacklists” exist to help identify and avoid these scam journals (Anderson, 2017).

This issue is important to information consumers, because it creates a challenge in terms of identifying legitimate sources and publications. The challenge is particularly important to address when information from on-line, open-access journals is being considered. Open-access is not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate scientists may pay sizeable fees to legitimate publishers to make their work freely available and accessible as open-access resources. On-line access is also not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate publishers often make articles available on-line to provide timely access to the content, especially when publishing the article in hard copy will be delayed by months or even a year or more. On the other hand, stating that a journal engages in a peer-review process is no guarantee of quality—this claim may or may not be truthful. Pseudo- and junk journals may engage in some quality control practices, but may lack attention to important quality control processes, such as managing conflict of interest, reviewing content for objectivity or quality of the research conducted, or otherwise failing to adhere to industry standards (Laine & Winker, 2017).

One resource designed to assist with the process of deciphering legitimacy is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ is not a comprehensive listing of all possible legitimate open-access journals, and does not guarantee quality, but it does help identify legitimate sources of information that are openly accessible and meet basic legitimacy criteria. It also is about open-access journals, not the many journals published in hard copy.

An additional caution: Search for article corrections. Despite all of the careful manuscript review and editing, sometimes an error appears in a published article. Most journals have a practice of publishing corrections in future issues. When you locate an article, it is helpful to also search for updates. Here is an example where data presented in an article’s original tables were erroneous, and a correction appeared in a later issue.

• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2017). A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 12(8): e0181722. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558917/
• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2018).Correction—A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 13(3): e0193937.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193937

Search Tools. In this age of information, it is all too easy to find items—the problem lies in sifting, sorting, and managing the vast numbers of items that can be found. For example, a simple Google® search for the topic “community poverty and violence” resulted in about 15,600,000 results! As a means of simplifying the process of searching for journal articles on a specific topic, a variety of helpful tools have emerged. One type of search tool has previously applied a filtering process for you: abstracting and indexing databases . These resources provide the user with the results of a search to which records have already passed through one or more filters. For example, PsycINFO is managed by the American Psychological Association and is devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science. It contains almost 4.5 million records and is growing every month. However, it may not be available to users who are not affiliated with a university library. Conducting a basic search for our topic of “community poverty and violence” in PsychINFO returned 1,119 articles. Still a large number, but far more manageable. Additional filters can be applied, such as limiting the range in publication dates, selecting only peer reviewed items, limiting the language of the published piece (English only, for example), and specified types of documents (either chapters, dissertations, or journal articles only, for example). Adding the filters for English, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2010 and 2017 resulted in 346 documents being identified.

Just as was the case with journals, not all abstracting and indexing databases are equivalent. There may be overlap between them, but none is guaranteed to identify all relevant pieces of literature. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the questions asked of the literature:

• Academic Search Complete—multidisciplinary index of 9,300 peer-reviewed journals
• AgeLine—multidisciplinary index of aging-related content for over 600 journals
• Campbell Collaboration—systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, social welfare, international development
• Google Scholar—broad search tool for scholarly literature across many disciplines
• MEDLINE/ PubMed—National Library of medicine, access to over 15 million citations
• Oxford Bibliographies—annotated bibliographies, each is discipline specific (e.g., psychology, childhood studies, criminology, social work, sociology)
• PsycINFO/PsycLIT—international literature on material relevant to psychology and related disciplines
• SocINDEX—publications in sociology
• Social Sciences Abstracts—multiple disciplines
• Social Work Abstracts—many areas of social work are covered
• Web of Science—a “meta” search tool that searches other search tools, multiple disciplines

Placing our search for information about “community violence and poverty” into the Social Work Abstracts tool with no additional filters resulted in a manageable 54-item list. Finally, abstracting and indexing databases are another way to determine journal legitimacy: if a journal is indexed in a one of these systems, it is likely a legitimate journal. However, the converse is not necessarily true: if a journal is not indexed does not mean it is an illegitimate or pseudo-journal.

Government Sources. A great deal of information is gathered, analyzed, and disseminated by various governmental branches at the international, national, state, regional, county, and city level. Searching websites that end in.gov is one way to identify this type of information, often presented in articles, news briefs, and statistical reports. These government sources gather information in two ways: they fund external investigations through grants and contracts and they conduct research internally, through their own investigators. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the topic for which information is sought:

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at https://www.ahrq.gov/
• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) at https://www.bjs.gov/
• Census Bureau at https://www.census.gov
• Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC (MMWR-CDC) at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
• Child Welfare Information Gateway at https://www.childwelfare.gov
• Children’s Bureau/Administration for Children & Families at https://www.acf.hhs.gov
• Forum on Child and Family Statistics at https://www.childstats.gov
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) at https://www.nih.gov , including (not limited to):
• National Institute on Aging (NIA at https://www.nia.nih.gov
• National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at https://www.niaaa.nih.gov
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at https://www.nichd.nih.gov
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at https://www.nida.nih.gov
• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at https://www.niehs.nih.gov
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at https://www.nimh.nih.gov
• National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities at https://www.nimhd.nih.gov
• National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at https://www.nij.gov
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at https://www.samhsa.gov/
• United States Agency for International Development at https://usaid.gov

Each state and many counties or cities have similar data sources and analysis reports available, such as Ohio Department of Health at https://www.odh.ohio.gov/healthstats/dataandstats.aspx and Franklin County at https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Ohio/Franklin-County/Overview . Data are available from international/global resources (e.g., United Nations and World Health Organization), as well.

Other Sources. The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the National Academies—previously the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—is a nonprofit institution that aims to provide government and private sector policy and other decision makers with objective analysis and advice for making informed health decisions. For example, in 2018 they produced reports on topics in substance use and mental health concerning the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease,  the legal implications of emerging neurotechnologies, and a global agenda concerning the identification and prevention of violence (see http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/Topics/Substance-Abuse-Mental-Health.aspx ). The exciting aspect of this resource is that it addresses many topics that are current concerns because they are hoping to help inform emerging policy. The caution to consider with this resource is the evidence is often still emerging, as well.

Numerous “think tank” organizations exist, each with a specific mission. For example, the Rand Corporation is a nonprofit organization offering research and analysis to address global issues since 1948. The institution’s mission is to help improve policy and decision making “to help individuals, families, and communities throughout the world be safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous,” addressing issues of energy, education, health care, justice, the environment, international affairs, and national security (https://www.rand.org/about/history.html). And, for example, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is a philanthropic organization supporting research and research dissemination concerning health issues facing the United States. The foundation works to build a culture of health across systems of care (not only medical care) and communities (https://www.rwjf.org).

While many of these have a great deal of helpful evidence to share, they also may have a strong political bias. Objectivity is often lacking in what information these organizations provide: they provide evidence to support certain points of view. That is their purpose—to provide ideas on specific problems, many of which have a political component. Think tanks “are constantly researching solutions to a variety of the world’s problems, and arguing, advocating, and lobbying for policy changes at local, state, and federal levels” (quoted from https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-tanks/ ). Helpful information about what this one source identified as the 50 most influential U.S. think tanks includes identifying each think tank’s political orientation. For example, The Heritage Foundation is identified as conservative, whereas Human Rights Watch is identified as liberal.

While not the same as think tanks, many mission-driven organizations also sponsor or report on research, as well. For example, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics (NACOA) in the United States is a registered nonprofit organization. Its mission, along with other partnering organizations, private-sector groups, and federal agencies, is to promote policy and program development in research, prevention and treatment to provide information to, for, and about children of alcoholics (of all ages). Based on this mission, the organization supports knowledge development and information gathering on the topic and disseminates information that serves the needs of this population. While this is a worthwhile mission, there is no guarantee that the information meets the criteria for evidence with which we have been working. Evidence reported by think tank and mission-driven sources must be utilized with a great deal of caution and critical analysis!

In many instances an empirical report has not appeared in the published literature, but in the form of a technical or final report to the agency or program providing the funding for the research that was conducted. One such example is presented by a team of investigators funded by the National Institute of Justice to evaluate a program for training professionals to collect strong forensic evidence in instances of sexual assault (Patterson, Resko, Pierce-Weeks, & Campbell, 2014): https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247081.pdf . Investigators may serve in the capacity of consultant to agencies, programs, or institutions, and provide empirical evidence to inform activities and planning. One such example is presented by Maguire-Jack (2014) as a report to a state’s child maltreatment prevention board: https://preventionboard.wi.gov/Documents/InvestmentInPreventionPrograming_Final.pdf .

When Direct Answers to Questions Cannot Be Found. Sometimes social workers are interested in finding answers to complex questions or questions related to an emerging, not-yet-understood topic. This does not mean giving up on empirical literature. Instead, it requires a bit of creativity in approaching the literature. A Venn diagram might help explain this process. Consider a scenario where a social worker wishes to locate literature to answer a question concerning issues of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a social justice term applied to situations where multiple categorizations or classifications come together to create overlapping, interconnected, or multiplied disadvantage. For example, women with a substance use disorder and who have been incarcerated face a triple threat in terms of successful treatment for a substance use disorder: intersectionality exists between being a woman, having a substance use disorder, and having been in jail or prison. After searching the literature, little or no empirical evidence might have been located on this specific triple-threat topic. Instead, the social worker will need to seek literature on each of the threats individually, and possibly will find literature on pairs of topics (see Figure 3-1). There exists some literature about women’s outcomes for treatment of a substance use disorder (a), some literature about women during and following incarceration (b), and some literature about substance use disorders and incarceration (c). Despite not having a direct line on the center of the intersecting spheres of literature (d), the social worker can develop at least a partial picture based on the overlapping literatures.

Figure 3-1. Venn diagram of intersecting literature sets.

Take a moment to complete the following activity. For each statement about empirical literature, decide if it is true or false.

Social Work 3401 Coursebook Copyright © by Dr. Audrey Begun is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

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

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

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

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

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 ]

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

What is a literature review, traditional (narrative) literature review, integrative literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, scoping review.

• Developing a Research Question
• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search
• Organize Key Findings
• Reference Management

Ask Us! Health Sciences Library

The health sciences library.

Call toll-free:  (844) 352-7399 E-mail:   Ask Us More contact information

Related Guides

• Systematic Reviews by Roy Brown Last Updated Oct 17, 2023 851 views this year
• Write a Literature Review by John Glover Last Updated Jul 26, 2024 4235 views this year

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. There are many different types of literature reviews. They vary in terms of comprehensiveness, types of study included, and purpose. 

The other pages in this guide will cover some basic steps to consider when conducting a traditional health sciences literature review. See below for a quick look at some of the more popular types of literature reviews.

For additional information on a variety of review methods, the following article provides an excellent overview.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing....

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Literature Review: 3 Essential Ingredients

The theoretical framework, empirical research and research gap

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | July 2023

Writing a comprehensive but concise literature review is no simple task. There’s a lot of ground to cover and it can be challenging to figure out what’s important and what’s not. In this post, we’ll unpack three essential ingredients that need to be woven into your literature review to lay a rock-solid foundation for your study.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Essential Ingredients

• Ingredients vs structure
• The theoretical framework (foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• Summary & key takeaways

Ingredients vs Structure

As a starting point, it’s important to clarify that the three ingredients we’ll cover in this video are things that need to feature within your literature review, as opposed to a set structure for your chapter . In other words, there are different ways you can weave these three ingredients into your literature review. Regardless of which structure you opt for, each of the three components will make an appearance in some shape or form. If you’re keen to learn more about structural options, we’ve got a dedicated post about that here .

1. The Theoretical Framework

Let’s kick off with the first essential ingredient – that is the theoretical framework , also called the foundation of theory . 

The foundation of theory, as the name suggests, is where you’ll lay down the foundational building blocks for your literature review so that your reader can get a clear idea of the core concepts, theories and assumptions (in relation to your research aims and questions) that will guide your study. Note that this is not the same as a conceptual framework .

Typically you’ll cover a few things within the theoretical framework:

Firstly, you’ll need to clearly define the key constructs and variables that will feature within your study. In many cases, any given term can have multiple different definitions or interpretations – for example, different people will define the concept of “integrity” in different ways. This variation in interpretation can, of course, wreak havoc on how your study is understood. So, this section is where you’ll pin down what exactly you mean when you refer to X, Y or Z in your study, as well as why you chose that specific definition. It’s also a good idea to state any assumptions that are inherent in these definitions and why these are acceptable, given the purpose of your study.

Related to this, the second thing you’ll need to cover in your theoretical framework is the relationships between these variables and/or constructs . For example, how does one variable potentially affect another variable – does A have an impact on B, B on A, and so on? In other words, you want to connect the dots between the different “things” of interest that you’ll be exploring in your study. Note that you only need to focus on the key items of interest here (i.e. those most central to your research aims and questions) – not every possible construct or variable.

Lastly, and very importantly, you need to discuss the existing theories that are relevant to your research aims and research questions . For example, if you’re investigating the uptake/adoption of a certain application or software, you might discuss Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model and unpack what it has to say about the factors that influence technology adoption. More importantly, though, you need to explain how this impacts your expectations about what you will find in your own study . In other words, your theoretical framework should reveal some insights about what answers you might expect to find to your research questions .

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of the limited-time offer (60% off the standard price).

Need a helping hand?

2. The Empirical Research

Onto the second essential ingredient, which is  empirical research . This section is where you’ll present a critical discussion of the existing empirical research that is relevant to your research aims and questions.

But what exactly is empirical research?

Simply put, empirical research includes any study that involves actual data collection and analysis , whether that’s qualitative data, quantitative data, or a mix of both . This contrasts against purely theoretical literature (the previous ingredient), which draws its conclusions based exclusively on logic and reason , as opposed to an analysis of real-world data.

In other words, theoretical literature provides a prediction or expectation of what one might find based on reason and logic, whereas empirical research tests the accuracy of those predictions using actual real-world data . This reflects the broader process of knowledge creation – in other words, first developing a theory and then testing it out in the field.

Long story short, the second essential ingredient of a high-quality literature review is a critical discussion of the existing empirical research . Here, it’s important to go beyond description . You’ll need to present a critical analysis that addresses some (if not all) of the following questions:

• What have different studies found in relation to your research questions ?
• What contexts have (and haven’t been covered)? For example, certain countries, cities, cultures, etc.
• Are the findings across the studies similar or is there a lot of variation ? If so, why might this be the case?
• What sorts of research methodologies have been used and how could these help me develop my own methodology?
• What were the noteworthy limitations of these studies?

Simply put, your task here is to present a synthesis of what’s been done (and found) within the empirical research, so that you can clearly assess the current state of knowledge and identify potential research gaps , which leads us to our third essential ingredient.

The Research Gap

The third essential ingredient of a high-quality literature review is a discussion of the research gap (or gaps).

But what exactly is a research gap?

Simply put, a research gap is any unaddressed or inadequately explored area within the existing body of academic knowledge. In other words, a research gap emerges whenever there’s still some uncertainty regarding a certain topic or question.

For example, it might be the case that there are mixed findings regarding the relationship between two variables (e.g., job performance and work-from-home policies). Similarly, there might be a lack of research regarding the impact of a specific new technology on people’s mental health. On the other end of the spectrum, there might be a wealth of research regarding a certain topic within one country (say the US), but very little research on that same topic in a different social context (say, China).

These are just random examples, but as you can see, research gaps can emerge from many different places. What’s important to understand is that the research gap (or gaps) needs to emerge from your previous discussion of the theoretical and empirical literature . In other words, your discussion in those sections needs to start laying the foundation for the research gap.

For example, when discussing empirical research, you might mention that most studies have focused on a certain context , yet very few (or none) have focused on another context, and there’s reason to believe that findings may differ. Or you might highlight how there’s a fair deal of mixed findings and disagreement regarding a certain matter. In other words, you want to start laying a little breadcrumb trail in those sections so that your discussion of the research gap is firmly rooted in the rest of the literature review.

But why does all of this matter?

Well, the research gap should serve as the core justification for your study . Through your literature review, you’ll show what gaps exist in the current body of knowledge, and then your study will then attempt to fill (or contribute towards filling) one of those gaps. In other words, you’re first explaining what the problem is (some sort of gap) and then proposing how you’ll solve it.

Key Takeaways

To recap, the three ingredients that need to be mixed into your literature review are:

• The foundation of theory or theoretical framework
• The empirical or evidence-based research

As we mentioned earlier, these are components of a literature review and not (necessarily) a structure for your literature review chapter. Of course, you can structure your chapter in a way that reflects these three components (in fact, in some cases that works very well), but it’s certainly not the only option. The right structure will vary from study to study , depending on various factors.

If you’d like to get hands-on help developing your literature review, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the entire research journey, step by step. 

Psst… there’s more!

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

very good , as the first writer of the thesis i will need ur advise . please give me a piece of idea on topic -impact of national standardized exam on students learning engagement . Thank you .

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Getting Started
• Topic Overviews
• Other Databases
• Tests and Measures

What is an Empirical Study?

Literature review.

• Organize Your Sources
• NEW: LibKey Nomad

An empirical article reports the findings of a study conducted by the authors and uses data gathered from an experiment or observation. An empirical study is verifiable and "based on facts, systematic observation, or experiment, rather than theory or general philosophical principle" ( APA Databases Methodology Field Values ).  In other words, it tells the story of a research conducted, doing it in great detail. The study may utilize quantitative research methods to produce numerical data and seek to find a causal relationship between two or more variables. Conversely, it may use qualitative research methods, which involves collecting non-numerical data to analyze concepts, opinions, or experiences.

Key parts of an empirical article:

• Abstract  - Provides a brief overview of the research.
• Introduction  - The introduction provides a review of previous research on the topic and states the hypothesis. 
• Methods  - The methods area describes how the research was conducted, identifies the design of the study, the participants, and any measurements that were taken during the study.
• Results  - The results section describes the outcome of the study. 
• Discussion (or conclusion)  - The discussion section addresses the researchers' interpretations of their study and any future implications from their findings.
• References  - A list of works that were cited in the study.
• What is a Lit. Review?
• Purpose of a Lit. Review
• Limitations
• Non-Empirical Research
• Useful Links/Additional Info

A review of the published resources related to a specific issue, area of research, or specific theory. It provides a summary, description, and critical evaluation of each resource.

A literature review:

•  Synthesizes and places into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic.
• Maps the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns.
• Forms the foundation for subsequent research 
• Justifies the significance of the new investigation.
• Contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices.

A Lit. Review provides background and context; it shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

There are generally five parts to a literature review:

• Introduction
• Bibliography

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature
• Explain why this review has taken place
• Articulate a position or hypothesis
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

 Add / Reorder  

A lit. review's purpose is to offer an overview of the significant works published on a topic. It can be written as an introduction to a study in order to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

It could be a separate work (a research article on its own) that:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Some limitations of a literature review include:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. Future developments could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to ensure that all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Non-Empirical Research articles focus more on theories, methods and their implications for research. Non-Empirical Research can include comprehensive reviews and articles that focus on methodology. They rely on empirical research literature as well but does not need to be essentially data-driven.

Write a Literature Review (UCSC)

• Literature Review (Purdue)
• Overview: Lit Reviews (UNC)
• Review of Literature (UW-Madison)
• << Previous: Tests and Measures
• Next: Organize Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 3:47 PM
• URL: https://libguides.macalester.edu/psyc

• Meriam Library

SWRK 330 - Social Work Research Methods

• Literature Reviews and Empirical Research
• Databases and Search Tips
• Article Citations
• Scholarly Journal Evaulation
• Statistical Sources
• Books and eBooks

What is a Literature Review?

Empirical research.

• Annotated Bibliographies

A literature review  summarizes and discusses previous publications  on a topic.

It should also:

explore past research and its strengths and weaknesses.

be used to validate the target and methods you have chosen for your proposed research.

consist of books and scholarly journals that provide research examples of populations or settings similar to your own, as well as community resources to document the need for your proposed research.

The literature review does not present new  primary  scholarship. 

be completed in the correct citation format requested by your professor  (see the  C itations Tab)

Access Purdue  OWL's Social Work Literature Review Guidelines here .  

Empirical Research  is  research  that is based on experimentation or observation, i.e. Evidence. Such  research  is often conducted to answer a specific question or to test a hypothesis (educated guess).

How do you know if a study is empirical? Read the subheadings within the article, book, or report and look for a description of the research "methodology."  Ask yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

These are some key features to look for when identifying empirical research.

NOTE:  Not all of these features will be in every empirical research article, some may be excluded, use this only as a guide.

• Statement of methodology
• Research questions are clear and measurable
• Individuals, group, subjects which are being studied are identified/defined
• Data is presented regarding the findings
• Controls or instruments such as surveys or tests were conducted
• There is a literature review
• There is discussion of the results included
• Citations/references are included

See also Empirical Research Guide

• << Previous: Citations
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 8:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.csuchico.edu/SWRK330

Meriam Library | CSU, Chico

• Advertise with us
• Tuesday, August 13, 2024

Most Widely Read Newspaper

PunchNG Menu:

• Special Features
• Sex & Relationship

ID) . '?utm_source=news-flash&utm_medium=web"> Download Punch Lite App

Project Chapter Two: Literature Review and Steps to Writing Empirical Review

Kindly share this story:

• Conceptual review
• Theoretical review,
• Empirical review or review of empirical works of literature/studies, and lastly
• Conclusion or Summary of the literature reviewed.
• Decide on a topic
• Highlight the studies/literature that you will review in the empirical review
• Analyze the works of literature separately.
• Summarize the literature in table or concept map format.
• Synthesize the literature and then proceed to write your empirical review.

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.

Contact: [email protected]

Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The Punch Newspaper on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline – join now!

️‍🔥️‍🔥️‍🔥GOT WHAT IT TAKES?: Predict and Win Millions with the best Sports Betting Site In Nigeria Get Started 

Latest News

Loan or grant: fg, states row over w’bank n570bn fund, fg directs embassies to slash foreign scholars’ allowances, why unilag, oau can’t go below 200 admission cut-off – jamb, prophetess, teacher arraigned for fake charm, n8m theft, rivers apc secretariat bombed as fubara defection rumour thickens.

Marketers project N600/litre for Dangote petrol

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conse adipiscing elit.

Emerging Results on Automated Support for Searching and Selecting Evidence for Systematic Literature Review Updates

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, empirical evidence about the uml: a systematic literature review.

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) was created on the basis of expert opinion and has now become accepted as the ‘standard’ object-oriented modelling notation. Our objectives were to determine how widely the notations of the UML, and their usefulness, ...

Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) studies aim to identify relevant primary papers, extract the required data, analyze, and synthesize results to gain further and broader insight into the investigated domain. ...

Systematic literature review: Self-Regulated Learning strategies using e-learning tools for Computer Science

In 1986, Barry Zimmerman and Manuel Martinez-Pons presented a taxonomy containing 14 categories on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) strategies performed by high school students when studying. Since this study, researchers have used the ...

• Literature review for e-learning tools that support Self-Regulated Learning in CS.

Information

Published in.

• SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

In-Cooperation

• Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• systematic review update
• searching for evidence
• selecting evidence
• Research-article

Upcoming Conference

Contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

Title: microservice vulnerability analysis: a literature review with empirical insights.

Abstract: Microservice architectures are revolutionizing both small businesses and large corporations, igniting a new era of innovation with their exceptional advantages in maintainability, reusability, and scalability. However, these benefits come with significant security challenges, as the increased complexity of service interactions, expanded attack surfaces, and intricate dependency management introduce a new array of cybersecurity vulnerabilities. While security concerns are mounting, there is a lack of comprehensive research that integrates a review of existing knowledge with empirical analysis of microservice vulnerabilities. This study aims to fill this gap by gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing existing literature on security vulnerabilities associated with microservice architectures. Through a thorough examination of 62 studies, we identify, analyze, and report 126 security vulnerabilities inherent in microservice architectures. This comprehensive analysis enables us to (i) propose a taxonomy that categorizes microservice vulnerabilities based on the distinctive features of microservice architectures; (ii) conduct an empirical analysis by performing vulnerability scans on four diverse microservice benchmark applications using three different scanning tools to validate our taxonomy; and (iii) map our taxonomy vulnerabilities with empirically identified vulnerabilities, providing an in-depth vulnerability analysis at microservice, application, and scanning tool levels. Our study offers crucial guidelines for practitioners and researchers to advance both the state-of-the-practice and the state-of-the-art in securing microservice architectures.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Sweetspire Literature Management

Hours updated 1 month ago

Photos & videos

See all 24 photos

Location & Hours

Suggest an edit

155 Willowbrook Blvd

Wayne, NJ 07470

Amenities and More

Ask the community.

Ask a question

Yelp users haven’t asked any questions yet about Sweetspire Literature Management .

People also searched for

advertising services

brand management

digital marketing

professional services

Recommended Reviews

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 August 2024

CSR decoupling and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China

• Peng Wan 1 ,
• Mengjiao Xu 1 ,
• Yu Yang 1 &
• Xiangyu Chen 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1008 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

144 Accesses

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Environmental studies

This paper examines the efficacy of corporate social responsibility (CSR) decoupling on stock price crash risk (SPCR). Selecting Chinese listed companies over the 2010–2019 period as a sample, we find that CSR decoupling exacerbates SPCR, and this relationship still holds after a battery of endogeneity and robustness tests. Further analysis reveals that within companies characterized by higher agency risks, CSR decoupling exacerbates SPCR more significantly, suggesting the role of information asymmetry as a crucial mechanism through which CSR decoupling influences SPCR. Our results show CSR decoupling’s harm on the capital market and help clarify mixed evidence in existing studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

The effects of heterogeneous CSR on corporate stock performance: evidence from COVID-19 pandemic in China

ESG performance and stock prices: evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in China

Consequences of firm-specific stock price crashes on analyst forecasts: Evidence from China

Introduction.

Investors increasingly expect consistent, reliable, and comparable sustainability disclosure for more efficient risk pricing and capital allocation. Thus, sustainability reporting has become standard practice for many companies, with steady growth over the past decade (KPMG, 2022 ). Under pressure from governments, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders, many publicly listed companies are adopting CSR reporting as a crucial method for disclosing sustainability information (Perez-Batres et al., 2012 ). However, companies may exaggerate publicly disclosed CSR information while being stingy in investing resources and otherwise not living up to their CSR images (Tashman et al., 2019 ). This leads to the inconsistency between CSR disclosures and actual CSR activities, academically termed CSR decoupling (Sauerwald and Su, 2019 ; Chen et al., 2024 ; Hawn and Ioannou, 2016 ). Inevitably, CSR decoupling diminishes the quality of sustainability information and damages the company’s value and reputation (Schons and Steinmeier, 2006 ; Ioannou et al., 2023 ).

The volatility of China’s stock market, characterized by frequent fluctuations and sharp rises and falls, often undermines investor confidence and financial market stability. Many scholars have selected stock price crash risk (SPCR) as their research subject to explore its determining factors (Kim and Zhang, 2016 ; Ball, 2009 ; Kim et al., 2014 ; Hutton et al., 2009 ). However, a wealth of academic research investigating CSR performance’s efficacy on SPCR has obtained mixed evidence. Previous scholars argue that CSR disclosure effectively enhances information transparency, diminishes information asymmetry, and mitigates adverse news backlogs, reducing vulnerability to stock price crashes (Wang et al., 2023 ; Bouslah et al., 2018 ; Kim et al., 2014 ). The opposite view is that CSR is merely an instrument of self-interest management employs to cover up unfavorable corporate news, and using such a tool worsens corporate information transparency and reinforces management’s cover-up behavior, resulting in increased SPCR (Quan et al., 2015 ; Hao et al., 2018 ).

A possible reason for the inconsistent evidence is the existence of the CSR decoupling phenomenon. CSR has two dimensions: disclosure and actual performance. Previous studies implicitly assume that the two are consistent and use only CSR disclosure or CSR performance score as the proxy of CSR. However, many studies have shown that there is likely a difference between a company’s CSR disclosure and its actual CSR practices (Velte, 2023 ), which is defined as “CSR decoupling” (Sauerwald and Su, 2019 ; Hawn and Ioannou, 2016 ). Therefore, to help clarify mixed evidence in existing research, this paper explores CSR decoupling’s efficacy on future SPCR.

Previous literature concentrates mainly on CSR decoupling’s firm- and country-related determinants, whereas few studies explore the consequences of CSR decoupling (Velte, 2023 ). Previous scholars find that CSR decoupling is widespread and can conceal corporate failure, which has a “masking effect” on CSR issues. Hawn and Ioannou ( 2016 ) discover that market value can be negatively affected if external behavior is inconsistent with internal behavior. García-Sánchez et al. ( 2021 ) find that CSR decoupling elevates firms’ capital costs and reduces their finance capacities. In response to Velte’s ( 2023 ) call for more studies on the outcomes of CSR decoupling, this paper selects SPCR as the object of study.

CSR decoupling may stem from the imperfect nature of the CSR reporting framework, where methods and content lack uniformity, offering managers broad discretion to selective disclosure (Patten, 1991 ; Xu and Liu, 2018 ). Thus, managers may utilize information asymmetry with external stakeholders for opportunistic impression management to establish legitimacy, enhance reputations, or even deceive stakeholders (Marquis et al., 2016 ; Delmas and Burbano, 2011 ). This behavior undermines CSR information quality, reducing the reliability of reports and corporate transparency. Consequently, management may conceal negative CSR news until too late, leading to stock price plunges (Jin and Myers, 2006 ).

We use textual analysis to construct an indicator that intuitively embodies the inconsistency between CSR disclosures and actual CSR engagements. Taking Chinese listed companies over the 2010–2019 period as a sample, we find that CSR decoupling exacerbates SPCR, and our finding remains valid after endogeneity and robustness examinations. Mechanism focuses on subsample testing to analyze the effect of agency risk. We examine the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR from the perspectives of different levels of agency risks, focusing on executives’ experiences, monitoring pressures they encounter, and the institutional environment in which they operate. We find that in contexts with higher agency risk, the effect of CSR decoupling on SPCR is more pronounced, suggesting the role of information asymmetry as a crucial mechanism through which CSR decoupling influences SPCR.

This study makes several possible contributions. First, the association between CSR and SPCR explored in this article provides new empirical evidence for the currently debated topic. Certain studies indicate that CSR disclosures alleviate information asymmetry, enhance information transparency, and thus diminish the likelihood of shock price collapses (Kim et al., 2014 ; Bouslah et al., 2018 ). Other studies hold the opposite view that executives use CSR solely as a self-interest tool, reinforcing cover-up behavior and resulting in increased SPCR (Quan et al., 2015 ; Hao et al., 2018 ). Unlike previous literature, which only considers CSR disclosure or performance score as the proxy for CSR, we focus on the inconsistency between the two dimensions of CSR (disclosure and actual activities) and examine CSR decoupling’s efficacy on the crash risks of future stock prices, hence helping to clarify existing research’s mixed evidence.

Secondly, this paper complements existing research on CSR decoupling’s economic consequences. Previous literature mainly refers to country- and firm-related determinants of CSR decoupling, while exploring its outcomes is relatively scarce (Velte, 2023 ). Velte’s ( 2023 ) literature review encourages forthcoming scholars to pay more attention to how CSR decoupling influences shareholders’ and other stakeholders’ decisions. In response to this call, we take asymmetric risk as an entry point and examine CSR decoupling’s economic consequences from the perspective of stock price crashes. By reviewing asymmetric fluctuations in the capital market, we provide insights into the behavioral strategies of internal corporate managers and potential market impacts.

Finally, this paper enriches empirical evidence on the determinants of SPCR. While existing literature explores SPCR’s determinants from the perspectives of perfect rationality and bounded rationality of managers (Ball, 2009 ; Dang et al., 2019 ; Kothari et al., 2009 ; LaFond and Watts, 2008 ; Kim et al., 2016 ), this paper views CSR decoupling as managers’ opportunistic impression management and explores the underlying mechanism through which CSR decoupling affects future SPCR, which complements the existing literature on SPCR’s determinants.

Literature review and hypothesis

Literature review.

Scholars have extensively investigated the impact of a firm’s CSR on various stakeholders. However, there is no consensus on whether the impact of CSR is positive or negative. With the advocacy of sustainable development, scholars increasingly view CSR as beneficial (Tsang et al., 2023 ). Scholars who support the beneficial effects of CSR argue that it is an investment in customer satisfaction, reputation, and stakeholder management, which can ultimately lead to financial performance (Radhakrishnan et al., 2018 ). Independent CSR reports can better attract investors and analysts (Bucaro et al., 2020 ; Dhaliwal et al., 2012 ; Khan et al., 2016 ). The non-financial information disclosed in CSR reports can also improve corporate transparency, reduce information asymmetry, and stabilize stock prices (Wang et al., 2023 ; Kim et al., 2014 ; Bouslah et al., 2018 ). In contrast, Friedman ( 1970 ) contends that socially responsible behavior yields few quantifiable economic benefits, yet it incurs numerous costs that diminish profits and shareholder wealth. Some scholars believe that CSR is merely a self-serving tool management employs to conceal unfavorable corporate news and reinforce cover-up behavior (Quan et al., 2015 ; Hao et al., 2018 ). Thus, investors may unintentionally overestimate the fundamental value of positive CSR stocks (Elliott et al., 2014 ).

CSR decoupling

Empirical research on CSR has provided numerous inconsistent empirical evidence. To pursue a more profound understanding of CSR, scholars are increasingly focusing on the research of CSR decoupling. More literature focuses on CSR decoupling’s determinants than its consequences (Velte, 2023 ). Existing studies include the following three factors that influence CSR decoupling: first, external environments, such as institutional factors like laws, international market regimes, political systems, and GRI guidelines, and external stakeholder factors like institutional investors and analyst coverage (Yu et al., 2020 ; García-Sánchez et al., 2021 ; Tashman et al., 2019 ; Zhang, 2022 ); second, corporate characteristics, such as financial constraints, board size, board gender diversity, board network, CSR committee, and family firm (Eliwa et al., 2023 ; Gull et al., 2023 ; Parra-Domínguez et al., 2021 ; Xia et al., 2023 ; Yu et al., 2020 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ); third, manager traits, such as CEO overconfidence, CEO power, CEO narcissism, and political connections (Shahab et al., 2021 ; Al-Shammari et al., 2019 ; Sauerwald and Su, 2019 ; Marquis and Qian, 2014 ).

Research on CSR decoupling’s firm-level consequences appears to be relatively scarce. Previous studies find that the symbolic use of CSR has a “masking effect” on CSR issues and may damage a company’s image, which eventually reduces the firm’s stock price and market value (Du, 2015 ; Hawn and Ioannou, 2016 ; Chen and Dagestani, 2023 ). Some studies examine stakeholders’ reactions to CSR decoupling and find it significantly reduces customer satisfaction (Ioannou et al., 2023 ), enlarges firms’ analyst forecast errors (García-Sánchez et al., 2021 ), and increases actual employee turnover (Robertson et al., 2023 ).

Stock price crash risk

Scholars have mainly explored the causes of SPCR from two perspectives: perfect rationality and bounded rationality of managers. Studies based on the ideal rationality of managers show that because of the principal-agent problem arising from the separation of powers, managers maintain their positions and salaries (Ball, 2009 ; LaFond and Watts, 2008 ), avoid taxes (Kim et al., 2011 ), build corporate empires (Kothari et al., 2009 ), and seek other self-interests by concealing negative information within their companies. When accumulated adverse information reaches a critical threshold and is sensed by the market in a concentrated manner at some point, stock prices can collapse (Kim and Zhang, 2016 ).

Studies based on managers’ bounded rationality show that because of different cultural backgrounds, cognitive levels, and values, managers can suffer from psychological and behavioral biases (Dang et al., 2019 ); they may have difficulties thoroughly and objectively assessing their abilities and the benefits of risky investments, and they cannot properly handle negative feedback. When the poor performances of investments and negative information accumulate to certain levels and are released suddenly, companies’ stock prices will be adversely affected. For example, Kim et al. ( 2016 ) reveal that overconfident managers often overestimate companies’ future cash flows and their ability to achieve positive outcomes, thus ignoring negative feedback to continue projects likely to yield unfavorable financial outcomes. Consequently, this behavior accumulates poorly performing projects, and eventually, stock prices crash.

Research hypothesis

Information asymmetry within the agency framework is considered a primary factor that leads to SPCR (Habib et al., 2017 ; Chen et al., 2001 ). Asymmetric information enables managers to withhold unfavorable information over an extended duration, aiming to optimize compensation, safeguard employment, and mitigate potential litigation arising from disclosures of adverse news (Kothari et al., 2009 ). Previous research suggests that alleviating agency conflicts and enhancing corporate information transparency can help mitigate the SPCR. While information transparency decreases in the CSR reporting documents, decoupling strategies may reduce CSR reporting quality, and the information function of CSR disclosure is impaired (Velte, 2023 ). Thus, we argue that CSR decoupling can be considered as management taking advantage of information asymmetry to realize an inflated description of CSR performance, hindering negative information from being detected by external investors, and elevating SPCR. In the above analysis, management’s improper utilization of information asymmetry is a critical determinant exacerbating SPCR. Then, when the company faces higher agency risks, where managers have higher discretionary power and lower self-discipline, it is probable that this could result in a more pronounced exacerbating effect of CSR decoupling on SPCR. We then analyze the underlying logic of CSR decoupling and its relationship with stock price collapse from the perspective of different agency risks.

CSR decoupling and SPCR

According to the asymmetric information theory, senior executives have information advantages over external investors, and management can exaggerate their contributions in CSR reports to cultivate favorable company images and mislead investors about company fundamentals. For instance, Hemingway and Maclagan ( 2004 ) reveal that firms may use CSR to conceal their unethical behaviors. This can be seen as the managerial behavior of using CSR reports for self-serving impression management, inevitably leading to the decoupling of CSR.

A wide range of impression management phenomena can occur in CSR information disclosures. First, there is room for manipulation in CSR disclosures. Relative to obligatory financial disclosures, corporate management possesses increased discretion in preparing CSR reports, given that CSR disclosure is voluntary and lacks specific reporting guidelines and strict audit or assurance standards (Tsang et al., 2023 ). The core content of CSR reports is mainly qualitative, descriptive information. Compared to quantitative data, managers are more likely to manipulate descriptive qualitative details (Bloomfield, 2002 ). Textual expressions are often more ambiguous, subtle, and flexible, making strict standardization and legal constraints difficult. Managers have greater discretion in textual disclosures, allowing manipulation of market behavior (Brockman et al., 2013 ). At the same time, companies have strong motivations to engage in impression management when reporting CSR information. One of the primary purposes of disclosing CSR information lies in shaping stakeholders’ perceptions of companies (Guthrie and Parker, 1990 ; Hooghiemstra, 2000 ). While CSR does not directly improve firms’ profitability, it may be valuable to firms, as it can mitigate the impact of unfavorable news and exert an insurance effect (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ; Tucker and Melewar, 2005 ). Because of CSR’s various benefits, companies may embellish their CSR disclosures and thus engage in impression management.

Managers’ impression management within CSR reporting directly weakens the quality of CSR information, significantly reduces its reliability and corporate transparency, and increases information asymmetry between companies and external investors, thus providing opportunities for management to hide unfavorable news for longer until the critical point when unfavorable information is released, which eventually leads to stock price plunges (Jin and Myers, 2006 ). Hence, the more CSR disclosure deviates from actual performance, the higher the degree of CSR decoupling, the less truthful and less credible the disclosure is, and the more likely managers will whitewash poor performance and hide lousy news that risks crashes. Meanwhile, because CSR decoupling distorts the original CSR information, external investors cannot accurately assess the veracity of reported information. Based on positive disclosures, they will form optimistic predictions, resulting in stock prices deviating from firms’ fundamental values and creating stock price bubbles. However, when a company’s CSR performance is unsatisfactory, and the market realizes its CSR report is exaggerated, it will reduce forecasted future corporate earnings and sell off stock, hence increasing SPCR.

To conclude, management has both the opportunity and the motivation to exploit information asymmetry for opportunistic impression management in CSR reports. SPCR may be exacerbated whenever a firm’s outwardly presented CSR image is inconsistent with its actual performance, preventing investors from receiving negative news promptly. Thus, we propose our first hypothesis as follows:

H1: CSR decoupling increases a firm’s SPCR.

The effect of agency risk

We expect the CSR decoupling results from management leveraging their information advantage over external stakeholders to distort genuine CSR information. This inevitably diminishes the quality of CSR reporting, leading to reduced corporate transparency and increased risk of SPCR. Many scholars have adopted agency theory frameworks to study the determinants of CSR decoupling under various agent risks (Velte, 2023 ). They discovered many internal and external governance factors that can constrain CSR decoupling, such as institutional investor shareholding (Yu et al., 2020 ), analyst and media attention (Zhang, 2022 ; Yue and Li, 2023 ), as well as the institutional environment in which the corporation operates (Tashman et al., 2019 ). Therefore, for corporate managers facing more constraints and lower agency risks, their motivation and discretion to implement symbolic CSR disclosure strategies are both constrained.

Extant research has also examined the influence of agency conflicts and information transparency on SPCR across various agent contexts (Habib et al., 2017 ). The executives’ experiences (Cao et al., 2019 ; Jin et al., 2022 ) and the supervision of other capital market participants all influence the company’s agency relationships (Callen and Fang, 2013 ; Boubaker et al., 2014 ). Management is less inclined to withhold bad news in companies with lower agency risks, and the company’s information transparency is superior (Habib et al., 2017 ; Chen et al., 2001 ). In this context, even if the CSR efforts are exaggerated by CSR disclosure, companies with lower agency risks are more likely to achieve more transparent financial disclosures or engage in timely and effective communication with investors. SPCR may not necessarily increase significantly with CSR decoupling. Conversely, in companies with higher agency risks, the negative impact of CSR decoupling is more likely to increase SPCR. Drawing from the preceding analysis, we posit the second hypothesis:

H2: When firms face higher agency risks, CSR decoupling has a more significant exacerbating effect on SPCR.

Methodology

Data and sample.

This paper uses Chinese A-share listed companies from 2010 to 2019 as the research sample. The sampling period starting from 2010 is due to the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008. The exclusion of years beyond 2020 is because the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in China in January 2020. Listed companies’ philanthropic response to the pandemic could potentially disrupt the measurement of CSR decoupling. Evidence from another country indicates that companies during the pandemic are more likely to implement symbolic CSR reporting strategies (Khanchel et al., 2023 ). Then, we clean the sample as follows: (1) exclude observations with less than 30 weeks of annual weekly stock returns; (2) delete companies in the financial sector; (3) exclude ST and PT companies; and (4) remove observations with missing relevant variables. After the above screening, 5297 company-annual observations were obtained. The CSR performance-rating data in this paper were obtained from the Hexun website, and the data on variables, including stock data, financial data, and corporate governance data, were gathered from the CSMAR database. All continuous variables below 1% or above 99% are winsorized to control for the effect of outliers.

Model and variables

Independent variable.

Referring to Sauerwald and Su ( 2019 ) and Zhang ( 2022 ), we define CSR decoupling as the gap between CSR disclosure and actual CSR performance and use the following methodological measures.

Firstly, a textual analysis was conducted on each CSR report to construct the Optimistic Tone of Listed Companies’ CSR Reports (Optimistic Tone). The optimistic tone is an inverse measure of CSR reporting quality, and we use it as a proxy variable for CSR disclosure. Specifically, we first searched the company’s CSR report from Juchao Information Network ( www.cninfo.com.cn ), which is a website for the disclosure of information pertaining to publicly listed companies in China. Some firms issued standalone CSR reports under diverse titles, including “ESG reports” or “Sustainability reports.” As long as the report’s content includes social and environmental issues, the report can be considered a standalone CSR report and included in our sample (Tsang et al., 2023 ; Lys et al., 2015 ; Sauerwald and Su, 2019 ). Then, each CSR report undergoes detailed textual analysis to construct the Optimistic Tone index (Arslan-Ayaydin et al., 2016 ; Tetlock et al., 2008 ). We calculated the frequency of positive and negative tone words in reports from a certain year and defined them as POSPCT and NEGPCT, respectively. The calculation of frequency relies on word categorization and utilizes a lexicon established and verified by Loughran and Mcdonald ( 2011 ). The Optimistic Tone is determined by Eq. ( 1 ):

Next, the rating data from Hexun was used to assess companies’ CSR performance (CSR Performance). To ensure numerical comparability, Optimistic Tone and CSR Performance were transformed into Z -scores. Finally, we define optimistic tone minus CSR performance as the degree of CSR decoupling:

Dependent variable

Following Hutton et al. ( 2009 ) and Kim et al. ( 2011 ), we measure SPCR with the following indicators: negative conditional return skewness (NCSKEW) and down-to-up volatility (DUVOL).

First, the following regression model ( 3 ) is run on weekly returns of stock i :

where \({r}_{i,t}\) denotes weekly individual stock returns considering reinvestment of cash dividends, and \({r}_{{\rm {m}},t}\) represents the average return of all stocks weighted by market capitalization.

The market-adjusted return for stock i in week t is then calculated as

where \({{\varepsilon }}_{{i},{t}}\) is the residual estimated by Eq. ( 3 ).

We construct the measure of negative stock weekly return bias (NCSKEW) based on the firm’s weekly idiosyncratic return. This statistic represents the distribution’s asymmetry, as Eq. ( 5 ) expresses:

Subscript t represents year t ; n represents the trading weeks for firm i in year t . Greater NCSKEW values denote more significant negative return skew factors and increased risks of stock price collapse.

The second indicator is the weekly return up/down volatility ratio (DUVOL), which compares the dispersions of above-average and below-average returns and is calculated by Eq. ( 6 ):

where t denotes year t ; n u and n d , respectively, denote the number of weeks in which W i,t was above and below its annual average return. Larger DUVOL values indicate distributions of returns that skew to the left, which are associated with greater stock price vulnerability.

Baseline model

Referring to existing literature (An et al., 2020 ; Xu et al., 2014 ; Kim et al., 2011 ), we estimated model ( 7 ) to test our hypothesis:

As shown in model ( 7 ), we orient the explanatory variables’ relevant indicators to the latter year (CrashRisk i,t +1 ). CrashRisk i,t +1 represents the risk of stock price crash of firm i in year t  + 1 (measured by NCSKEW i,t +1 and DUVOL i,t +1 , respectively, and CRSAH i,t +1 in the robustness test), while the core explanatory variable CSR_GAP i,t represents the degree of CSR decoupling of firm i in year t . Controls are a set of control variables: market volatility (Sigma), market returns (Ret), financial leverage (Lev), book-to-market ratio (BM), firm size (Size), return on total assets (ROA), information opacity (Opaque), average monthly excess turnover (Dturn), year-fixed effects, and industry-fixed effects (Indus). Table 1 represents detailed definitions of the control variables. According to our research hypothesis, if the coefficient \({\alpha }_{1}\) is statistically significant and positive, CSR decoupling likely elevates SPCR.

The above content outlines the principles of sample selection, measurement methods for the main variables, and the model for the baseline regression. Next, we will provide descriptive statistics for each variable and apply the established model for multiple regression testing to identify the causal relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR, thus validating our hypothesis H1. Furthermore, we will conduct a series of robustness tests to enhance the reliability of our conclusions. Specifically, we use the Heckman two-stage model, further controlling for fixed effects and altering the measurement methods of the main variables. Finally, based on our main findings, we will analyze the association between CSR decoupling and SPCR in different agency risk contexts to verify our hypothesis H2 through sub-sample tests in the mechanism examination section.

Empirical results

Descriptive statistics.

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the main variables. In particular, the means (medians) of the explanatory variables NCSKEW and DUVOL are −0.358 (−0.239) and −0.296 (−0.233), correspondingly, consistent with previous literature (Xu et al., 2014 ). In addition, the standard deviation of CSR decoupling CSR_GAP is 1.507, indicating that the extent of CSR decoupling varies significantly among different companies.

Baseline regression results

Table 3 shows the baseline analysis results, investigating the nexus between CSR decoupling and SPCR. Specifically, columns (1) and (2) include only relevant control variables. Columns (3) and (4) further control industry- and year-fixed effects. We observe that the coefficient on CSR decoupling (CSR_GAP) is notably positive at a significant level of 1% regardless of whether using NCSKEW or DUVOL as the explanatory variable. Regarding economic significance, as column (3) shows, every 1 percent increase in CSR decoupling increases crash risk by ~2.09%. In conclusion, CSR decoupling exacerbates the risk of stock price collapse, supporting our hypothesis H1.

Endogeneity

The findings may face potential endogeneity problems because companies more likely to experience stock price collapses might be more motivated to use CSR decoupling to conceal their negative internal information, which may lead to biased results. In addition, as CSR reporting is primarily voluntary, self-selection bias may exist in observations. To alleviate it, we use the Heckman two-stage analysis and control for firm-fixed effects to support our baseline findings further.

Heckman two-stage model

Initially, we construct a Probit regression model to estimate the likelihood of a company disclosing a CSR report. CSRD is binary, denoted as 1 if a firm published a CSR report in a given year and 0 if it did not. The independent variables include the following ones that influence whether a company chooses to disclose a report: book-to-market ratio (BM), firm size (Size), financial leverage (Lev), return on total assets (ROA), ownership concentration (Top1), proportion of independent directors (Indep), CEO duality (DUAL), and market value (TobinQ). In addition, following Zhang ( 2022 ), we include the mandatory disclosure variable (Mandatory), which equals one if the firm is obligated to release CSR reports and 0 for voluntary disclosure. In the subsequent stage, the inverse Mills ratio obtained from the first stage is introduced as a control variable.

Table 4 presents the regression results of the Heckman two-stage model. In the first stage regression, the coefficient on the mandatory disclosure variable (Mandatory) is significantly positive at the 1% level, indicating that firms that are required to disclose CSR reports are more likely to publish their social responsibility reports (Li et al., 2021 ). After controlling IMR to our model (7), the results in columns (2) and (3) reveal significant positive correlations between CSR decoupling and the two indicators of SPCR at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively, consistent with the baseline regression results.

Controlling for firm-fixed effects

Following Shahab et al. ( 2021 ), we control firm-level fixed effects to alleviate concerns related to unaccounted-for firm-level time-invariant missing variables in the model ( 7 ). As Table 5 shows, the coefficients of CSR decoupling are significantly positive at the 10% level, suggesting our baseline findings are still robust.

Additional robustness tests

Omitted variables.

First, the lagged stock price crash risk indicator is added as a control variable. In addition, referring to Xu et al. ( 2014 ), Yu et al. ( 2023 ), and Wan et al. ( 2024 ), corporate governance variables such as the proportion of independent directors, board size, and separation of duties are added to the model ( 7 ). Table 6 reveals the regression results, and the baseline relationship remains robust after adding the two sets of control variables.

Alternative samples

Given the anomalous phenomenon of thousands of stocks rising and falling together in our stock market in 2015, this extreme situation may negatively impact stock market risk. Therefore, we excluded the observations from 2015 and re-regressed the model ( 7 ). As Table 7 shows, the coefficients of CSR_GAP on the risks of stock price crashes are 0.0193 and 0.0098, respectively. The significant positive correlation between CSR decoupling and two indicators of crash risk persists.

Alternative measurements for SPCR

Following Kim et al. ( 2011 ), the distribution of extreme weekly returns (CRASH) is a suitable SPCR indicator. The variable equals one if the following inequality is satisfied one or more times during the year for stock i , indicating that the stock has experienced a crash event, and 0 otherwise. Equation ( 8 ) explicitly expresses the inequality on which the determination is based:

where \({{\rm {Average}}}\left({W}_{i,\tau }\right)\) is the mean of weekly returns, σ is the standard deviation of weekly returns, and 3.09 σ corresponds to an interval with a normal distribution probability of <1%. We use logistical regression to re-run our model ( 7 ) because of a dummy dependent variable. As reported in column (1) of Table 8 , the coefficients of CSR_GAP are significantly positive at p  < 0.05, supporting our hypothesis H1.

Alternative measurements for CSR decoupling

When measuring optimistic tone, the difference between the numbers of words with positive tones and negative tones was calculated by dividing by the total number of words in the CSR report, expressed in Eq. ( 9 ) below.

We then subtract the value of the external performance indicator from the optimistic tone and denote this new measurement as CSR_GAP2. As columns (2) and (3) show, the coefficients of CSR_GAP2 are still significantly positive for NCSKEW and DUVOL, respectively, indicating that this paper’s findings continue to hold.

Further analysis

This section focuses on subsample testing to analyze the mechanism behind the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR, thus validating our second hypothesis and strengthening the reliability of the previous findings. We examine the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR from the perspectives of different levels of agency risks, focusing on executives’ experiences, monitoring pressures they encounter, and the institutional environment in which they operate.

Executives experience

Empirical research based on imprinting theory has confirmed that executives with specific experiences have particular influences on corporate behavior (Marquis and Tilcsik, 2013 ). Specifically, we limit executives’ personal experiences to academic experience and overseas experience. Academic training cultivates rigorous visionary thinking, making executives more prudent in logic, self-disciplined, and conservative in behavior (Francis et al., 2015 ). Therefore, executives with academic backgrounds are less likely to engage in behaviors harmful to investors. Hiring executives with academic experience can reduce agency risks. Moreover, they possess elevated social ethics and heightened senses of social responsibility (Cho et al., 2017 ), so they may be more inclined to “practice what they preach” when expressing CSR. Meanwhile, overseas experience indicates good education and expertise, and executives with overseas experience improve corporate governance (Giannetti et al., 2015 ). In the Chinese context, the concept of a professional agent is not as prevalent as in foreign capital markets. Executives with overseas experience tend to have a deeper understanding of agency relationships and are more inclined to consider the interests of investors (Cao et al., 2019 ). Therefore, we hypothesize that when executives have academic or overseas experience, the probability that they also have rational and objective philosophies is higher. Companies with executives lacking academic or overseas experience face relatively higher agency risks. Hence, CSR decoupling’s efficacy on SPCR is more significant.

Referring to Zhao et al. ( 2022 ), we define an executive as having academic experience if they have full-time teaching experience in a university, full-time research experience in a scientific research institution, or related research experience. Following Xu and Hou ( 2021 ), we identify a manager who has worked in overseas postings or studied in overseas universities as having overseas experience. This paper distinguishes between executives’ academic and overseas backgrounds for subsample regressions. As Panel A of Table 9 shows, CSR decoupling’s efficacy on SPCR is only significant in the subgroup of executives without overseas or academic experience, which is in line with our expectations and validates Hypothesis 2.

Monitoring forces

From the perspective of external monitoring forces, this paper examines the impacts of institutional investors and media attention on mitigating CSR decoupling’s consequences. Institutional investors in the Chinese capital market tend to possess more professional expertise and proactivity. They are also particularly conscious of and driven to oversee managers’ tendencies to withhold unfavorable news, which lets stock prices more accurately mirror firms’ intrinsic values (Callen and Fang, 2013 ). The media, an effective information intermediary, can also exercise a public supervisory function with its coverage, allowing investors to obtain more information and thus significantly reducing future SPCR (An et al., 2020 ). Therefore, we believe that higher institutional investor holdings and more media attention are conducive to improving information transparency and reducing asymmetry between internal and external aspects of the companies, resulting in reduced agency risks. Companies with higher institutional investor ownership and greater media attention tend to exhibit weaker relationships between CSR decoupling and SPCR.

Following Liu and Wang ( 2022 ), we use the sum of reports from both newspapers and online media to measure media attention. Then, we calculate institutional ownership based on the shareholding proportion of institutional investors and use the industry annual median to divide the sample into high and low external monitoring subgroups. Panel B of Table 9 reveals that decoupling’s efficacy on SPCR is significant in the subsample with lower institutional investor shareholding and media attention. The results also validate Hypothesis 2, indicating that the impact of CSR decoupling on SPCR in contexts with higher agency risks is more significant.

External governance environment

Marquis and Qian ( 2014 ) revealed that the external governance environment can positively influence the accessibility and credibility of information concerning a company’s greenwashing activities and its performance available to internal and external stakeholders. Areas with high marketization and generally sound law environments have better investor protection and higher levels of investor protection negatively affect stock price synchronization (Jin and Myers, 2006 ). These findings suggest that markets with more well-developed institutional environments can convey more information to investors about firm characteristics and increase information transparency, thus reducing agency conflicts.

To validate the above hypothesis, we construct a subgroup test. Following Wang et al. ( 2008 ) and Yu and Pan ( 2008 ), we use marketization and legal environment levels to measure the external governance environments where firms operate. Specifically, our measure of marketization level is Wang et al. ( 2019 ) marketization index. It is a composite index that integrates government roles, market efficiency, property rights protection, financial system, and corporate competitiveness. It is calculated through weighting and reflects the level of marketization in the province where the company operates. The measurement of the legal environment level is based on the completion rate of economic-legal cases (i.e., the fraction of cases finished compared to the total number of cases received) in each province. We divide the entire sample into high and low-marketization/legal environment subsamples. Specifically, suppose the marketization or legal environment level of the province where the company is located is higher than (less than or equal to) the median value of all the observations grouped by province and year. In that case, the company falls into the high (low) marketization or legal environment subsample.

As shown in Panel C of Table 9 , CSR decoupling’s impact on SPCR is significant only in the group with low marketization and legal environment levels. The regression result aligns with our expectations and further validates our earlier hypothesis that the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR is more pronounced in contexts with higher agency risks.

Discussion and conclusion

A growing number of public firms are issuing CSR reports as a crucial method to obtain ethical and sustainable development reputations (Perez-Batres et al., 2012 ). However, management may exaggerate publicly disclosed CSR information and use CSR reporting to conceal their unethical behaviors. This self-serving impression management, namely CSR decoupling (Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004 ), increases information asymmetry between firms and external investors, thus providing opportunities for management to hide unfavorable news for longer until the critical point when the firm’s actual CSR activities don’t meet the investor’s expectations arising from previous exaggerated CSR reporting, which eventually leads to stock price plunges (Jin and Myers, 2006 ). Hence, the higher the degree of CSR decoupling, the more likely stock price crashes.

This paper utilizes textual analysis to measure a firm’s CSR decoupling and examine CSR decoupling’s impact on firms’ SPCR and the corresponding mechanism. The findings indicate that CSR decoupling exacerbates SPCR. This conclusion remains valid across various robustness examinations. Based on the perspective of information asymmetry, the mechanism analysis explores the impact of agency risk on the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR and finds that the exacerbating effect of CSR decoupling on SPCR in situations of higher agency risk is more significant. Specifically, through sub-sample analysis, we find that the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR is only significant in companies without executives’ academic or overseas experience. Similar conclusions are also being discovered in subsamples with lower institutional investor ownership, less media attention, and weaker marketization and legal environments.

Previous studies ignore the two dimensions of CSR (disclosure and actual activities), leading to a confused relationship between CSR and SPCR (Kim et al., 2014 ; Bouslah et al., 2018 ; Quan et al., 2015 ; Hao et al., 2018 ). Our paper addresses this issue from the CSR decoupling perspective, reconciling CSR disclosure with actual CSR behavior and proving the negative consequence of CSR decoupling. Furthermore, prior studies have primarily focused on country- and firm-specific determinants of CSR decoupling (Velte, 2023 ), and this paper enhances the existing literature on the economic consequences of CSR decoupling. Finally, this paper contributes to the determinants of SPCR by enhancing empirical insights into CSR decoupling.

This paper provides the following practical implications. First, firms should cultivate an enterprise culture with a high sense of social responsibility, improve the mechanism for disclosing information publicly, and strengthen internal governance to deliver more accurate information to the stakeholders. Second, investors should enhance their awareness of risk prevention, learn to identify the financial and non-financial information disclosed publicly by firms, judge its authenticity and validity, and diversify risks reasonably. Finally, regulatory authorities should establish and improve relevant regulations on CSR disclosure, build a scientific and comprehensive supervision system, clarify the subject of accountability and disciplinary mechanisms, and encourage firms to fulfill their social responsibilities and avoid CSR decoupling actively.

Future research can address several limitations inherent in our study. First, we characterize CSR decoupling as the inconsistency between the Optimistic Tone of CSR reports and the factual CSR performance. The construction of Optimistic Tone measurement based on text analysis can effectively alleviate concerns related to using discrepancies between two external databases to calculate CSR decoupling (Velte, 2023 ). However, relying solely on the measurement of Optimistic Tone in CSR disclosures overlooks the richness of the information content and decision usefulness of CSR reports. Moreover, effective and accurate text analysis relies on specialized textual dictionaries specifically built for CSR reports. Therefore, future research could attempt to establish specialized dictionaries for text analysis of CSR reports to achieve more precise measurements of CSR disclosures. Furthermore, the sample period of this study did not include samples after 2019. This is because the comparability of CSR strategies and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic among listed companies with other periods is questionable. Meanwhile, the pandemic also affects listed companies’ stock price crash risks. Future research could explore the relationship between CSR decoupling and SPCR in the context of public crisis events such as the pandemic.

Data availability

The data of our main independent variable are available in the Supplementary file. Other data are from the CSMAR Database ( https://data.csmar.com/ ). However, access to the CSMAR Database is subject to restrictions and requires a license. Interested parties can obtain these data with permission from the CSMAR Database.

Al-Shammari M, Rasheed A, Al-Shammari HA (2019) CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility: does CEO narcissism affect CSR focus? J Bus Res 104:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.005

Article   Google Scholar  

An Z, Chen C, Naiker V, Wang J (2020) Does media coverage deter firms from withholding bad news? Evidence from stock price crash risk. J Corp Financ 64:101664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101664

Arslan-Ayaydin Ö, Boudt K, Thewissen J (2016) Managers set the tone: equity incentives and the tone of earnings press releases. J Bank Financ 72:S132–S147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.10.007

Ball R (2009) Market and political/regulatory perspectives on the recent accounting scandals. J Account Res 47(2):277–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00325.x

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2004) Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif Manag Rev 47(1):9–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284

Bloomfield R (2002) The ‘Incomplete Revelation Hypothesis’ and financial reporting. Account Horiz 16. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.312671

Boubaker S, Mansali H, Rjiba H (2014) Large controlling shareholders and stock price synchronicity. J Bank Finance 40:80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.11.022

Bouslah K, Kryzanowski L, M’Zali B (2018) Social performance and firm risk: impact of the financial crisis. J Bus Ethics 149(3):643–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3017-x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brockman P, Li X, Price S (2013) Do managers put their money where their mouths are? Evidence from insider trading after conference calls. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2200639

Bucaro AC, Jackson KE, Lill JB (2020) The influence of corporate social responsibility measures on investors’ judgments when integrated in a financial report versus presented in a separate report. Contemp Account Res 37(2):665–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12542

Callen JL, Fang X (2013) Institutional investor stability and crash risk: monitoring versus short-termism? J Bank Financ 37(8):3047–3063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.02.018

Cao F, Sun J, Yuan R (2019) Board directors with foreign experience and stock price crash risk: evidence from China. J Bus Financ Account 46(9–10):1144–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12400

Chen J, Hong H, Stein JC (2001) Forecasting crashes: trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices. J Financ Econ 61(6):345–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00066-6

Chen P, Dagestani AA (2023) Greenwashing behavior and firm value—from the perspective of board characteristics. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30(5):2330–2343. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2488

Chen X, Wan P, Ma Z, Yang Y (2024) Does corporate digital transformation restrain ESG decoupling? Evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):407. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02921-w

Cho C, Jung J, Kwak B, Lee J, Yoo C-Y (2017) Professors on the board: do they contribute to society outside the classroom? J Bus Ethics 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2718-x

Dang TL, Faff R, Luong H, Nguyen L (2019) Individualistic cultures and crash risk. Eur Financ Manag 25(3):622–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12180

Delmas MA, Burbano VC (2011) The drivers of greenwashing. Calif Manag Rev 54(1):64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64

Dhaliwal DS, Radhakrishnan S, Tsang A, Yang YG (2012) Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: international evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Account Rev 87(3):723–759. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10218

Du XQ (2015) How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China. J Bus Ethics 128(3):547–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2122-y

Eliwa Y, Aboud A, Saleh A (2023) Board gender diversity and ESG decoupling: does religiosity matter? Bus Strategy Environ 32(7):4046–4067. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3353

Elliott WB, Jackson KE, Peecher ME, White BJ (2014) The unintended effect of corporate social responsibility performance on investors’ estimates of fundamental value. Account Rev 89(1):275–302. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50577

Francis B, Hasan I, Wu Q (2015) Professors in the boardroom and their impact on corporate governance and firm performance. Financ Manag 44(3):547–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12069

Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. pp. 122–126

García-Sánchez I-M, Hussain N, Khan SA, Martinez-Ferrero J (2021) Do markets punish or reward corporate social responsibility decoupling? Bus Soc 60:1431–1467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319898839

Giannetti M, Liao G, Yu X (2015) The brain gain of corporate boards: evidence from China. J. Financ. 70(4):1629–1682. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12198

Gull AA, Hussain N, Khan SA, Khan Z, Saeed A (2023) Governing corporate social responsibility decoupling: the effect of the governance committee on corporate social responsibility decoupling. J Bus Ethics 185:349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05181-3

Guthrie JP, Parker LD (1990) Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative international analysis. Adv Public Interest Account 3:157–172

Google Scholar  

Habib A, Hasan MM, Jiang H (2017) Stock price crash risk: review of the empirical literature. Account Financ 58(S1):211–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12278

Hao DY, Qi GY, Wang J (2018) Corporate social responsibility, internal controls, and stock price crash risk: the Chinese stock market. Sustainability 10(5):1675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051675

Hawn O, Ioannou I (2016) Mind the gap: the interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strateg Manag J 37(13):2569–2588. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2464

Hemingway CA, Maclagan PW (2004) Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 50(1):33–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9

Hooghiemstra R (2000) Corporate communication and impression management—new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 27(1):55–68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006400707757

Hutton AP, Marcus AJ, Tehranian H (2009) Opaque financial reports, R2, and crash risk. J Financ Econ 94(1):67–86

Ioannou I, Kassinis G, Papagiannakis G (2023) The impact of perceived greenwashing on customer satisfaction and the contingent role of capability reputation. J Bus Ethics 185(2):333–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05151-9

Jin H, Su Z, Wang L, Xiao Z (2022) Do academic independent directors matter? Evidence from stock price crash risk. J Bus Res 144:1129–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.054

Jin L, Myers SC (2006) R2 around the world: new theory and new tests. J Financ Econ 79(2):257–292

Khan M, Serafeim G, Yoon A (2016) Corporate sustainability: first evidence on materiality. Account Rev 91(6):1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383

Khanchel I, Lassoued N, Gargouri R (2023) Have corporate social responsibility strategies mattered during the pandemic: symbolic CSR versus substantive CSR. Corp Soc-Responsib Environ Manag 31(2):1380–1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2632

Kim JB, Zhang L (2016) Accounting conservatism and stock price crash risk: firm‐level evidence. Contemp Account Res 33(1):412–441

Kim J-B, Li Y, Zhang L (2011) Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk: firm-level analysis. J Financ Econ 100(3):639–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.07.007

Kim J-B, Wang Z, Zhang L (2016) CEO overconfidence and stock price crash risk. Contemp Account Res 33(4):1720–1749. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12217

Kim Y, Li H, Li S (2014) Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. J Bank Financ 43:1–13

Kothari SP, Shu S, Wysocki PD (2009) Do managers withhold bad news? J Account Res 47(1):241–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00318.x

KPMG (2022) Big shifts, small steps. Surv Sustain Rep 2022:1–81

LaFond R, Watts R (2008). The information role of conservatism. Account Rev 83. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.921619

Li Z, Wang P, Wu T (2021) Do foreign institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? Evidence from listed firms in China. J Bus Financ Account 48(1-2):338–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12481

Liu C, Wang X (2022) Media and Institutional investors focus on the impact on corporate sustainability performance. Sustainability 14(21):1–17

Loughran T, Mcdonald B (2011) When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10‐Ks. J Financ 66(1):35–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01625.x

Lys T, Naughton JP, Wang C (2015) Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. J Account Econ 60(1):56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.03.001

Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organ Sci 25(1):127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837

Marquis C, Tilcsik A (2013) Imprinting: toward a multilevel theory. Acad Manag Ann 7(1):195–245. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.766076

Marquis C, Toffel M, Zhou Y (2016) Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: a global study of greenwashing. Organ Sci 27(2):483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039

Parra-Domínguez J, David F, Azevedo T (2021) Family firms and coupling among CSR disclosures and performance. Adm Sci 11:30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010030

Patten DM (1991) Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. J Account Public Policy 10(4):297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3

Perez-Batres LA, Doh JP, Miller VV, Pisani MJ (2012) Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? J Bus Ethics 110(2):157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1419-y

Quan X, Wu S, Yin H (2015) Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk: self-interest tool or value strategy. Econ Res 50(11):49–64

Radhakrishnan S, Tsang A, Liu R (2018) A corporate social responsibility framework for accounting research. Int J Account 53(4):274–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2018.11.002

Robertson JL, Montgomery AW, Ozbilir T (2023) Employees’ response to corporate greenwashing. Bus Strategy Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3351

Sauerwald S, Su W (2019) CEO overconfidence and CSR decoupling. Corp Gov: Int Rev 27(4):283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12279

Schons L, Steinmeier M (2006) Walk the talk? How symbolic and substantive CSR actions affect firm performance depending on stakeholder proximity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 23:358–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1381

Shahab Y, Gull AA, Ahsan T, Mushtaq R (2021) CEO power and corporate social responsibility decoupling. Appl Econ Lett 29(21):1965–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.1966368

Tashman P, Marano V, Kostova T (2019) Walking the walk or talking the talk? Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging market multinationals. J Int Bus Stud 50(2):153–171. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0171-7

Tetlock PC, Saar‐Tsechansky M, Macskassy S (2008) More than words: quantifying language to measure firms’ fundamentals. J Financ 63(3):1437–1467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01362.x

Tsang A, Frost T, Cao H (2023) Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure: a literature review. Br Account Rev 55(1):101149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101149

Tucker L, Melewar TC (2005) Corporate reputation and crisis management: the threat and manageability of anti-corporatism. Corp Reput Rev 7(4):377–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540233

Velte P (2023) Determinants and consequences of corporate social responsibility decoupling—status quo and limitations of recent empirical quantitative research. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30(6):2695–2717. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2538

Wan P, Chen X, Ke Y, Dong W (2024) Does local government debt affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Int Rev Econ Financ 89:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.10.022

Wang L, Ji Y, Ni Z (2023) Spillover of stock price crash risk: do environmental, social and governance (ESG) matter? Int Rev Financ Anal 89:102768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102768

Wang Q, Wong TJ, Xia LJ (2008) State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: evidence from China. J Account Econ 46(1):112–134

Wang X, Fan G, Hu L (2019) Marketization index of China’s provinces: NERI Report 2018 [in Chinese]. Social Science Academic Press, Beijing

Xia F, Chen J, Yang X, Li X, Zhang B (2023) Financial constraints and corporate greenwashing strategies in China. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30(4):1770–1781. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2453

Xu N, Li X, Yuan Q, Chan KC (2014) Excess perks and stock price crash risk: evidence from China. J Corp Financ 25:419–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.01.006

Xu S, Liu D (2018) Do financial markets care about corporate social responsibility disclosure? Further evidence from China. Aust Account Rev 28(1):79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12161

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Xu Z, Hou J (2021) Effects of CEO overseas experience on corporate social responsibility evidence from Chinese manufacturing listed companies. Sustainability 13(10):5335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105335

Yu E, Van Luu B, Chen C (2020) Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Res Int Bus Financ 52:101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192

Yu H, Liang C, Liu Z, Wang H (2023) News-based CSR sentiment and stock price crash risk. Int Rev Financ Anal 88:102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102646

Yu M, Pan H (2008) The relationship between politics, institutional environments, and private enterprises’ access to bank loans. Manag World (8), 9-21 (In Chinese)

Yue J, Li Y (2023) Media attention and corporate greenwashing behavior: evidence from China. Financ Res Lett 55:104016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104016

Zhang Y (2022) Analyst coverage and corporate social responsibility decoupling: evidence from China. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(3):620–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2224

Zhao B, Tan J, Chan K (2022) Does a CEO’s prior academic experience helpful to an IPO firm? The case of IPO discount. Financ Res Lett 2022:47

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant Number: 23BGL101).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Accounting, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

Peng Wan, Mengjiao Xu & Yu Yang

School of Accounting, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China

Xiangyu Chen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PW: conceptualization, formal analysis, writing-original draft preparation, writing-reviewing and editing, supervision. MX: methodology, data curation, software, visualization, writing-original draft preparation. YY: formal analysis, writing-reviewing and editing. XC: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing-original draft preparation, writing-reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangyu Chen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wan, P., Xu, M., Yang, Y. et al. CSR decoupling and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1008 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03521-4

Download citation

Received : 02 February 2024

Accepted : 29 July 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03521-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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